Here I go again

Posted by: bonzi

Here I go again - 31/03/2005 19:24

(Warning: people having enough of my discussing religion-related subjects might want to skip this thread, but I would rather if they wouldn't )

AlterNet recently run an article on organized religion in the USA titled The End of Reason. The piece, predictably, stirred quite a discussion (on average of rather disappointing qualitiy).

Let me ask one question raised in the article:
How would you define the difference between faith and superstition?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 19:39

Quote:
How would you define the difference between faith and superstition?

Interesting question.

I quickly checked the dictionary definitions, the most applicable sub-definitions in this kind of discussion would be:

Faith
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

Supersition
- An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
- A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

You weren't asking for the dictionary definitions, but I find it interesting that the two dictionary definitions share a few similar points.

To an atheist, religious faith looks identical to superstition. Belief in magic is the same, whether the magic is perpertrated by deities from a Bible or by pagan forces.

To a theist, superstition means a belief in magics other than those found in their religion, and would therefore be considered specifically sacreligious. There's a clear difference.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 19:41

Before this gets ugly, I will say my two cents worth and then run for cover.

Much of it is point of view. Faith is if you are the believer, superstition is if you are not.

I would add that there seem to be connotations that faith is usually thought of as a more positive, complex / interrelated / singular system of beliefs, while superstition has more negative connotations, being more associated with individual events / actions / rituals that do not appear to be interrelated to each other.

Again, this is all perspective and point of view. You may not personally have faith, but still recognize something as faith if you share a common context. If you do not share a common understanding, any singular event seems a random instance, perhaps nonsensical out of context, and is often perceived as a superstition.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 19:53

The Christians and the Pagans
by Dar Williams

Amber called her uncle, said 'we're up here for the holiday,
Jane and I were having solstice, now we need a place to stay.'
And her Christ-loving uncle watched his wife hang Mary on a tree,
He watched his son hang candy canes, all made with red dye number three.
He told his niece, 'it's Christmas eve, I know our life is not your style,'
She said, 'Christmas is like solstice, and we miss you and it's been a while.'

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
And just before the meal was served, hands were held and prayers were said,
Sending hope for peace on Earth to all their gods and goddesses.

The food was great, the tree plugged in, the meal had gone without a hitch,
Till Timmy turned to Amber and said, 'is it true that you're a witch?'
His mom jumped up and said, 'the pies are burning,' and she hit the kitchen,
And it was Jane who spoke, she said, 'it's true, your cousin's not a Christian,'
'but we love trees, we love the snow, the friends we have, the world we share,
And you find magic from your God, and we find magic everywhere,'

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
And where does magic come from? I think magic's in the learning,
Cause now when Christians sit with Pagans, only pumpkin pies are burning.

When Amber tried to do the dishes, her aunt said, 'really, no, don't bother.'
Amber's uncle saw how Amber looked like Tim and like her father.
He thought about his brother, how they hadn't spoken in a year,
He thought he'd call him up and say, 'its Christmas and your daughter's here.'
He thought of fathers, sons and brothers, saw his own son tug his sleeve, saying,
'can I be a Pagan?' Dad said, 'we'll discuss it when they leave.'

So the Christians and the Pagans sat together at the table,
Finding faith and common ground the best that they were able,
Lighting trees in darkness, learning new ways from the old,
Making sense of history and drawing warmth out of the cold.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 19:58

Quote:
Before this gets ugly, I will say my two cents worth and then run for cover.

Aw come on, this is not the first time we discuss similar questions politely (hence the warning)

Quote:
I would add that there seem to be connotations that faith is usually thought of as a more positive, complex / interrelated / singular system of beliefs, while superstition has more negative connotations, being more associated with individual events / actions / rituals that do not appear to be interrelated to each other.

Again, this is all perspective and point of view. You may not personally have faith, but still recognize something as faith if you share a common context. If you do not share a common understanding, any singular event seems a random instance, perhaps nonsensical out of context, and is often perceived as a superstition.

That is more or less the most people discussing there at LaterNet got: faith is, shall we say, more complex and all-encompassing, while superstition is more particular and unsystematic.

