Faith/Religion/Spirituality - Self-Denial? And Philosophy

[Amaris]

You're a kind and caring man, J. Again, I agree with everything you wrote. I've gone through a similar transformation over time. (Although, I'm not thinking about death quite that often!) In the end, I think kindness and caring are the best principles to live by. It can be that simple.

Mr Awe

Thanks, Mr. Awe. <hug>

I started thinking more about death when I was diagnosed with high blood pressure, and then diabetes within the span of a few years. Taking care of my mother throughout the years, and dealing with all of the stresses that come with it, has also added to those thoughts, and then there's the fact that through all of this, I'm aging, and that time doesn't slow down or stop whether I'm selfish or selfless. It just keeps marching forward.

while some might call death the great equalizer, I disagree. [...] Death isn't equal, it's indiscriminate, and that's even worse.

Death has this much to be said for it:
You don't have to get out of bed for it.
Wherever you happen to be,
They bring it to you - free!

- Kingsley Amis
​

What an interesting quote. I'm going to have to read up on Kingsley Amis, having never heard of him before. In the meantime, I'll offer a quote of my own from my favorite writer:

"The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man who lives fully is prepared to die at any time." - Mark Twain

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

i like bill maher's 'belief is a mental illness' idea. that is all.

I would not put too much stock in the bitter opinions of in a guy with such a laughable inability to date women on his own that he's spent years haunting the Playboy mansion, where he's "supplied" women paid not to say no.

That bitter mindset drives his little life, which was present in his anti-religon agenda-thon film. It is no wonder why his film was ignored.

Bitter? I've seen far more bitterness from people claiming to be Christian than I have from an entertainer like Maher. Granted, he's got plenty of personal problems, but I don't see him suggesting that Supreme Court Justices be killed, or claiming that New Orleans "deserved" the deaths and devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

Quick look at Maher's "greatest hits" of bitter--or hate-fllled comments about God/Jesus or those identified as believers:

"Isn't it a little scary that someone who wants to be president hears God talking to her?:"

""Wow, Jesus just f**ked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere ... Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler 'Hey, Buffalo's killing them."

"Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking."

It would be easy to add to the list of quotes, but this sample is enough to illustrate his hatred--hatred being an emotion not the exclusive domain of those wishing death on his fellow man (as in your examples).

If some are willing to be honest with themselves, then it will be easy to mistake genuine agenda with "comedic" hyperbole--the latter being the usual excuse used for Maher and his ilk. Maher moves beyond so-called comedy when he invests so much time into his particular form of an atheist platform--its most glaring manifestation being the filmed insult/hate rally Religulous--essentially revealing just how much he invests in his anti-religion (specifically Christianity) platform.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If some are willing to be honest with themselves, then it will be easy to mistake genuine agenda with "comedic" hyperbole--the latter being the usual excuse used for Maher and his ilk. Maher moves beyond so-called comedy when he invests so much time into his particular form of an atheist platform--its most glaring manifestation being the filmed insult/hate rally Religulous--essentially revealing just how much he invests in his anti-religion (specifically Christianity) platform.

There was really not much wrong with anything Maher said in those quotes. I do find it disturbing that people think God "talks to them."

The Tebow quote was funny, if a bit off-color. The last quote is too much of a generalization--not all religious people are unthinking zealots--but he does have a point there.

 

[JarodRussell]

Maher's "belief is a mental illness" is just an exaggerated version of "religion is opium for the people". There is some truth in it, no doubt. For instance, people living in bad situations pray stronger to god than people who are wealthy and healthy. As soon as you start feeling troubled, there's the urge to call for a higher power.
There is the inherent need to worship SOMETHING in all of us. If it's not a god, it's perhaps a celebrity, or even a fictional character. A sports team, as well. And just like in religion, you can observe many levels of fundamentalism in that.


The thing with people hearing God has always interested me for a particular reason: NOBODY believes them. If you walked up to the Pope himself and told him how God appeared to you and gave you orders, he would call for a straight jacket, I'm certain.

 

[Kestra]

I've always been put off by Maher. I'm not sure what it is, because I like some of the other more open critics of religion. I just can't stand to watch anything with Bill Maher so if he has something important to say about religion, it's totally lost on me.

 

[Deks]

I don't get the notion of people assigning 'belief' as a term relevant/integral to what is known as 'human condition' and life in general.

Its a useless attribute that serves no real purpose whose origins stem from 'faith', religion and dogma.

