But it seems to me to be a theoretical analysis as opposed to a practical application of morality. In theory, a skinny bike tire and a fat dragster's tire have the same stopping power if their coefficient of friction is the same. In reality, big, fat tires do a much better job of stopping speeding vehicles.

In theory, your proposed theory, of dignity:

"But it is hard to see why anyone should suppose that members of a particular contingently evolved species enjoy this sort of worth. It is a very queer notion given a naturalistic account of things. However, it is anticipated on a theistic showing."

The practical application of dignity has been a bit different. Organized religions (of which I am a member) seem, by and large, no better at the basic tenants of dignity than secular types have. Be it floggings for naming bears Mohammad, alter boy issues, financial or sexual scandals involving religious leaders and congregations alike, we religious types have been no better at even marriage than seculars have. That is why many (including me) don't give the press releases by the Pope much credence. I am glad the world doesn't prescribe to the anti-condom stance of the Catholic Church. I am glad that we all don't follow the Islamic lead of extreme sensitivity to the protections of our Icon's names, be it Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, or anything else. I do believe that if we applied Christianity as the Bible's example would have us apply it, the world would be an infinitely better place. And we wouldn't see the poor and govt dependent types used as political fodder. But that's probably for another blog. I hope to meet you soon. I'll bring a notebook and a pen.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

See my (planned) reply in the thread on "Catholicism versus Atheism."

Here, I'll just say that it is one thing to assess a conceptual system. It is another to assess adherents of that conceptual system. The latter is of philosophical importance ONLY IF the behavior of the adherents is in line with the essential requirements of the conceptual system.

The fact that there are nice atheists or nasty theists does not, of itself, tell us anything about atheism or theism. Perhaps both are simply inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of their respective worldviews.

Consider the recent case of the nutcase Islamic Sudan government and the nutcase Muslims calling for the execution of a woman over the naming of a teddy bear. Is this occasion for saying "Down with Islam"? Or, rather, is it occasion for saying "Down with nutcase extremist versions of Islam"? The question is settled by looking into the essentials of the original religion. It is always possible--and, as history shows us--somewhat probable--that a wedge may be driven between the actual religion and the way in which it is playhed out in those many troubled minds.

So, if it is the case that (a) a robust account of morality--one that makes sense of our best, deep-seated moral "intuitions"--requires the notion of human dignity, and (b) that notion has its home within a theistic worldview, then this is where the action is; not observations of consistent or inconsistent behaviors.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Hack, you said that you are glad "that the world doesn't prescribe to the anti-condom stance of the Catholic Church." That raises an interesting question: Have you read much about the demographic trends of the Western nations? Many (if not most) people in the US and Europe (& Japan) fully support the birth prevention mentality (whether it is condoms, the pill, abortion, etc.). The Muslims certainly do not embrace birth prevention, and they are having many children (Mohammed being the most popular new-born male name in England last year). We have a rate of 2.1 children per couple, while they have 4.0 to +8.0 depending on the Muslim country.

What will this mean for your grandchildren?

It sounds like you are proposing a population race to provide future soldiers for the coming crusades . Funny. What would global rejection of condoms accomplish? AIDS, AIDS, and more AIDS. More and more children on top of the 500,000 now in need of adoptive parents (hey, we adopted one to go with our two naturals, but we're gonna need some help on the other half a million). So, maybe you can spell out your suggestion more clearly for me. And we'll have to discuss this in the light of reality that sexual creatures are not going to stop having sex because someone says "abstain."

Cheers and have a great weekend!

Kevin "Hack" King

You both make some very valid points. The decrease in the population has been a concern in Europe, at the same time those of the “Muslim” faith have increased their numbers. I read an article recently where the use of condoms, especially in undeveloped nations, has decreased the AIDS incidences, a very positive development.

Why some countries have more births than others is certainly debatable, I for one believe it is a generational issue where the younger generations choose career, self fulfillment and wealth over raising a family; sometimes waiting until latter years to consider the prospect of child rearing.

I agree with most of everything you said except that one cannot find objective morality without a theistic grounding. Human morality evolved through natural selection. Other animals have evolved in a similar fashion and have a sense of moralism witnessed by the fact that if they did not there would be utter chaos within their species grouping and they would not survive..
I contend that human evolvement of morality began very early to ensure survival. Moral standards were established long before the advent of polytheism or monotheism and did not require the assistance of a supernatural god.

Ah, I love this stuff!

Here is Volley #1

A Darwinian account of "morality" may very well explain why humans have come to believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, but it does not explain how there could actually be such a thing.

The mechanisms responsible for producing our most basic "moral" orientation are fitness-aimed rather than truth-aimed. Mammalian mothers, for instance, including human mammalian mothers--come equipped with a powerful drive to nurture their offspring. The maternal instinct is, presumably, a product of natural selection.

Humans, unlike, say, dolphins, have an additional feature of intellect. In addition to feeling the prompting of the instinct itself, they have come to articulate principles and precepts. They believe that mothers ought, morally, to care for their children.

Ask this question: Did this maternal instinct evolve because it was independently true that mothers ought to care for their children, or did it evolve because it was adaptive? Do dolphin mothers care for their offspring because they ought to do so?

Clearly, on a straightforward Darwinian account, the answer is that the instinct is in place because it was adaptive, not because it favors the formulation of true moral beliefs about the duties of motherhood. Consider this passage from Darwin's Descent:

"If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering."

His point in this passage is that any animal endowed with the social instincts plus a sufficient degree of intellect would develop a conscience or "moral sense." But the actual dictates of conscience are determined by whatever are the circumstances of reproductive fitness.

Wolf packs are organized into social hierarchies. Darwin's view implies that, were wolves to have developed a certain degree of intellect over and above the basic promptings of their social instincts, then lupine philosophers might wax eloquent on the moral justice of the unequal treatment of individuals.

What all of this clearly implies is that, on Darwin's view, we've no reason whatsoever for thinking that any of our moral beliefs are true, or that there are such things as objective moral facts. Rather, the beliefs and corresponding behaviors that have arisen within the human psyche due to relentless selection pressure merely help to ensure that DNA is replicated.

We've no reason to think that morality is anything more than a useful fiction. And this implies, of course, that, as Daniel Dennett says, the notion of rights is "nonsense on stilts." No one really has a natural right to anything, whether it is life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Nor do individual persons have "dignity." From whom or what would such a value be conferred? It is another useful fiction--an illusion fobbed off by the genes to get us to cooperate. And it follows that rape, genocide or child molestation do not have, objectively, the property of moral wrongness. Rather, we have simply been hardwired by natural selection working on the human psyche to experience negative sentiments when we reflect on such deeds. When we make moral judgments, we are merely giving vent to those emotional sentiments or feelings. The result is not unlike saying, "I like puppies" or "I do not like movies about drag racing": we are merely expressing or describing our subjective preferences.