But the problem is with the second part of Tony's definition: all too often this boils down to 'my faith is faith, others are superstitions'. The author has some fresh examples from American political life.

BTW, I saw there a guy declaring himself a 'practicing Atheist'. How the heck does one practice atheism?! In a Church of No Particular God!? (I asked him that and am expecting the answer with interest )

Others?
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:02

Quote:
I saw there a guy declaring himself a 'practicing Atheist'. How the heck does one practice atheism?!

He probably meant it as a joke, in reference to the common argument, made by theists, that atheism is also a religion, requring faith in many things.

He could also mean that he's outspoken, strong, and specific about his atheism, in the Douglas Adams sense.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:03

That's beautiful, Tony, and of course, exactly on the point.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:06

I hope so, but he sounded dead serious
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:08

Quote:
To an atheist, religious faith looks identical to superstition. Belief in magic is the same, whether the magic is perpertrated by deities from a Bible or by pagan forces.

To a theist, superstition means a belief in magics other than those found in their religion, and would therefore be considered specifically sacreligious. There's a clear difference.
Nail on the head, I think.

I read the article and there is LOT I can say in response, but I don’t have the time now.

For now I’ll stick with this statement
Quote:
Taking a proposition "on faith" means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts.


I think this is not true. Taking something on faith means that you are taking into account additional premises than others may consider, and this will definitely alter a belief. If a person’s premise is that the bible is inerrant, then they will clearly come to a different conclusion when looking at question than someone else will. In fact, even two people who believe the bible is inerrant will come to different conclusions depending on what thy think “inerrant” means- most people’s definition of this is NOT the way theologians use the term.

We all assess questions based on premises. For some spiritual faith is a premise; for others it is not. If you do not possess such a premise, to you it becomes a “superstition”. I know of many people who would label reason and logic as “superstition”. What makes one premise more right than another? Well, if when put into practice it is born out, I guess. For many, like me, spiritual faith has born out, just like reason and logic. I operate under both premises, that my faith is true and that reason and logic are true as well. When the two are in disharmony, well that’s when I work to find a solution between the two. Often I have to throw up my hands and say “I don’t know”, because I just can’t resolve the difference. Neither premise trumps the other, for me. For God gave us logic and reason as much as He gave us scripture.

To that end, it seems perfectly reasonable that a Catholic would not want “The Da Vinci Code” being sold in a Catholic bookstore. If you accept the Catholic premise, then it makes sense that you would not want to promote books that defy it. You might read them, consider them, argue against them, but until you are convinced your premise is wrong, it is unreasonable to expect you to promote them.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:12

Well, I would like to say that the point of view of the perceiver and person answering "is it faith or superstition" is critical. Someone without the background or context of any belief system as random individual acts. Therefore someone without that background will see superstition. It does not take any belief to allow the perceiver to recognize something as faith, even if they do not believe it themselves. It merely takes enough understanding and context to recognize that the acts / rituals / etc. are interconnected by something greater.

The concept of "my faith is faith, others are supersitions" is a biased perspective where the perceiver does not, or chooses not to, appreciate the complexity of the individual actions / beliefs and chooses to minimalize these conflicting views by selecting term with negative connotations to dismiss the concept.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:13

Quote:
That's beautiful, Tony, and of course, exactly on the point.

Yeah, one of many songs I wish I'd written.

It was N6mod from this very BBS who turned me on to Dar Williams, now I'm like this huge slobbering fan.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:16

Quote:
When the two are in disharmony, well that’s when I work to find a solution between the two. Often I have to throw up my hands and say “I don’t know”, because I just can’t resolve the difference.

A very enlightened point of view, IMO.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:26

Quote:
But the problem is with the second part of Tony's definition: all too often this boils down to 'my faith is faith, others are superstitions'. The author has some fresh examples from American political life.
He does, and I’d really love to comment on them all. The general sense I get, though, is that he believes that when critical thinking and faith are in disharmony, critical thinking should win out. Why? Because it’s worked out so well for him? What about the premises of all those people he disagree with, but whose beliefs have been bourn out time and time again?

