Crafting an old-age persona

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm agnostic, really. I lost my faith when I was in the Middle East and exposed to other religions. It seemed absurd that mine or any other had a unique claim to truth and it began to seem likely that religion is a probably a universal product of the human psyche. However, I had a good experience being brought up in the Catholic church and never lost my affection or respect for its teaching, traditions and rituals - and for the art it has inspired, especially perhaps musical.

When our son was born, my (French) wife and I discussed whether to bring him up with Catholicism or without and decided on the whole it was better to bring him up with it. That way, at least, he would understand Christianity when so many people nowadays don't, and he would thereby understand the roots of European culture and have full access to its artistic heritage. (As an American, you may not fully appreciate how much history is all around us in Europe.) So we started taking him to church. I joined the choir and got quite involved with it. I joined another choir when we moved to the Netherlands and we used to go to the sung Latin mass, since I didn't understand Dutch. Then my wife got cancer, and being aware her time was limited, it became rather calming to feel a sense of solidarity with the humanity of Christendom in past centuries, which we got from the ceremony and thousand year old plainchant of the Latin mass.

I find attending mass on Sunday and listening to the gospel, and often (not always ) the sermon, always teaches me or reminds me of something helpful about how to live my life. It provides a point in the week to stand back a bit, regain a sense of proportion and spend an hour in another, more timeless, world. I meet a quite different cross-section of the community from my daily comfortable middle-class bubble. And I enjoy the singing.

So there you have it. I suspect my reasons for religious observance are not far from those of very many people, actually. If you are not brought up with it, these reasons may seem inadequate, but there we are.

As it happens, my son has decided he doesn't believe in it and has stopped coming to church now. But he wants to study history at university, as his grandfather did. And he can look at a painting, or the frieze above a church door, or listen to a piece of religious music, and understand what it portrays.

Interesting story, thanks for sharing. I'm sorry to hear about your wife's cancer. I'm guessing a lot of people who go to church are actually agnostic too, but just won't admit it.

 

[BSM1]

I'm not postponing slacking off until I become decrepit.
Do'n it now, & live'n the dream!

Sage advice...

 

[exchemist]

Interesting story, thanks for sharing. I'm sorry to hear about your wife's cancer. I'm guessing a lot of people who go to church are actually agnostic too, but just won't admit it.

That may be true. In a sense I suspect most of us are agnostic in that very few are free from all doubt - even the clergy. As for admitting it, first one has to recognise it and label it. Many people, I'm sure, go through life attending church and occasionally telling the priest with regret about the weakness of their faith, though they would not think of using the term agnostic about themselves.

There was an interesting thread a while back in which @Vouthon described the medieval attitude to faith. It appears that it emphasised much more the virtue of participation in the traditions and ritual of the community and was less insistent in demanding total intellectual buy-in than the modern, post-Reformation Protestant conception of faith which, partly perhaps due to getting rid of the ceremony, seems to expect more explicit avowals of complete belief. My worry about that approach is that I suspect it forces people into doublespeak - and doublethink.

 

[ChristineM]

Isn't this what is expected of us as we age? Like becoming more religious (or even religious at all), getting more grumpy (but not in my nature really), and becoming more right-wing (probably long overdue but again not really going to happen). For the the religious aspect, it seems I lack any motivation or incentives for doing so - mainly because I just can't accept the writings from the past that speak of anything other than what seems reasonable to me anyway, so why would they affect me at all? The grumpiness aspect has been proven to be a lie (for most oldies), in that people tend to be happier as they get older rather than more grumpy - we even tolerate and make light of the many disadvantages of ageing - knowing that the rest will probably have to endure them too, or have even worse. The right-wing position has never made any sense to me so that is unlikely to change.

So old age can go suck a duck!

I first heard this from Billy Connolly but i believe it originated with Jack Nicholson.

Spoiler: Parental advisory : Thing to remember in old age.

Never pass up a toilet.
Never waste a hard-on.
And never trust a fart.

 

[Secret Chief]

I first heard this from Billy Connolly but i believe it originated with Jack Nicholson.