This is the principal reason why I say that the atheist cannot consistently be a moral realist--cannot believe in the objectivity of morality.

And this is just where the theist has an account of things that accomodates morality in a way that the atheistic account cannot.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Scientists say morality may be hardwired into our brains by evolution

Thanks. I printed this article and will read it.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Wasn't HITLER an atheist? Was Nazi Germany, the Holocaust and WWII not evil enough for you? Doesn't communism have atheism at its core? Didn't Soviet Russia, Red China, etc. make organized religion illegal? How many people did Stalin ship off to the death camps for practing their faith?
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSBOY : DELIVERING NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

is no. Indeed he bragged about stamping out atheism, and he claimed to be doing God's work in building the Nazi regime.

If you want to read more about this go to the Catholicism vs. Atheism blog from a few days back.

One does not need to ascribe to a particular religion or dogma, in order to be a moral person. This is something I tell me children all of the time, and something many of us believe. However, it is usually the Christian children that are hateful and tell my kids they will "burn in hell" as a result of their disbelief in the supernatural (virgin birth, resurrection, baptism, etc.). Ridiculing and tormenting others for their beliefs, is not moral. Christian parents, please teach your children well. Teach them about true morality, acceptance and being loving towards others who believe different than you do.

Regarding the question of whether religion is necessary for morality, please read my recent posts elsewhere (on Darwinism, etc) and let me know what you think.

I suppose I know what you mean about nastiness among religious believers against those who do not share their beliefs. But I also know firsthand about what Git Real describes--the way the contemporary concern for "tolerance" selectively excludes a concern for Christian believers. These days, any stick is good enough for beating down Christianity. (I am thinking primarily about the college and university setting, where I am at home.)

Here is a thought experiment. Suppose that there is a rather unpleasant afterlife prepared for people who refuse to believe. In that case, would those who believe this truth be manifesting hatred or intolerance if they communicated the fact?
Indeed, suppose that there is not such a thing, but that Jones sincerely believes that there is. Is he being hateful if he tells you that this is your destiny in the event that you refuse to believe? I don't see that he is.

What do tolerance and respect entail? Do they preclude your telling me that my beliefs are, quite simply, mistaken?

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

However, it is usually the Christian children that are hateful and tell my kids they will "burn in hell"

Oh really... Gee, I usually see the opposite. Kids making fun of Christian kids who are trying to live by faith, be obedient, and live morally. I know tons of Christian kids and I for a fact that they are not condemning as you say. You know... I'm beginning to think that those of you who mock believers have insecure issues that cause you to belittle those of who are secure in their faith. Why is that? Could it be your personal attempt to justify something that is lacking in your own life by taking it out on folks who seem to have 'filled' that spot that 'was' lacking?

Thanks for being so nasty. If it makes you feel any better, let me say that my kids are very well grounded in that 'moral thang'. Not bad for a bunch of Christians.... Huh?

Oh.. and it's usually your kids that are trying to convince my kids that there is no 'hope' in this or the next life. Therefore, daring them to go ahead and live for themselves and to heck with the consequences.

Merry Christmas to you Scrooge.

Wow, Git my topic,ha. I know you are laughing. I myself have not experienced a Christian kid making fun of kids period, I am sure they do- but not in my presence.

It's more like non- christians that do this-Which I have had this happen- which I teach my child to walk away- they will know we are Christians by our love. Fighting about something or someone is not love. Love out weighs it all.

The perfect example- JESUS- While on earth tell me who He hung with, thoese He wanted to reach. He did not sin and take part of their sin, but He showed love by being their friend.

Okay, I am ready for the blasting- bring it on.,

This is what I teach my child, my child went to public school for 6 years, Christian 3 years, currently in high school. If I had my choice, money wise- he would still be in Christian School- at times , morally things are so out of hand, I am tempted to send him back. But, I am trying to teach him the real life- it's tough- it's easier the other way- Christian Schools do teach morals, or the one he attended did and still does.

I switced back to public because he is going to have to live in the real world one day- his faith is founded- by parents, church and what I teach him daily by the way I live, (but again thank God for grace).

All kids need our prayers, it is tough to be young now- the pressure is so not like we had it- I pray daily for him.

How ironic that a Christian "basher" is whining about Christians bashing him for bashing them for dismissing their faith as "supernatural" when he clearly has no personal understanding of what they believe! GIT REAL is right ... throughout history, Christians have been the target of hate from non-believers. But that's how Christ ended up on the cross, right? We can take it!
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSBOY : DELIVERING NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

I am not bashing Christians, just those adult Christians that don't teach their children to love and respect others, who may believe differently than they do. And by the way, I do understand the Christian teachings, having been brought up in the Presbyterian church when I was young. But as I grew older, and could think for myself, I moved away from what seemed to me "supernatural" beliefs. If you look up supernatural in the Webster's dictionary, it defines quite well most of the modern religions today. It isn't bashing, when I use that word to define Christianity, or any other religion that believes in supernatural occurences (virgin birth, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.). You just choose to believe in the supernatural and find that word distasteful, when describing your religion....but look it up, it's there:

Supernatural defined:

1) Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
2) Departing from what is usual or normal so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
3) Of or relating to God or god, demigod, spirit or devil.
4) Attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost, spirit).

Help! We Christians are being oppressed!

Where are all these Christians your pie chart shows? I suppose that if one count all those who have stepped into a church building at one time in their lives, then you would justify posting such results.

Or perhaps, by the virtue of being born American it makes you a Christian. Hmmm....

I think (in my humble but highly accurate opinion) if we had real Christians in America equal to even the red or yellow slice, we'd see a major improvement in some of our country's problems.

That said, I wonder in Sniffles would revise his chart for the church in Darfur and the persecution they suffer?

This is the way to blog!

Sniffles does not believe Jesus is the Messiah. Totally different in belief system. Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah- which means Sniffles is probably Jew and they are still waiting for the Messiah to come.

I believe Jesus is the Messiah- God's Son- paid a price for our sins if we confess and believe ask for forgiveness.

What he believe is different.

Excuse me, bpr.

You are not qualified to tell people what I believe in or do not believe in.

To my knowledge, we have never discussed religion and beliefs in this forum.

I've noticed you have a tendency to question the religious faith of those with whom you disagree with politically. This, in my opinion, reflects poorly on your character.

Sorry, we did have this conversation, must be too much of you drinking nutrasweet- joke it causes memory loss. Lighten up- you told me in one of our conversations that the Messiah had not come. Sorry for your memory- if you knew me I do kid alot, life is alot more fun that way.

bpr is judge and jury for her god. Just move on.

The Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years. Starting BC as slaves for egyptians. Heeelllooo, you know ....Moses, "let my people go"...Pharoh killing the first born, lots of plagues.......You people need to read your bibles instead of crying "poor me" so much.

Christians have rarely been picked on, because everyone is afraid of their overt anger/victim complex. They will damn you to hell for questioning them.

You know what I want to meet you in person, I find you the most interesting person on here besides, Muddle, and Git( what a hoot).

Again, God is my judge, like it or not, I personally believe he is everyone's judge even if they don't believe in Him. That's because He is God and I am not.

Don't you see how bad I messed up- with Sniffles? Now I am Sniffling(joke)I am really so about the confusion with him. That's why I need God daily- forgiveness my friend for myself.

I don't damn you to hell- what does that mean? Remember I am not God, I just believe in God and try my best to be a that horriable Christian.

Let me tell you the difference, I am just like anyone else, belief in God or not, the difference is I have accepted His forgiveness, He is in charge of my life- I just as bad as anyone else, just forgiven because I want to be.

How about the next coffee get together you go and I go- you would not spot me out a mile away- you will be shocked.

The funny thing is I really like you, your neat, defending kids, that's my heart. I guess being a preschool teacher and having a child we prayed for 12 yrs has something to do with that.

I don't dislike anyone, I just voice my belief, I don't say you have to believe it- did I?

Friends- Let's be that, I see rare quality in you. Starbucks next time- oh, but Muddle and Git have to come- do you know if I am a he or a she- you gotta tell me if you are, so I will know who you are.

Anyone want to have this burden on your back?
This school teacher?
I smell rotten cheese!

on rare occaisions, bpr, you scare me a little itty bit.

Kevin "Hack" King

Your another person I find interesting, maybe it's because I am from N.C.- no I am not a hillbilly- Ha!

Really, I am harmless, not mental- just too much nutrasweet, I already told you. Ha.

I hope I can make it next time, just to see if you know who I am, I know everyone expects everyone to look a certain way- I think I am way way off from what you think. Oh, do you know if I am a he or she?

Hey, I know you are a he, scare me?I am afraid you all will tackle me and toss me out the door. Ha.

I would love to meet MR and Mrs Muddle, Mr and Mrs Git, Mr AND Mrs. Git, Mr and Mrs Hack, that;s if everyone is married- actually all of you- just don't toss me out the door. Ha. Maybe my spouse can come.

I think we are all friends. I seem to always take your first posts wrong, then when you explain it, it sounds better.....I just need to get by the first post.

Anyway, hopefully I will be able to make the next coffee, unless I am ordered in on overtime.

No matter what holiday you are celebrating this time of year: Happy Holidays

Happy Hanukkah

Merry Christmas

Happy Kwanzaa

Great, I hope to be there also, not unless my child has something going on at school, work- Fridays are always great most of the time.

I am glad that you responded back, I do think that your a great person, glad you understood my second comment, I am bold in what I believe in- I guess I am because I have found it to be true and this is what makes me make it in life.

I have loads of friends that believe different, we are still friends-

Before I forget are you a he or a she, so I will know in our meeting?

Thanks for understanding.

Skyspy,
That was so sweet, but could you talk a little louder? (I couldn't hear for the violin playing in background). LOL

Wasn't that conversation with gratefuldoc, who, I believe, is unabashedly Jewish in his faith?

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

THANKS SO MUCH FRIEND- I HAVE FEW/ MUST BE MY CHRISTIAN THING. Honestly, I am sorry, but what do you believe? That was too much of my nutrasweet, I drink it all the time, better watch me.

So, is forgiveness in hand?

I AM SORRY- PLEASE REPLY.

I don't suppose you would post a link to our purported conversation?

In the absence of such a link, perhaps an apology would be in order from you?

Git real, I was just stating a fact about the treatment of my kids by some so-called, loving Christian kids. You're the one getting nasty, not me. You sound very angry, something that your church teachings should have helped you curb. There is nothing "lacking" in my psyche and I do not yearn for religion in my life, as you suggest in your angry email. You epitomize the attitude of the few angry Christians I run into occasionally, and choose to stay away from. Thanks for continuing to reinforce my beliefs!

it is now Git Real. See Get Real got eliminated 1 year and 28 weeks ago for having a second moniker in play. Unlike $ who has 4.

I was just stating a fact about the treatment of my kids by some so-called, loving Christian kids

And I was just stating a fact about how those that despise religion and how they accept the fact that their kids trash on Christian kids on a quite regular basis. I fail to see how 'sharing the Truths of the Gospel' equate to 'Hateful Speech'. We are required to share the Gospel with unbelievers like you. If you reject, then we are instructed to knock the dust off of our feet and move on. Unlike those that do not believe, that constantly trash on those of us that do. How come you overlook your own angriness while trying to expose mine?

as you suggest in your angry email

You don't know me very well or you would find that I am hardly the angry type. LOL! What I did was dispute your allegations that Christians are hateful by pointing out that it is usually the Christian kids that are belittled for their beliefs rather than the other way around. Chuckle... that make me angry?

You epitomize the attitude of the few angry Christians I run into occasionally, and choose to stay away from. Thanks for continuing to reinforce my beliefs!

Well, are we a little overly sensitive that we can't handle the fact that a Christian would dare to defend his side and point out that he disagrees with you that it is the Christians that are the ones that are always hateful? Nice out... I didn't enforce any of your bitter beliefs..... you do that perfectly on your own.

But, if it makes you happy to trash on those with faith, then by all means, have at it. It not like we ain't used to it.

Merry Christmas and God Bless

Shallow understanding, eh?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

First and foremost, I sincerely apologize for my post above. Who I'm I to make such a comment? Lord, it pains me to know that I thought it, I wrote, and I sent it. So there you go, I'm imperfect and as such, I have sinned.

I wish to extend an invitation to you and your family to visit my church this coming Sunday. I can't guarantee that all your questions will be answered as a lot of us are still searching. But knowing that we are in His house to give praise has special meaning. Let me know if you are interested and we can take this off-line.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I'm honored that you would invite me to your church, but those days of attending a Christian church are gone. I actually do attend "church", but up in Atlanta:
http://www.uuca.org/

If you are still searching, I extend an invitation to you as well. The UUCA respects all of those individual paths, that humans may take, on their personal quest to define their own spiritual belief system. Whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, or Buddhist, all are accepted, and we learn something valuable from all religions.

Like you, I appreciate your invitation but again like you I'm pretty involved in my church, beliefs, and convictions. I leave you with this; May peace be with you and your family.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Is that what it is about?

Why should anyone think a thing like that?

Suppose the Wiccans have it right. Well, then, the Buddhists and the Baptists have it wrong. The Buddhists and Baptists are, of course, free to pursue their idiosyncratic "belief systems," but if they care at all about having their belief systems match up to reality then they should agree with the Wiccans.

