posted
(Note: This is from someone who does not believe the BoM was divinely inspired.)
One criticism I've often heard of religion (most often Christianity, but that's self-selected) is summed up in the question, "Why would God do that?"
In this case, "Why would God use a less than perfect writer to record His words?" But there are many other similar questions along those lines: "Why did God make Adam and Eve if he knew they would eat the apple?" "Why doesn't God make himself known more clearly to us?" Etc.
All these questions can only be evaluated by us according to our frame of reference. God's frame of reference is eternal. He also has more knowledge than we do.
I think this is why faith is considered one of the virtues. It's not just believing in facts we can't prove, but also in the motives and love God has for us.
I'm not required to have answers for these questions beyond "because it was good that it be so." But I have speculations on all these questions (minus the BoM one) as to why it was good. These are based on what I understand about God, and could be entirely wrong. And in searching for answers, I come to understand God better.
In the same way Einstein could take a single observed and very perplexing phenomenon (the constant speed of light from all frames of reference) and mentally extrapolate special relativity, we can take perplexing premises and attempt to extrapolate new meanings for them. I'm fully aware that Einstein's can be empirically proven and mine cannot - that's not the point of this. Reconciling seeming inconsistencies in a system is a good way to obtain deeper understanding of the system.
I also believe that the best answers anyone can come up with for many such questions are by necessity incomplete, but that each answer can fully illuminate one portion of the truth of the matter. It's why storytelling (Tolkien's myth and faerie stories) can hold so much truth.
Dagonee P.S., all of this presupposes faith. I'm not saying this is a reason for someone to convert. I'm saying once one accepts faith, the hard questions become opportunities for understanding, not difficulties.
posted
>> I did specify "per unit adherent". Obviously you need to take the size of your sample into account; I mean, duh.
That's true, you did. I didn't understand exactly what you were getting at, and I'm glad that you've cleared it up here.
I hope you'll excuse me; I'm still more interested in the way a person's faith or non-faith affected/influenced their criminal actions than I am in the numbers game.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I gotta admit, Dog (and others), I assumed the original comment that started today's hullabaloo was intended as light humor, though not really that funny.
As I said, it wasn't a problem for me, either, and I wouldn't have started a fight over it. I haven't been that aware of KoM's past exploits, so that wasn't an issue. It was KoM's weird behavior after that comment that riled me up Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Essentially, if I read your post right, having faith gives you the ability to give God the benefit of the doubt when something bad happens, because we have incomplete information.
Actually, right at the beginning of the KoM flame, I started thinking of justifications for the BoM quote:
(humorous) Those seeing crystals must have been made of calcite.
(serious) Smith was translating from another language. We don't know the syntax or idiosyncracies of that language. So for example, in spanish, all modifiers have to be of the same type, so they use double negatives all the time. In english, this sounds stupid, but in spanish it makes perfect sense. How would we know if the repetition was caused by a similar effect?
This response is to the part of your post about pre-supposed faith. It doesn't take faith to come up with a justification for something you don't believe. It only takes a willingness to look at it from someone else's point of view. So you don't need faith in God in order to be willing to look at the hard questions from a theistic point of view.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Essentially, if I read your post right, having faith gives you the ability to give God the benefit of the doubt when something bad happens, because we have incomplete information.
Essentially. I think there's much more to it than that, but yes, this is a decent summary.
quote:So you don't need faith in God in order to be willing to look at the hard questions from a theistic point of view.
The intellect and willingess to look at hard questions from another point of view allow one to come up with possible reasons for the hard facts. Faith let's one be sure that there is a reason, and that reason reconciles the hard fact with a loving omnipotent God.
Dagonee *Theistic in this case is used from a fairly specific standpoint.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The problem is with the word "no," not with the idea that some atheists might convert under such circumstances."
Excellent point.
dean's two explanations do pretty much nail why the "no atheists in foxholes" slogan is insulting though, #1 implies we're cowards, and #2 implies we're selfish. (or rather, are unable to be selfless)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I can't decide whether I've been insulted. *peruses pics* The blue is cool, and I like the poised pinky and bunny slippers. I'm not a Hawking fan, but that can be forgiven.
However, the other picture . . . um, one of my students took the one that is meant to be reminiscent of, neh?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you are in the category of people with whom it is impossible to have a civilized, intelligent conversation. It doesn't matter why you are in there - whether it is because you're nuts, you're not intelligent enough, you don't know how to talk to people, or you deliberately try to alienate, you have placed yourself in that catagory.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, why speak to me at all, then? The forum doesn't have an ignore function, but there's a perfectly good one in your brain, no?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because you have shown, once or twice, faint shadows of glimmers of echoes of a decent Hatracker in there somewhere. I read your posts because there's always a chance you'll break out of form. I like being pleasantly surprised, and I want to leave that possibility open.