When people ask me if I 'believe' in something (religious or otherwise)... I first tell them:
I don't 'believe'.
Belief in its very definition requires a fixation... 'truth', even though our perceptions of life and established notions keep changing (along with theories, hypothesis) on a continuous basis.
Science by itself does not (or shouldn't) operate on 'belief' (in any shape or form) because it functions on the principles of scientific method - which we use to APPROXIMATE what is happening around us (therefore notions such as 'absolute certainty', '100%' and similar ones are not applicable to science - and if people DO start applying such notions to it... well, it stops being science).

I find no relevance in assigning 'belief' (in any shape or form) to anything... but of course, we certainly have numerous people who will just go around and say: 'but that just means you 'believe' in not assigning belief to something'.

Its circular reasoning of sorts... some people cannot 'break' away from such line of thinking because it doesn't mesh with their perceptions of life (or how they learned to view life).
Therefore, they HAVE to assign the notion of 'belief' (and will continue to do so) even to people who continuously try to explain (the best they can - seeing how language can be rather poor when it comes to describing certain things) that such a terminology or view is not applicable (and useless) to their life, reasoning, perceptions, etc.

In the end, just because those who assign notions of 'belief' (in whatever shape or form) to others, situation or life in genera, doesn't mean they are necessarily correct.
For that matter, I keep in mind the possibility I could be mistaken at any given time of things I say or do - and I express that perception (but I don't consider it a belief - merely a hypothesis or a theory subject to change at any given time).

This might be an interesting read for people who assign the notion of 'belief' (non religious one) to everything and anything:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Its quite lengthy, but quite informative at the same time.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I don't get the notion of people assigning 'belief' as a term relevant/integral to what is known as 'human condition' and life in general.

Its a useless attribute that serves no real purpose whose origins stem from 'faith', religion and dogma.

When people ask me if I 'believe' in something (religious or otherwise)... I first tell them:
I don't 'believe'.
Belief in its very definition requires a fixation... 'truth', even though our perceptions of life and established notions keep changing (along with theories, hypothesis) on a continuous basis.
Science by itself does not (or shouldn't) operate on 'belief' (in any shape or form) because it functions on the principles of scientific method - which we use to APPROXIMATE what is happening around us (therefore notions such as 'absolute certainty', '100%' and similar ones are not applicable to science - and if people DO start applying such notions to it... well, it stops being science).

I find no relevance in assigning 'belief' (in any shape or form) to anything... but of course, we certainly have numerous people who will just go around and say: 'but that just means you 'believe' in not assigning belief to something'.

Its circular reasoning of sorts... some people cannot 'break' away from such line of thinking because it doesn't mesh with their perceptions of life (or how they learned to view life).
Therefore, they HAVE to assign the notion of 'belief' (and will continue to do so) even to people who continuously try to explain (the best they can - seeing how language can be rather poor when it comes to describing certain things) that such a terminology or view is not applicable (and useless) to their life, reasoning, perceptions, etc.

In the end, just because those who assign notions of 'belief' (in whatever shape or form) to others, situation or life in genera, doesn't mean they are necessarily correct.
For that matter, I keep in mind the possibility I could be mistaken at any given time of things I say or do - and I express that perception (but I don't consider it a belief - merely a hypothesis or a theory subject to change at any given time).

This might be an interesting read for people who assign the notion of 'belief' (non religious one) to everything and anything:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Its quite lengthy, but quite informative at the same time.

With an answer like that, I suspect people either don't ask what you "believe" very often, or regret it when they do.

If someone says they "believe" in something established by science, it means nothing more than that they accept it to be true based on the available evidence. "Believe" is just a much shorter word for it.

People should be smart enough to know the context. Lecturing them about the definition of "belief" strikes me as counterproductive and even condescending.

 

[horatio83]

Belief is not just the opposite of scientific knowledge, it is more complex.

First of all, there is indirect belief, I believe that somebody else believes something, I believe via him or her. Take Santa Claus, of course the parents merely pretend to believe in him for the sake of the children and once the children are old enough they merely pretend as well to satisfy their parents and to get the candy. Although nobody believes subjectively Santa Claus becomes very real in these candy-giving rituals.
You get something similar in politics. Post-democracy describes a formal democracy whose content has become to some degree undemocratic and which draws its legitimacy not from the subjective belief of its citizens but from their totally cynical attitude which is accompanied by the belief that there are a still a few honest, idealistic democrats left (once again belief via an anonymous other who does of course not have to exist).
You get the same in economics in the case of a bank-run. Suppose somebody falsely writes an article that a certain bank is in trouble, some people believe it and withdraw their deposits, others observe it and do the same to be on the safe side and if this reaches a critical mass the bank can very well get into trouble. But it is not merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, it can also work if everybody is smart and knows that the newspaper story is false yet presumes that there are some idiots out there who believe it. Independent of whether these idiots exist or not the well-educated guys withdraw money from their accounts and thus trigger the bank run.
That's the eerie thing about belief, it does not have to be personal.