Does anyone really suppose that religious belief is subjective in the way that "I like daisies" is subjective? Is there any good sense in which we may say that what is true in religion is dependent upon what someone happens to believe?

Do all religions have something from which we may learn? Why think a thing like that? What to make of, say, the Thugee cult that delighted in human sacrifice to appease the blood-thirsty Kali?

And how does this inclusive approach deal with the exclusivist claims that are embedded in most of the world's religions? Must we "sanitize" each, ridding them of exclusive claims to truth, before we are permitted to examine their wares?

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

If it weren't for arguing about the fine points of religion, there wouldn't be any religion!
We also need to kill each other off occasionally just to prove ours is the one and only religion.
I don't see any difference in the Atlanta liberal church above and any other one. They all have the same kind of people, although they act like they aren't "in church."

If it weren't for arguing about the fine points of religion, there wouldn't be any religion!
We also need to kill each other off occasionally just to prove ours is the one and only religion.
I don't see any difference in the Atlanta liberal church above and any other one. They all have the same kind of people, although they act like they aren't "in church."

Why do you believe that it is necessary for one religion to be wrong and another to be right? This thinking is the basis for so many of the ancient wars (i.e. The Crusades) and the continuing modern day global persecution and genocide of man/womankind. In order for us, as humans, to evolve even more, we need to be able to COEXIST with others on this planet, and see the value in another's "belief system", and stop pounding our chest while proclaiming that we are the only religion that is right, that is pure, and that will be one with God someday.

Maybe they are all wrong.

But they cannot all be right. And it is nothing more than wooly-headedness that supposes otherwise.

* Advaita Vedantins maintain our belief in a plurality of objects and persons is an illusion. The only thing that exists is "Nirguna Brahman." When they say this, they mean the only thing that exists is Brahman. This, of course, precludes you and me, the Jivas in which Jains believe, and, of course, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus.

* Theravada Buddhists urge the doctrines of impermanence and Anatman (no self). They will tell you that the world is devoid of substances, and, in particular, it is devoid of substantial selves. They thus offer an account of personal identity that competes with standard western accounts and, of course, precludes the existence of the soul.

* Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate. But Muslims regard the identification of anyone or anything with God as a form of blasphemy known as "shirk."

* Scientologists believe.... Well, I'm not sure what the hell Scientologists believe. Something about being possessed by aliens. It is, I think, just a shade off from a Star Trek cult.

* The major Indian religions hold that the human predicament originates in ignorance of our own nature and of the nature of the universe. They offer enlightenment--a radical overcoming of that ignorance--as the solution. But Christians maintain that our fundamental problem stems not from some lack of information, but a stubborn pride and rebellion against the Creator.

I could go on and on.

The doctrinal assertions of the various religions are mutually exclusive. It is logically impossible for them all to be true.
One might attempt to bring them all together, but it takes a rather conspicuous case of wooly-headedness to manage the feat. I know that liberal Christian theologians have been particularly good at forgetting how to think, managing to keep all of thise ideas in a perpetual fog.

Some maintain that religious truth claims are "relative." So "the world is devoid of substances" is true for Buddhists, but false for those who do not feel the same way. "God exists" is true for, say, Christians, but, of course, it is false for Jains.

Of course, this is nothing more than a piece of sheer nonsense. Is the suggestion that the structure and/or origin of the world is somehow dependent upon what someone thinks about it? Ah! Here is a way to settle the creation/evolution dispute. "Dinosaurs never existed" for me. And maybe it works on other stuff. I plan to disbelieve in terrorism and prostate cancer as soon as I turn from here.

(Perhaps "God is true for me" only means "I believe in God." But we already knew that. Now the question is whether that belief is true. If it is, then those who deny it are simply mistaken.....)

Religious studies simps and mushy-minded theologians have embraced a view known as Religious Pluralism. Maybe this is what makes a UUCA assembly possible. RP maintains that, whereas the doctrines of the various religions clearly say apparently contradictory things, nothing that any doctrine maintains is strictly true. Rather, they are merely culturally influenced attempts at coming to grips with universal experiences of "The Real" (a nice religiously neutral term that is neither monotheistic nor monistic). Even though what the doctrines claim about, say, the nature of God or the self are false, they are instrumentally effective in accomplishing what all religions are in business for: turning nasty people into nice people. Buddhists who adhere to Buddhist teachings move from "self-centeredness" to "Reality-centeredness." So do Baptists and Wiccans.

The trouble, here, beyond the fact that it is just empirically false that all religions produce nice people (consider those nice 911 hijackers, for instance), is that everyone is invited in for the sing-along and pot luck dinner only on the condition that no one takes the doctrines of their respective religions very seriously. If you believe, for instance, that it is really true that Christ's atonement was necessary to save the witch next you, or that the guy passing the casserole really is identical to Brahman, then you spoil the whole thing.

But then, of course, this is just to tell everyone, "Religious Pluralism is true, but Buddhism, Christianity, Wiccan and Advaita Vedanta are all false. But that's OK! I'm here to tell you two things: (a) What you believe is false, but (b) It is imperative that you believe it to be true, because, in so doing, you will become a better person!" Duplicitous advice, wouldn't you say?

It comes down to this question. Are Christians, Buddhists and Scientologists entitled to their beliefs or not? Am I permitted my Christian beliefs? If you say no, then that hardly sounds like the sort of tolerance that you chide me for not displaying.

But if I am entitled to the beliefs, trouble brews. To believe any proposition P is to believe that P is true. This is simply what it means to believe something--to take a "propositional attitude," as philosophers say.

But to believe that P is true, and to be clear about it, calls for thinking that not-P is false. There is no way around this.
So, clearly, if I believe the proposition, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (as I do), then, unless I've managed to read enough Paul Tillich or Don Cupitt to stuff my head full of cotton, I must also think that any view entailing the falseness of that proposition is itself false. For starters, any religion that does not countenance the idea of God's existence would have such an entailment, since God's nonexistence is one serious impediment to His reconciling anything to Himself by any means.

I would argue that it is more respectful of your religious tradition for me to regard it as making genuine and significant truth claims that I take to be false, than it is for me to regard it as not making significant truth claims at all. I would rather engage in friendly and respectful debate over a beer with someone who thinks my beliefs are simply false than to experience a benevolent pat on the head by someone who encourages me in them because they are "useful fictions."

A word of advice: Don't use the "G-word" indiscriminately, as this may be offensive to some members of the flock who do not think he/she/it exists. I would suggest using "The Real," but this, too, is problematic. The guy in the pew next to you is an atheist, and he thinks that there is nothing at all back of those "universal experiences." And, of course, to suggest that we shall all one day be reunited with The Real runs the risk of excluding some of the various eschatologies that members have imported with them.