Which reminds me, time to update my "Evil and bonkers in our 'verse" thread.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope you'll excuse me; I'm still more interested in the way a person's faith or non-faith affected/influenced their criminal actions than I am in the numbers game.
Fair enough, but that's a much more difficult question to answer. I'm sure you know the old joke about the guy looking for his lost keys under the street lamp, because that's the only place he would be able to see them. It is not unusual to see scientists doing the equivalent, particulary in the softer sciences where the questions are quite hard. As a first pass, the numbers are a good indication. You have to start somewhere, and I fear neither of us has the time to get anywhere beyond starting, just for purposes of an Internet discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in the evolution 'debate', there are several instances of either lying for Jesus, or being remarkably thick-headed for Jesus. Consider Kent Hovind, who (apparently sincerely) believes that dinosaur bones actually come from dragons.
And on the subject of robbery, I doubt you'll find many atheist televangelists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm rather partial to the people who try to say Darwin recanted on his deathbed, and make up/take out of context quotations from famous evolutionary biologists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed you speak truth. Then there's accusing Archaeopteryx of being faked, the various assertions of radioactive dating not working, the hoary old moon-dust argument... Jack Chick is excellent on this. His anti-evolution tracts aren't quite so hateful as the anti-Catholic / Mormon / Jew / Moslem / pet-hate-of-the-week ones, you can actually read them for humorous content.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Glenn, all I can say is that I certainly meant nothing insulting by that quote, and in light of further examination I suppose I see how it could be construed as insulting-it is pretty absolute, after all (but I've only ever considered it absolute that atheists would convert in a foxhole, never that because they are cowards they wouldn't be there in the first place)-so I'll be more specific if I quote it or similar circumstances in the future.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about a foxhole, but I know I've seen accounts from atheists who've nearly been in a plane crash, thought they were certainly about to die, and didn't "convert".
Plus, there are atheists in the military, and I'd bet in Iraq as well (close as we're going to get to foxholes). Easy enough to check and see if there are, which may quickly disprove your theory, unless you're going to hold out for a literal foxhole.
Also, there are certainly atheists risking their lives as police officers and firefighters and the like and retaining their atheism; I've known a few.
Come to think of it, my Dad's a very weak agnostic despite coming under direct fire in the Vietnam evacuation several times.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Perspective is everything. I know that most people don't consider whether such a statement is insulting, because unless you're an atheist, it might never occur to you that it was.
Kind of like considering homosexuality a mental disease prior to the advent of psychology. It was just assumed to be true, and no one thought to ask gays if they wanted to be cured.
But eventually someone stands up and tells people they are insulted by such assumptions. So here we are.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Look, guys, I was quoting it as just a saying, not a statement of fact. I should've been more clear about that, but I took it as obvious that despite the quote there are atheists in foxholes...just that sometimes, people do strange things when they come under such stress.
I've been an atheist before, and not been insulted by that quote-but that was a long time ago, and I admit I didn't think of the implications. I'm not very comfortable with being compared with someone who thinks homosexuals need to be 'cured'.
I assumed the statement was maybe an aphorism, not that it was literally true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't have to keep flogging it, Rakeesh.
Let's put it this way. I'm not insulted by your use of the phrase, I'm insulted by the phrase itself. I chalk up your use of the phrase to ignorance. That's not intended to be offensive, ignorance just means you didn't know.
Well, it matters to me, so I made sure you know. Now you do. No harm done.
posted
I had a thought on this last night. Take a look from the opposite perspective: If someone decides during war that this is something a loving God would never allow, atheists would say this person has come to their senses and recognized something that should have been obvious all along. They would not consider the conversion to atheism to be something for which the convertee should be derided or insulted, but rather something for which they should be praised. Whereas a member of the faith they left would probably say the convertee lacked fortitude.
Now switch it around. An atheist converting under that situation would be viewed by members of his new faith as coming to his senses, whereas, to atheists, it might look like cowardice - someone who lacks conviction in their beliefs when faced with the reality of possible death.
In each case, members of the convertee's new faith can reasonably look at the conversion as both an act of courage and wisdom. The members of the convertee's old faith can reasonably look at the conversion as an act of cowardice and foolishness.