Second, back to the science vs. religion issue, if you take a fairly technical sci-fi writer like Asimov who wrote in this this technocratic age after WWII you ask yourself one simply question, why doesn't the world function as rationally as described in this fiction? Precisely because we are not merely scientific but also religious (in the broad sense) creatures, organizing our public life is impossible to do rationally because belief, dogma, ideology or however you wanna call it always enters the equation. It is simply not possible to not believe (to use the previous example, the smart guys who read the newspaper and are not fooled cannot know everything, they have to form a belief on how many idiots are out there).

 

[Misfit Toy]

Quick look at Maher's "greatest hits" of bitter--or hate-fllled comments about God/Jesus or those identified as believers:

"Isn't it a little scary that someone who wants to be president hears God talking to her?"

""Wow, Jesus just f**ked #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere ... Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler 'Hey, Buffalo's killing them."

"Christians and others who are religious suffer from a neurological disorder that "stops people from thinking."

It would be easy to add to the list of quotes, but this sample is enough to illustrate his hatred--hatred being an emotion not the exclusive domain of those wishing death on his fellow man (as in your examples).

You seem to have a very strange definition of "hatred".

None of those comments come anywhere near the level of "wishing death on his fellow man".

If some are willing to be honest with themselves, then it will be easy to mistake genuine agenda with "comedic" hyperbole--the latter being the usual excuse used for Maher and his ilk. Maher moves beyond so-called comedy when he invests so much time into his particular form of an atheist platform--its most glaring manifestation being the filmed insult/hate rally Religulous--essentially revealing just how much he invests in his anti-religion (specifically Christianity) platform.

There was really not much wrong with anything Maher said in those quotes. I do find it disturbing that people think God "talks to them."

So do I - substitute "Xenu" or "Odin" for "God" in the comment, and it's just as disturbing.

 

[Deks]

With an answer like that, I suspect people either don't ask what you "believe" very often, or regret it when they do.

If someone says they "believe" in something established by science, it means nothing more than that they accept it to be true based on the available evidence. "Believe" is just a much shorter word for it.

There in lies the problem.
I don't 'accept' anything as the 'truth'.
If something is 'established' or 'confirmed' by science for example, I look at it as concept that seemingly conforms to the tests conducted and how scientists look at the world at this point in time (or with the notions that the general population accepts as the 'norm', how they view the world at this point in time), but I don't see it as necessarily 'true', and I keep in mind the notion that its likely subject to change at any given time - which leaves the door open (in a figurative way) to other possibilities that can be taken into consideration.

There is a difference here, therefore 'belief' is not a term that can be associated with such a line of thinking (which is why I cringe when people try assigning such a terminology in the first place).

And I also do not necessarily think its about 'semantics' either.
Its not the same way of thinking that people are accustomed to - which is probably what throws them off and they keep coming back to what they are familiar with in an attempt to describe it best in terms they will understand - and failing in the process because they keep spinning in circles and are unable to 'break' the kind of reasoning they are accustomed to.
There's nothing inherently 'superior' in that line of thinking either... all I'm saying is that its different, and that 'belief' (in any shape/form) probably doesn't conform to it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

With an answer like that, I suspect people either don't ask what you "believe" very often, or regret it when they do.

If someone says they "believe" in something established by science, it means nothing more than that they accept it to be true based on the available evidence. "Believe" is just a much shorter word for it.

There in lies the problem.
I don't 'accept' anything as the 'truth'.
If something is 'established' or 'confirmed' by science for example, I look at it as concept that seemingly conforms to the tests conducted and how scientists look at the world at this point in time, but I don't see it as necessarily 'true', and I keep in mind the notion that its likely subject to change at some point.

There is a fundamental difference here, therefore 'belief' is not a term that can be associated with such a line of thinking.

So you consider a "belief" to be something impervious to change? If I accept specific information based on the evidence available, then if the evidence changes I can change my mind. I don't see why this should be a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[marillion]

The question/comment about prayer...

I'm coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, so I'm not going to be able to speak for the new non-denominational, evangelical beliefs...