(I've much more to say here, but will hold back until when and if you reply.)

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I appreciate the fact that you love the written word, however, you choose to hide your narrow view on religion, with an expansive vocabulary. I'm the opposite and I try and explain myself in a few short sentences and maintain an expansive view of the modern and ancient religions.

In one sentence, I'll answer your many questions: I believe that all religions are correct, however, each religion takes a different path to reach the same goal, of being one with their God, of being enlightened and being a good and loving person.

It's really sad that you describe my belief, and so many others like me, as being "mushy-minded" or "wooly-headed". Does your church teach you to be this nasty?

I believe that all religions are correct

Either you do not know what the diverse world religions actually teach, or you need a course in logic.

Instead of commenting on my vocabulary and suggesting that the view that I defend is "narrow" and "sad", how about addressing the argument? (How is it "narrow" to observe that believing P entails believing that P is true and that not-P is, therefore, false?)

I also asked several pointed questions. For instance, am I or am I not entitled to believe the teachings of Christ? If not, then in what sense are my would-be beliefs "correct"? But if so, then what do you make of the fact that Jesus himself made some rather exclusive claims? May I believe them or not?

I argued that to say that they are all true is the height of confusion.

Further, you display an apparent ignorance of the contents of actual religions when you assert that they are all on different paths to the "same goal." Some speak of Nirvana, others Kevala, still others a oneness with Brahman, while others yet long for the New Creation or heaven. Are all of these "the same goal"? How can that be when the "goal" of each is conceived radically differently from the others? Or do you have some notion of what the actual goal is that is different from that of all of the poor, benighted adherents of all of those faiths?

Quite simply, the Advaita Vedantin and the theist cannot both be "correct" on the nature of the "Religious Ultimate." Perhaps you've thought of some way in which both can be true. I would love to hear it. (I offered--and critiqued--a couple of possibilities: relativism and pluralism. Got any other ideas?)

When you say that all religions are equally correct, I suspect what you mean is that they are all equally incorrect. For, as I've now noted several times, if we take each one seriously, we have mutual contradiction. So all are invited so long as each realizes that her religion never really grasps truth.

Meanwhile, I stand by my assertion that all such attempts at "exapnsive" views are a manifestation of wooly-headedness. This, by the way, comes from no church whatsoever. The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with my own religious views. Rather, it is the difference between sense and nonsense. I write as a philosopher concerned with the meaningfulness of assertion; not as a preacher concerned about dogma.

Address my argument that it is logically impossible for them all to be correct, and I'll listen attentively.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

You call muddle narrow yet you are the one that calls his religion supernatural, how expansive of you, did your church teach you to be nasty also? I believe you were the one to cast the first stone. If you were to take a poll on the blogs, I think you would find that muddle would be one of the top three bloggers in terms of kindness, fairness, and any other nesses you can come up with along with Tug and Jeffc. If you're going to debate religion on here don't get upset when people don't agree with you.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

I think you would find that muddle would be one of the top three bloggers in terms of kindness, fairness, and any other nesses you can come up with along with Tug and Jeffc.

I'm sure it was an accidental oversight that you left me off that elite kindness list. But, fear not my friend. I won't pout for long.

Hutch forgot someone else on that list!

Tug does get first prize, though!

Maybe he didn't read Jeff's comment, "And the best thing about Huckabee is he doesn’t seem to me to be a total nut (let's not mention that evolution thing)."

Or his calling Giuliani "a social degenerate" who's "married ten or fifteen times [vs. Bill Clinton who just ...] and whose own family hates him."

Or his saying, "Think of her [Ann Coulter] as Andrew Dice Clay without as much class," and "If Ann puts her mind to it, I sincerely believe she can aspire to rise to his level."

Or his calling Walters Williams, as well as Michelle Malkin, a "shill."

Or his calling a comment by Margaret Thatcher "stupid."

Or his calling one of my posts "the most silly," "screwy," and showing "profound ignorance." Also, saying that I'm "almost completely clueless" because I posted a link "to some right-wing gas bag."

Or his calling the Republicans "a party that has sick values."

Just a few of Jeff's "kind and fair" comments -- but, in all fairness, he is often friendly and polite and has apologized on occasion.

Besides, Jeff is a friend of Al Franken and that should disqualify anyone!

The comments which were not hugely funny were just the truth which sometimes has to be interjected into the arguments.

However, I don't remember calling Margaret Thatcher stupid. I hope I was referring to one of her policies but, if not, then I was in error. She is definitely not stupid; far from it.

And I seem to remember when I jumped on your post as “silly” and “clueless” you responded in agreement with the following comments:

You could not be bothered to actually read the transcript of the trial you were commenting on:

“..read the transcript of the trial.-- Just don't have the time since I'm not retired and work long hours.”

And about another topic about which you were wrong you explained

“Sorry, but I could not possibly read everything about every subject…”

Another topic your response to my pointing out the errors was:

“That's why I can't know all of the minute details about every political debate.”

Then you resorted to:

“What do you have against articulate women expressing political opinion?”

As if I had ever considered or mentioned anything about you being a woman.

It’s here if you wish to re-read it:

Bush is tearing the Republican Party apart

And I checked back on the Thacher thing. It was her policies not her I was referring to.

Al Franken is going to be a great Senator!

Tug definitely deserves first place!

"the truth which sometimes has to be interjected into the arguments" -- You've revealed more than you meant to, no doubt!

I always say, Honesty is the best policy!

I don't work for The Carter Center, as you do, and politics is not my life or livelihood, but I'm far from “silly” and “clueless.” Whenever I post others' comments, I can assure you that I do know what they're talking about, even if I don't know ALL of the nuances and permutations (math is a favorite of mine).

Speaking of The Carter Center, I received a "holiday" card from your parents. All of my charitable contributions are already spoken for, though.

BTW, you never did explain WHY Alan Dershowitz is not creditable. He's someone that I would have assumed that you would have a lot in common with.

"Profound ignorance"? Not if I comment on a topic. I work VERY HARD not to be ignorant, just as I'm sure you do. Exactly which "topic" was I "wrong" about (other than having a differing OPINION than you), one in which you needed to "point out the errors" (an unintentional -- or did you mean intentional? -- departure from truth or accuracy)? Also, I really don't need your "translations" of my comments, but thanks for the effort.

Were you able to attend the one-on-one discussion with Jeff Gannon (The Great Media War: A Battlefield Report), sponsored by The Columbia Political Union (organized for and by the students and faculty of Columbia University)? Undoubtedly, it quite "revealing." I wonder if Tammy Bruce, another one of your media favorites, was there? (It's so pleasant to reminisce.)