I don't think the phrase is particularly nice either way, and it's certainly counterproductive. But it should be easy to see why the perceptable insult wouldn't occur to people of the new faith, whichever that happens to be.
posted
Oh, I don't think the notion that an atheist might convert under the situation is insulting. I think the notion that all atheists might convert in that situation is insulting.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to the dog tags thing: As part of military indoctrination, enlisted men have to provide information that goes on their dogtags. One of those questions is: "What is your religion?" Apparently it's a standard catch phrase in the military if, when someone answers that question by saying they are an atheist, the person taking it down responds "there are no atheists in foxholes, son" and writes "no preference" on the form. The dogtags wind up with NP stamped on them.
Apparently, however, dogtags are not required to be military issue.
As I said, at the Godless Americans March on Washington, several hundred veterans/servicement got up on the stage. Several of them showed their dogtags, which they paid to have custom made, so they actually read "atheist."
"No Preference" appears to be a standard policy, and "No atheists in foxholes" is a standard reply. The real issue here is that the military is actually being demeaning.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, I don't think the notion that an atheist might convert under the situation is insulting. I think the notion that all atheists might convert in that situation is insulting.
I'm just trying to explain why it's not obvious that it's insulting. The two reasons given - cowardice and selfishness - would not be attributed to someone converting under those circumstances by the typical religious person. The insult is perceived or not perceived because fo the very belief sets that define the two views.
That doesn't mean I don't think the insult is real. Just that there is very strong evidence it's not intended. Glenn said the lack of understanding was based on ignorance, which I agree with. I was trying to explain the reason for the ignorance, and to point out that the assumption that it can mean only one of the two things pointed out earlier is also based on ignorance.
That doesn't mean it's not insulting or that the phrase should be used. It means two groups of people who view the world through fundamentally different lenses will perceive insult and compliment very differently.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"No Preference" appears to be a standard policy, and "No atheists in foxholes" is a standard reply. The real issue here is that the military is actually being demeaning.
In the usage you described it's absolutely demeaning and doesn't fall under the phenomenon I was describing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, nowadayd, dogtags *are* military issue. It may just be that the deployment manager in question may not be aware that "athiest" is an option. I know our DM isn't all knowing about the system. Another reason for the existence of tags with "athiest" on them could be that the servicemember had them made on his own (most military museums have a little kisosk that lets anyone make a dogtag) and their DM didn't delve in when they asked the member if he/she had dogtags and if they were accurate.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm no expert, but what I was led to understand is that although the military does issue dogtags, you are allowed to have them made on your own. I assume they have to be made to mil spec.
quote: It may just be that the deployment manager in question may not be aware that "athiest" is an option.
This comes from a lot of military atheists that have experienced this, and over a long period of time. It's not just one or two deployment managers. And it's not a matter of picking from a list of authorized religions, it's a matter of not accepting the soldier's answer.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know our DM isn't all knowing about the system.
Man, that always ruins a good game of D&D.
quote:Now, how's this for religion influencing your crimes?
Is it the religion that caused that crime, or the way the individuals chose to construe it? Fanaticism that goes beyond all reason like that is pretty rare, and can be devoted to virtually any cause or misconception.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the difference between 'religion' and 'the way an individual chooses to construe it'? Faith is surely an individual thing. The way people interpret their faith is the religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a foxhole [titter], the behavior of the atheist and the religious person are almost certain to be identical. Does it really matter what each person believes?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, right at the beginning of the KoM flame, I started thinking of justifications for the BoM quote
Actually, it's pretty simple to explain repetitions if you know the LDS account of the history of the Book of Mormon.
The original Book of Mormon artifact (the golden plates) was engraved on metal plates. If the writer(s) accidentally repeated something as they copied or composed, there was no good way to erase it.
Mormons also don't believe that God dictates every word of scripture. God provides inspiration, which a prophet then has to interpret according to his own language and preexisting interpretation of reality.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the difference between 'religion' and 'the way an individual chooses to construe it'? Faith is surely an individual thing. The way people interpret their faith is the religion.
To blame an entire intstitution, practiced for good by millions of people, for the misuse of it by a few, is disingenuous. Considering that there are lots and lots people who DON'T misconstrue Christianity to justify the crucifixion of schizophrenics, I think it is fair to assert that this was a choice made by a few individuals, and is not representative of the religion.
Any system of devotion, be it religious, political, pseudoscientific, or social, can be abused. That's an important thing for members of an organization or a culture to watch out for and combat. But the fact that these abuses occur does not invalidate the system within which it occurred.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You asked for examples of how religion could influence someone's crimes. I gave you one. The 'few-bad-apples' argument is a little misleading, I think. The question is whether a system produces more, or fewer, bad apples per unit systemite. I assert that religions have more nutjobs per faithful than the secular average, and give an example of what I mean.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's reasonable to discuss matters of human conviction and faith in large-scale cost-benefit terms like this.
