From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 09:16:00 MST
> I concur with the above if by "faith" you mean "religion". But if by
> "faith" you mean "belief in that which cannot presently be proved" then
> I think you overgeneralize.
I was referring to religious faith. While interests in crystals and
astrology do not make for a rational approach to anything, it would probably
be going too far to assert that they lead to distasteful doctrinal
associations (unless a regrettable propensity for 'tie-dye' can be counted
as falling into that category).
> Read "To Thine Own Self Be True: The Relationship Between Spiritual Values
> and Emotional Health" by Lewis M. Andrews, Ph. D.
> and then tell me what you think.
Oddly enough, when I wrote my last post I ran it past a friend who predicted
that you would find a token christian psychologist to reply with. The point
simply remains whether emotional dependency is to be encouraged or not. If
we were to speak of such dependency in the sole context of personal (i.e.
human) relationships we would undoubtedly consider it to be a deleterious
condition and seek to encourage the person in question to be more self
dependent. I see no reason to treat god any differently. As for the book, my
financial resources are not infinite: a summary would not go amiss.
> You are equating faith with unprovability and uncertainty in the above
> in order to deduce hypocrisy and my alleged enamorement with uncertainly.
Of course I equate faith with the unproven - what else is there to equate it
with? I am not aware of any way to prove or disprove the existence of
deities, which hardly makes them the most practical base for morality (and
I'm afraid I must still insist that it is unreasonable to demand certainty
of morality when the same cannot be said of the postulates that you use to
achieve that. At the end of the day that simply proceeds to 'if god is dead,
all is permitted' which is hardly adequate). Such a morality can only lead
us into 'this is evil because my <blank>* tells me so.' Which is, frankly,
utterly arbitrary. 'This' may be murder or it be may be worshipping graven
images or getting out of the wrong side of bed on tuesday morning.
*i.e. "this is evil because my imaginary friend, skippy the kangaroo, tells
me so," "this is evil because the fairies at the bottom of my garden tell me
so."
On the other hand, let us consider what it would mean if you are right. If I
may quote a particularly eloquent passage from Christopher Hitchen's book,
Letters to a Young Contrarian:
"You seem to have guessed, from some remarks I have already made in passing,
that I am not a religious believer. In order to be absolutely honest, I
should not leave you with the impression that I am part of the generalized
agnosticism of our culture. I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an
antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same
untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of
religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of
religion I do not wish, as some sentimental agnostics affect to wish, that
they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think
that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if
what the faithful affirmed was actually the case.
Why do I say that? Well, there may be people who wish to live their lives
under a cradle-to-grave divine supervision; a permanent surveillance and
[around the clock] monitoring [a celestial North Korea]. But I cannot
[personally] imagine anything more horrible or grotesque. It would be worse,
in a way, if the supervision was benign...
I think that this conviction does bear on the mental and moral resources
that are necessary if one hopes to live [on the contrary, if one hopes to
live in dissent or if one hopes to live] "as if" one were free. In a
much-quoted reflection on America's original sin [of slavery], Thomas
Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I remember that god is just."
However, if there really was a god and he really was just, then there would
be little enough for believers to tremble about; it would be a consolation
that infinitely outweighed any imaginable earthly care.
I have met many brave men and women, morally superior to myself, whose
courage in adversity derives from their faith. But whenever they have chosen
to speak or write about it, I find myself appalled by the instant decline of
their intellectual and moral standards. They want god on their side and they
believe they are doing his work - what is this, even at it's very best, but
an extreme form of solipsism? [In other words "don't mind me I'm just doing
god's work, I'm very modest." A poor syllogism, or a very humble humility,
is defined by them.] They proceed from conclusion to evidence; our greatest
resource is the mind, and the mind is not well-trained by being taught to
assume what has to be proved.
This arrogance and illogic is inseparable even from the meekest and most
altruistic religious affirmations. A true believer must believe that he or
she is here for a purpose and is an object of real interest to a Supreme
Being; he or she must also claim to have at least an inkling of what that
Supreme Being desires. I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and
hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of
the universe and its creator - that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no
choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer, let
alone in the great law-givers and edict-makers of whose "flock" (and what a
revealing word that is) they form a part. "
> I hypothesize (as do others) that there exists a central core of good
> teachings in each religion, around which tradition (of mediocre value)
> and nonsense (of detrimental value) have accumulated over the ages
> (where sometimes an "age" is a very short period of time). I suggest
> that all the "manifest evils of religion" are a consequence of the
> accumulated nonsense.
And I would suggest that this is nonsense, as the process of deciding what
is or is not accumulated is arbitrary and almost certainly entails the
researcher selecting the doctrines that he or she has an a priori commitment
to. Most likely these would be those that meet the Kantian criteria of being
universal and reversible i.e. ethical precepts which are so self evidently
sensible that anyone of any ethical persuasion will find it easy to agree to
(including atheists). In this case, lying is morally detrimental because we
do not generally wish to be lied to. Ditto murder, theft, fraud etc
To take one rather different example, most world religions have some form of
opprobrium against homosexuality (though a rational, secular argument I have
not yet heard.) i.e. from The Observer "The Archbishop of Canterbury
sounded the trumpet blast last Sunday against who would teach impressionable
young children that being gay is an equally good alternative lifestyle. He
was followed by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who warned repeal would
undermine morality, the Moslem Council of Britain, whose Secretary General
is Iqbal Sacranie, brandished the Koran at the proposed repeal (and grabbed
rare space in the Mail for its views) and Om Parkash Sharma, president of
the National Council of Hindu Temples, who decried 'unnatural' gay
activities." Is this counted as a 'good, original' teaching or is it
accumulated tat?
Of course, this is all very hypothetical in any case. Regardless of what
either of us regard as detrimental drivel, it will undoubtedly remain in
religious teaching and be perpetuated, which makes this exercise of
isolating good teachings academic at best.
> Legal law, by definition, is written down.
As are religious laws in many cases. However, I think that Mill's approach
to such matters is probably the one most people use in their private lives
today.
> Without guiding
> "moral absolutes", the legal profession will continue to grow well
> beyond what I think it should.
I would hope so. Better to have swarms of lawyers than swarms of priests; to
the best of my recollection lawyers have never instigated wars or pogroms.
Religions have. Incidentally, on the subject of moral absolutes, what of
such incidents as lying to save someone's feelings? Many churches rightly
refuse to count this as a sin, in which case they are surely being
practical - but are clearly denying the ten commandments as an absolute.
> There may be some slight twisting of words necessary here.
I am not sure I understand that statement. If you look at
http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html I do not see anything that
could possibly be described as faith.
> Please provide me a link to a survey result of Europeans that indicates
> that they consider themselves devoid of faith.
You might want to ask Hermit about that as he is the master of all thing
statistical (not my favourite topic), though I do recall one particular
poll. The British Social Attitudes poll, (carried out by the National Centre
for Social Research (NCSR) in November 2000) of more than 3,000 people
showed 44% said they had no religious affiliation, from 31% in 1983.
> I have heard that in America,
See: http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9745.htm.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT