[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: shawmutt I agree, but that doesn't negate religion or make it useless.

Useless is a term I didn't, and wouldn't use in this context. My only gripe with religion in this area is that it makes unjustified claims that the whole universe is under God's control - it doesn't actually negate religion but it does make it look as if it is over-reaching itself, scientifically speaking, and sacrifices credibility in the process. Keep religion as a moral guide if you will, because if it has any validity for the human condition, it would arguably lie in that, and that alone. But keep cosmology out of it if you want to avoid ridicule.

This certainly isn't exclusive to theists. There is a lot of "accumulated nonsense and tired old ideas" among people no matter what they claim about God. Even the hardened atheist can get set in his ways, and when presented with a burning bush will run for a fire extinguisher. I think what you are doing is self-selecting folks from your own experience, and extrapolating that to all theists.

You're undoubtedly correct, shawmutt. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference between a theistic and an atheistic mindset, and the reasons why and how each group believes in their favoured theories are crucially dissimilar. It's impossible to speak without some degree of generalisation here, of course, but if you care to analyse this opposition, I think you will find that it is a valuable means of drawing up a psychological distinction between the two camps.

For instance, the standard theistic mindset (for the sake of argument) is a direct reflection of a docile-type personality - one that is happy to be guided by a 'higher' authority - in this case the bible and its resident god.
Such a mindset is easily unsettled by insecurity, by any demands on its resourcefulness to handle its own problems in a more creative way. It requires constant reassurance that all will turn out well in the end in order to give form and meaning to a struggling existence. It functions best when it is told what to think and do.

So overwhelming are these needs, that many believers can't even contemplate a less personal alternative, which is why, as you suggest, so many people cling to fixed belief all their lives. It is out of fear of losing such a crutch, even if their rational capacity sometimes rebels... An atheist, by contrast, is someone who has realised the futility of fighting his rational side, and anything he 'believes' thereafter will be judged accordingly - big difference - the subjective versus the objective outlook.

We are, after all, just smart animals. Looking for patterns, getting into a routine, etc.--it's all part and parcel of our evolution and survival.

You are only able to openly acknowledge that we are animals because you have renounced Christianity.

No, I wouldn't shoot Hitler in the head. If I was unaware of what would happen, what reason would I have? If I was aware of what would happen, how can I be sure another person wouldn't do something even more heinous? I'd kill Hitler, and then Hermann Göring would find a much more efficient method of genocide, resulting in 12 million Jews killed.

OK. let's not take my illustration beyond its original purpose, which was to show that moral dilemmas do often present themselves, albeit not in such an extreme form.

It's not my conscience, it is reality. Murder is wrong. This is evidenced by the fact that unless a person is a sociopath, murder has a profound negative impact on the perpetrator.

I couldn't agree more, but my intention was to show that if GIVEN ALL THE FACTS we failed to assess the implications of action versus non-cation seriously enough, we would have to lead our entire lives on a strictly passive basis to be consistent... I'm not sure such a choice is the morally correct one in all circumstances. Eastern philosophical precepts, for instance, though sublime in their passivity, are often accused of indifference to social ills, focusing instead on the spiritual advancement of the individual as a priority.

Evil flourishes where good folks fail to act, you might say.

The notions of right and wrong are not the test--the choice to do the wrong thing or the right thing is the test.

See above.

How many have their faith strengthened by loss? I'm not sure any holy book says the world will always stay the same. They offer guides for living. The people who read these books and get certain ideas about what they say try to make things stay the same. A former Christian, now agnostic like me can read the Bible and find a lot of wisdom contained within still.

In terms of our religious history, we are in the same boat, although, as you see, I have moved some way beyond agnosticism. What I find interesting in our debate probably hinges directly on this vital difference, since I can see so much of myself in your argument, and yet...

Yes, admittedly scripture is not entirely lacking in wisdom, and if it were possible to lift the figure of Jesus out of the theological muddle attached to him in the NT, I would be prepared to find many things to say in his favour, strictly as a teacher of ethics. Trouble is though, shawmutt, that is not really possible, since the whole Jesus thing is so ensnared by a pernicious superstitious overlay. But an an theist like me can certainly discover value in Jesus the man - without, however, having any time for the religious claptrap that has claimed him and used him for its own incredible agenda -- ie. A crazy, vindictive God's tool for the redemption of original sin.

... In short "stability as an illusion" is what people do regardless of religion.

The sort of stability you indicate falls short of what I had in mind, I guess. What I was trying to say is more along the lines of actively embracing insecurity as a fact of life instead of wasting energy fighting it, always in vain.

I don't see a problem with people needing a crutch of religion.

Nor do I, as long as they are able to believe in it. The problem comes along when we start looking for deeper answers.

Where religion tries to cross into science, e.g. faith healing or acupuncture, is where I draw my line... etc.

So you would automatically have to dismiss every healing miracle performed by Jesus in the bible as being equally unscientific - so long as you're consistent, we'll leave it at that!