Basketball, for instance, produces more physical injuries than shuffleboard. Does that mean that schools, companies, and the whole country at large should ban basketball in favor of shuffleboard, because it will reduce injuries? I'm sure we could show, definitively, that doing so would have the desired effect. Certain injuries that would have occurred now will not occur. And specifically, injuries that were not the fault of the person receiving them would drop as fouls and collisions on the court completely ceased.
With religion, you can't even go this far and show definitively that crazy people who do crazy things would be less crazy without their faith. It's very difficult to show, for instance, that religion is the cause of craziness, rather than simply being something that is attractive to crazy people.
If you have a country in which most people grow up exposed to religion, but some take to it while others don't, how exactly do you prove that the people who took to it fanatically and turned out to be crazy were made crazy by the religion, and didn't just go for the most fanatical form of the local relgion because they were already crazy?
And then, with that unproven, you still have to deal with the fact that MOST beneficial things that humans do have risks. If we do a whole range of cost analyses like this, we will probably find that everything is capable of hurting or killing you or someone else, and if we go in with hostility to the subject matter (as you do with religion, and as I do with basketball), it is easy to say "This institution is NOT worth the cost!"
It is far too simple to say something like that about an institution that matters to other people's lives, and not to your own.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you are forgetting that I also believe the other effects of religion are bad. It's not just a question of the nutjobs, though this is the easiest effect to show. I also think it is bad when people believe in fairy tales, especially since that requires a particularly nasty kind of doublethink so one carefully doesn't apply actual reasoning skills to a large part of one's life. So, to follow your analogy, it is as if basketball didn't just lead to injuries, but also had a really nasty political ideology to go with it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In a foxhole [titter], the behavior of the atheist and the religious person are almost certain to be identical. Does it really matter what each person believes?
Is there a joke I'm missing? What's the titter?
The stories from atheists in combat usually revolve around the theist cowering in the bottom of the foxhole praying and hoping God will rescue them, while the atheist kicks them in the pants and tells them to get up and be productive, 'cause God isn't going to answer your prayer.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, unless those are first-hand reports of specific incidents, Glenn, I think those stories are pretty hostile. I've heard them put forth as general propositions, much like "no atheists in foxholes." Not that I think you did that here, but the story has been used that way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you're right of course that the ones that are repeated are the most sensational. Certainly an atheist whose foxhole partner is actively participating isn't going to make an issue out of whether they are religious or not.
Likewise, an atheist who cowers petrified in the foxhole isn't going to tell his story any differently.
I can't say of course how often the story is repeated as an urban legend, but I know I've heard them straight from the Vets at the GAMOW.
[ June 21, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds to me like (as in my case) the deployment folks just aren't (weren't?) trained properly. And in the Army, the kind of attitude portrayed in those stories abounds. So while not surprising, it still might also not be predjudice as much as ignorance.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you are forgetting that I also believe the other effects of religion are bad. It's not just a question of the nutjobs, though this is the easiest effect to show.
You COULD also say the same thing about basketball if that were your particular hobby-horse ... you could say that it promotes aggressiveness, bitter rivalries, cheating, etc, and that in general, it is bad for society.
You could do that by applying some simple creative prioritization. If the things that basketball does well are not terribly important and the things that basketball does poorly or negatively are highly important, then it comes across as an overall horrible pursuit.
Your personal priorities place provability and exclusive reliance on objective fact near the top of the scale, while spiritual enlightenment, community-building, subjective self-understanding and growth, moral agreement and moral teaching, the propogation of culture, etc, fall much lower. Since most religion does not even attempt to satisfy the requirement you place at the top, it is valueless to you, despite the fact that the vast majority of people consider many of the other issues I listed to be at least as important.
And since you discount all of its positive values, the least harm that you can find in it becomes its overriding identity.
I contend that if you truly rely on objectivity, you will take into account the fact that you know very many intelligent people who actually find value in religion, and that therefore, your own priorities might actually be flawed and skewed heavily to one side of a scale that, in reality, is much more balanced.
Anyway, to continue quoting you ...
quote:I also think it is bad when people believe in fairy tales, especially since that requires a particularly nasty kind of doublethink so one carefully doesn't apply actual reasoning skills to a large part of one's life.
You've already been told exactly why the "fairy tale" thing is counterproductive. You only make yourself look more churlish when you persist in using it.
Have you ever had faith in a religion? Because the way you describe it comes across very strongly as an outsider who is trying to explain something he has never experienced, and is doing so in a pointlessly contemptuous way, while completely missing the point.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
um, one of my students took the one that is meant to be reminiscent of, neh?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
