Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is all well trodden stuff.


I think what J and H are getting at, is what's the point in that supposition if you subtract the moral wranglings.


It makes no difference to your life to believe or not to believe does it.

Maybe it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside or something but without an accompanying moral framework or posthumous benefit then really, what's the difference?

-Heinz- Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the wonder is a very valid reason to

> suppose the existence of an all pervasive clever order.


Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants immediate closure. You can just answer all those questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to their own.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's difficult to have a serious

> conversation about God if you're defining it

> however you want to define it.


Men have been defining God or Gods in whatever way they wished ever since metaphysics, and one could also argue that among believers of the same faith each and every member of that faith has a slightly or very different understanding of this indeed rather large concept.


I was only trying to reply to the question posted as : "Is there a God" understood as, the belief in the existence of God...Not it motives.

>

> Gods have always been moral arbiters and the

> personification of supernatural or poorly

> understood events.


More accurately Gods have been used by man to justify their moral precepts.

>

> You can't suddenly announce that your definition

> doesn't include morality or human characteristics

> and expect people to understand you.

>

Sorry if you don't...

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> Maybe, if you're the kind of person that wants

> immediate closure. You can just answer all those

> questions by simply saying "god did it". Seems

> like rather simplistic thinking to me, but each to

> their own.


I don't pretend to know any of the answers to "all those questions" (whatever they may be) you are referring to.

This is about the 100th time someone has tried to make the distinction between a belief in god and in religion and about the 100th time I've asked 'what's the point of the former without the latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.


Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single answer.


And once again ignored.


Please....anyone....bueller....

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is about the 100th time someone has tried to

> make the distinction between a belief in god and

> in religion and about the 100th time I've asked

> 'what's the point of the former without the

> latter' and I've yet to have a single answer.

>

> Not a single satisfactory answer, but a single

> answer.

>

> And once again ignored.

>

> Please....anyone....bueller....



dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct

"dunno but you could make a case that the former is based solely on s personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is a man made construct"


well obviously they're both man made constructs, i think the difference in your examples is one is a personal viewpoint and the other is esentially someone else's.


And yes I get your point, but you seem to be missing mine.


A number of times people have said that belief in a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.


That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim, but it's really no different to saying 'I believe in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The point is, whilst trying to sound profound, actually basically meaningless.

Are you saying that a belief without the confines and rules of religion has no impact one?s life and is therefore meaningless? Or are you saying religion and a looser set of beliefs are equally meaningless?


El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "dunno but you could make a case that the former

> is based solely on s

> personal/belief/experience/dogma and the latter is

> a man made construct"

>

> well obviously they're both man made constructs, i

> think the difference in your examples is one is a

> personal viewpoint and the other is esentially

> someone else's.

>

> And yes I get your point, but you seem to be

> missing mine.

>

> A number of times people have said that belief in

> a creator, intelligence whatever, doesn't

> necessarily have to pertain to a 'set of

> beliefs/'rules'/rituals'.

>

> That's fine if that's what you want to proclaim,

> but it's really no different to saying 'I believe

> in ghosts' or 'i believe in Martians' is it? The

> point is, whilst trying to sound profound,

> actually basically meaningless.

The first, although I might rephrase that to say "a belief without the confines and rules by which we define 'religion'", is effectively meaningless.


That's not to say it has no effect, that warm fuzzy feeling may be beneficial in the same way that, let's say ooooh, homeopathy can be beneficial.

I'm just saying that if that belief doesn't define for you a mroal structure or ultimate destiny (good or bad) then it's not worth arguing the toss over.


Buddha came to pretty much that conclusion, he finished up saying that religion was hokum and you're better of trying to achieve enlightenment for it's own end, that being inner peace.

Ah I see. Most of the people I know that believe in God without religion do feel it affects the way they live their lives and their perspective on the world. Some believe inherit spirituality is the basis of human altruism and empathy. Any other world view would just be too nihilistic for them.

I hate marmite but that?s just my belief

I have to admit, if there is a creator I'm more inclined to think it'll be more lovecraftian than a fount of altruism.

Something beyond comprehension that the merest hint of which would drive man to madness and despair.

A force for whom we are mere atoms, no more or less significant than ants or sand on a beach or the convection currents in the methane seas of a distant moon or a star crashing into a black hole.


The universe is either chaotic and indifferent or has a very black sense of humour, but I see no evidence of a source of love and goodness. But that's me, all nihilistic and hopeless, it's the marmite that does it.

Humility maybe one answer to your question, though personally I think humility before your fellow man might be preferable to humility before an absentee creator.


I think you need to embrace the warm fuzzy feeling though, whether it's a simple belief or something like the optimism bias surely we all need a bit of irrationality in our lives just to get through the day.

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...