Spoiler: Parental advisory : Thing to remember in old age.

Never pass up a toilet.
Never waste a hard-on.
And never trust a fart.

Wait, so men have to rememember 50% more things than women?

Old men should hold demos:

What do we want?
We've forgotten!
When do we want it?
We're not sure!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That may be true. In a sense I suspect most of us are agnostic in that very few are free from all doubt - even the clergy. As for admitting it, first one has to recognise it and label it. Many people, I'm sure, go through life attending church and occasionally telling the priest with regret about the weakness of their faith, though they would not think of using the term agnostic about themselves.

There was an interesting thread a while back in which @Vouthon described the medieval attitude to faith. It appears that it emphasised much more the virtue of participation in the traditions and ritual of the community and was less insistent in demanding total intellectual buy-in than the modern, post-Reformation Protestant conception of faith which, partly perhaps due to getting rid of the ceremony, seems to expect more explicit avowals of complete belief. My worry about that approach is that I suspect it forces people into doublespeak - and doublethink.

I think that all of us are agnostic whether we admit it or not in the sense that no one truly knows how the universe began or what happens when we die. But we can label ourselves "theist" or "atheist" depending on which way we lean. I grew up in a hardcore evangelical Protestant church and I remember the first time I was old enough to understand the faith. I remember the pastor saying that you have to "believe in Jesus" to go to heaven (I must have been around 3-5 years old). I remember I asked myself if I believed and basically "hoped" I believed because I didn't want to go to hell, but I really didn't understand (and still don't quite understand) what level of faith constitutes "belief." I remember when I was around 12-13 taking communion, I used to try to mentally work myself up into a state where I was convinced the religion was true because I figured I'd be damned if I didn't "believe hard enough" when I was taking the communion. The whole idea is really dumb to me now. What kind of a religion makes outrageous, unverifiable claims and requires that people unquestioningly and gullibly believe them in order to go to heaven? Why is having faith without evidence a virtue? That, to me, is ridiculous and is a good indicator that the religion is false if the main way they get people to believe in the religion is to threaten them with hellfire for not believing in it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I first heard this from Billy Connolly but i believe it originated with Jack Nicholson.

Spoiler: Parental advisory : Thing to remember in old age.

Never pass up a toilet.
Never waste a hard-on.
And never trust a fart.

Can't figure out what that middle one is - bad memory. But rather good advice.

 

[exchemist]

I think that all of us are agnostic whether we admit it or not in the sense that no one truly knows how the universe began or what happens when we die. But we can label ourselves "theist" or "atheist" depending on which way we lean. I grew up in a hardcore evangelical Protestant church and I remember the first time I was old enough to understand the faith. I remember the pastor saying that you have to "believe in Jesus" to go to heaven (I must have been around 3-5 years old). I remember I asked myself if I believed and basically "hoped" I believed because I didn't want to go to hell, but I really didn't understand (and still don't quite understand) what level of faith constitutes "belief." I remember when I was around 12-13 taking communion, I used to try to mentally work myself up into a state where I was convinced the religion was true because I figured I'd be damned if I didn't "believe hard enough" when I was taking the communion. The whole idea is really dumb to me now. What kind of a religion makes outrageous, unverifiable claims and requires that people unquestioningly and gullibly believe them in order to go to heaven? Why is having faith without evidence a virtue? That, to me, is ridiculous and is a good indicator that the religion is false if the main way they get people to believe in the religion is to threaten them with hellfire for not believing in it.

Well you see that is just the experience I did NOT have - though I don't pretend that such attitudes don't exist, a bit, in the Catholic church too. But the tradition of salvation through works as well as faith, and of confession, which acknowledges we are all imperfect, from the pope down, somewhat helps to make such naive saved/damned dichotomies less prevalent. Our parish priest, when I was a child, was a very kindly, though personally ascetic, man - and intelligent enough to realise that facile arguments would not work with people who were being taught to think for themselves. By not pushing us too hard, and by seeing his task as being welcoming to people who had shaky faith, he ended up doing a better job.

