Religion and Individualism

[katya]

Yeah, thanks.^^ Ok, I found one of the Avatar Journals lying around my house. You can go to AvatarEPC.com if you want some information. I also found a book some guy wrote about Avatar- the founder maybe? I was reading some parts out of it a few months ago and I thought it was pretty interesting. It's called Living Deliberately. He had one of those tanks with the solution and it's dark and quiet and you can't feel hardly anything. Yep, well there ya go.

[Beren3000]

Thanks a lot for the info
However, I don't get this part:

Originally Posted by katya

He had one of those tanks with the solution and it's dark and quiet and you can't feel hardly anything.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

We were discussing the novel one day and one of my classmates said that he thought that people who follow religion just choose the easy way out. IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves. His comment seems to suggest a view that following religion makes you less of an individual, that (to quote Bop's sig.) "morality is the herd instinct in the individual".

IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves.

I just thought I'd step in here briefly first of all to flatten this argument, second to bring you some remarks that might help you develop your thought processes on animal communication. Someone may already have flattened the above quoted argument, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway .

Well, the argument really is pretty ridiculous. It basically is saying that if you rely upon anything you didn't figure out for yourself, you're weak. So all teachers in schools should be fired? All college professors should be out of work? All scientists should quit? Everyone relies upon information passed down from previous generations to some extent- that goes down even to the animal species, which learn which foods are good and which are bad from observing their parents.

I'm actually quite capable of producing evidence that highschool violence took a dramatic increase upon the removal of teaching standard morality in schools. Drugs, sex and violence all leapt up after teachers began telling the students to "figure out morality themselves." Building upon the learning of previous generations had our teachers in the 1960s and earlier worrying about gum being stuck to the bottom of desks . . . not guns being hidden in drawers. Clearly taught morality is better for society then the leaving of our children to search things out on their own.

Originally Posted by Beren3000

1-As I've said before, because the communication systems we detected so far seem to stem from basic instincts only: hunger, survival, reproduction, etc...
2-Because that would prove that we have a soul and animals don't, are capable of differentiating good and evil (whatever our definition of them is) and animals are not, are capable of being individuals and animals are not and finally are able to have this kind of conversation in the first place.

See the Old Testament, where Balaam's donkey talks to him, or where the serpent talks to Adam and Eve. I think that all animals are capable of communicating with one another on some level, even if it's just the basic levels you mentioned. Bees involve themselves in intricate dances in order to pass on information from one to another, telling one another where they may find flowers. Bees normally go out in many directions searching for flowers, and when one finds them, it comes back to the hive and reports. Horses are definitely able to talk to one another. Some animals are definitely capable of behaving in rather human ways- dogs with an enormous amount of love (they have been known to pine away and die of grief when their masters die), some cats I believe with deliberate cruelty to captured prey, and there are others. There is definitely a strong emotional attachment between some kinds of animals and their parents. Animals are definitely capable of having fun, of being mean, loving, and they're able to communicate their feelings or desires to each other, to other species and sometimes to people. For example the dog that urges its master to take it for a walk, or the guinea pig that asks for a treat when it hears its master coming. To me they seem to behave in quite human ways. And I don't see why they shouldn't, or why they shouldn't have souls (unless one has no choice but to accept Catholic doctrine on the matter). It's clear that there is more then one kind of creature has intelligence in the spiritual realm. There is more then one kind of spirit. There are the seraphim, the cherubim, and other kinds of angelic spirits. I think that there are even spirits in some aspects of nature, trees or bushes and such (not that we should worship them! ) There are several scriptures that to me imply this.

Anyway, it is an interesting topic . I don't intend to debate the matter with you much at all. It's just a matter of interest.

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I'm also basically agnostic, though I cling to certain Christian ideals, and have a feeling I'll come back to the faith like I have previously.

Have you ever read "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel? And may I ask, what do you think about all of the accounts of the spectacular ways Christians throughout history have encountered Christ?

I'll try not to attack your beliefs either, and I'm certainly unaware of what's been happening with you spiritually. But I am curious as to your opinions on these matters.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Clearly taught morality is better for society then the leaving of our children to search things out on their own.

Im not sure about BoP's quote in particular but i dont think thats what Neitzsche was putting down in general, it was more of an attack on the individual who relied on certain moral codes instead of deciding for himself, that doesnt mean that he thinks no one should be exposed to a wide range of morality, its just that someone who chooses to follow say a Christian moral code shows a weakness of character...