I know you’re probably cringing that I’d put critical thinking on the same level as a religion, but should critical thinking get a pass and get trump power over everything else? If so, why? What about the people who don’t think that critical thinking is of any value (and there are plenty of those)? Is it right to just overrule what they want and put in a system that is better for them?

That political leaders would make decisions based on their premises makes all the sense in the world. I know there’s a lot of talk about “values” recently, but all politics is about values- in a sense politics is the practical working out of our values. And we all get an equal say in what we think is a valid source for our values, be it critical thinking or religion.

Some of the examples do show how individuals can abuse their power. Specifically the idea of allowing ONLY the ten commandments displayed is a great example. But just because some people have adopted such an attitude doesn’t mean that all people of faith have, or that allowing faith to guide a political decision is wrong. I realize that having George W. up there making decisions on the basis of faith scares a lot of people, but having a leader who doesn’t is an idea that scares a lot of other people. Ultimately it just all comes down to what the majority wants for a given time period. Fortunately we all have the opportunity to convince others to view their premises differently so we can get the kind of leadership we want if what we have right now isn’t it.

It’s a balancing act to have a society where people are free to believe what they will. In a sense, it seems like there are a lot of critical thinkers who want people of faith to “believe whatever you want, just don’t act on it.” But it is irrational to allow someone to believe something and then expect them not act like they do.

Jeff
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:49

I think superstition is when you at least realize that you're trying to fool yourself.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 20:54

Quote:
What makes one premise more right than another? Well, if when put into practice it is born out, I guess. For many, like me, spiritual faith has born out, just like reason and logic.

First, "borne".

Second, please define how your faith has been borne out.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:03

More tomorrow, but I cannot resist this bit before going to bed:

Quote:
What about the people who don’t think that critical thinking is of any value (and there are plenty of those)?

I invite them to live by their convictions and give up medicine, tools, shelter, cars, food, army that defends them from infidels and other such illusions 'brought to you by critical thinking'.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:33

Quote:
First, "borne".
Heh, thanks. As you can tell, I've been trying to figure out the spelling. Should have opened up a dictionary . . .

Quote:
Second, please define how your faith has been borne out.
Through experience and observation. When following the precepts of Christianity as I understand them, God has proven faithful and worthy of trust.

One of the most immediate illustrations has been my wife’s physical battles. As you know from my rant before, it has been an immensely difficult time for us both. She is having her 14th surgery on Monday since we’ve been married, which will be 6 years on May 22nd. We’ve been through a lot with all of these medical problems, both physically and mentally. When I say God has given us both a supernatural endurance through this, I don’t mean that in any sense except for the miraculous. Have people managed through such things without God? Sure. Could we have? I seriously doubt it- at least not as well as we have.

In the past six years there have been numerous opportunities for resentment, anger, fear, depression, and many other things to hinder our marriage. I can tell you that personally there have been times of intense anger and frustration, especially when some of the rather extreme drugs have altered my wife’s behavior so she didn’t even seem like the woman I married. Left to my own logic or actions, in those times I’d have reacted far differently than I did. It was faith that led me to pray with my wife; it was faith that told me it was my job to serve her no matter what the cost to myself; it was faith that told her to trust my judgment for the hard decisions, even when she disagreed. And ultimately it was faith that said no matter what happened, we live under grace, are loved completely by God, and have an ultimate hope in Jesus Christ that one day the suffering of this world would fall away.

I realize that not being in my skin, there’s no way to really understand what this is and has been like. All I can say is, were it not for my faith I know my marriage would be in shambles right now, as would I. And this is but one example of MANY where my faith has proven to lead me to a life that is better than it ever could have been without.

Of course you can always say that my faith is just a placebo that produces results because it is the belief that is important, not the substance. All I can say is that there have been too many “right moments” and “coincidences” for me to believe it isn’t true. This, of course, is where Tony pops in to link to the skeptic’s dictionary about Confirmation Bias. True enough that you have to be cautious with experience, but in the end everything we believe is believed on the evidence of experience- even science and reason. I cannot think of anything that has been proven to me so completely as my faith in Jesus Christ.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:36

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What about the people who don’t think that critical thinking is of any value (and there are plenty of those)?

I invite them to live by their convictions and give up medicine, tools, shelter, cars, food, army that defends them from infidels and other such illusions 'brought to you by critical thinking'.


Sure, but until they take you up on your invitation, in a society of tolerence their right to believe and act upon this must be respected, as is your right to believe and act upon critical thinking.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:37

Quote:
This, of course, is where Tony pops in to link to the skeptic’s dictionary about Confirmation Bias.

Heh. I wasn't gonna do that. You know what you're talking about. You're someone who maintains your faith and convictions, even when you know that there are other possible explanations for your experiences. I respect that.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:39

Quote:
This, of course, is where Tony pops in to link to the skeptic’s dictionary about Confirmation Bias.

I'd add to that my belief that the human brain is obsessed with finding patterns.

I wonder in some way if the reason your faith exists isn't related to how I see a face in a 3-prong electrical outlet.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 21:48

Quote:
Heh. I wasn't gonna do that. You know what you're talking about. You're someone who maintains your faith and convictions, even when you know that there are other possible explanations for your experiences. I respect that.
Thanks Tony, it means a lot to me that you (and others here) can respect these beliefs, as different and polarizing as they are. I’ve said it before, but this bbs is one of the most tolerant groups of people I’ve ever been a part of.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 31/03/2005 22:11

Quote:
I wonder in some way if the reason your faith exists isn't related to how I see a face in a 3-prong electrical outlet.

Naw, confirmation bias and pareidolia are two separate things.

(see, got the link in there anway! )
Posted by: peter

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 08:00

Quote:
BTW, I saw there a guy declaring himself a 'practicing Atheist'. How the heck does one practice atheism?! In a Church of No Particular God!? (I asked him that and am expecting the answer with interest )

Others?

I knew someone who called himself a "devout atheist", by which he meant he was an atheist and he thought it mattered that he was an atheist. I'm an atheist ("the only sin is to dehumanise" -- actually maybe that makes me a humanist), but I'm not that devout.

As for superstition versus faith, I've always understood it as one of the "irregular verbs" beloved of the programme Yes Minister:
Quote:
"It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I have an independant mind,
you are eccentric,
he is round the twist"

"That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I give confidential briefings,
you leak,
he is being prosecuted under section 2a of the official secrets act"

I have faith,
you are superstitious,
he is a witch (burn him).

Peter
Posted by: tahir

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 10:18

How rational is atheism? We still have to accept that somehow we were created, all that matter out in the universe came from somewhere, didn't it???
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 20:25

A question that can be equally posed to theists, by the way.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 20:31

Although it would seem they would have a simpler answer.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 20:37

Maybe I have my terms confused, but I always thought a "non devout" atheist was better described by the term "agnostic."
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 21:18

Quote:

Maybe I have my terms confused, but I always thought a "non devout" atheist was better described by the term "agnostic."
I the classical definition of "Agnostic" is more proactive than that- not only does he or she not know, but believes that one CANNOT know.

Your definition is the more popular understanding these days, however, and is listed as the second defition on dictionary.com
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 01/04/2005 21:28

Quote:
Maybe I have my terms confused, but I always thought a "non devout" atheist was better described by the term "agnostic."


Something I cover at filk cons. Imagine a bouncy gospel number and you'll get the melody in your head. Note the parenthetical bits are the backup singers doing call-and-response type stuff.



"An Agnostic Gospel Song"
by Andy Corwin of "Actual Size"

There is a train, (train, train)
that is bound for glory
But you won't find me on board...
If-you're-wonderin'-why, (why oh why)
come and listen to the story
Of why I'm not on a first name basis with the Lord

When I was a little child (just a little bitty tyke)
I used to read the gospel
and I prayed at night up in my room
But then I went to college (U.C.L.A.)
and the required reading
included Schopenhauer, Kant and David Hume

In a very short time (in the relative sense)
I had to declare my major
And I chose philosophy
'Cause I began to think (therefore I am)
that I could totally ace the midterm
Because I could already spell epistemology

By my Sophomore year (still living in the dorm)
I began to doubt and ponder
The-very-existence of "you know who"
I had become (a godless heathen)
I prefer the term "agnostic" (whatever)
Profound as Bertrand Russell, existential as Camus

