Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

that sig line is pure gold. sort of captures everything in one short sentence. sadly, i would think it would fly far above the heads of anyone who its targeted at.

Posted by kert at December 14, 2007 07:13 AM

Good point by Potemra. The signature is clever but monotheism doesn't imply there can't be plenty of other beings between humans and God or that they can't be mistaken/misidentified as gods, just that they aren't truly God.

Does anyone have an example of a monotheistic religion that has man and God and nothing in-between?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at December 14, 2007 07:25 AM

I personally don't think any other religious beliefs (I'm Catholic) are 'strange'. All religion is based on faith - there is no known way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God.

I also don't necessarily agree with the gist of the sig. There are many different 'flavors' of religious beliefs - most culminating in the same basic belief in a supreme being. Just because I don't think some of the minor points of other religions are incorrect doesn't mean I don't share their main beliefs.

Lastly, as an aside, I think atheism is the highest form of arrogance. There is NO scientific proof of no God, yet here they (atheists) are, smug in their knowledge they are smarter than the rest of us.

Posted by Tom W. at December 14, 2007 08:29 AM

Of course, there is a simple answer to this question - we are all humans, and all different. If God is trying to speak to us, it it not unexpected that we would all hear a different voice - his voice is being translated through our experiences and knowledge. The fact that many different people leads to many different opinions about the divine is not surprising to me. What does surprise me is the level of agreement between religions - they have a tendency to agree on the major points. This can be explained by many things, of course, but a possible explanation of this agreement is that it comes from the same source, God.

What I do like about the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) faith is that we are encouraged to test our beliefs. We are not told what to think by anyone, we are told "if you do X, Y will happen." Then we can do it and see the results, or at least see the results in other's lives.

One other thing I would mention, since we are talking about the faith I believe in, is something commonly misunderstood by non-Christians. We (at least Mormons) do not believe that we are suffering here in order to secure a happy afterlife (in fact, we believe the afterlife is happy for practically everyone) - we believe that following the commandments of God make you happy in this life and the next. In other words, if I go off the assumption that my faith is incorrect I would still maximize my personal benefit by following the commandments. To me, this would be a critical test of a religion - is it beneficial? God says he blesses us - and he will prove it when asked.

This, by the way, is the reason for missionary work. We are not trying to bug you, and I'm sorry if we do. We believe that we have found a way for people to become happier - and so we want to share that with others. Thats why 19 year olds choose to take 2 years out of there lives to serve others, at there own expense.

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2007 08:35 AM

I like that signature line as well. I've told my friends that the flip side of being an Agnostic (as I consider myself) is that I don't know if there's just *one* God, either. For all I know, deities do exist, it's only monotheists that got it wrong...

Posted by Frank Glover at December 14, 2007 08:48 AM

I don't understand why people call themselves agnostics. (I'm not criticizing - I just genuinely don't understand.)

Are you unsure about all sorts of unverifiable claims, or is God in a special category for you? For example, are you more unsure about God than about goblins?

I call myself an atheist - not because I'm arrogantly sure that I have proof that God doesn't exist, but because I have no reason to think God does exist, just as I have no reason to think goblins exist. I suppose goblins could exist, as could God, but I feel comfortable not believing in either, as (I believe) there is no evidence for God or goblins.

I would be interested in hearing why people who do not believe in God call themselves agnostics.

Posted by Abominable at December 14, 2007 09:14 AM

Actually, a term I ran across that seems appropriate is "Apatheist" - not especially worked up over the issue whether you're a believer or not. I don't see any conflict with being a Reform Jew and an apatheist at the same time.

I think agnostic in the context above is a way of saying "I have no idea whether there's a god or not" and atheist indicates a certainty that God does not exist. It isn't "not believing in God" but rather "believing there isn't one." that defines the atheist.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at December 14, 2007 09:32 AM

I would be interested in hearing why people who do not believe in God call themselves agnostics.

I call myself an agnostic (or preferably, skeptic) because I can't know for certain that there is no god. I'm an agnostic on goblins, too. But I've never seen any evidence for them, so if I were a betting man, I'd bet against. But to me, the fact that so many believe in God is some evidence for it, though not compelling to me. I do think it's a different category.

In my book, an atheist believes that there is no god. I don't have any strong beliefs on the subject, and I don't believe there is a god.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 14, 2007 09:35 AM

Sorry Rand, skeptic means you don't believe in Al Gore. That term is taken!

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2007 09:43 AM

More seriously, I agree with you Rand - to me an Atheist is someone so egotistical that they honestly belief that only they can see "the truth", and the rest of us are idiots. An agnostic is someone with the reasonable position that their life experiences do not (presently ;-} ) lead them to believe in deity. Perhaps a dictionary would say otherwise, but to me this is probably the most useful definition.

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2007 09:50 AM

Mike Potemra's theology isn't all that good, though.

Christians (I'm an atheist, so I'm not speaking for myself) hold that mankind is redeemed not "because we murdered Jesus", but because he chose to die for us.

That a Roman-installed politician let the local religious government have him killed is almost the least important thing about the crucifixion (except as an object lesson in human corruptibility).

If he'd stuck to the original sin thing he'd have a stronger case.

Posted by Sigivald at December 14, 2007 10:03 AM

I think it is fair to say that Mitt's Mormonism is an important part of who he is and an element of understanding who he is as a person and what he would be like as a leader, as is Rudy's approximation to Catholicism or Huck's Baptist Biblism.

As a Catholic, whom do I identify with better, with Rudy, a Catholic, or with Mitt, an adherent to what I regard as a heretical religion, but at least to all outward signs, adhering better to many of the things I hear preached in church. Perhaps I can return the favor of Mitt's compliment of the ceremonial ritual of my faith by admiring many Mormons for setting examples of clean living and devotion to marriage and children.

Religion is ultimately about coming to terms with what is ultimately unknowable -- what happens when we die, what is our purpose and direction in life, why do others along with ourselves have to suffer and experience great sorrows? Menken observed that religion is more about poetry than prose as the unknowable is not amenable to purely logical explanations, and he allowed that there was a lot to the Catholic religion that was good poetry in his estimation.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith living in New York had a vision where he encountered the Angel Moroni; I believe that Juan Diego living in what is now Mexico City had a vision of the Virgin Mary. Whether these visions happened is a matter of faith, but Joseph Smith and Juan Diego are historical people. Mormons believe that the Americas were populated by an advanced civilization derived from trans-Atlantic colonization; I (and Mormons as well) believe that the Israelites were once enslaved by an Egyptian Pharoh. The evidence for the pre-Columbian Hebrew-derived civilization in the Americas is pretty thin; the notion that Ramses II, a well-documented historical figure, was the Pharoh of the Bible has some degree of archealogical support.

Beyond that, while there are dry-reading stretches of the Bible, many passages of the Bible are arguably some of the most movingly poetic writings in Western literature. I have had a go at reading the Book of Mormon and have found it to be stilted, repetitive, and formulaic. Talking about poetry, take a look at I Corinthians 13 -- is there anything comparable in the Book of Mormon? I know Mormons who live I Corinthians 13 as well as anyone I know, but it is a mystery to me where they get the inspiration to be that way from Mormon-specific scriptures.

Christianity is the inspiration for much of the fine art of Western Civilization. The Latter Day Saints have those paintings you see on the public Temple tour in Salt Lake City depicting Joseph Smith's visions along with imagined scenes of the pre-Columbian Hebrew civilization; I guess using the Jewish-language word for art not of the first rank would be offensive, but there must be non-Mormons who know what I am talking about.

Christianity had many more holy books than the canonical Bible; what little exposure I have had to Gnostic Gospels and other holy books left out of the Bible suggest that not only are these works to be questioned based on questions about dogma or more questionable provenance, a lot of what got left out of the Bible is pretty bad writing. My take on the Book of Mormon is that it has many qualities of the non-canonical Bible from an earlier age.

The one take-home lesson I get from the Christian Gospels, and I don't want to get into a faith vs works righteousness argument with my Evangelical brethren here, is the Kingdom of Heaven is more about what is in your heart as revealed in acts of kindness than about observance of any ritual or expression of belief in any dogma. Samaritans come up in three places -- a women who gets into a philosophical discussion with Jesus, a leper who is healed, and a fictitious Samaritan who takes pity on a travel who had been beaten by robbers.

If I understand my Old Testament well enough, those who call themselves Jews are only 2 of the 12 tribes descended from Jacob -- Judah and Benjamin, I believe -- there was a whole other confederation of 10 tribes regarded as Israel proper or the Northern Kingdon, which fell to the Assyrians and accounts for all of the Lost Tribe of Israel business, of which the Samaritans were a remnant in the time of Jesus, and modern day Samaritans were perhaps the world's smalled religious minority on the planet.