[inked]

Or the most sense....

[brownjenkins]

teachings a good thing... as is taking lessons from the past... but we all ultimately decide whether or not to accept what is taught to us... or how to interpret that past... so whether christian or atheist, or somewhere in the middle, we all ultimately choose our morality

i wouldn't call making any choice a weakness... though accepting something without good reason might be

[Starr Polish]

Have you ever read "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobel? And may I ask, what do you think about all of the accounts of the spectacular ways Christians throughout history have encountered Christ?

I'll try not to attack your beliefs either, and I'm certainly unaware of what's been happening with you spiritually. But I am curious as to your opinions on these matters.

It may because my brain is fried from studying, but I don't understand what you're getting at here....?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

It may because my brain is fried from studying, but I don't understand what you're getting at here....?

Well, agnostics believe that it can't be known whether God exists or not. Whether God exists or not is a question mark. If you think that whether God exists or not is a question mark, it indicates that you strongly question the powerful experiences of God that many other Christians have had, as well as the evidence available concerning Christ that Lee Strobel compiled. My question basically is: where does your question mark come from?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Millane

Im not sure about BoP's quote in particular but i dont think thats what Neitzsche was putting down in general, it was more of an attack on the individual who relied on certain moral codes instead of deciding for himself, that doesnt mean that he thinks no one should be exposed to a wide range of morality, its just that someone who chooses to follow say a Christian moral code shows a weakness of character...

If you had/have children, would you consider them weak if they ended up believing what you brought them up to believe? Or do you think parents shouldn't pass their beliefs on to their children?

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

The main argument that religion is anti-individualist (at least organised religion) is that it has a set of rules that the faithful should not trespass; but if you believe that these rules were decreed by a deity, then I don't see how you're drowning your true self; you can follow these rules and still have room to think for yourself.

I agree with you here totally. The problem though, is what if you are unsure of whether the moral rules were decreed by a diety, if you doubt a diety's existence slightly more than you believe in it? No offense, but I expect that most truly reasonable people who have debated this with themselves wind up leaning more toward doubt. Then you can't really recover faith without disregarding your own logic. So what then? You may agree with the morals that a religion supports, but the religion casts you out because you don't carry out those morals for its god; you carry them out because you yourself have come to appreciate them. This brings us back to the question: does religion allow for individualism?

This is my situation, and this is where I get upset. It seems to be an inarguable point, but I want a solution. None of my questions here are rhetorical.

So right now, I think the solution is this: Catholicism is wrong to dismiss me for simply questioning its authority, which is a regular and healthy activity for any sentient being.

On a similar note, does anyone know if Martin Luther was considered a sinner by Christian standards for questioning the Church's authority? I know once he officially established Lutheranism he was "safe," but in the process, how much did they let him think before damning him to hell?

OT: What's so bloody terrible about revealing a weakness?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

No offense, but I expect that most truly reasonable people who have debated this with themselves wind up leaning more toward doubt.

Why is it then that Atheists are the extreme minority of people? It may be very dominant in Europe and in Western civilization it is certainly strong. However, the statistics show that Atheism is really, really small in comparison with all the major religions. It is officially dwarfed.

There are also many, many, many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians (along with many other faiths) that have excellent thinkers in them. Many of the brilliant minds (including scientists, like Isaac Newton) of the past have been Christian. Atheism really is very small, in comparison. Most people in the world believe there to be a God.

Many modern astronomers, because of what they see in nature, have been going into philosophy and religion. They realize because of the impossible intricacy of what they observe that God must exist. Or at least that's what they believe.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Then you can't really recover faith without disregarding your own logic. So what then? You may agree with the morals that a religion supports, but the religion casts you out because you don't carry out those morals for its god; you carry them out because you yourself have come to appreciate them. This brings us back to the question: does religion allow for individualism?

I think that if you are carrying out the morals because you appreciate them, that is an excellent thing. Indeed, it is better in my view that you are carrying them out because you genuinely feel that they are right then if you are carrying them out because you feel God wants you to carry them out.

I wouldn't ask you to disregard logic either. That would be rather ridiculous. I'm curious why you don't believe now, curious how your logic goes.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

This is my situation, and this is where I get upset. It seems to be an inarguable point, but I want a solution. None of my questions here are rhetorical.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand completely what your point is. I know I've responded to some of what you've been saying, but your main point somewhat eludes me.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

So right now, I think the solution is this: Catholicism is wrong to dismiss me for simply questioning its authority, which is a regular and healthy activity for any sentient being.