 

[ChristineM]

Wait, so men have to rememember 50% more things than women?

Old men should hold demos:

What do we want?
We've forgotten!
When do we want it?
We're not sure!

I am not there yet but 50% of 3 things is probably kind of difficult.

Having said that, men have to remember nothing, their women will tell them what to do at the right time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well you see that is just the experience I did NOT have - though I don't pretend that such attitudes don't exist, a bit, in the Catholic church too. But the tradition of salvation through works as well as faith, and of confession, which acknowledges we are all imperfect, from the pope down, somewhat helps to make such naive saved/damned dichotomies less prevalent. Our parish priest, when I was a child, was a very kindly, though personally ascetic, man - and intelligent enough to realise that facile arguments would not work with people who were being taught to think for themselves. By not pushing us too hard, and by seeing his task as being welcoming to people who had shaky faith, he ended up doing a better job.

Interesting. I wonder if that attitude is more common in Europe than the US. It seems that the Catholics here place belief as being very important too, though not quite as much as Protestants. But in my Lutheran church growing up--belief was the ONLY thing that mattered. Their doctrine was that works literally counted for nothing, it was believe and be saved, don't believe and be damned. Even as a kid long before I consciously stopped believing, I would occasionally have brief moments where I'd think to myself "They're telling me if I believe this crazy stuff I go to heaven and if I don't, I go to hell--this sounds like a fairy tale..." but then I'd immediately suppress the thought.

 

[exchemist]

Interesting. I wonder if that attitude is more common in Europe than the US. It seems that the Catholics here place belief as being very important too, though not quite as much as Protestants. But in my Lutheran church growing up--belief was the ONLY thing that mattered. Their doctrine was that works literally counted for nothing, it was believe and be saved, don't believe and be damned. Even as a kid long before I consciously stopped believing, I would occasionally have brief moments where I'd think to myself "They're telling me if I believe this crazy stuff I go to heaven and if I don't, I go to hell--this sounds like a fairy tale..." but then I'd immediately suppress the thought.

Belief is always important to any religion of course. However, realising it often comes and goes and that threatening people with hellfire if they don't swallow the medicine will be either damaging or counterproductive, is something that does not seem to occur to every pastor.

 

[halbhh]

I have looked at most of the major faiths and their tenets, but one can't escape the fact that if I don't really believe in any God then it follows that religious beliefs don't make any sense either.

That's pretty interesting, because I did also. But I did decide to test out one certain proposition ("religious belief"):

"Love you neighbor as yourself."
(Gospel of Mark chapter 12, v 31)

An interesting proposition, in that it's saying not just selected/chosen neighbors only, but instead each one you encounter, no matter who.

So, it was a change, for me, to try out, in that like many I was already ok at loving selected people -- certain people only, whom I'd chosen, and not others. Some friends.

I had been doing: "Love some selected friends, and be polite to your neighbor but ignore them usually when it's not rude to do so."

So, it was a change, and the results, time and again, were just truly surprising to me.

What made you reach any conclusion about this "religious belief" (as you named such), and what was your conclusion? Or did you try this one out, with the random neighbors adjacent, already, and if so, what happened? My results were so good I thought I was just lucky, and kept testing it again with new people, trying to find even just 1 bad outcome, but could not over many years. (now I was doing it in a whole-hearted way though, which took overcoming my own resistance. it wasn't just casual politeness)

 

[Secret Chief]

I am not there yet but 50% of 3 things is probably kind of difficult.

Having said that, men have to remember nothing, their women will tell them what to do at the right time.

I am there, and 50% more than 2 is easy!

 

[Thief]

one....is the loneliest number that you'll ever do
two can be as bad as one.....

I forget the rest

 

[BSM1]

one....is the loneliest number that you'll ever do
two can be as bad as one.....

I forget the rest

"...get off my lawn..."

