Characature of Faith

 
Krishnaji
 
Avatar
 
 
Krishnaji
Total Posts:  4
Joined  04-04-2013
 
 
 
05 May 2013 18:22
 

Do we really think a believer today is similar (in the mind) to one in the first century?  You could put me on a horse and dress me up as a cowboy but I will never have the mindset of a man on the prairie in the 1880s working his horse and the steers. Faith is a costume today not a uniform. Our real uniform is consumerism, competition, success, pragmatics, science—-all of which makes our mouthing religious dogma “the trick”  we play. We can’t get religion into our sinews as it once was where each moment is seen through it; we have evolved into a new uniform. It is over not due to atheism, but due to a very different psychology.

 
nv
 
Avatar
 
 
nv
Total Posts:  7998
Joined  29-04-2005
 
 
 
05 May 2013 19:47
 

Yes, the modern religious person is different from the ancient one, by way of dividing things up into mental compartments. Some compartments support and rely on scientific findings and ways, but not every modern Christian knows about scientific findings and ways. Fascinating topic!

 
 
Charwiz
 
Avatar
 
 
Charwiz
Total Posts:  142
Joined  11-04-2013
 
 
 
05 May 2013 20:34
 

yes, this is why we must educate the public and stop all the name calling, I see this all the time. It helps nothing. Education and compassion is the only answer.
    I sometimes wonder if religion was a very necessary step in our evolution, our past and some people simply have not evolved while others have. If this is true than they will simply eventually die out.  No species or group ever evolves at exactly the same time or rate, and I do not understand how one can apply natural selection in this case. I feel it would be a human or non- natural selection.  In other words, evolution has to have things die, in order for it to work. It’s just a crazy thought.  I’m trying to fit in evolution with the modern world and religion. I know that in time religions or the faith based ones will die out, and I was wondering how evolution played in this, even though natural selection did not play a part of it. 


Just a thought,
Charwiz

 
 
Krishnaji
 
Avatar
 
 
Krishnaji
Total Posts:  4
Joined  04-04-2013
 
 
 
06 May 2013 02:45
 

Wittgenstein, unlike the insight of a physicist into space/time, had it with the relationship of language and mind. And to Charwiz, religion and evolution do have a relationship. As I once told Krishnamurti it is not a matter of opposition but “undermining”. Opposition creates the violence. Jiddu wanted to speak to me about Padre Pio who I had worked for; I told Jiddu that the image of a great ship on a pond was essentially correct; David Bohm, the physicist, was part of the conversation.

 
Zarkin
 
Avatar
 
 
Zarkin
Total Posts:  14
Joined  04-04-2013
 
 
 
08 May 2013 19:27
 

The criticism that Harris and others put forth is not that most religious ‘people’ are completely backwards and archaic but rather that most religious ‘ideas’ are backwards and archaic. The former represents an intolerance an for entire culture (coined Islamaphobia in the case of Islam) the former is an intolerance for a set of ideas. Just like I can hate Marxism but not hate people who are Marxists, I can hate Islam without hating Muslims. It’s a crucial part of Harris’s arguments that many people overlook, hence the recent slander he has experienced.

 
queefsr4quitters
 
Avatar
 
 
queefsr4quitters
Total Posts:  291
Joined  14-10-2007
 
 
 
29 May 2013 03:06
 
Krishnaji - 05 May 2013 06:22 PM

Do we really think a believer today is similar (in the mind) to one in the first century?  You could put me on a horse and dress me up as a cowboy but I will never have the mindset of a man on the prairie in the 1880s working his horse and the steers. Faith is a costume today not a uniform. Our real uniform is consumerism, competition, success, pragmatics, science—-all of which makes our mouthing religious dogma “the trick”  we play. We can’t get religion into our sinews as it once was where each moment is seen through it; we have evolved into a new uniform. It is over not due to atheism, but due to a very different psychology.

I disagree that faith has changed. What has changed has been modernity and specific beliefs and ideologies. No one in the first century believed that the Bible was the literal word of God; such a doctrine did not exist and, moreover, the scriptures were an open cannon which means there was no “Bible” in the way we know it today. That doesn’t mean the very phenomenon of conviction, of faith, of a blind trust that is imparted onto something or someone that gives the believer a reassurance of “truth” has changed. Faith has always varied in intensity and approach from believer to believer and there has certainly been a decline of it (thankfully), but I don’t think faith itself has changed over time. That would be like saying gullibility itself has changed over time.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14430
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
29 May 2013 05:20
 
Krishnaji - 05 May 2013 06:22 PM

Do we really think a believer today is similar (in the mind) to one in the first century? ... Faith is a costume today not a uniform.