Hey gimme that ol' Skepticism
Gimme that Logical Positivism
Dialectical Materialism's good enough for me

Oh, have you warshed in Einstein's theory that
Space/Time is curvulinear, not flat
or speculate each moment of your life is
as random as Schrödinger's cat

So today I stand here as a non-believer
But I'm tempted to change my ways
Cause recently
while I was thinking deeply
I realized agnostics don't have any holidays

There is a train, train, train
that is bound for glory
But you won't find me on board...
If-you're-wonderin'-why, (why oh why)
come and listen to the story
Of why I'm not on a first name basis with the Lord
Posted by: kayakjazz

Re: Here I go again - 02/04/2005 01:44

Quote:
the classical definition of "Agnostic" is more proactive than that- not only does he or she not know, but believes that one CANNOT know.


If we're trying to stick to any semblance of critical thinking, agnostism is the only stance that makes makes objective sense; it makes no more sense to be convinced there is not a supreme intelligence behind it all than that there is, though there's never any dearth of folks cxompletely invested in both. Makes sense to me that the finite mind isn't wired to comprehend the infinite...though there may be some value in trying.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 02/04/2005 02:02

At the same time, most agnostics tend to live their lives as atheists, since it seems silly to rely on something that you cannot define.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 02/04/2005 12:24

Quote:
Makes sense to me that the finite mind isn't wired to comprehend the infinite
No, I'd agree that it isn't. However, when talking about an agnostic we are not talking about comprehension but rather apprehension.

It is one thing to believe you can know there is I a God (I do) and quite another to say you can comprehend His nature (I don't, though I feel I understand bits and pieces)

There are tons of things in this world that I don’t understand and much that is beyond my comprehension, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in those things or refuse to interact with them.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Here I go again - 02/04/2005 17:52

There are tons of things in this world that I don’t understand and much that is beyond my comprehension, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in those things or refuse to interact with them.


Ah, but there's the rub! Many people (not you, Jeff!) take the point of view that "...if I can't explain it, then that's proof that God exists." and no amount of intelligent reasoning will dissuade them from this path of rather circular logic.

My agnosticism takes the form of "...I just don't have enough information to make a properly informed decision one way or the other, so I will withhold judgment."

tanstaafl.
Posted by: mcomb

Re: Here I go again - 02/04/2005 23:05

Quote:
One of the most immediate illustrations has been my wife’s physical battles.

It is remarkable to me that you find faith in your wife's situation which to me would serve as sufficient argument against the existence of God, or at least a God that cares about me. I find it hard to reconcile the viewpoint that the good things in life prove out the existence of God, but the bad things don't decrease the likelihood of his existence.

-Mike
Posted by: tahir

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 05:40

Quote:
A question that can be equally posed to theists, by the way.


Exactly, my point is that neither position is of itself any more rational than the other, whatever those rational atheists would have us believe.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 16:06

Quote:
Exactly, my point is that neither position is of itself any more rational than the other, whatever those rational atheists would have us believe.

Only with regard to the question about the initial origin of the universe itself.

With regard to other, more tangible questions such as the origins of the species on this planet, continuing to insist on a Creator in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the more irrational of the two viewpoints.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 17:07

Quote:
Of course you can always say that my faith is just a placebo that produces results because it is the belief that is important, not the substance.

Of course

Quote:
One of the most immediate illustrations has been my wife’s physical battles [...] it was faith that told me it was my job to serve her no matter what the cost to myself; it was faith that told her to trust my judgment for the hard decisions, even when she disagreed.

As I see it, it was your heart that told you to give whatever you can to your wife, and she trusted you because you earned her trust. You are simply good and strong people.

Quote:
I realize that not being in my skin, there’s no way to really understand what this is and has been like.

True, but as you know, I never stop trying

Perhaps (in this respect) we do not differ that much: I say you are good and strong, you say faith or Christ gives you strength and will to do what you know is good; OTOH, perhaps I trivialize your convictions. See 'placebo' above

I wrote more here, but you have immesurably more important things on your mind now. I hope everything will turn out right with the surgery tomorrow. My regards to your brave wife.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 17:17

Quote:
Naw, confirmation bias and pareidolia are two separate things.