We were taught that prayer is for worship/meditation and asking God to help us help ourselves... You can't ask for God to help you with a math test, or to help you win the lottery... Our swim team had sweatshirts with "God is on our side" printed on the back, not as an actual statement, but as a tease to the teams they were swimming against, knowing full well that God was not going to favor the Catholic team over those from the public schools.

I believe that prayer is not a way to ask God for anything other than help to realize my own potential... "Help me find the strength," not "Give me bigger muscles."...

Putting our faith in God through prayer gives us peace of mind during stressful or crisis situations, just as those who practice other forms of meditation find peace doing what they do (which I also do, by the way)... It's a way to just calm down and take stock, knowing that while God may not swing down and keep the crisis from happening, our belief that there is a God and Heaven gives us some solice and peace, should the worst happen. Atheists cannot proved God doesn't exist any more than the faithful can prove he/she/it does, so why not trust in your faith.

Full disclosure that I am also a kind of deist, in that I believe that God does not intervene with daily life.. He set out life in the Universe and lets it take its course, with occasional adjustments along the way (see also: Jesus)...

And to answer the question as to why some religeous faithful don't just leave the atheists alone, the answer is simple... Teachings in almost all faiths dictate that it is the duty of the faithful to preach the word and convert those they meet.. It's not because they are jerks, it's because that is their belief.. Personally, I have a distaste for that kind of thing.. I like to be left alone as much as anyone else.. But if someone asks me about my beliefs, I'm glad to tell them...

They usually end up more confused than before they asked..

 

[Mr Awe]

When people ask me if I 'believe' in something (religious or otherwise)... I first tell them:
I don't 'believe'.
Belief in its very definition requires a fixation... 'truth',

Sorry Deks, I'm sure you're trying to look all original here but the fact is you do believe in things. Otherwise, you couldn't function.

Do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you believe that you'll get paid for the work that you do on the job? Do you believe that you will probably survive driving today?

There's a list of thousands of everyday things that you have to believe in to function. You have examined the evidence from the past and have concluded certains things that keep you alive and going every single day.

However, you may well have a different set of criteria for your beliefs than many others. Perhaps your beliefs are more concrete based? Perhaps you require more solid evidence to support a belief?

All totally valid. But, you couldn't function without beliefs.

Mr Awe

 

[JarodRussell]

I can't believe this thread turned into a discussion about a single word.

 

[horatio83]

The question/comment about prayer...

I'm coming from a Roman Catholic perspective, so I'm not going to be able to speak for the new non-denominational, evangelical beliefs...

We were taught that prayer is for worship/meditation and asking God to help us help ourselves... You can't ask for God to help you with a math test, or to help you win the lottery... Our swim team had sweatshirts with "God is on our side" printed on the back, not as an actual statement, but as a tease to the teams they were swimming against, knowing full well that God was not going to favor the Catholic team over those from the public schools.

I believe that prayer is not a way to ask God for anything other than help to realize my own potential... "Help me find the strength," not "Give me bigger muscles."...

Putting our faith in God through prayer gives us peace of mind during stressful or crisis situations, just as those who practice other forms of meditation find peace doing what they do (which I also do, by the way)... It's a way to just calm down and take stock, knowing that while God may not swing down and keep the crisis from happening, our belief that there is a God and Heaven gives us some solice and peace, should the worst happen. Atheists cannot proved God doesn't exist any more than the faithful can prove he/she/it does, so why not trust in your faith.

Full disclosure that I am also a kind of deist, in that I believe that God does not intervene with daily life.. He set out life in the Universe and lets it take its course, with occasional adjustments along the way (see also: Jesus)...

And to answer the question as to why some religeous faithful don't just leave the atheists alone, the answer is simple... Teachings in almost all faiths dictate that it is the duty of the faithful to preach the word and convert those they meet.. It's not because they are jerks, it's because that is their belief.. Personally, I have a distaste for that kind of thing.. I like to be left alone as much as anyone else.. But if someone asks me about my beliefs, I'm glad to tell them...

They usually end up more confused than before they asked..

Very good post that differentiates between infantile and mature prayer. If I may add one thing, this kind of mature praying is essentially a lie, you tell yourself that God helps you in order to gain the strength to do it entirely on your own. And I do not mean this in a derogatory way, it rather illustrates the complexity of belief.
The suicide bomber who blows himself doesn't necessarily do it because he is so absolutely sure, he rather doubts and via his act he tries to convince himself. Same with your mature prayer, you do not really believe that there is God who helps you but via praying you pretend that there is one in order to gain strength.
Belief is always in this fuzzy area (otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to call it belief) and fundamentalists are the ones who wanna get rid of the uncertainty of faith via converting it into clear truth statements that make it unnecessary for you to believe, to be in this unclear and unsafe area that requires personal engagement.

