Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mendeh · 06-21-2002, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Michael:
<strong>
I think that the fear of being wrong by far exceeds the fear of hellfire.</strong>

I don't think that fear of hell is very common amongst Xians, either, judging from the ones I've talked to. (The only one who psychologically is in a mess is the most fundamentalist of them (son of two fundamentalist missionaries, hears voices, has problems relating to other people, etc.)). I think that if anything the Christian religion gives its followers immunity from fears of being wrong, or suffering, or dying. I think it's that more general craving for immunity from what we have to face as humans, rather than specifically fear of hell or being mistaken, that is what modern Christianity plays to the most; that's what keeps people following; hell, mortality or being wrong are most useful for securing back the people that are trying to break away from it.

Mediancat · 06-22-2002, 05:57 AM

I do know Christopher Hitchens has written extensively on the general unfitness of Mother Teresa as someone who wished to relieve people's suffering. I haven't read the book (though I've seen some of the arguments), so I can't really comment except to say it might be worth looking at.

Incidentally, I have noticed that (by and large, I'm not claiming this as a universal) people seem to either like Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa, but despise what he sais about Bill Clinton, or think he was a blasphemer about Mother Teresa and love his attacks on the president.

Rob aka Mediancat

seebs · 06-22-2002, 06:26 AM

I tend to take any attacks on someone with a *BIG* grain of salt. It's very easy to misunderstand public figures. I don't particularly have any clear idea of why MT would have done the weird dance with the bakery... but at the same time, I think it's pretty clear that she wasn't hoarding money for *her* use, so it's hard for me to just say "oh, she's greedy".

To get back to part of the original question: I'm not a big fan of "you have to believe to understand". I think there are things that only make sense if you accept the premises, but you don't have to *believe* them, just be willing to accept them provisionally for the sake of argument, to see how a weird-sounding statement is reconciled.

In other words, an attack based on "but these miracles are impossible!" is a stupid attack. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense; the mere fact that they are listed *AS MIRACLES* tells us that even the people who saw them knew they were "impossible".

This is like dismissing all counterexamples on the grounds that they're "impossible", because we have an existing hypothesis which we prefer.

This isn't to say there's no rational grounds for dismissing many, or even all, claims of miracles; just that, in the end, the claim "there is no scientifically understood way to achieve this result" is not a very good counterargument for a claim that something was a miracle.

I don't buy stuff like "it sounds illogical because you don't have faith" in general, though; too often it's used as a replacement for a real analysis of what something means.

Mad Kally · 06-22-2002, 07:11 AM

Here is one article on Mother Teresa:

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html" target="_blank"> Mother Teresa's House of Illusions </a>

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/august96/hakeem.html" target="_blank"> Here's another one: </a>

Quote:

Mother Teresa is thoroughly saturated with a primitive fundamentalist religious worldview that sees pain, hardship, and suffering as ennobling experiences and a beautiful expression of affiliation with Jesus Christ and his ordeal on the cross. Hitchens reports that in a filmed interview Mother Teresa herself tells of a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "With a smile, Mother Teresa told the camera what she told the patient: 'You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.'" Apparently unaware that the response of the sufferer was a put-down, she freely related it: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me."

*snip*

Freethinkers owe Hitchens a debt of gratitude for providing a brilliant example of the repudiation of received opinion and its replacement with an exercise in critical inquiry that results in the smashing of illusion and unmasking its beneficiary, in this instance Mother Teresa, and exposing her to the piercing light of reality, especially when the beneficiary has been protected from exposure by ensconcement behind the massive stronghold of religion.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Mad Kally ]</p>

Darwin's Finch · 06-22-2002, 08:24 AM

I read Hitchens's book on MT, and I heartily recommend it. Having grown up with the myth of Theresa as this paragon of saintly virtue, helping the poor and dispossessed of Calcutta, it was somewhat shocking to have that image shattered.

Hitchens presents us with a person whose paramont concern was the founding and perpetuation of an order. Far from helping the poor and dying of Calcutta with medicine and decent food, she provided them with a primitive hospice specializing in deathbed coversions. Millions upon millions of dollars poured into her order from well-meaning but confused people who thought they were helping to buy medicine and so forth. (In fairness to MT, Hitchens points out that the confusion about her work was very largely the result of wishful self-deception on the part of her donars; Theresa was always upfront about her priorities.) Enough money had been collected by this order to have founded a first-rate teaching hospital in Calcutta as well as providing food and shelter for thousands of needy people. This didn't happen; we can thank Theresa's medieval and reactionary outlook for that: it was never about easing suffering and saving lives; it was always about saving the souls of tormented and dying people. What she did was, IMHO, barbarous and wicked.

