Sabine Grant

Hi Copernicus... I agree with you that a believer can be discouraged and remain puzzled by life's circumstances. However, any honest believer will consider life as a training field where character is built up thru faith. One may consider that facing a terminal illness with a positive approach thru faith is a way to make excuses for what God has allowed to happen... I personaly marvel at the strength my ALS patient has and how he continues to make a difference in the lives of other people thru his faith. It is inspiring to me. I look for what is inspiring in the behavior of other individuals. Frankly " where they get it from" does not demean the influence they may have on my own behavior.

There is also the fact that weakness and strength vary according to our perceptions. To some, humility is percieved as passivity. To some, kindness in the mode of communication is percieved as hypocrisy. Being polite and courteous can be viewed as a lack of honesty. Tolerance can be viewed as a lack of convictions. Even among religious individuals, tolerance of all and acceptance of people as they are can be viewed as a " you are not a real christian". It has a lot to do with how we as individuals choose to validate other people or demean them. The state of mind, positive or negative, is what determines our perception of strength or weakness. Smelling roses or dwelling on their thorns.

Mad Kally

Who is ignorantly worshipping someone? (a he)

Sabine Grant

Peek a boo Kally!

copernicus

Sabine, with all due respect, that is a completely unfounded response. It assumes that those who do not agree are somehow dishonest and that religious faith is the cause of the "positive" attitude. You bring up the case of a patient with ALS whose religious faith, in your opinion, somehow helped that patient. Well, what better known ALS patient do you know of than Stephen Hawking? Here is a renowned skeptic who not only has survived with a positive attitude, but he has contributed immeasurably to human knowledge of the universe--far more than any religious adherent ever has, IMO. You may marvel at your patient's strength, but you should also recognize that religious faith is not necessary to provide that strength.

My own opinion is that to sustain a positive attitude under the weight of religious faith, one must adopt the attitude of Voltaire's Professor Pangloss--arguing that we live in the "best of all possible worlds" no matter how much misfortune life throws at us. Real honesty about the power of religion will take into account its failures as well as its successes. Some people do blame God for their misfortunes, and that is only sensible if they have been taught to thank their god for their fortunes. By failing to give equal weight to those that you imply are "dishonest" believers, you do not build a case for religion. You simply present the case of religious propagandists.

Sabine Grant

Copernicus... I did not start any argument in this thread claiming that ONLY faith can motivate an individual to handle adversity in a positive manner. I am afraid you are arguing with me based on your assumption that I am claiming that only faith can enable an individual to handle adversity positively.
I started posting in the thread to respond to a claim that faith renders people weak. My endeavor here is to provide arguments to balance the extreme statement that was presented. Please take the time to read all my posts including the quote I was responding to.

Again as I stated before, I focus on what is inspiring in the attitudes and behavior of other individuals. Whichever source they choose to sustain their trials, religious or non religious, is irrelevant to me. I look at the accomplishment. The productivity. What is positive and improves the human condition. However I will react to arguments which pertain to demean the effectiveness of faith when it comes to that improvement. I do not like extremes. I like to find the balance.

Sabine Grant

COPERNICUS : here is the post which triggered in me the need to present the argument on Dr. Martin Luther King at which point you responded to me. My point was to demonstrate that in his case his faith did promote mental strength and critical thinking when it comes to human rights.

copernicus

Sabine, perhaps I have put too fine a point on your response, but I do think that you have missed the point of my criticism. I agree more with Sullster than with you about the harmfulness of religion. What I am criticizing is your focus. You focus "on what is inspiring in the attitudes and behavior of other individuals". The question is about the general effect of religion on the population--whether it "weakens" the mind in some way. To me, you seem to be blinding yourself to one side of the story in order to make the case for the other side. I appreciate your desire to find "balance", but I think that you have your thumb on one side of the scales in order to create the illusion of balance.

When Sullster said "In some sense religion does a good service at consoling many with its illusions...", I believe that he was mitigating the extremeness of his position. He didn't seem to be arguing about the "positive" value that religion can play for some at a point in their lives when the veil of religion can be soothing. I'm not opposed to giving morphine to people in pain, even though it is an addictive drug. What I oppose is giving the morphine to healthy people. It is the addiction that weakens, and you are focusing on its ability to bring comfort.

As for Dr. Martin Luther King, I should point out that he is one of my personal heroes for his strength of character in the face of extreme violence and hatred. I see religion as an essential part of his character, and maybe it would have been impossible for him to reach so many people (most of whom are deeply addicted to religion) without his religion. But he reached me with his secular message, not his religious one.

All I am saying is that religion is a double-edged sword politically. It can also be used to silence protest, or, in the case of the pedophile priests, to commit terrible crimes against the defenseless. Like you, I seek a balance to the argument, but my balance includes looking at the dark side of religion.

The criticism of religion lies in its role as an addictive mental virus. Don't just focus on the euphoria that it can create or the comfort that it can give sufferers. Take into account the nature of the addiction itself.

Radorth

These are good points. But it does not make nascent Christianity, as so many great thinkers have pointed out, of any less value. Even H.G. Wells kept the Baby separated from the bathwater and preached a nascent, social Gospel better than some Christians do. We see in the NT the greatest vision and example of human equality and brotherhood and the means to peacefully achieve it. In Acts we see a community formed almost overnight, which Marx only dreamed about, and his followers tried to achieve by extreme and mindless violence. Just pointing out the admitted abuses and stupidity of ignorant man-worshippers is intellectually short-sighted IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, a Catholic thinker (G.K. Chesterton) hit it right on the nose. "The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has never been tried at all."

Rad

Starboy

Radorth, there is no doubt that people need guidance on how to live life well. Many have claimed that the bible contains such guidance. This may be so but the bible suffers from several other deficiencies so grave as to make it useless for the task in this day and age. These are:

1) It contains a great deal of mumbo jumbo from a time when that was how people understood their surroundings. It is difficult to impossible to take a document seriously that contains such ancient superstitions.

2) It was written in a variety of story telling traditions over a long period of time. Because of this, in order to obtain the intent of many of the passages one must have a good understanding of the culture and historical conditions of those times. Any ethos that requires everyone to become an historian in order to get the message is not pertinent.

3) It suffers from indecision since there is no way to decide which of several interpretations of some moral concept should be applied. This is because it comes from an authority that cannot be detected. An authority that can only be applied subjectively.

4) It reflects a social order that no longer applies. It is a monarchist system based on patriarchy. It is at odds with a democratic republic that is ruled by law provided by man.

5) It is a failure. There are so many different Christian religions separated by the same document, the bible.

Starboy

Shadowy Man

This can't be right. Wasn't the United States founded on Christian principles??