Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Catholics concern themselves with works/deeds/actions/rituals to gain salvation while protestants hold that faith alone is sufficient grounds to enter heaven.> Well, in theory that's the Protestant way. In practice it's more complicated. In practice, a lot of Protestants also think works are important. Then there's the whole Calvinist determinist way of thinking that holds that those God has chosen will naturally perform good works anyway. Which leads to a lot of people choosing to perform good works as a way of "proving" or "showing" that they are in fact destined for salvation - which always seemed kinda backwards to me, but there you are. But yeah, in theory Protestants believe in faith alone. The thinking being that you can never live up to what God wants; no matter how many good works you do, you could always have done more. You can give 95% of your income to the poor, but that pint of Haagen Daz you bought a couple of months ago? That could have gone to the poor too. So you can never do enough, and faith is all that's really necessary for salvation. You OUGHT to do good things too, but faith alone will save you.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The faith vs. works discussion is always interesting to me. Most of the time they are discussing what it takes to be "saved." But the real issue is, what does being "saved" mean to you. Once you agree there, you can discuss how to get there.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm dragging this thread back up from the depths because I came across a column today that might be of some interest to people of faith. In it, the author takes on Bill Maher for saying many of the same things I've been expressing in this and other similar threads. He's not without his point - namely that it's possible for people of decency and common sense to believe in a higher power. I take exception to some of his assertions, but overall he makes his case pretty well. <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/18/1954139/bill-mahers-bigotry-insults-common.html" target="_blank">http://www.kansascity.com/2010...mon.html</a> Excerpt - >> Religion is an instrument not much different from a fork. You can use it to feed yourself healthy green vegetables. Or you can use it to gorge yourself on chili-cheese fries before stabbing your waiter with it. It’s inappropriate for Maher to define religious people by the nuts who launch bombs or fly planes into buildings in the name of Jesus or Allah. It’s equally unfair to define them by the nuts who want to limit the rights of gays or stand in the way of science in the name of Jesus or Allah. Faith is not the enemy of thought. The lazy and unethical way many of us have been taught to practice religion is. << I've got more thoughts about this, but I'll wait and see if anyone follows through first.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That's a great article, and I agree with every word in it. It's more or less what I've tried to say on these boards whenever the topic of religion comes up. I am sure Bill Maher will pay it no mind, unfortunately, because on the topic of religion, he has become a total zealot.
Originally Posted By gadzuux My problem with the column is that the author attributes every act of strength, tenacity and courage as only possible because of a deep and abiding faith in god. I don't see it. It supports his narrative, but it doesn't pass the sniff test. In the immortal words of of Bullwinkle J Moose ... "Gee - sometimes I don't know my own strength!". In Disney terms, remember Dumbo who thought he could fly because he had the magic feather? It's like that - he eventually discovers his abilities are his own, and that the feather is just a crutch. So too these people who ascribe their own achievements to the blessings from above tend to sell themselves short.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan My problem with the column is that the author attributes every act of strength, tenacity and courage as only possible because of a deep and abiding faith in god. << Not really. He uses examples of faith giving hope to people when facing incredibly bleak situations. Whether it is real or a "magic feather" doesn't matter. That's a different discussion. The point of his article is that many people we admire do indeed count on their faith to see them through. Maher dismisses the power of that by lumping everyone who has faith as delusional. The writer is merely asking Maher to make his points without being completely dismissive and disrespectful. I don't think that's such an outlandish notion at all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Also, the writer goes to some length underscoring that he isn't out to demonize atheists. It's really a call for a more tolerant tone from both sides of the issue. Seems about as fair as one can hope for.