From the standpoint of the descendants of Judah, the religious practices of Israel -- Northern Kingdom -- were already suspect, and it is my understanding that the Samaritans were held in low regard as heretics.

The Good Samaritan was a made up story, but it was told in response to members of the Jewish establishment asking Jesus to name the most important commandment in the Law, which led to a discusion of Love Thy Neighbor, a question as to who rates as a neighbor, and the famous parable. The story was meant to shame the questioners: here is this guy lying on the side of the road, a priest and a Levite pass on by, and this freakin' Samaritan, of all people, stops, puts pressure dressings on all of the guy's wounds, puts this bleeding guy on the seat of his new car, takes the guy to a hospital, makes a downpayment on his medical bills and offers to pay any overage.

What I am trying to say is that my vote would go to a Mormon, who is living the precepts of my own religion, over a co-religionist, forget the wife-number-three part, think about the latent scandals involving all of the lies and deception surrounding the courtship of wife-number-three and the headache to Republicans up and down the ticket, running against you-know-who, aggrieved spouse of bad husband who keeps the family together anyway.

One more thing about Mitt's "flip flop" on abortion. Isn't the whole point about the Pro Life movement is persuading people to stop supporting legalized abortion, to come over to our side? So the man is persuaded either by our arguments or by our quantity as voters -- the whole point is to change minds, isn't it.

Posted by Paul Milenkovic at December 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Why is it arrogant for us to believe there is no god, and not arrogant for you to tell us there is? If you want to peddle fantastic stories of supernatural creatures to the logically-impaired, have at it. But don't presume to then judge us atheists for refusing to bite the hook.

Posted by Andy at December 14, 2007 11:24 AM

David, in a previous thread I made a comment following on Romney's speech where you directly accused me of being a bigot.

Having thought about it some more, I guess I am somewhat bigoted on this matter, and so I do apologize if I was insulting in any manner to you or your beliefs.

In my opinion Romney should just be saying that his faith is his personal affair. If he had left it at that, there would be no issue as far as I am concerned.

And yes, I do find that a lot of Mormon belief is very weird and unsupported by historical evidence. That's not an issue until someone asks me to take a look at their faith in making an evaluation of their capability to lead in some capacity, in which case I am entitled to examine what they believe.

The other problem is that Mormons want to be considered as Christian, and I can't handle that idea. There is just too much that is doctrinally different for this to be acceptable to me. I understand how most Jews feel about the "Jews for Jesus." Jews feel insulted by this group. Mormons as a separate faith, perhaps like the Muslims, where Christ is revered, that's perfectly fine. Mormons indirectly or otherwise claiming to be a branch of Christianity, that in my mind is a big problem. Maybe that makes me a bigot.

Posted by Offside at December 14, 2007 11:28 AM

On the subject of Christianity as revealed by actions rather than deeds:

I had a rather unpleasant experience yesterday. Namely, burying my brother-in-law, who died suddenly and completely unexpectedly last week. None of my immediate family, including him, observe the rituals of Christianity and I at least have no strong opinion about God. However; his mother, who is 80 years old and frail even for that age, needed some help (with putting on her coat I think) and none of the other people there, including her children, some of whom are regular churchgoers, made any move at all to help her; I did. Incidentally, I hadn't seen the woman before yesterday, for about 25 years.

I make no claims about my goodness or otherwise. But who is more Christian - the people who go to church every week or someone who actually helped someone who needed it?

My opinion: saying the right words does not make one a Christian, and not saying them does not mean that one is not.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 14, 2007 11:46 AM

on goblins, you folks dont play much Warcraft, do you ? Theres obviously lots of them !

Posted by kert at December 14, 2007 11:49 AM

Fletcher, I agree completely with you.

Andy, you are asking the question "why is it arrogant that I assume that 95% of the Earth's population is wrong, and I am right?"

Webster: arrogant - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Only you know if this applies to you or not - but it would be arrogance to assume that you are smarter than all the non-atheists, and that non-atheists are "logically-impaired".

I believe there is evidence of God in the feelings of my heart, among other experiences that I will not share here. You can say that feelings don't count - but I will simply disagree. In the end, reality is what we experience - and we experience feelings with the same reality as our sense of touch.

Posted by David Summers at December 14, 2007 01:18 PM

This could be easily massaged to describe US foreign policy.

