Oral Roberts

[Spookymufu]

The comparison of the relative comforts of biblical characters to people living in the United States in 2009 strikes me as an exercise in futility. Assuming the actual existence of the characters, they lived in a world where even the simplest of devices, say a ball point pen, would have seemed magical in its construction. Thus, my inability to see the use or practicality of all but the most allegorical of bible tales in our modern lives, and even many of the lessons of morality fail to stand up to a modern American code of ethics.

My general impression of religion is that it is a necessary psychological construct in the lives of many people, but that a believer gets back exactly as much as they put in to it, necessarily shaping what he or she believes to what he or she needs to believe.

well, making a strait comparison between Moses of the old age and someone of the modern age is apples to oranges, I think the point can still be made but you have to take the current times into account, say someone homeless and living in a shelter or someone simply worse off then the average American....

And are you saying that people that believe in a religion is using the belief as a crutch for the deficiencies in their life, or what they think are deficiencies or did I misunderstand you?

[MacPhantom]

And are you saying that people that believe in a religion is using the belief as a crutch for the deficiencies in their life, or what they think are deficiencies or did I misunderstand you?

I like to be especially careful when using the "religion is a crutch" analogy, because it is easy to apply a negative connotation when none is intended. Likewise, I would be hesitant to use the word "deficiencies", again because it implies a negativity which I don't feel is appropriate.

I do like the "religion is a crutch" analogy when it isn't tossed out as an insult, but instead is examined against what a crutch actually does. A crutch is not a bad thing. When you have a injury, are in pain, need something to lean on to help you to stand, a crutch is a great thing. It is useful; it helps you carry on when you may not have been able to otherwise. And, like religion, most crutches are adjustable to fit the needs of the person. Some need a taller crutch, and some a shorter one. Some need more padding on the top, and others want one made of steel that can hold more weight. Some days the injury hurts worse than other days, and you need to lean on the crutch a bit more. Sometimes, you find that the ankle you broke while prancing through a graveyard on Halloween night has completely healed, and you don't need the crutch at all any more. And there are some people who don't need the crutch to begin with. They haven't broken a leg or twisted an ankle, or they wear orthopedic shoes instead, or for whatever reason they simply have no need of one. For such people, to carry around a crutch would not be a help; it would be a hindrance. This doesn't in any way make them better than a person who does need a crutch; just different. And most important of all, we can see that it would be silly for someone who has a true need for a crutch to insist that every other person, regardless of need, should also use a crutch, and specifically, the same exact crutch. It would be equally silly for someone who does not use a crutch to ridicule or belittle someone who does need one. It would be downright cruel to take a crutch away from someone who needs it to walk. It would also be dangerous for a person to use his or her crutch as a weapon, to beat other people over the head with.

Does that clarify my statements, or did I just make things even more abstract and confusing...?

[Murfreesboro]

The comparison of the relative comforts of biblical characters to people living in the United States in 2009 strikes me as an exercise in futility. Assuming the actual existence of the characters, they lived in a world where even the simplest of devices, say a ball point pen, would have seemed magical in its construction. Thus, my inability to see the use or practicality of all but the most allegorical of bible tales in our modern lives, and even many of the lessons of morality fail to stand up to a modern American code of ethics.

Well, Mac, we are clearly coming from different places re religion and even Biblical interpretation, it seems. I have always believed that people of every generation are more alike than different. Sure, the circumstances differ vastly. But heroism and cowardice, self-interest and altruism, are fundamental human qualities, I think. We all feel that tug-of-war, surely. And I do think literature in general, and the Bible perhaps above all, teaches lessons of value to every generation.

Your "crutch" analogy is well explained, and not at all difficult to follow. Most of the atheists I have known have been extremely bright people who put their "faith," so to speak, in logic. To me, logic is a tool, an extremely valuable one. Our reason explains a great deal, but it doesn't explain everything. (I guess I'm with Hamlet--"There are more things in Heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.") And I suppose I would have to say that one's religion, or lack of it, is ultimately highly subjective. I know I have had experiences in my life that fall under the heading of extrasensory perception or the paranormal. At least one of these could have been construed as an encounter with what Christians call the Holy Spirit. But all I can do is testify that I've had such experiences. I cannot convince someone else that they are real, because they can't be replicated using the scientific method. They are real to me.

[ancient whitelighter]

And are you saying that people that believe in a religion is using the belief as a crutch for the deficiencies in their life, or what they think are deficiencies or did I misunderstand you?

I do like the "religion is a crutch" analogy when it isn't tossed out as an insult, but instead is examined against what a crutch actually does. A crutch is not a bad thing...etc.

Does that clarify my statements, or did I just make things even more abstract and confusing...?

BRAVO Mac. I think you explained that extraordinarily well.

[MacPhantom]

Thanks, A. W....


Murfreesboro, I can't speak for any atheist other than myself, but I don't hold "logic" up as a substitute deity to be worshiped. I see both faith and logic as different tools, or processes, by which people seek some understanding of truth. I am an atheist because I personally reject faith, revelation, and personal religious experience as means of attaining an understanding of our world, both physical and non-physical. I view those three paths as insufficiently objective and utterly unverifiable. This doesn't make me any better or any worse than a person who does accept those paths; just different.

When pondering the great philosophical questions of human kind (who are we?....where did we come from?.... where do we go after we die?..... what is our purpose in life?), I prefer to remain without answers than to accept those offered by faith or revelation merely so I'll have an answer. I have an easier time accepting that there might be no answers to those questions than I do trying to look past the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in every religious belief. At the same time, I can easily understand why other people might find such a lack of answers to be unsatisfactory, and I certainly understand how a personal religious experience could have a profound effect on an individual believer. I especially appreciate your point about the non-transferability of such an experience in convincing others, and respect the impact it had in your life.

[Murfreesboro]

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post, Mac. I've been MIA for a while due to the holidays and just now found it. I doubt you and I will ever see things from the same perspective, but I really appreciate your willingness to respect others' beliefs. I also think you are a very honest man. My grandfather (whom I never knew) was not a believer, either, though his wife was a staunch churchwoman. They lived next door to her minister, and my mother said that the minister would frequently come over in the evenings and talk far into the night with my grandfather, whose company he enjoyed. When my grandfather died, that minister preached his funeral, and he said, "There lies the most honest man I have ever known." I imagine there is an element of spiritual quest in the refusal to accept received religion, too.

[MacPhantom]

Thanks for the kind words, Murfreesboro, and I hope you had a nice Christmas.

I get the sense that we probably have a similar code of ethics, even if the derivation is different.