Originally Posted By DAR <<The writer is merely asking Maher to make his points without being completely dismissive and disrespectful. I don't think that's such an outlandish notion at all.>> Neither do I. But isn't that what the majority of his viewers expect?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Agreed, gadzuux. The author never makes the distinction between spirituality and religion. Spirituality gets conflated into "faith in god" which it is not. It is possible to be a spiritual person without believing in a male-centric deity and support structure (such as the father, son, and holy ghost in Christianity), which the vast majority of organized religions around the planet have adopted. Belief in gaia and all of nature as sacred (druidism), belief in the sacred feminine and in the goddess (most native religions), are just as "spiritual" as having "faith in god." But the author never makes this distinction, which skews his argument towards more traditional patriarchy-based religions, which is what Maher is primarily against, not just the "sky god" mythology those religions always profess. I would contend that the motivating factor for the civil rights protestors was not "faith in god" but simply the desire for fair treatment and ethical behavior on the part of the society. His presumption that "atheists" weren't present during the demonstrations and riots is ludicrous. Not every single protestor was acting through beliefs formed and shaped by any organized religion. Many were acting first and foremost because the tipping point of desperation had been reached. What kept these protesters going was the sobering acknowledgement that they had hit rock bottom, and life could not get any worse. No where to go but up. Human beings, like dogs who've been kicked once too often, will fight in the face of imminent danger once that line has been crossed. And keeping them in that mindset has virtually nothing to do with their "faith in god" and everything to do with survival instincts. I don't know who this journalist is, but he misses the obvious point of Maher's argument, regarding the motivation behind good deeds. If it flows from a religious or faith-based stimulus, then when that belief or faith falters, the good deeds tend to disappear. Acting from the belief that good deeds are a moral and ethical obligation to other human beings and creatures sharing the planet with you is far more sustainable and inherently more fair. Using a belief in a higher power as the impetus for acting morally and ethically is disingenuous and a sham. You're not doing it unselfishly, you're doing it mainly to score points on some mystical spiritual scorecard. This is why Maher is so against organized religion and belief in sky gods. The good deeds and charitable works should be done simply because these are the moral and ethical behaviors one should engage in as a responsible citizen of planet Earth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The author never makes the distinction between spirituality and religion. Spirituality gets conflated into "faith in god" which it is not. << Because, again, that isn't really the point of the article. >>Using a belief in a higher power as the impetus for acting morally and ethically is disingenuous and a sham. You're not doing it unselfishly, you're doing it mainly to score points on some mystical spiritual scorecard.<< Sometimes, but not always. How can anyone know for sure? When people donate money to a worthy cause, or help with a local charity, are they doing it because they are just good citizens or because it makes them feel better about themselves, or because it makes other people admire them a bit? When you get down to it, does it really matter? There are things that need doing -- from ensuring fair treatment to people to helping those in need. Why does it matter to people if some participants say they own their inspiration to God?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The writer is merely asking Maher to make his points without being completely dismissive and disrespectful. I don't think that's such an outlandish notion at all.<< Not surprisingly, I think it's more complex than that. The Mormons have tried to play the Respectful Card, "Hey shucks we're all just good people who disagree" in the wake of Prop 8. But adopting that mind frame minimizes the scope of the violence they did to gay rights. Respect implies an equal playing field, a "your perspective is as valid as mine" attitude. Certainly there's a practical argument to be made that being respectful is going to get more people to stop and listen. But many in the new Atheist movement have adopted the approach that no matter how nice they are, they aren't going to convince any true believers. So instead they aim for those on the fence, or those who might be indifferent. Argue if it works or not or if it's the best approach, but I do reject the notion that just because it's cloaked in religion it deserves respect. Isn't respect earned? Has the Catholic church, with it's systematic cover up of child sexual abuse, really earned my respect? Am I really expected to have a reasoned, patient discussion regarding the rape of children? I don't mean to say I agree with all of Maher's approaches or reactions. But I think there's an unfair expectation of non-believers to feel the same way as believers about religion. Telling them to behave a certain way is tantamount to telling them how they're supposed to feel. Maybe Maher isn't respectful because he has no respect for religion. And maybe he has no respect for religion because he thinks it isn't deserving of his respect, and that it's just so insidious it demands the response he gives. Again, disagree all you like, but make the argument, don't play the Outrage Card.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But I think there's an unfair expectation of non-believers to feel the same way as believers about religion.<< I don't have that expectation, not at all. To me, it's a matter of manners, not abandoning principles. >>Telling them to behave a certain way is tantamount to telling them how they're supposed to feel.<< Unless one is asking the to make the sign of the cross when saying the name Jesus Christ, I don't think so. The more you look at how each side operates and behaves, you see exact mirror images in many ways. It happens in the political world, too. Must be a human nature thing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Has the Catholic church, with it's systematic cover up of child sexual abuse, really earned my respect?<< No, but I am sure you know many Catholics who are good people, who do not condone any of that. You also know that in an organization as vast and complex as the Catholic church, there will be many examples of horrific abuses as well as heartwarming acts of charity and value. So no, you don't have to give any sort of pass regarding the systematic cover-ups. But does that mean that every member of the Catholic church has guilt by association, deserves the same scorn as a pedophile priest? (Some on the boards would probably say yes, they are enabling this stuff by continued membership and financial support.) >>Certainly there's a practical argument to be made that being respectful is going to get more people to stop and listen. But many in the new Atheist movement have adopted the approach that no matter how nice they are, they aren't going to convince any true believers. So instead they aim for those on the fence, or those who might be indifferent.<< And here again, that's a direct parallel with religious zealots out to recruit new members.