Interesting way to put it.

“Faith” today is all about rhetoric, and it’s rhetoric that’s pointedly about re-defining “faith” so that a modern believer can claim to possess it, since that’s still largely considered the end all, be all of religious virtue. Modern people raised in a world that respects science know Real Faith™ (biblical faith) isn’t actually so much of a virtue, to put it mildly, but at the same time it’s terribly important to their self-worth as believers that they lay claim to faith. So the rhetoricized faith we hear about when apologists are apologizing about it is pointedly all about creating intellectually palatable versions of faith that are claimable and what biblical faith is not, as if they’re making corrections. It’s pretty striking, really, when you realize this is what’s going on.

 
 
mormovies
 
Avatar
 
 
mormovies
Total Posts:  276
Joined  26-04-2011
 
 
 
30 May 2013 07:14
 

“No one in the first century believed that the Bible was the literal word of God; such a doctrine did not exist and, moreover, the scriptures were an open cannon which means there was no “Bible” in the way we know it today.”

This is an outright, blatant lie!  Centuries of human and animal sacrifice, torture, wars and oppression was just a way to symbolically show respect to an abstract non-literal sacred book?  You don’t have to warp reality to make your point.  Faith = INSANITY in the post-enlightend, scientific age.  There is no sane discussion to be had.

 
northstreet
 
Avatar
 
 
northstreet
Total Posts:  27
Joined  01-02-2015
 
 
 
08 February 2015 13:51
 

I think there is a sane discussion to be had because I’ve experienced how material abundance and access to knowledge does not satisfy a hunger for faith.  Faith does not have to be in opposition to reason. Faith does not have to be an ideology. Faith does not have to be childish. All those versions of faith can be ended by cultural evolution.  But when something like “faith” points us in a direction beyond our habitual thinking patterns, it can be immensely creative. It can arise when we have some experience which touches us more deeply than we thought possible. Some unfamiliar quality of experience is evoked, and we want more. Let’s call it ‘spiritual’ for lack of a better word. We recognize this quality of experience as our birthright. We have faith that we can go further into this unfamiliar territory, and that it will have positive outcomes. In Buddhism this is known as the ‘path ‘. Following this path has led me out of conflicting emotions. It has led me into intimate contact with the physical world, and social harmony.  Perhaps other people make this journey without faith, but I did not.

 
SeaCommander
 
Avatar
 
 
SeaCommander
Total Posts:  30
Joined  02-02-2014
 
 
 
13 February 2015 22:50
 

Yes, fascinating topic, I’ ve always thought if someone were to establish a new religion right now, it would not hold water two thousand years henceforth. 

The human condition constantly changes.  You simply can not plant a flag in the ground and declare “this is how it is for all eternity”.
Belief in this kind of behavior is folly.

 
 
Pattertwig
 
Avatar
 
 
Pattertwig
Total Posts:  121
Joined  23-02-2015
 
 
 
23 February 2015 13:19
 
mormovies - 30 May 2013 07:14 AM

“No one in the first century believed that the Bible was the literal word of God; such a doctrine did not exist and, moreover, the scriptures were an open cannon which means there was no “Bible” in the way we know it today.”

This is an outright, blatant lie!  Centuries of human and animal sacrifice, torture, wars and oppression was just a way to symbolically show respect to an abstract non-literal sacred book?

Most of the atrocities described in the Bible occurred before the Tenach aka Old Testament was compiled circa 450 AD.  I’m unaware of any “human sacrifice” that occurred to show respect to any book called the Bible. 

As for animal sacrifice, most of the food in the ancient world came from animal sacrifices.  I don’t see why we need to get smug or hysterical about what chants people made as they killed the food they were going to eat anyway.  Especially since there are reasonable bases for believing that adopting an attitude or feeling of gratitude prior to eating may improve one’s health.  Sure, religion isn’t *necessary* to convey this benefit, but it provides a mechanism for it.

 

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2296
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
24 February 2015 01:45
 
Nankipoo - 23 February 2015 01:19 PM

As for animal sacrifice, most of the food in the ancient world came from animal sacrifices.

Seriously doubt this.

But even if true - why is it still necessary today? Why do we allow kosher/hahal slaughter of animals when the same practice for non-religious reasons is considered by everyone as terrible animal cruelty?