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's pretty interesting, because I did also. But I did decide to test out one certain proposition ("religious belief"):

"Love you neighbor as yourself."
(Gospel of Mark chapter 12, v 31)

An interesting proposition, in that it's saying not just selected/chosen neighbors only, but instead each one you encounter, no matter who.

So, it was a change, for me, to try out, in that like many I was already ok at loving selected people -- certain people only, whom I'd chosen, and not others. Some friends.

I had been doing: "Love some selected friends, and be polite to your neighbor but ignore them usually when it's not rude to do so."

So, it was a change, and the results, time and again, were just truly surprising to me.

What made you reach any conclusion about this "religious belief" (as you named such), and what was your conclusion? Or did you try this one out, with the random neighbors adjacent, already, and if so, what happened? My results were so good I thought I was just lucky, and kept testing it again with new people, trying to find even just 1 bad outcome, but could not over many years. (now I was doing it in a whole-hearted way though, which took overcoming my own resistance. it wasn't just casual politeness)

The sheer number of different religious beliefs made me suspicious (being about 11 when I discovered such) and the various claims made by the major faiths also didn't make any sense to me - in the scientific sense. So when I looked further into the various tenets believed, the differences between beliefs, the history of the major religions, and what much was based upon - the texts not exactly having a 'clean' history, and often being contradictory - it seemed to me, and still does, that they were all just creations and projections from various humans - for whatever reasons - and where the motivations might have been purely honourable.

I had some rather good teaching from my mother, her example was enough, such that perhaps that is why I never felt the need to look much further into any particular religious belief, although Buddhism was, and still is, the nearest I could have an affinity towards. We were not particularly religious as a family, even though my mother tried to get me to go to the local Methodist church as a child, but when I preferred to be elsewhere she never insisted I went. She might have been religious to some extent but she never displayed such to the rest of us, and my father didn't seem to have anything religious about his nature.

As I said, I seem to have enough without any sort of religious belief, and have no issues with how I see the world and other people - it's much like what you say - and the Golden Rule. I have some small doubts as to any God or creative force existing but overall I can't see such having any effect on us here on Earth - it just doesn't make any sense, to me at least.

 

[BSM1]

The sheer number of different religious beliefs made me suspicious (being about 11 when I discovered such) and the various claims made by the major faiths also didn't make any sense to me - in the scientific sense. So when I looked further into the various tenets believed, the differences between beliefs, the history of the major religions, and what much was based upon - the texts not exactly having a 'clean' history, and often being contradictory - it seemed to me, and still does, that they were all just creations and projections from various humans - for whatever reasons - and where the motivations might have been purely honourable.

I had some rather good teaching from my mother, her example was enough, such that perhaps that is why I never felt the need to look much further into any particular religious belief, although Buddhism was, and still is, the nearest I could have an affinity towards. We were not particularly religious as a family, even though my mother tried to get me to go to the local Methodist church as a child, but when I preferred to be elsewhere she never insisted I went. She might have been religious to some extent but she never displayed such to the rest of us, and my father didn't seem to have anything religious about his nature.

As I said, I seem to have enough without any sort of religious belief, and have no issues with how I see the world and other people - it's much like what you say - and the Golden Rule. I have some small doubts as to any God or creative force existing but overall I can't see such having any effect on us here on Earth - it just doesn't make any sense, to me at least.

I was thirteen when I started looking around. Up to that point I was raised in a totally religious family. I have found many answers to my own set of questions by seeking for myself. One thing that I have found about 'religious' people (and this has grown more prevalent over the years) is that they would rather be 'right' than to hear a truth from someone else. Makes for an instant discussion killer.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was thirteen when I started looking around. Up to that point I was raised in a totally religious family. I have found many answers to my own set of questions by seeking for myself. One thing that I have found about 'religious' people (and this has grown more prevalent over the years) is that they would rather be 'right' than to hear a truth from someone else. Makes for an instant discussion killer.

Well there is that, and how many do actually explore other religions or even try to place themselves in the position of not believing in any God and to see how much sense it makes or doesn't. I suppose it depends upon how honest one is all too often, as to looking at evidence that supports either position.