The Religious Case Against Belief

[Storm]

At services the other week, the Rev. Kate Lore gave a fascinating sermon titled The Religious Case Against Belief. (Available in .pdf format here, look for July 26.)

Now, I've yet to read it over to get the nuances I no doubt missed, but the message I got from this was that we should not allow details of theology to divide us. Instead, we should be united by the universal goal of religion: to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always. That religion is - or should be - about gathering together in this common cause, and in allowing thological minutia to divide us, we forget our commonalities, to our detriment.

Your thoughts?

 

[tumbleweed41]

That religion is - or should be - about gathering together in this common cause, and in allowing thological minutia to divide us, we forget our commonalities, to our detriment.

Your thoughts?

Couldn't agree more.
The one aspect in our city where I do see this is our multi-church food bank. Many denominations contributing to a common food bank to help those in need.
If only this attitude could be expanded to other needs of the community.

 

[rojse]

At services the other week, the Rev. Kate Lore gave a fascinating sermon titled The Religious Case Against Belief. (Available in .pdf format here, look for July 26.)

Now, I've yet to read it over to get the nuances I no doubt missed, but the message I got from this was that we should not allow details of theology to divide us. Instead, we should be united by the universal goal of religion: to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always. That religion is - or should be - about gathering together in this common cause, and in allowing thological minutia to divide us, we forget our commonalities, to our detriment.

Your thoughts?

Sounds great, but I don't see it happening. Too many groups doing their best to kill eachother or proclaim that they are the one, true faith. Too much emphasis on prostheletyzation. Too much emphasis on what group you claim to belong to, rather than your deeds and actions.

 

[Panda]

At services the other week, the Rev. Kate Lore gave a fascinating sermon titled The Religious Case Against Belief. (Available in .pdf format here, look for July 26.)

Now, I've yet to read it over to get the nuances I no doubt missed, but the message I got from this was that we should not allow details of theology to divide us. Instead, we should be united by the universal goal of religion: to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always. That religion is - or should be - about gathering together in this common cause, and in allowing thological minutia to divide us, we forget our commonalities, to our detriment.

Your thoughts?

Sounds good but I disagree with the premise that all religions have the same universal goals because they most certainly don't.

 

[Storm]

Sounds good but I disagree with the premise that all religions have the same universal goals because they most certainly don't.

Could you elaborate?

When it comes right down to it, I think religion seeks to bring out the best in us. It often fails, and what is "best" is certainly subject to cultural differences, but I do see a theme.

 

[Panda]

Could you elaborate?

Ok, it is my understanding that the ultimate goal of Mormonism is to become like God. This is not the same as the ultimate goal of a catholic which is to go to heaven.

When it comes right down to it, I think religion seeks to bring out the best in us. It often fails, and what is "best" is certainly subject to cultural differences, but I do see a theme.

I completely disagree with this. I think a lot of religions the original "goal" was to be a means of control on the people.

 

[Storm]

Ok, it is my understanding that the ultimate goal of Mormonism is to become like God. This is not the same as the ultimate goal of a catholic which is to go to heaven.

And how do they acheive these goals? By being good people.

I completely disagree with this. I think a lot of religions the original "goal" was to be a means of control on the people.

How cynical of you.

 

[Panda]

And how do they acheive these goals? By being good people.

Oh I see, I misunderstood what was being said..

How cynical of you.

Would it be better if I said it was the original goal of those who took control of said religion?

 

[Storm]

Oh I see, I misunderstood what was being said..

Coolness.

Would it be better if I said it was the original goal of those who took control of said religion?

Yes. Politics is inevitable. It's not the same thing, though.

 

[blackout]

And how do they acheive these goals? By being good people.

The definition of "good people" can vary widely.

 

[J Bryson]

The definition of "good people" can vary widely.

True. However, communities...heck, the human species has survived this long through the positive reinforcement of and common definitions of good behavior.

 

[Storm]

The definition of "good people" can vary widely.

A fact which I acknowledged.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Your thoughts?

Any time people organize themselves into separate, identifiable groups, interactions between those groups will primarily be conflicts based on whatever differences exist. Additionally, the view that the common goal of all religions is "to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always" seems like a rather incomplete and overly optimistic view of religious belief and institutions.

 

[Storm]

Any time people organize themselves into separate, identifiable groups, interactions between those groups will primarily be conflicts based on whatever differences exist.

