|
Post by joanna on Oct 9, 2015 23:53:14 GMT -5
Hello again What Hat.: As for the 'children of professing people being free to make a commitment to the religion at an age where they can think for themselves': Do you honestly disregard the up to three times weekly attendance at meetings and missions from 0 age as irrelevant? Children in professing families are exposed to an indoctrination process which is intended to quash inquiry and doubt. This is what religions thrive on.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 10, 2015 5:17:16 GMT -5
Hello again What Hat.: As for the 'children of professing people being free to make a commitment to the religion at an age where they can think for themselves': Do you honestly disregard the up to three times weekly attendance at meetings and missions from 0 age as irrelevant? Children in professing families are exposed to an indoctrination process which is intended to quash inquiry and doubt. This is what religions thrive on. Despite the best efforts of parents to "indoctrinate" children along whatever lines, religious, political or sociological, whether Catholicism, Baptist-ism, fascism, socialism, animal rights activism, feminism, Jeddae Knight-ism, Santa Claus-ism or Donaldism, children manage to still become adults with a faculty for independent, critical thought. Sometimes too much so, I fear.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 10, 2015 5:24:01 GMT -5
What Hat "Incidentally, how did so many young people become National Socialists in pre-war Germnay? Somehow being outside of a religion doesn't inure people to indoctrination and ideology". Hitler was a roman catholic who quoted the bible as a justification for the Nazi's intention to destroy the Jewish people. The Nazi's motto on their belt buckle was " Gott mitt uns" or 'god with us'. Facism was the right wing version of the roman catholic church. National socialism was impacted by diverse influences however it cannot be classed as secularist. Apparently 50% of the Nazis were confessing catholics. The only Nazi who was ex communicated was Joseph Goebbels due to having married a protestant. So your claim that National Socialists were 'outside of religion' is incorrect. From biblical times, genocides and other atrocities have been conducted in the name of god(s). National Socialism and Communism under Mao and Stalin, arguably the most destructive and dangerous movements of our lifetime, were either overtly atheistic or exhibited religion tokenistically. Let's add Pol Pot and Japanese militarism to the list.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 10, 2015 23:15:02 GMT -5
The reference to Mao and Stalin’s violent reign is the natural and understandable response by christians endeavouring to standardise, or rebut religious inspired violence. The salient inspiration for these dictator’s acts was the communist ideology. The individual who judges communism as an atheist ideology does so from a judeo-christian perspective and from the perspective of a religious world view. Stalin and Mao’s totalitarian regimes were not framed by a dismissal of christianity. Christopher Hitchens provides a worthy rebuttal here. Interestingly, some scholars refer to the ‘Mao cult’. Please consider what inspires hierarchy and leader worship and complete submission to authority. The terrible consequences of Stalin, Mao etc are not a vindication of christianity. Just as there are christians who would not commit violence, so there are communists who abhor this. However the Hebrew bible and the qu’ran contain actions, including god-ordained genocide, and verses which believers can and do use to justify violence in the name of god or allah. And here is a list of references which associates the New Testament with aggression and violence. Your mention of Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot validates a need to dismiss any texts which contain a warrant to commit violence. Why is there even a massive body count emanating from belief in the god of Abraham. A count which is rising exponentially due to continuing sectarian violence involving jewish, muslim and christian groups. Secular humanism does not promote the use of violence to convert others. ‘The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. This philosophy opposes any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological or social institutions to shackle free thought’. Steven Weinberg “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Oct 12, 2015 10:42:36 GMT -5
googled "violent secular humanism". What could be more fundamental to science than the assumption that the explorability and thereby the cognizability of reality arises due to its bearing the handwriting of its author? If they (the Marxist' Humanists) could only destroy the chains of illusion and the myths of unreason that persisted, they believed that humankind would be emancipated from theistic dogmas and they would breathe the free air of a naturalistic/materialistic outlook. But in that basic premise they have failed -- for if we have learned anything in the last century, it is that atheism, scientific naturalism, and materialism are not sufficient. www.sullivan-county.com/bristol/crucial_mistake_bvu.htm
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 12, 2015 19:37:42 GMT -5
The reference to Mao and Stalin’s violent reign is the natural and understandable response by christians endeavouring to standardise, or rebut religious inspired violence. The salient inspiration for these dictator’s acts was the communist ideology. The individual who judges communism as an atheist ideology does so from a judeo-christian perspective and from the perspective of a religious world view. Stalin and Mao’s totalitarian regimes were not framed by a dismissal of christianity. Christopher Hitchens provides a worthy rebuttal here. Interestingly, some scholars refer to the ‘Mao cult’. Please consider what inspires hierarchy and leader worship and complete submission to authority. The terrible consequences of Stalin, Mao etc are not a vindication of christianity. Just as there are christians who would not commit violence, so there are communists who abhor this. However the Hebrew bible and the qu’ran contain actions, including god-ordained genocide, and verses which believers can and do use to justify violence in the name of god or allah. And here is a list of references which associates the New Testament with aggression and violence. Your mention of Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot validates a need to dismiss any texts which contain a warrant to commit violence. Why is there even a massive body count emanating from belief in the god of Abraham. A count