To test your self-restraint , here's more evidence of my "lack of original thought processes" (sounds just like Basmati ) and evidence that I, like Margaret Thatcher, "do not have a decent respect to the opinions of mankind":

__________________________

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.
__________________________

Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

__________________________

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

__________________________

There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors.... I mean it.

__________________________

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that, in the end, good will triumph.
__________________________

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ~ Margaret Thatcher, the "Iron Lady"

__________________________

How's that for "stupid stuff"?

.

If we are voting here about who is the nicest, I would like to know a little more about someone than what they spout on here!
Otherwise I won't vote as to who is the nicest.
There is however very little for me to disagree with Jeff about, I think.
Coulter and right-wing gas-bags are all too plentiful and money grubbers!
Huckabee is a total nut--Jeff was wrong on that one! If that is the best we can come up with for President of the United States--one who will preach twice a week on FOX--then we are certainly done for in the world.
Williams, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, and of course Clarence Thomas, are all, sadly, shills for the money and recognition. Pretensions of holiness and religion while about as pious as my pet bird who messes his cage, are indeed a sad commentary on our present state of affairs!
We don't need Franken and his kind either.

I've missed Gov. Huckabee's "preach[ing] twice a week on FOX"?!?!

You must watch A LOT more TV & Fox News than I do.

"Pretensions of holiness and religion" -- I must have missed that, too. They spend most to almost of their time talking about politics.

"We don't need Franken and his kind either." -- We can agree on that!

Have a nice day!

Dollar assures us that Huckabee is a "total nut." I cannot think of a stronger endorsement than that.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

You're right, my bad, you are fair and kind right up to the time you eviscerate them.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Is that a good thing or bad thing.

To know me is to understand that I really don't like all this fighting and bickering. But, I also can't help myself when I jump right into the fray.

I'd much rather goof off and kid around.

LOL!

You like that word, before I had the spell check I would have had to say gut, now I can sound edumacated.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Thats indeed wus uh perty imprissive way to say guts. I'm realy, very mutch imprissed. Pleaze don't be talkin' oer' my head no mores.

If I didn't know better I'd say I was talking to Dollar.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

This edumacated talk has gone on too long!!!
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Most religions do believe in a "supernatural" being - again, look supernatural up in Webster's. It's not intended to be an insult, just an observation.

And I guess I do see someone as being narrow minded, if they won't look beyond their own beliefs and see value in someone elses, that may be different. Again, not intended to be an insult, just an observation.

I'm happy that you all find solice with each other (muddle, Tug, Jeffc, etc.) and have made cyber friends in cyber space, and the local Starbucks. I haven't offered any comments on this website for close to a year, but thought I would make a comment about my kids' struggle with the nasty mini-Believers they encounter, which resulted in a cyber-smackdown from all sides. And I'm not upset at all, debating religion with your clique (again, an observation). Who knows, maybe we would actually like each other, if we ever met.

look supernatural up in Webster's. It's not intended to be an insult, just an observation.

Dictionary meanings can be altered by the context in which they are used. Glad to hear it wasn't meant like the context implied.

I'm happy that you all find (sic )solice with each other (muddle, Tug, Jeffc, etc.)

There's the context thing again. Do I sense a note of stinging sarcasm here?

But wouldn't solace with friends be one of those virtues common to most religions and you'd be for it?

Muddle's challenge "Address my argument that it is logically impossible for them all to be correct, and I'll listen attentively."
Seems fair enough to me. There are a number of us here (from different faith backgrounds) who believe in the concept of absolute truth i.e. that there are some things that are always wrong no matter what culture or group says otherwise.

I believe killing innocent life is one of those truths. That puts me at odds with some, but the lack of consensus does not mean there is a lack of truth.

maybe we would actually like each other, if we ever met.

You may be right on that one.
Hope to see you the next time we take solace in our Starbucks.

This is the way to blog!

I'm an unabashed "supernaturalist" and thus take no offense at being referred to as such.

I believe that there is more to reality than what is the potential subject matter of the natural sciences. Thus, there are realities that transcend nature.

I believe in God and the soul and transcendent moral properties, among other things. All of these things are "supernatural."

It's cool. No worries.

Meanwhile, though, I'm still waiting to hear from our friend, Main Stream to see whether he/she has a reply to my actual arguments.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

how you gonna have these without the supernatural.

no law gonna explain them or of what make the ego and id work!

The only real cat in town

I'm not sure I can explain it to her like you. This is going to take a professional academic to take on this task. YOU, my friend, are that super hero. Have fun.

Assuming that there really is something to these Freudian notions, I don't know that a straightforward naturalist/physicalist would have any more difficulty explaining them than she would have explaining consciousness itself. (The latter is a very daunting task, unknown to the many overly confident Village Atheists.)

But why not use a computer program model with routines and subroutines? Does it really require the soul or whatever?

I confess that I sort of left Freud behind me at college. No Freud books on my shelves. My wife took a psychology class that used a kind of cartoon version of a Freud book--pictures and all. It was egregiously pornographic/gynecological. We tossed it in the can. I came to the conclusion that Freud had sexual hangups and therefore assumed that everyone else had sexual hangups.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I see it as this when you state something it's an observation when someone else states something it's narrow minded. When the mini-believers say something they're nasty, when you make an equally offensive statement it seems to be ok, I don't think you look at both sides equally. Do you think the Christian kids don't get hit the same way. It seems to me that to you there are two sides to every thing, your side and the wrong side.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

I'm going to have to read your post again, but here are some questions to start with.

What could go wrong with a church where every religion is acknowledged, and given respect?

Main Stream left out some information on this church. Are they there to convert people and bully them into their own religion, or do they pray to their own God's quietly?

In your example of "all religions produce nice people" you only used the muslims as a bad example. (911) How about the fundamental christians bombing abortion clinics? They are full of love too....
There are good and bad people in every religion.

Is God big enough to accept all good people no matter what religion?

Playing devil's advocate here: What if "heaven" is a big melting pot of believers? What if we all have to give each other respect, and get along peacefully or we will create our own hell. We could end up punishing ourselves much better than God ever could.

"What could go wrong with a church where every religion is acknowledged, and given respect?"

Do you really believe that this "church" acknowledges and respects traditional Christianity?

Church [from the Greek kūriakon (dōma), meaning the Lord's house] historically refers to "a house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians. Church (Scot. kirk) also refers to the Greek word ekklesia, meaning "called out assembly," the "Body of Christ," "the collective body of Christians, or of those who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Savior of mankind" (Webster's).

Christ sent out His disciples to make converts (Matthew 9 & 10):

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother ... a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He who receives you [Christ's disciples] receives me, and he who receives me [a voluntary act] receives the one who sent me [God the Father]."

"Therefore go [a command] and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19)

"What Happened to the 12 Apostles"

________________________

"How about the fundamental [C]hristians bombing abortion clinics?"