Sad but true. However, I think one of the points of the sermon was that religion CAN offer a better way.

Additionally, the view that the common goal of all religions is "to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always" seems like a rather incomplete and overly optimistic view of religious belief and institutions.

Perhaps. Could you elaborate on what you think I'm missing?

 

[blackout]

True. However, communities...heck, the human species has survived this long through the positive reinforcement of and common definitions of good behavior.

"survival" alone is nothing much to write home about.

I for one have no interest whatsoever in "good behavior".
(or the enforcement... reinforcement of such)
'Behavior' in general is an overrated concept.

Living Smart... seems ... well...much smarter.
But the BEe - hive (mind) prefers Behivioral conformity.

If everyone just loved & lived deeply from the font of their own cistern...
(including the untouchable elite)
(the) ALL would be 'WELL'.

This does not require religion at all.

 

[J Bryson]

"survival" alone is nothing much to write home about.

I for one have no interest whatsoever in "good behavior".
(or the enforcement... reinforcement of such)
'Behavior' in general is an overrated concept.

Living Smart... seems ... well...much smarter.
But the BEe - hive (mind) prefers Behivioral conformity.

If everyone just loved & lived deeply from the font of their own cistern...
(including the untouchable elite)
(the) ALL would be 'WELL'.

This does not require religion at all.

There are those who have no cistern to drink from, or are at least unaware of its presence.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sad but true. However, I think one of the points of the sermon was that religion CAN offer a better way.

Seeing that religions are simply identifiable groups based on the same psychological and sociological forces as other identifiable groups, I guess I don't really see why or how religions would be any different.

Perhaps. Could you elaborate on what you think I'm missing?

Just that the reasons and motivations that cause people to identify with a group, and the motivations and goals of any group, religious or not, are more complex and varied than only the positive aspects you listed. Nor, are they necessarily consistent, but often change drastically depending on the group's place in, and relation to, the environment of the larger world in which they exist.

 

[Storm]

This does not require religion at all.

No, of course not. But religion has the capacity.

Seeing that religions are simply identifiable groups based on the same psychological and sociological forces as other identifiable groups, I guess I don't really see why or how religions would be any different.

Well, first off, I'm not claiming that religion is unique or irreplaceable.

However, it is unusual in that this is one of its goals.

Just that the reasons and motivations that cause people to identify with a group, and the motivations and goals of any group, religious or not, are more complex and varied than only the positive aspects you listed. Nor, are they necessarily consistent, but often change drastically depending on the group's place in, and relation to, the environment of the larger world in which they exist.

Fair enough.

 

[blackout]

Now, I've yet to read it over to get the nuances I no doubt missed, but the message I got from this was that we should not allow details of theology to divide us. Instead, we should be united by the universal goal of religion: to live well, to love others, and act with kindness and compassion always.

Your thoughts?

I don't know if these things might have anything to do with the universal goal of religion,
but they are generally good principles to uphold.
Especially the first two.

Where people "act" from ... or who or what they might act with ...
I believe has far more room for variation.
(than kindness and compassion)

 

[Nepenthe]

Sad but true. However, I think one of the points of the sermon was that religion CAN offer a better way.

I agree that one of her points in the sermon was that religion can overcome these schisms when they "seek a place to grow spiritually in an environment that does not shun doubt, agnosticism or atheism." Or "experience the freedom of belief." (which I assume she means non-belief as well). It comes to a point where the religious beliefs of say, you Storm, or Painted Wolf (I have to capitalize names even if they don't... I blame ocd), or most deists/pantheists/Quakers/Reform Jews/etc., do differ from my views, but not so much that it has any real world implications. Particularly when it comes to the big conflicts ranging from science education to human rights.

See, when she starts sayin' stuff like "every major religious tradition seeks to impart a sense of wonder, of mystery and awe, of humility, of openness to creation. Yet the belief systems associated with religions stop this cold. This is because belief systems start where our thinking stops. Once we think we have explained it all, once we think we have all the answers, we cut ourselves off from new ideas and new experience." I throw my hands up inthe air and wonder why can't more religions explain themselves so succinctly, eloquently and encouragingly?! She describes my secular godless awe at the universe with the same language in which she experiences hers.

"...dualistic thinking often subscribed to religion and science: on the one side is a set of fixed beliefs, resistant to the slightest modification; on the other is the open and free inquiry into the nature of the physical world."
Wonderful. I may have to plagarize that.