 

[Deks]

Sorry Deks, I'm sure you're trying to look all original here but the fact is you do believe in things. Otherwise, you couldn't function.

I don't consider my way of thinking to be 'special'... merely different.
As for functioning without 'beliefs'... I seem to function just fine without ascribing to notions of 'belief' (in any shape or form) - as do many other people.

You are seemingly applying circular logic - because you apparently think 'belief' is integral to human existence, you cannot bring yourself to view life in any other context ('impossible' according to you for all intense and purposes)... therefore you keep ascribing the notion of 'belief' to others and their lives.
All valid for 'you' and probably helps you put it all into a frame of reference that you understand (which is practically no different than any other human when they stumble upon a possible 'unknown' and try to identify it by ascribing familiar things to it), but it doesn't mean you are accurate in your reasoning/interpretation/description.

Do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Do you believe that you'll get paid for the work that you do on the job? Do you believe that you will probably survive driving today?

There are tons of possibilities (remote as some may be, while others are much easier to happen) that could occur which can (and on numerous occasions do) change 'expectations'.

The Earth could undergo a fundamental shift in its gravitational axis/forces, orbit around the sun, and a few more things (for reasons unknown, or well known) that could prevent my location from rotating into a position that would face the sun - probably unlikely to happen, but still possible.

I found myself in more than 1 situation where I wasn't paid for the work I did.
Any reason I should 'believe' I will get paid every time I do a job?
No point in doing that because I could easily be deluding myself (seeing how we don't live in a world that is 'fair' or cares for human well-being).
I might 'think' that I will get paid, but at the same time I keep an open mind to the possibility I might not - and like that, I'm prepared for other outcomes which are less likely to take me by surprise and I might be able to formulate a possible solution to a problem (again doesn't mean it will work, but its a possibility that could be considered).
Some of the time I volunteer (so why should I expect a monetary compensation or 'reward' for something like that?), and if I do professional work, there is no guarantee I'll get paid - the possibilities that can affect this very outcome are continuously present (therefore there are no guarantees - so what's the purpose of 'belief' exactly?).

I usually use my bicycle when I go out (I don't drive a car). The possibilities for accidents that could easily result in my death (or deaths of others) are effectively endless (which apparently have a tendency to occur on a daily basis in practically all areas of the planet to anyone).
Again, what's the purpose of 'belief' here?
I don't need it to 'live' or to 'survive the day', 'function', nor do I find the term of any relevance or even remotely applicable to my life.

There's a list of thousands of everyday things that you have to believe in to function. You have examined the evidence from the past and have concluded certain things that keep you alive and going every single day.

Actually, by examining past evidence I usually arrive at certain results/evidence (due to observation - which is an approximation), but I don't think of those results/evidence as the 'truth', 'the absolute' or something 'fixed' that I necessarily 'follow' or ascribe by - they are just possibilities.

Even if I initiate a course of action based on an arrived result, I still wouldn't consider that a 'belief' - merely that it 'might' be something to help me arrive at a decision, also always keeping in mind the prospect it could have been wrong, and be ready to discard it and adjust my actions accordingly.

Again... no need for 'belief'.

 

[1001001]

Full disclosure that I am also a kind of deist, in that I believe that God does not intervene with daily life.. He set out life in the Universe and lets it take its course, with occasional adjustments along the way...

Ah yes, St. Thomas Aquinas. And Rush.

 

[sojourner]

Deks, do you really believe, oops sorry, think that you've come up with some new way of living by avoiding using the word "belief" to describe certain aspects of how you approach things? Do you realize how silly and pseudo-intellectual that sounds?

 

[RJDiogenes]

The thing is, as with just about anything else, people use the word "believe" in different ways and have varying personal definitions. Believing something does not mean excluding the possibility of being wrong.

I believe I will meet God in the final season of Supernatural.

 

[Deks]

Deks, do you really believe, oops sorry, think that you've come up with some new way of living by avoiding using the word "belief" to describe certain aspects of how you approach things? Do you realize how silly and pseudo-intellectual that sounds?

No, I don't think I came up with a 'new way of living', its just a different approach to ways of thinking.
As I said before, I don't consider it to be anything 'special' nor do I glorify it, but there is a difference between ways of thinking incorporating 'beliefs' and those that don't.