Yes, and apophenia is yet another. I particularly like this part:

Quote:
According to Brugger, "The propensity to see connections between seemingly unrelated objects or ideas most closely links psychosis to creativity ... apophenia and creativity may even be seen as two sides of the same coin." Some of the most creative people in the world, then, must be psychoanalysts and therapists who use projective tests like the Rorschach test or who see patterns of child abuse behind every emotional problem. Brugger notes that one analyst thought he had support for the penis envy theory because more females than males failed to return their pencils after a test. Another spent nine pages in a prestigious journal describing how sidewalk cracks are vaginas and feet are penises, and the old saw about not stepping on cracks is actually a warning to stay away from the female sex organ.

Sadly, this lends support to some or our friend's sceptic attitude towards science and its supposedly rational approach. Then again, many of my physicist ex-colleagues would not grant a psychoanalysts the status of scientist if put under torture.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 17:39

Quote:
Only with regard to the question about the initial origin of the universe itself.

Not even that. Postulating a supernatural being that "started it all" does not contribute one iota to our understanding of the Universe; it is just another way of saying "I don't know". It is just, well, unnecessary; it solves nothing (but, to be fair, it does not hamper our quest for knowledge, either). Besides, only imagination is the limit when inventing such (non-interventionist) creative force; no description is any better than any other. Having no criteria to choose one, it is only logical to choose none, and leave this to the writers of SF novels*. (Kind of Occam's razor reasoning, I suppose...)

*) Scientists do think about this and sometimes choose the format of a novel for their musings. Sagan and Benford come to mind at the moment...
Posted by: bonzi

Re: Here I go again - 03/04/2005 17:56

Quote:
If we're trying to stick to any semblance of critical thinking, agnostism is the only stance that makes makes objective sense; it makes no more sense to be convinced there is not a supreme intelligence behind it all than that there is, though there's never any dearth of folks cxompletely invested in both.

True, but, as I said in another post, postulating such intelligence is arbitrary and does not answer any question.

However, I think that 'devout atheists' merely (over)react to attempts of 'theists' to regulate our lives according to their numerous mutually exclusive and often hostile obviously subjective (to avoid the term 'arbitrary') convictions.

Historically, of course, 'militant atheism' was also a part of political struggle (partly against various churches a political organizations, and partially to convince 'the masses' that the time and place to improve their conditions in here and now, not in some mythical afterlife).
Posted by: tahir

Re: Here I go again - 04/04/2005 10:38

Quote:
With regard to other, more tangible questions such as the origins of the species on this planet, continuing to insist on a Creator in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the more irrational of the two viewpoints.


Depends how literally you take your chosen text. I'm definitely not a creationist
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 05/04/2005 21:52

Quote:
I hope everything will turn out right with the surgery tomorrow. My regards to your brave wife.
Thanks for the well wishes. It did turn out well, and they think they've fixed the problem. We'll see. As it is she is now laid up in bed, but at home at least.

It was pretty funny actually. They told her she had to do three things before they'd let her go home: use the restroom, walk, and eat without getting nauseous. As soon as she opened her eyes after the surgery she asked for a ham sandwich, got out of bed and walked to the restroom, used it, came back, and ate the whole meal they brought. She was discharged within 45 minutes. I've never seen anything like it. I think she was just going on sheer determination that she wanted to be at home rather than in the hospital. The last time they did one of these, she had to stay overnight and a good portion of the next day. She is very strong indeed!
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 05/04/2005 21:57

Quote:
Sadly, this lends support to some or our friend's sceptic attitude towards science and its supposedly rational approach.
Unfortunately, usually any given philosophy is judged by those who practice it the poorest, as they become the biggest target for the other side. It's amazing how much negative sentiment I hear about Christianity that is really caused by fringe groups who don't represent the mainstream faith at all. And I sit and listen to people rail against "science" and disregarding any of it at all because of examples like you've noted above. I think people like to look at fringe groups because they are easier to knock down than dealing with the real issues.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 05/04/2005 22:20

Quote:
It is remarkable to me that you find faith in your wife's situation which to me would serve as sufficient argument against the existence of God, or at least a God that cares about me. I find it hard to reconcile the viewpoint that the good things in life prove out the existence of God, but the bad things don't decrease the likelihood of his existence.
Of all of the assertions against faith, this is probably the strongest. There are really to ways to deal with the issue, one theological and one more emotional. The theological answer tells us that because of our sin, we have chosen to live in a world where there is suffering. If humanity as a race chose God over sin, then there would be no death, sickness, poverty, etc. Adam chose sin in the garden and so humanity fell (as did creation), and we have followed in his footsteps. For the Christian, the hope is that one day creation will be restored to a pure state and we will be made free of sickness, death, and sin.