When The Missionary Position was published, Hitchens was predictably pilloried by many reviewers. The interesting thing about the public reaction to the book, though, is that no one has substantively refuted Hitchens's contentions. They are mad as hell and have called him every name in the book for daring to challenge one of their idols, but that's where it ends. The silence of Theresa's defenders in regard to the actual substance of Hitchens's charges is deafening and instructive.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

cydonia · 06-22-2002, 04:43 PM

Have any ex-xtians here ever "known?" is it a feeling? An intuition or something? I am sick of hearing that reasoning, like pray for god to make the bible make sense to you because it really does, you just have to be willing to see the truth blah blah blah. I've asked for Jesus to show himself to me before, and from my background that's a big deal. My heart starts pounding, i feel like i'm on the verge of some big revelation, and that's all been conditioned in me. I don't think that counts as "knowing". But a christian would say, "that's god making his presence known. Go for it!" But i don't want any counterfeit crap in my life.

I ate Pascal's Wafer · 06-22-2002, 06:01 PM

Cydonia, from my experiences it's more of an inner feeling. It's similar to the feeling when your kitten gets lost outside, and you just KNOW she's in trouble. Something like that, I suppose.

Anyway, I think the belief in a protective, loving father figure gives them a certain peace and inner calm, and it's these feelings that cause the believer to just KNOW that there is a god, imho.

-Nick

diana · 06-25-2002, 12:54 PM

I think that the fear of being wrong by far exceeds the fear of hellfire. If christians were legitimately afraid of hell, they'd all be living lives of ascetism, self-denial, and helping others, like that Jesus guy did.

I understand what you mean, Michael, and I agree, so far as the fear of being wrong concerns living their day-to-day lives. But you're forgetting compartmentalization....

When it comes to using reason to examine their actual beliefs--during which time, their day-to-day decisions are forgotten--fear of hell is easily the primary fear.

I base this on many conversations I've had with Xns over the years and my own experiences as a Xn who did not have faith and fought for it (and against doubt) out of the sheer fear of hellfire.

It's one thing to live like a normal person and more or less "forget," for the most part, that there's a sky-daddy watching you have sex, take a dump and wipe your ass, and cheat on your income taxes. It's quite another, when one is faced with the logical impossibility of one's beliefs, to acknowledge to oneself, let alone aloud that one's beliefs have no basis in reality.

The reasons for this are as old as Pascal's Wager, and may be summed up with the words "what if I'm wrong?"

The fear of hell is far more pervasive, when it comes to intellectual honesty when the actual beliefs are under discussion, than the fear of eating a little crow.

d

Thomas Cassidy · 06-25-2002, 01:27 PM

Diana, I can't help but think that neither you nor Michael has a good understanding of Christianity. I am a Christian, and I don't fear hell, nor do I fear being wrong. I do not live an ascetic life out of a fear of hell any more than I lead a silent life out of a fear of being wrong. Christianity is not about fearing hell, it is about being forgiven. I live a life much like everyone else, completely free from any fear of hell. I also live a life of intellectual inquiry, free from all fear. Being wrong doesn't invalidate my self-worth and being non-ascetic does not place me in danger of hell. I have the best of both worlds!

Mad Kally · 06-25-2002, 04:21 PM

Christianity is not about fearing hell

Is that right? My mom is a True Christian and she says her entire life has been devoted to Jesus and the bible purely out of the fear of burning in hell.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2002, 05:57 AM	#12
Mediancat Contributor Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Baltimore County, MD Posts: 19,644	I do know Christopher Hitchens has written extensively on the general unfitness of Mother Teresa as someone who wished to relieve people's suffering. I haven't read the book (though I've seen some of the arguments), so I can't really comment except to say it might be worth looking at. Incidentally, I have noticed that (by and large, I'm not claiming this as a universal) people seem to either like Hitchens' work on Mother Teresa, but despise what he sais about Bill Clinton, or think he was a blasphemer about Mother Teresa and love his attacks on the president. Rob aka Mediancat

06-22-2002, 06:26 AM	#13
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I tend to take any attacks on someone with a BIG grain of salt. It's very easy to misunderstand public figures. I don't particularly have any clear idea of why MT would have done the weird dance with the bakery... but at the same time, I think it's pretty clear that she wasn't hoarding money for her use, so it's hard for me to just say "oh, she's greedy". To get back to part of the original question: I'm not a big fan of "you have to believe to understand". I think there are things that only make sense if you accept the premises, but you don't have to believe them, just be willing to accept them provisionally for the sake of argument, to see how a weird-sounding statement is reconciled. In other words, an attack based on "but these miracles are impossible!" is a stupid attack. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense; the mere fact that they are listed AS MIRACLES tells us that even the people who saw them knew they were "impossible". This is like dismissing all counterexamples on the grounds that they're "impossible", because we have an existing hypothesis which we prefer. This isn't to say there's no rational grounds for dismissing many, or even all, claims of miracles; just that, in the end, the claim "there is no scientifically understood way to achieve this result" is not a very good counterargument for a claim that something was a miracle. I don't buy stuff like "it sounds illogical because you don't have faith" in general, though; too often it's used as a replacement for a real analysis of what something means.