I suppose you're referring to Eric Rudolph, who was part of the Christian Identity cult, which is not Biblical Christianity. The term "fundamentalist," which is so often used in a very negative connotation today, refers to those Christians opposed to liberal infiltration into traditional, Biblical Christianity.

How many "fundamental [C]hristians" have bombed abortion clinics?

How many people, in the name of Christ, have cared for the sick and the poor and served their neighbors in many different ways?

Just to name a few to get you started:

Irena Sendler

Corrie ten Boom

Mother Teresa

George Müller

Johannes Kepler

Robert Boyle

Louis Pasteur

Telemachus

Amy Carmichael

William Wilberforce

Elizabeth Fry

William & Catherine Booth

David Livingstone

Mary Slessor

Gladys Aylward

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Pregnancy Resource Center of Fayette

Now, what is the ratio of bombers to Christians who have made a difference in this world?

"What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?"

________________________

"Is God big enough to accept all good people no matter what religion?"

* If your statements are true, then why did Jesus die on the cross? *

ARE YOU A GOOD PERSON? Why not take a few minutes to find out?

Jimmy Carter should be on your list. He has done more charitable works than any other ex-president I can think of. He has a good heart and he lets his conscience be his guide. That's why he wasn't a very good politician, he couldn't lie.

My church really does acknowledge and respect traditional Christianity, as you asked in your post. Quite often during a service, the Bible or Jesus is quoted, as well as other prophets from different religions. The religious education, provided in our children's Sunday school, teaches about Christianity and also Buddhism, Judaism, the Celts, Hinduism, and many of the other religions of the world.

I know this concept of believing that all religions may be correct, is difficult for many on this website to understand. Again, our personal goal as "believers" is the same, we just choose different religious paths to get there.

Peace to all of you (muddle, hutch, denise). Open your minds, and your hearts will follow.

Julie

I know this concept of believing that all religions may be correct, is difficult for many on this website to understand

I find the concept of a square circle "difficult to understand," too. But that does not count against me. The concept is intrinsically impossible.

I'll repeat myself (you've never replied): It is impossible for any two of mutually contradictory claims both to be true.

Better, I'll spell out the argument so that you can tell me where it goes wrong.

(1) It is impossible for any two of mutually contradictory claims both to be true

(2) Buddhism and Hinduism make mutually contradictory claims about the nature of reality. (I choose these randomly. Any other pair would do.)

(3) Therefore, it is impossible that Buddhism and Hinduism are both true.

Now, you have a choice on how to reply:

(a) Tell me which premise, (1) or (2) is false.

(b) Tell me that the conclusion at (3) does not follow logically from (1) and (2). (I'll save you time. It does.)

(c) Tell me that you are equivocating on the word "true" so that it means something other than "Represents things as they are."

But Buddhists tend to think that Dependent Origination (pratityasamutpada) REALLY DOES represent things as they REALLY ARE. And Advaita Vedantin "Hindus" think that the statement "Atman is Brahman" says something that is literally (not merely metaphorically) true. So (c) is not an option for anyone who aims to show "respect" for these traditions.

That leaves (a). So either you must think that it is, in fact, possible for contradictions to be true, or you must think that the religions of the world do not teach contradictory things. But they do teach contradictory things.

So I wonder how, other than closing your mind and eyes to the arguments and taking a blind leap of illogical faith, you can continue to say that they are all true. Indeed, the kind of anti-intellectualism that this requires begins to make Tammy Faye look like Albert Einstein.

My church really does acknowledge and respect traditional Christianity, as you asked in your post. Quite often during a service, the Bible or Jesus is quoted, as well as other prophets from different religions. The religious education, provided in our children's Sunday school, teaches about Christianity and also Buddhism, Judaism, the Celts, Hinduism, and many of the other religions of the world.

What do you do with this quotation from Jesus?: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me."

I mean, this exclusive claim kind of gets in the way of your attempts at all-inclusiveness, doesn't it? So, what does one do with such a claim? Ignore it? Reinterpret it? Revise your understanding of what Christianity teaches to fit into your pluralistic programme?

You'll understand if people who take Jesus' words at face value are not impressed by the fact that he is occasionally invoked as well.

And the "exclusivist" Christians with whom you have interacted have hardly been the ones to cook up the idea that Christ is the one mediator between God and humanity. Some today speak as though such a conclusion must have been reached out of a spirit of meanness. Not at all. It is a conclusion urged by the Christian Scriptures themselves.

The contemporary way of arguing is to say that if Jesus said something that is incompatible with our current cultural preferences, then what he said must be false. But this is a form of argument that can hardly withstand scrutiny.

I do wish you would reply to my argument.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

Does your quote from Jesus include the Jews?

I think you have forgotten that "faith" is the cornerstone of all religions, since there is so much not known, as we understand "known."
Let them have their multicultural and all inclusive religion! You have yours.

Here it is...ya ready....at best, Jesus was a failed Messiah....in my opinion a false Messiah as some had been before and previous to his time on Earth. How else can it be explained that NONE of the Torah's conditions for the arrival of the Messiah have and had not been met by this person?!? Not to offend any of you "good" christians out there but it's pretty plain as day to see and read. for yourselves.

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

I'm sorry. It's not all that plain to me. Perhaps you had better spell it out for me, for I am a bear of very little brain. What, precisely is the historical argument that you have in mind? What were the "conditions" in the Torah that this fellow failed to meet?

On the face of it, this will be passing strange since a contemporary who studied at the feet of Gamaliel seemed to think that there was a perfect fit. Indeed, this fellow went into the synagogues and used the Law, Prophets and Writings to paint a picture of the likely suspect. They rounded up Jesus because of the resultant match.

Ah, but if you are correct, perhaps he may be forgiven these shortcomings. He more than made up for that disappointment by rising from the dead.

If you are interested in any serious scholarship (as opposed to, say, the Village Atheist's Handbook), have a look at the work of N.T. Wright. In particular, see his The Resurrection of the Son of God.

I'm not a biblical scholar, so this amount to dabbling for me. But I can tell you that Wright mounts a compelling case.

______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth."

That passage describes most "christians" I have met in my lifetime.

There are good and bad people who subscribe to every religion.

We have muslim terrorists, who are psychopaths. They have "cherry picked" the koran and taken the parts that fits with their illness.

We have catholic priests who rape kids for no good reason, other than they are psychopaths.

We have fundamentalist "christians" who think they are the modern day crusaders. They kill abortion doctors, and bomb abortion clinics in the "name of God". They really do all of those things because they are psychopaths, and they have "cherry picked" their bible to say or justify their sick behavior.

Nice list for the few "christians" who actually take their faith seriously.