What do you mean by "questioning"? Do you mean seeking to find out further information, seeking to find out how things work, or do you mean rejecting its teachings on its authority?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

OT: What's so bloody terrible about revealing a weakness?

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're referring to.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, agnostics believe that it can't be known whether God exists or not. Whether God exists or not is a question mark. If you think that whether God exists or not is a question mark, it indicates that you strongly question the powerful experiences of God that many other Christians have had, as well as the evidence available concerning Christ that Lee Strobel compiled. My question basically is: where does your question mark come from?

Perhaps saying I'm a Deist would be closer to the mark. I believe something exists (and I know many people use agnostic to describe this belief, though technically that is incorrect). I don't generally believed whatever deity (and I generally think of one God) is as involved in the world as most people who are members of organized religion do. So, yeah, Deism, I suppose, if you must put a label on it.

I won't argue that Christians have had powerful experiences where they "feel" God. Emotions can run high at religious gatherings, especially in one's youth. I've experienced this. I had the emotional high, the adrenaline rush, and the sudden realization and giving up of myself to God...and it disappeared. I've swung back and forth through religion/spirituality in the last five or so years (you can even chronicle some of it on Entmoot). I do crave something, I want to be more in tune with my spiritual side...but I feel ostracized and uncomfortable at churches.

My "question mark" comes from blatant hypocrisy. It comes from personal studies of inaccuracies in an ancient book. It comes from looking at the world and wondering what kind of God, who apparently loves us all, would do nothing to intervene in our own destruction. What kind of parent is that? A bad one, in my mind.

And Christians aren't the only group to have these powerful experiences. Muslims, pagans, Jews, etc. have similar experiences that "confirm" their faith as well. If so, who is correct? Don't you think God, being the "jealous" God He is, wouldn't allow such ambiguity?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you had/have children, would you consider them weak if they ended up believing what you brought them up to believe? Or do you think parents shouldn't pass their beliefs on to their children?

no im not a parent thank god, but if i was i wouldnt force my children to take up my beliefs, nor would i stop them, but i would encourage they think about it themselves rather than following it blindly for some reason, ie. i buy into this religion and so ill just accept whatever is taught...

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for the response, Starr . It's certainly enlightening. I can respond to it, if you're interested at all in discussing those issues you brought up. Of course, my response would be a bit lengthy .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Millane

no im not a parent thank god, but if i was i wouldnt force my children to take up my beliefs,

I hope you understand that most Christians don't force their children to accept their beliefs either. The children just do. It's the same with most of the main religions. Muslims in the Middle East (I'm not as sure about here) do basically force other Muslims to remain true to the faith. In some Middle East countries, Muslims that attempt to convert to Christianity are killed. However, most children just accept what their parents teach them without question. When they become teenagers, they begin to question.

Originally Posted by Millane

nor would i stop them, but i would encourage they think about it themselves rather than following it blindly for some reason, ie. i buy into this religion and so ill just accept whatever is taught...

We also, of course, would always encourage the children to think about their religious beliefs. Kids following blindly can sometimes really be disconnected from what their religion is all about . For kids to accept what their parents teach them does make sense though to me, and I can't see anything wrong with it.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

It comes from looking at the world and wondering what kind of God, who apparently loves us all, would do nothing to intervene in our own destruction. What kind of parent is that? A bad one, in my mind.

Well, in the Bible it is explicitly stated that "at the end of days" there will be "wars and news of wars" and there will be hard times. So why not these hard times be now?
You're saying God appears to you as a bad parent? But, from your post, I can see you have some interest in spirituality. So wouldn't you say (and I would then agree with you) that we as people are spirits in essence and not bodies? In that case, then life on Earth is not our ultimate fate: there will be a Hereafter where we'll exist as pure souls. So if you look at it that way, hardships we suffer on Earth are really a trial for our faith, for our strength of spirit; and what good parent wouldn't test his children to make sure they've learned their lesson?

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Then you can't really recover faith without disregarding your own logic.

But that implies that your logic is always right. If you do have faith, then you will believe in God whether you can prove it or not; if you can't prove it, then recovering your faith after doubt doesn't mean you disregard your own logic. It means you acknowledge that your logic is flawed.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

What's so bloody terrible about revealing a weakness?