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And maybe he has no respect for religion because he thinks it isn't deserving of his respect, and that it's just so insidious it demands the response he gives.<< Isn't that playing the outrage card?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> (Some on the boards would probably say yes, they are enabling this stuff by continued membership and financial support.) << Somewhat, yes. Just as there is an expectation towards muslims to denounce the reprehensible actions of their extremists, so too is there the expectation that catholics will take on the responsibility for the actions of their own leadership. Instead, muslims generally make some half-hearted comments and then hunker down. Catholics do much the same. In other words, while they might not approve of the actions of the group that they voluntarily support and associate with, the rank and file membership don't do much of anything except shrug and write another check. Mormons, on the other hand, tend to double down and get defensive, and refuse to acknowlege that their actions are anything less than ordained by god himself. And further, if you don't like it well that's just tough. It's not "respectful" - it's deliberately confrontational. All while playing the faith card as if that alone excuses anything they may do. And if any card carrying mormon member has the audacity to question their leadership, they're immediately intimidated into silence with threats. Such lovely caring people indeed. In the larger view, it's religious people dodging accountability for their own actions and the actions that of their leadership - be it muslim, catholic, or mormon. And it's that lack of accountability that allows these transgressions to continue. The catholics are a perfect example of this. The systematic and global sexual abuse and subsequent cover ups have been going on for decades, if not centuries. But the outcry against these heinous acts didn't come from within the church, but from the victims themselves as well as their advocates. The church has known all along what the facts were, but their response was to attempt to suppress the scandal and throw money at the victimes in an effort to silence them. Their greatest concern was their own culpability and exposure to scandal - not the deeds themselves, which were known within vatican leadership for generations and not acted upon. Yet among their most ardent parishoners, none of it matters. They have no expectation of honorable behavior even from their own putative moral leaders. Why is that? Because what the church is reeeally peddling is false guilt followed by false redemption - the promise of everlasting happiness and peace of mind - AFTER you're dead. That way, the customer's never complain. Whadda racket.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Unless one is asking the to make the sign of the cross when saying the name Jesus Christ, I don't think so.<< I think in some ways it is. It's dictating their behavior towards religion because it operates on the assumption that they should have respect for it no matter what. It's starting with a premise and working backwards from there: Religion deserves your respect (which in itself implies many things about religion Maher would no doubt disagree with) so treat it thus. It's similar to whiteness theory. Whiteness theory argues that since white culture dictates normative behavior, blacks have to conform to that behavior to be accepted and for society to achieve "colorblindness." A way of dressing, speaking, and interacting is accepted as "normal" - not because of racism, but because of culture and tradition. It's similar here - a certain behavior is expected in regards to religion, and a person who doesn't conform to that is seen as rude or insensitive, so that's what the focus is on, instead of on the arguments they're making. >>So no, you don't have to give any sort of pass regarding the systematic cover-ups. But does that mean that every member of the Catholic church has guilt by association, deserves the same scorn as a pedophile priest? (Some on the boards would probably say yes, they are enabling this stuff by continued membership and financial support.)<< I definitely can't imagine another organization getting the same free pass. For example, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have called for the Pope's arrest when he travels to England. Predictably, this is met with scorn and eye-rolling. "Arrest the Pope? Absurd!" Yet these same people routinely call for the heads of the CEO's of corporations that have covered up crimes far less horrific than child abuse. Head of a corporation that defrauds investors? Jail time. Head of a worldwide religion whose leaders have molested children? Untouchable. Again, I understand why people might stay members. What I don't understand is the double-standard of treatment as soon as something is called a religion. >>And here again, that's a direct parallel with religious zealots out to recruit new members.<< I don't think that analogy, though it pops up often, works. The new Atheists have direct evidence of religion's harm. They are responding to very specific, concrete examples of abuse, pain, etc. Their outrage is justified. Zealots act in the name of something that cannot be proved or demonstrated, no matter how deeply they believe it. >>Isn't that playing the outrage card?<< Not really. They may be, and often are outraged, sure. But they back it up with cogent arguments and tough logic about the flaws and, as they see it, the falsehoods of religion. Responses to Maher are usually limited to, "He said WHAT about religion? That jerk!" It ignores the arguments made in favor of outrage that the argument was made at all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's one of those slippery slope arguments when it comes to those participating in an organization to be held accountable for the things leadership does. This is the same argument terrorists make when they bomb civilians, even though their grievance is with the governmental policies they're attacking. They claim civilians are legitimate targets because they are complicit in the actions of the government. in other words, we're all guilty of whatever "crimes" they blame on us, so everyone here is fair game. Kill us all and let God sort us out. I don't know what the answer is. I can certainly see the case for witholding charitable contributions to the church as a way of protesting these crimes. But honestly, your beef is not just with the Mormons or the Catholics -- it's with religion at large. Again, I agree with post #1 in this thread. But I still say that you get more flies with honey than vinegar, and if you want people to listen and hear an argument, it's best to do it in as respectful a tone as possible. Calling people delusional may feel good, but it isn't a way to draw people in.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's similar here - a certain behavior is expected in regards to religion, and a person who doesn't conform to that is seen as rude or insensitive, so that's what the focus is on, instead of on the arguments they're making.<< And I'm saying that if logic and reason are truly on one's side, stick to that. Going around calling people delusional, when you know that only provokes and insults and hurts people, is juvenile.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Also, note that the writer of that article doesn't ever say that Maher, or anyone else, should become believers. Just that by moderating their tone, the matter can be discussed in a more productive way. I don't for a minute think that, no matter how nicely it's written, Maher will consider that advice.