Looking at other religions I think we could come up with other "good people" starting with the Dalai Lama.

Right now I'm reading a book written by a Presbyterian minister. He trained a Harvard. The book is American Fascists it is written by Chris Hedges. Check it out he deals with hypocrites and sickos from every religion. He calls them on the carpet for using their religion to justify their psychopathic behavior.

I think we could one up each other all day long with good people from every religion. I think the challenge will be to find good muslims who are altruistic. I'll see what I can do with my paltry education.

Happy Hanukkah eight crazy nights of religion, in this month of secular christmas, and religious christmas.

No matter which holiday you are celebrating, Happy Holidays.

I really do believe that God accepts all good people, no matter what religion they follow. And I like your analogy of heaven being a melting pot of believers, and probably non-believers (atheists) who are good people. But here is another twist: I would rather be in a "hell" with good and loving people who aspire to another religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Native American) including atheists, than in a "heaven" with BELIEVERS who are not good and loving (i.e. rapist Priests, 9/11 terrorists) but have mumbled the words required to attain Christian salvation (I accept Jesus as my Lord and Saviour), for example, or said the alloted number of Muslim prayers per day, toward Mecca.

You asked about my church and conversion. No, we don't try and convert people or proselytize throughout neighborhoods. We do have a silent session in our service, where the lights are dimmed and we pray, or meditate, quietly.

We, as people, will never be able to come together and coexist peacefully, at least not in our lifetime. It's sad but true. There will always be wars, murder, genocide and just plain incivlilty towards others (like my kids being told they will "burn in hell"), in the name of their God, prophet or saviour. But I believe that if I teach my children well, to see the value in another's belief system, to respect their beliefs, and to even adopt various principles of each religion, then I am raising great children who will, hopefully, help to make the world a better place to live. It's a small change, but it's progress.

You write,

I really do believe that God accepts all good people, no matter what religion they follow.

You also say (elsewhere) that "All religions are correct."

Now, some sets of religious beliefs deny that "God accepts all good people, no matter what religion they follow."

Are they correct here or not?

If they are, then it follows that your assertion is wrong.

If they are not, then it follows that you do not, in fact, think that all religions are correct.

I do not intend to be mean here, despite what you seem to think. Rather, your blithe assertions about the nature of religion are characteristic of what I perceive as one of the maladies of our culture.

Don't you see your dilemma here? You can embrace all religions only after you have sanitized each so that it makes no exclusivist claims. But I dare say that many, most, or even ALL of the world's major religions take their truth claims to be true in the good, old-fashioned sense that precludes the truth of their contradictories.

I suspect that you are a good-natured person who cannot bear to offend the sensibilities of those with whom you disagree. But truth is not a wax nose that may be reshaped out of a consideration for various believers' sensibilities.
_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I really have got to leave this stuff alone! ANotgher window--one with a writing project with a deadline--waits!

First, please do read my post again.

But consider the difference between the following assertions:

(1) "All religious truth claims are equally true."

(2) "God will accept adherents of all religions."

Now, (2) is at least logically possible. It is essentially the claim of Universalism. But note that (2) is committed to the actual existence of God, and so is also committed to the falseness of, say, Buddhism.

So (2) is a claim that God will save even those people who harbor false religious beliefs, such as Buddhism.

I'm open for discussion on whether anythinjg like (2) is true. There is, in fact, a view that is tempting to many Christian thinkers known as "inclusivism." This view has it that even though Christ's objective atonement was a necessary condition for anyone, anywhere ever being reconciled to God, it may be possible to appropriate the work of Christ without coming to have explicit faith in Christ. (The stories vary widely. Perhaps, for instance, that saving faith in Jesus is valuable to God because of a disposition that it reflects--humility, acknowledgement of guilt, desire for God's righteousness, etc. And perhaps such a disposition may be manifested even by people who have never heard of Jesus.

Perhaps.

But (1) is logically impossible given the clear, mutually contradictory truth claims of the various religions. To attempt to regard them all as equally true is evidence of serious confusion. I'm not sure how an assembly like UUCA functions unless there is some sort of "belief sanitation" at work like I mentioned before. Either everyone is expected to water down their conflicting beliefs as mere subjective ways of feeling good and getting on, or they embrace some sort of incoherent relativism or pluralism, or they agree not to talk about serious points of disagreement, or...?

To suggest that all religions teach the same thing is like saying that all scientific theories say the same thing. They may all serve the same function--at least in some regard--but they are competing candidates for that function.

Now, am I nevertheless free to think that there is something of value in many if not all world religions? Sure. Buddhists tell me that I should not grasp the fleeting things of this world. I think they are right. Jesus said, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth." SImilar ideas--just for different reasons. I think the Buddhist's reason for saying it is likely false--namely, the idea of the radical impermanence of everything. But here is at least one tidbit of wisdom in Buddhism. Taoists emphasize the value of a harmony with nature, and, to a degree, I think this is correct and valuable.

Thinking that a conceptual system taken as a whole is false does not entail thinking that each and every single truth claim within that system is false.

If I think that your religious beliefs are false, does it follow that I do not respect you? Why think so? I might see you as a person of integrity who has arrived at conclusions in light of what evidence is available. I might admire you for your virtues. I might enjoy conversation with you. I might even care enough about you to try to persuade you out of your religious beliefs!

The lingering problem in all of this is that our society has imbibed the ridiculous idea that TOLERANCE entails never thinking that anyone else's beliefs are false. But, as I have argued in various blogs here, that is an impossible account of tolerance. Beliving anything at all entails believing that other things are false.

Now, "there are good and bad people in every religion" is most certainly true. But, first, I'm not sure how this is relevant for assessing the truth claims of the religions. (See my other recent blog in the "Catholicism and Atheism" threads, etc.)

Also, some religious people do bad things, and those bad things VIOLATE the dictates of their religions. Then, their own professed beliefs condemn them. Other people do bad things BECAUSE their religious beliefs entail that they should do these things. In that case, we have reason to offer a negative assessment of BOTH the person AND the religious beliefs in question.

People who kill in the name of Jesus have simply perverted his original message to suit their own interests. The jury is still out on whether RADICAL Islam is either a perversion of the original or the pure thing. In any case, terrorism is an atrocity, and, therefore, so are any religious beliefs that spawn it.

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

How does one turn off this fountain above? It just asks a lot of questions with a few hidden opinions! Typical "it is your Mother's fault."

You find only questions? No assertions? Really?!

Perhaps you suffer from ADD.

One of the many things that $mith, Nitpicker$, Dollar, and, I suspect, at least one new character, have in common is a di$ta$te for any attempt at careful thinking. Rather than engaging the ideas, they ridicule the "eggheads" responsible for them.

Does thinking hurt you?

_______________

Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of man.

I had never heard of such a church before.