Posted by rjschwarz at December 14, 2007 03:04 PM

Andy, you are asking the question "why is it arrogant that I assume that 95% of the Earth's population is wrong, and I am right?">>

It wasn't so long ago (in the Grand Scheme of Things) that >95% of the population thought the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The fact that most people believed it to be true had absolutely no bearing on the validity of that belief.

The fact that Pythagoras and Galileo (resp.) argued otherwise didn't make them arrogant.

Which describes, to a T, the theistic crowd.

Posted by Andy at December 14, 2007 03:21 PM

I work well with people secure enough
in their beliefs that they don't take it personally if you disagree with them. The ones I have a problem with are the ones that act like agressive telemarketers. The ones that insist on lecturing on subjects they clearly have not researched. The ones that claim that all answers are in the bible and it must not be questioned.

The type that insist thinking for yourself is evil.

Posted by john hare at December 14, 2007 05:43 PM

John Hare some christians don't fully grasp their own "do unto others as..." concept and I think most religious people too in general have a problem with those. I guess I don't really have to point out that there are atheists who fail to grasp the finer points of the concept as well. Personally I like the jewish attitude to evangelizing: none of it.

One of things I easily tire of is the sentiment that logic and rationality somehow disproves religion or anything "supernatural" (supernatural is a poor word since it assumes anything we don't understand or can't currently prove can't be simply natural when indeed it must be if it exists). I would think that if there's any general lesson we can learn from all our scientific achievements it isn't how much we know but how little we know and thus any logic and rationality reflecting on known history both as a species and within science itself would reach extremely humble and tentative conclusions.

And don't disrespect sock-eating goblins ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at December 15, 2007 03:16 AM

One of the problems is that evangelizing is the right thing to do at times. You don't want people to drink enough to die for instance. The very fuzzy line is who and how you try to convince. There are some beyond saving and some worth convincing if it is within your capability. Many drink and don't have a problem. Evangelizing them is pointless and annoying.

Saving someone from an eternity of fire and brimstone should be worthwhile, if you can make your points honestly. Assuming you have all the answers crosses the line.

Posted by john hare at December 15, 2007 01:56 PM

On a slightly different note, it seems to me that each religion (including several more absolutist variants of atheism, which are at least faiths) has a set of beliefs that act as a recognition marker: no one not part of the community could possibly believe that crap. Mr. Potemra noted some of them for Christians generically. (Pagans, to note my own religion, believe that there is no conflict between scientific knowledge about how plants behave being entirely correct, and animism (that those plants are inhabited and controlled by semi-divine spirits). Some atheists have no problem holding the idea that lack of direct evidence of the existence of a thing and a theoretical framework to explain that evidence implies non-existence, but only for "supernatural" beings or events. In fact, some atheists go so far as to refute human testimony of experience by millions of people as nonsensical and evidence of the testifier's insantity, because those reports conflict with their belief system of how the world works.

(My favorite marker is Jehova's Witnesses, who believe very strongly that only Jehova's Witnesses will get into heaven and that fewer people will be allowed into heaven than there are currently Jehova's witnesses around the world; that said, why should anyone join up, again?)

Posted by Jeff Medcalf at December 15, 2007 02:26 PM

My favorite marker is Jehova's Witnesses, who believe very strongly that only Jehova's Witnesses will get into heaven and that fewer people will be allowed into heaven than there are currently Jehova's witnesses around the world; that said, why should anyone join up, again?

It is only the witless (Jehovah's witless) among them who will remain on earth, as a witness to Jehovah's gift of humour to the human race.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 15, 2007 03:32 PM

To any atheist here present:

I have an argument for you. If you live where the stars are visible occasionally, go out when they are and look up. If the terror and the glory of creation do not then smack you hard in the face, then you are beyond hope.

At the very least I believe in the god of Spinoza.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 15, 2007 07:40 PM

OK, then call me "beyond hope."

Sorry. It's beautiful, and awe-inspiring, but it doesn't compel me to believe in a creator.

But then, I look at such things rationally...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 15, 2007 07:46 PM

I think science is beginning to show us the minds of people who are in deep spiritual contemplation. I remember reading about how certain combinations of brain areas are activated, as seen in brains scans, among those either in deep meditation or prayer. In addition they are often reported as being in states of deep peacefulness. So, it is my belief that some of us who believe in God are actually expressing, using common language, a sensation that occurs when this combination of brain areas are activated to some degree. Perhaps this is the experience of conversion or spiritual awareness that leads one to believe, or at least recognize powerful forces that aren't quite explained as yet. Forces that are even harder to explain to a non-believer.