06-22-2002, 08:24 AM	#15
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	I read Hitchens's book on MT, and I heartily recommend it. Having grown up with the myth of Theresa as this paragon of saintly virtue, helping the poor and dispossessed of Calcutta, it was somewhat shocking to have that image shattered. Hitchens presents us with a person whose paramont concern was the founding and perpetuation of an order. Far from helping the poor and dying of Calcutta with medicine and decent food, she provided them with a primitive hospice specializing in deathbed coversions. Millions upon millions of dollars poured into her order from well-meaning but confused people who thought they were helping to buy medicine and so forth. (In fairness to MT, Hitchens points out that the confusion about her work was very largely the result of wishful self-deception on the part of her donars; Theresa was always upfront about her priorities.) Enough money had been collected by this order to have founded a first-rate teaching hospital in Calcutta as well as providing food and shelter for thousands of needy people. This didn't happen; we can thank Theresa's medieval and reactionary outlook for that: it was never about easing suffering and saving lives; it was always about saving the souls of tormented and dying people. What she did was, IMHO, barbarous and wicked. When The Missionary Position was published, Hitchens was predictably pilloried by many reviewers. The interesting thing about the public reaction to the book, though, is that no one has substantively refuted Hitchens's contentions. They are mad as hell and have called him every name in the book for daring to challenge one of their idols, but that's where it ends. The silence of Theresa's defenders in regard to the actual substance of Hitchens's charges is deafening and instructive. [ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

06-22-2002, 04:43 PM	#16
cydonia Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: southern california Posts: 1,002	Have any ex-xtians here ever "known?" is it a feeling? An intuition or something? I am sick of hearing that reasoning, like pray for god to make the bible make sense to you because it really does, you just have to be willing to see the truth blah blah blah. I've asked for Jesus to show himself to me before, and from my background that's a big deal. My heart starts pounding, i feel like i'm on the verge of some big revelation, and that's all been conditioned in me. I don't think that counts as "knowing". But a christian would say, "that's god making his presence known. Go for it!" But i don't want any counterfeit crap in my life.

06-22-2002, 06:01 PM	#17
I ate Pascal's Wafer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 1,460	Cydonia, from my experiences it's more of an inner feeling. It's similar to the feeling when your kitten gets lost outside, and you just KNOW she's in trouble. Something like that, I suppose. Anyway, I think the belief in a protective, loving father figure gives them a certain peace and inner calm, and it's these feelings that cause the believer to just KNOW that there is a god, imho. -Nick

06-25-2002, 12:54 PM	#18
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	I think that the fear of being wrong by far exceeds the fear of hellfire. If christians were legitimately afraid of hell, they'd all be living lives of ascetism, self-denial, and helping others, like that Jesus guy did. I understand what you mean, Michael, and I agree, so far as the fear of being wrong concerns living their day-to-day lives. But you're forgetting compartmentalization.... When it comes to using reason to examine their actual beliefs--during which time, their day-to-day decisions are forgotten--fear of hell is easily the primary fear. I base this on many conversations I've had with Xns over the years and my own experiences as a Xn who did not have faith and fought for it (and against doubt) out of the sheer fear of hellfire. It's one thing to live like a normal person and more or less "forget," for the most part, that there's a sky-daddy watching you have sex, take a dump and wipe your ass, and cheat on your income taxes. It's quite another, when one is faced with the logical impossibility of one's beliefs, to acknowledge to oneself, let alone aloud that one's beliefs have no basis in reality. The reasons for this are as old as Pascal's Wager, and may be summed up with the words "what if I'm wrong?" The fear of hell is far more pervasive, when it comes to intellectual honesty when the actual beliefs are under discussion, than the fear of eating a little crow. d

06-25-2002, 01:27 PM	#19
Thomas Cassidy Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 42	Diana, I can't help but think that neither you nor Michael has a good understanding of Christianity. I am a Christian, and I don't fear hell, nor do I fear being wrong. I do not live an ascetic life out of a fear of hell any more than I lead a silent life out of a fear of being wrong. Christianity is not about fearing hell, it is about being forgiven. I live a life much like everyone else, completely free from any fear of hell. I also live a life of intellectual inquiry, free from all fear. Being wrong doesn't invalidate my self-worth and being non-ascetic does not place me in danger of hell. I have the best of both worlds!

06-25-2002, 04:21 PM	#20
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Christianity is not about fearing hell Is that right? My mom is a True Christian and she says her entire life has been devoted to Jesus and the bible purely out of the fear of burning in hell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.