which is rising exponentially due to continuing sectarian violence involving jewish, muslim and christian groups. Secular humanism does not promote the use of violence to convert others. ‘The first principle of democratic secular humanism is its commitment to free inquiry. This philosophy opposes any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological or social institutions to shackle free thought’. Steven Weinberg “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” I think you're confused about my point. The Hitchens video is refuting the idea that Stalinism is a product of atheism. And I agree with Hitchens. My point is merely that war, cruelty and violence are not the direct consequences of religious belief. Nor are they the consequences of atheism, nor consequences of secular humanism. The thesis that religion, or any particular religion directly causes violence is too broad, too simplistic and also unprovable, IMO. I believe that violence is too deeply embedded into human behaviour to make such a statement. War is an essential feature of our collective identity, and so, religion is very much bound up with war. But it is not a simple cause-effect relationship. Moving to a post-religious world won't get us away from war; I'm quite sure of that.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 13, 2015 7:18:20 GMT -5
Hello What Hat. There is reason to doubt the claim "The thesis that religion, or any particular religion directly causes violence is too broad, too simplistic and also unprovable". I agree that the human animal is inherently violent; Steven J Bartlett has written a book titled "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil" and I plan to read that sometime. Bartlett has stated that humans are inherently narcissistic and he identifies multi-factorial influences for our innate tendencies. Here is some information from a christian site which contributes to our discussion
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 14, 2015 0:10:29 GMT -5
Rob Sargison "So beyond the apparent dullness presented here, and despite the criticism leveled at the participants in the scene and the mocking and the scorning of what these good folk believe, there is a vibrancy and a dynamic permeating their mutual fellowship which sustains and feeds them, and provides a quality of life and meaning that their detractors do not necessarily have. It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it". The mutual fellowship you refer to (when personalising the people featured in the gospel meeting / convention video in this thread), is common to many religions and is consistent with the claims that religion is a social construct. You may have read the work of Emile Durkheim. He stated that 'religion gave humanity its' strongest sense of collective consciousness'. " It obviously does not suit everyone particularly, but that is their world and they are immensely content within it" does not appear to consider the process by which the majority of religious adherents come to believe in what ever brand of religion they are to be found in. If it were not for the indoctrination of children, many people would not be religious. This process infringes on the rights of (typically) the child to apply natural and free inquiry. The indoctrination process is designed to overpower children and others, and coerce them to conform even when it does not suit them. When considering this, it is reasonable to query whether immense contentment is really achieveable. Most children just take for granted what their parents and teachers tell them, whatever that is. However, at a certain age they begin to think critically about what they have been told and begin their own journey. Most religions, including the friends, have a process where a young adult can make a commitment to the religion after they reach an age where they can think for themselves.That doesn't mean they're still not subject to social and other pressures, or to 'a priori' assumptions, or that all their belief processes are completely rational. But it's not quite as dire as you make out, in or out of religion.Incidentally, how did so many young people become National Socialists in pre-war Germnay? Somehow being outside of a religion doesn't inure people to indoctrination and ideology. You make a good point about being 'in or out-side of a religion' by comparing religion and secular types of culture or governments, ranging from the government Nazi indoctrination to a Christian indoctrination.
I believe that it is not so much the ideas within the indoctrination as much as it is the the time of life of the child. That time is puberty when the mind is beginning to mature, that time between being a child & becoming an adult . Most, if not all, cultures have some kind of ritual to initiate the child into that child's culture.
Think of first communions, tribal rituals, -and yes, even the TRUTH'S expectation of when a child should profess!
The rewards for a child are huge! By submitting to be "born again" into any culture makes the child feel a part of the whole group, -doesn't matter what group, -can be Nazi Youth Group or a 2x2.
It is all in the timing, when the emerging adult is looking at the future and reaching out to a world that is so much larger than they have known up to that time, and can also be scary.
The joining of the group gives them not only a feeling of belonging to the group but also of being protected by the group.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 14, 2015 19:16:19 GMT -5
Hello What Hat. There is reason to doubt the claim "The thesis that religion, or any particular religion directly causes violence is too broad, too simplistic and also unprovable". I agree that the human animal is inherently violent; Steven J Bartlett has written a book titled "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil" and I plan to read that sometime. Bartlett has stated that humans are inherently narcissistic and he identifies multi-factorial influences for our innate tendencies. Here is some information from a christian site which contributes to our discussionRe: Inherently violent -- I read somewhere recently -- maybe it was here -- about humanity's natural affinity for destruction. I've given it some (little) thought, and I can see the point. I recall it in myself as a child.... and I think we see it around us, perhaps even in our fascination with natural disasters, explosive demolitions of high-rise buildings, train wrecks and car crashes, airplane crashes, war, etc. I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this. On the other hand, looking at the natural world around us, there are some plants that are inherently violet.
|
|