Now one could take this and argue on in several directions. Why do some of us have this response? Are we touched by God? Is this what we mean by grace ? I distinctly remember being in church as a fourteen year old and suddenly being overwhelmend with a sense of something quite beyond myself. I've been a believer from then on, and no one pushed me into belief.

And why are some, like the atheists, so impervious to suggestions of the spirit? Is it possible that they lack the brain connectivity that enables this experience?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 15, 2007 09:21 PM

I don't see how firmly believing in the God of Spinoza would change anything for an atheist or agnostic. Spinoza's God, like the Deistic God of many of the US Founding Fathers, is a God that is best appreciated by just living your life. If you are science minded, research and keep up on the research of others. If you are an engineer, build stuff. If you are going to look at stars, get a telescope so you can see more. And by doing so, you'll know, um, God, or whatever. You definitely shouldn't waste your time with worship and prayer and being religious -- it would be squandering God's glory! :-)

Posted by Abominable at December 15, 2007 11:33 PM

OK, then call me "beyond hope."

Sorry. It's beautiful, and awe-inspiring, but it doesn't compel me to believe in a creator.

But then, I look at such things rationally...

Amen.

Posted by Andy at December 16, 2007 06:44 AM

"And why are some, like the atheists, so impervious to suggestions of the spirit? Is it possible that they lack the brain connectivity that enables this experience?"

Sane people lack the brain connectivity that enables them to hear voices in their head, or it's just never activated if they do have it. That doesn't mean they're wrong that those voices don't really exist.

If you're advocating a "brain connectivity" argument, you're arguing that either religious types are insane, or areligious types are mentally stunted. Just don't go there.

You happen to believe there is a God. I happen to believe (yes, believe - only agnostics don't take a leap of faith) there isn't one. Since we're both agreed that we should try our best to be good people during our lives, why should a difference of opinion about what happens after make a big difference now?

Posted by Math_Mage at December 16, 2007 08:45 AM

Quote: "If you're advocating a "brain connectivity" argument, you're arguing that either religious types are insane, or areligious types are mentally stunted."

Rationally incorrect.

This is in no way arguing that 'religious types are insane' -- it is, in fact, arguing that 'religious types' (your words) are more able to harness certain neuroconnections that are outside of ordinary human activity, and that, heretofore, those supra-neuroconnections have been described using the words of religion (i.e., divine communications) because that was the only terminology available to them.

Furthermore, they may be arguing that "areligious types are mentally stunted," but, logically, that does not follow from your first posit, which is in error. Just to keep things on a rational footing, which you seem to aver ;^)

Posted by cj at December 16, 2007 10:00 PM

"But then, I look at such things rationally...

Amen."

So do I. But that's not all I do. The two sorts of reaction are not mutually exclusive.

Sometimes even the most mundane and obvious of thoughts can have effects on the person thinking them, all out of proportion. As an example; a few years ago, I was looking up at the sky, with a view to attempting to take some pictures of the Moon (try it sometime; you need some serious kit to do a decent job of it).

And suddenly the thought hit me. An obvious and mundane one. While looking at the Moon:

There are footprints on it.

There have been for just under forty years now. Maybe some day there will be some more.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 17, 2007 03:06 AM

Speaking as a Mungalay Budalay (Keemee Wakitu La), we beleive that beleiving in something is a sin. And since this obvious makes us all sinners, we spend most of our time repenting by repeating our mantra "I do believe in belief, I do believe in belief...". Of course, we get defensive when anyone challenges our beliefs, refering to those people as arrogant heretics, since we are insecure in our beliefs. We don't think we're smarter than anyone else, just that those who don't believe as we do are dumber than we are. And if you would only go out at night and look into the vast, awe-inspiring universe of stars and galaxies you'd be a fool not to believe in something. Which would be a sin.

Posted by Lovernios at December 17, 2007 09:00 AM

Lovernios wrote:
"We don't think we're smarter than anyone else, just that those who don't believe as we do are dumber than we are."

You summed up almost all of humanity there. Not including me since I'm smarter than that... ^_^; (joking! really!)-

About the moon I wonder if the footprints have been slowly washed away by lunar terminator storms, micrometeorites and their ejecta, moonquakes, outgassing, and other stuff we don't know about yet.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at December 20, 2007 01:21 AM

Post a comment