The theological answer is kind of cold, though, and while I believe it, it is hard to gain real, personal comfort from that. The emotional answer has a lot more power for those who suffer, at least for Christians. I don’t know if it is unique to Christianity, but one of the defining characteristics is that God came to earth and met us in our pain, allowing Himself to suffer one of the most gruesome physical deaths a person can experience. On top of that, He bore the spiritual and emotional penalty of humanities sins. So while it might be difficult to make sense of pain and suffering emotionally, we know that we worship a God who has not sat above and watched from a distance- He has come near and experienced the same suffering that we have. The great symbol of Christianity is the cross, which reminds us that God does not tell us to try and ignore suffering, but to endure it for a greater cause.

I’ll admit that it has not been easy for either Angel or I through this. Yet the more physical pain she’s experienced (and the more emotional pain we’ve both experienced), it has driven home to us that the only hope we really have is in Christ and that one day all will be restored. We know there is purpose in all of this, and so we struggle on even when it hurts, but always coming out stronger than when we began.

You may recall that we ended up naming our band “Steady On”, and now you know why. Most of our songs are written from the perspective of our personal struggles and how God has revealed himself to us through them. We seek to use our music to encourage other believers to walk consistently even during trials and failures. I can personally attest that I have felt and known God more closely in the painful moments than I have in the joyful ones.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 01:01

Quote:
It did turn out well, and they think they've fixed the problem. We'll see.

Does that mean that they believe she'll be freed of the constant pain? That would be wonderful.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 01:19

Quote:
Does that mean that they believe she'll be freed of the constant pain?
No. Sorry, I thought I'd explained what this was for.

A couple of months ago she had a stimulator implanted in her body that tricks the brain into ignoring the pain. Because the source of the pain is nerve damage, this is OK as the pain the body is alterting her to is pain we know about. But the stimulator only handles the chronic pain- not other pains like what you get when you bend over. So it is a partial solution that has allowed her to cut down on her drug intake by about half, which is a good thing.

Unfortunately, the stimulator begain cutting out at random moments, which made it worse to have it than not because she'd just be crusing along and then she'd feel PAIN. Very jolting. So that was the problem they believe they fixed.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 12:50

Well, at least it's something. Glad they got it fixed.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 13:18

Of course, all that just leads to the question of why not shoot yourself in the head the first chance you get, end all the suffering, and go live with God? Or, if you're going to make an argument about suicide, just live your life at a level of extreme risk helping everyone you can, and die trying to save a Tutsi from an extermination raid.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 13:28

Quote:
Of course, all that just leads to the question of why not shoot yourself in the head the first chance you get, end all the suffering, and go live with God? Or, if you're going to make an argument about suicide, just live your life at a level of extreme risk helping everyone you can, and die trying to save a Tutsi from an extermination raid.
Well, scripture does tell us that life is to be valued. God put us here for a purpose, and if we were to all check out we'd not be participating in His plan as He intends. Remember that death is a result of sin, not the intended order of things. Many Christians forget this and make the mistake of embracing death. So you hear people at funerals say things like "don't mourn- the person is with the Lord now", which is unfortunate. While it is true that the person is now with Jesus in heaven, that doesn't mean we don't feel the pain of death our shouldn't mourn. That knowledge might bring us comfort, but ultimatly that separation is unnatural for how God initially created us.

So to answer your question, while we live in a fallen world where death is an unfortunate reality, we do not embrace it or seek it. Rather we struggle against it as we do sickeness and other fallen aspects of creation.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Here I go again - 06/04/2005 15:10

So, essentially, you've gotta play by the rules.