Nothing, it's perfectly human. But I don't believe that choosing a certain moral code is weakness because it makes you less of an individual as Millane says:

Originally Posted by Millane

Im not sure about BoP's quote in particular but i dont think thats what Neitzsche was putting down in general, it was more of an attack on the individual who relied on certain moral codes instead of deciding for himself, that doesnt mean that he thinks no one should be exposed to a wide range of morality, its just that someone who chooses to follow say a Christian moral code shows a weakness of character...

I disagree, I think it's rather an act of individualism. People choose to discredit religion and we call them individuals, then why can't the people who actually choose to follow religion be called individuals, too?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I hope you understand that most Christians don't force their children to accept their beliefs either. The children just do. It's the same with most of the main religions. Muslims in the Middle East (I'm not as sure about here) do basically force other Muslims to remain true to the faith. In some Middle East countries, Muslims that attempt to convert to Christianity are killed. However, most children just accept what their parents teach them without question. When they become teenagers, they begin to question.

Well i think its a flaw with religion in general, rather than just a muslim flaw. Now please dont tell me that Christians dont force their beliefs on other people (which includes children), i think the sheer nature of Christianity is force, if you dont do this you will go to hell, if you stick with us you will be saved, and then the numerous christian groups that kick up a stink about everything (this week its still the brothel )...

We also, of course, would always encourage the children to think about their religious beliefs. Kids following blindly can sometimes really be disconnected from what their religion is all about .

its a bit of a grey subject, lets just say if your of an age where you can properly evaluate morality and religion (so like you said teenages) and you choose not to its stupid. Why shouldnt you think over the morals your parents "pass on" its not really that different than a religion, i believe its pure laziness not too.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thanks for the response, Starr . It's certainly enlightening. I can respond to it, if you're interested at all in discussing those issues you brought up. Of course, my response would be a bit lengthy .

No problem! I don't mind lengthy replies, though you'll have to forgive me if it takes some time to reply back. I've been really busy and most of my posts occur in between classes or late at night, and I'm afraid that sometimes they may be hard to understand.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

no im not a parent thank god, but if i was i wouldnt force my children to take up my beliefs, nor would i stop them, but i would encourage they think about it themselves rather than following it blindly for some reason, ie. i buy into this religion and so ill just accept whatever is taught...

Millane, if you thought it was true that 1+1=2, would you encourage your children to believe it? Or would you tell them to boycott their maths classes because that intolerant teacher thought that 1+1=2, and you think they should decide for themselves what 1+1 is?

I would never tell my kids to blindly follow my beliefs. However, because I think my beliefs are true, in the same way that 1+1=2, I certainly will inform my children about it. Why would I tell them some things that I think are true and not others? I will also teach them how to think and evaluate for themselves, and encourage them to do just that.

See, some people will say things like this : "I don't think parents should force their beliefs on their children, so I don't intend to tell my kids what I think is right - I'll let them discover it for themselves." If you think something is right, why in the world wouldn't you tell your kids that?

And if you don't think anything is right - i.e., you say something like this : "I think everyone needs to discover their own truths!", then of couse you're doing the same thing that I'm doing - you're telling your kids what you think is right!

I think mindless belief - ANY type of mindless belief - is wrong. I think a person should be able to defend their beliefs, WHATEVER they are, because they've thought them thru a lot. Personally, I believe that my beliefs correctly reflect the actual state of our universe, and I intend to share them with my kids, just as I intend to share things like, "If you step in front of a moving car, you'll get hurt."

I think a lot of parents are being hogwashed into being afraid to tell their kids what they think is true. That's ridiculous, IMO. I intend to tell my kids WHAT I think is true, and WHY I think it's true, and I intend to teach them how to think and analyze for themselves. I want my kids to grow up to become fully independant human beings, not taking anyone's opinion without thinking about it and deciding for themselves whether or not it's true.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why is it then that Atheists are the extreme minority of people? It may be very dominant in Europe and in Western civilization it is certainly strong. However, the statistics show that Atheism is really, really small in comparison with all the major religions. It is officially dwarfed.

There are also many, many, many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians (along with many other faiths) that have excellent thinkers in them. Many of the brilliant minds (including scientists, like Isaac Newton) of the past have been Christian. Atheism really is very small, in comparison. Most people in the world believe there to be a God.

Many modern astronomers, because of what they see in nature, have been going into philosophy and religion. They realize because of the impossible intricacy of what they observe that God must exist. Or at least that's what they believe.

In my belief, the intricacy of life is inevitable. Every action spawns a chain reaction, and on any level higher than basic chemistry, it's intruiging and yes, impressive, to think of; but that doesn't mean some omnicient being made it that way.

(You apparently did understand my main idea, BTW, but I worded those few sentences ambiguously.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think that if you are carrying out the morals because you appreciate them, that is an excellent thing. Indeed, it is better in my view that you are carrying them out because you genuinely feel that they are right then if you are carrying them out because you feel God wants you to carry them out.

Thanks.
Often when I go to Chruch (so as not to break my mom's heart ) I get frustrated with the priests who make homilies out of "You can't get to heaven unless you..." I don't think Heaven should be the main motivation to a good deed, and I'm glad to find someone who understands me on this.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wouldn't ask you to disregard logic either. That would be rather ridiculous. I'm curious why you don't believe now, curious how your logic goes.

What do you mean by "questioning"? Do you mean seeking to find out further information, seeking to find out how things work, or do you mean rejecting its teachings on its authority?

All I mean is that I've thought about God, and found him improbable. Yeah, that's what all the atheists say, but I didn't reject the possibility of a God entirely. Regardless, now that I doubt it, Catholicism says I'm a sinner.

At least from what I've been taught, it isn't enough to get to heaven if you do good for your whole lifetime; you have to do good in order to please God, and after doing a good deed, be warm and fuzzy that you made God happy. People who don't praise God in this way (like me, who doubts; or Ghandi, who believed something else) all go to hell. This is the point I strongly disagree with and this is the main reason I've drifted away from Catholicism. Its logic is flawed, and it hasn't realized yet. If God really sent Ghandi to hell, then explain to me how he can be omnicient, understanding, compassionate, merciful, forgiving, loving, or any other "Godly" adjective. I'm not gonna praise God for that.

Granted, it's taught that "God works in mysterious ways, too complex for mortals to understand." (It's a well-thought-out religion in that respect, if you know what I mean.) But that's where I draw the line between admitting my own imperfection and submitting to brainwash. I want to think about it, just consider if the Church might be wrong--that's all, and it's an innocent thought--but if I come to any conclusions that don't favor the religion, I go to hell!?! I don't think it's that black and white, Vatican, if I'm just using my supposedly God-given reason.

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

I won't argue that Christians have had powerful experiences where they "feel" God. Emotions can run high at religious gatherings, especially in one's youth. I've experienced this. I had the emotional high, the adrenaline rush, and the sudden realization and giving up of myself to God...and it disappeared. I've swung back and forth through religion/spirituality in the last five or so years (you can even chronicle some of it on Entmoot). I do crave something, I want to be more in tune with my spiritual side...but I feel ostracized and uncomfortable at churches.

I agree 100%.

Everyday miracles, like someone entering a trance while praying or feeling "touched" while praying, also happen to atheist people in non-denominational meditation. It isn't so far-fetched to call these experiences natural, because we only use about 10% of our brains at a time. When you sit down with the intention to sort through your thoughts and be at peace, your mind can relax like never before and not surprisingly you can feel what seems to be a new, foreign, presence. Because you're in an altered state of consciousness, it's possible that the presence you feel is actually our own self, together in a higher percentage than you're used to, because you have relaxed your mind for a change. The mistake (as I see it possible) that Catholics make is expecting God, so when they feel that rare peace they assume it's God himself before considering other possiblities.

Originally Posted by Beren3000

But that implies that your logic is always right. If you do have faith, then you will believe in God whether you can prove it or not; if you can't prove it, then recovering your faith after doubt doesn't mean you disregard your own logic. It means you acknowledge that your logic is flawed.

That's certainly something to consider, but see what I said to Lief. I think it's more likely that the Church's logic is flawed, and they aren't allowing for inevitable doubt. Granted, I'll be biased on this, but I try to stay objective as humanly possible at all times, esspecially now. I feel like they rejected my individuality (my right to speculate how the world could work without God) rather rashly. I've rejected them as a consequence, because I'd rather not be made to think solely inside their box. There's other aspects to the world that I want to learn about, and I'm sure that isn't really a sin if there is a God to judge it.