SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
In the first of three shows examining faith in the Northwest we'll explore the idea of religious literacy. How well do you understand the world's religions? What do you gain by studying them? What do you miss out on if you don't? A recent Pew study discovered the following:
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
What do you think of these findings? How well do you think you understand your religion or others? Take the quiz and let us know how you did! Were you surprised by the results?
Editor's Note: Tune in tomorrow as we continue with a discussion about religion and politics. On Friday we'll move on to how people of faith keep true to their beliefs when they face doubt.
GUESTS:
- Greg Smith: Senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life and co-author of the recent U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey
- Lynne Taylor: Owner and artist at Laurelwood Art
- Will Deming: Chair of the Department of Theology at the University of Portland, where he also teaches comparative religions.
- Omar Shabazz: Project developer at the Muslim Community Center of Portland
Photo credit: Roger Smith / Creative Commons
-
There is an essential difference between an ATHEIST and AGNOSTIC.
An Atheist resolutely refuses to believe in the existence of a god or higher power, even if you held watertight, absolute proof right in front of his eyes . ie. The Ark of the Covenant, the Secret of Life, Presence of Extraterrestrial Life.
An Agnostic, seeks the evidence or lack of evidence for proof of a god. Technically they would be studying world religions, faiths, worship practices, books like the bible, book of mormon, koran and precepts of the budha. And they would ask worship practicioners about their tenents of faith. And even study science such as evidence of evolution in fossils and age of the planet in plate tectonics. They are constantly looking for proof and seeking to reach a conclusion. They are uncommitted, undecided, fence sitting voters, but they are actively seeking and questioning. Compare this to undecided apathetics . ATHEIST = APATHY.
A simple test is to look at someone's library. An agnostic would have books about world religion, books on faith, meditation, text analysis and original highly referenced holy books despite the claim of being areligious. Too many Americans are closed minded and dismissive of religion today; they are largely ATHEISTS.
Combining atheists with agnostics is like lumping together a trailerpark resident and professor of world religions because they are both nonbelievers.
The best historical example of an Agnostic is Rene Descartes. He was brilliant mathematian and genius, founder of the Rationalist School of Philosphy and scientific leader of the Renaissance, who after a lifetime of study found the path of faith(Catholic).
I think most unbelievers are Atheists, because it is easier to be lazy than curious. By contrast, Agnostics as a subgroup are probably more informed and educated about world religions and spiritualism compared to atheists and most narrowed minded worshipers.
We hope to be more Agnostic and scientific in our lives, but we tend to gravitate to the couch, tv, beer and simple undemanding Atheism.
-
I suspect that you describe yourself as an agnostic, it being so much superior to other possibilities, in your view. Seems to me that you have a broad brush of condemnation. By the time a thinking person has lived a long life, why should they not have come to some conclusions about beliefs? I am an atheist because I think religion is pretty silly. How long should a person work on the great understanding of religion? I think it is right up there with turning straw into gold and I have no respect for it at all....aside from nice things like the arts, inspired by and paid for by religious institutions. And why do you limit your criticism to Americans, when Europeans are moving out of religion in record numbers and have been for a long time?
-
Jacob, you make the common mistake of thinking that the burden of proof is on the one who questions the assertion of the religionists, that a supernatural being exists. But the burden of proof is properly placed on the religionist who makes the claim that some "God" or "Gods" exist. That has been a prevailing mistake for a long time among philosophers and it even drove them to the argument that they can't prove a negative, they can't prove the non-existence of a supernatural being, they allowed the religionists to place the burden on proof on the philosophers. Oops!
Anyone can make some wild claim about someone or something existing and it is up to them to prove it or be labeled a nut case.
The burden is not on me or anyone else to run around disproving wild claims, like a mental firefighter putting out mental wild fires in thinking errors.
It is "put up or shut up" time for the religionists.
Henh, and any "God" they prove exists better have a valid US birth certificate or be deported immediately.
And you may call me an "Anti-Theist", I am against religionism, I consider it child and adult abuse.
-
jacob,
Not so sure about your atheist versus agnostic account. You could look at it the other way around, that agnostics take the easy route because they don’t have to commit to any decision at all---that perhaps agnostics haven’t thought enough about their non-belief in god to decide how true or sound it is, so they simply remain agnostic, because it is an easier argument to make, or to not have to make.I think most of your argument is a semantic non-starter, and there is so little substantive difference between atheism and agnosticism. Sometimes I confuse myself on what the differences are and if they matter at all. Both sides, at the core, are the same, neither believe in god, and of course the agnostic perhaps checks themselves or adds redundancy, by suggesting “although I don’t believe, I am not willing to say ‘I could not be wrong.’” Right?
One could also be an agnostic, and have a good point in doing so, by suggesting that atheism requires too much effort or gives too much credit to the creators of religions, that atheism is too much of an opposition to something that doesn’t require that much oppositional effort in the first place. For instance, if you spend all your time not believing in Gumby and making such a sound argument against even the remote possibility of Gumby, then that cedes too much credit by proxy to the people who proposed Gumby in the first place. Because, if you talk too much about a world of no-Gumby then aren’t you giving their idea of Gumby too much air time? It is like I don’t need to commit myself to no-unicorns. I mean I know I don’t believe in them, but I also don’t want to potentially waste time being absolutely (no less) certain of this. So, really, I am not so sure that agnosticism isn’t as apathetic as atheism, and I am also not certain of why either should not rightly be considered an apathetic stance.
FYI: I am not committed, or in agreement, to what I have said above, just proposing it. I have to admit though, it is curious that as a (potential) agnostic you exercise such certainty over the motivations of atheists. You seem certain of them, but not certain of how sound your disbelief in the higher power actually is. Just kidding though, with that---just felt like saying it.
-
I understand the Jews and Mormons scoring high but I am surprised that Unitarians didn't score higher?
I am Agnostic. I scored 14 out of 15 on the Pew test. I used to be an Atheist. Even had my non-faith tested in a proverbial foxhole. When it was not certain I'd live or die I was able to bravely not believe until the last possible moment. I lived. However, I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance of being an Atheist and made the logical move to Agnosticism. Agnosticism has a proud history since Aldous Huxley coined the term in 1869. It originally was a term for a method in scientific discipline that confined knowledge to the world of material phenomena. There could be no compulsion to believe anything without adequate proof. The pivotal difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is certainty. Agnostics are not certain while Atheists are certain there is not a god.
An Agnostic would hold that there's not enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that there is a god. So yes, I am not certain there is no god. There is not valid evidence that there is a god. So no, I do not accept there is a god either. An Atheist would hold there's not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no god, and uses argumentum ad ignorantiam to conclude that null hypothesis must be true! So yes, there is no god. Of course this methodology is logically flawed. Therefore Agnosticism is the only tenable position.
What do you mean Unicorns don't exist?
-
A Major Topic of Belief that is Similar to Religion is GLOBAL WARMING.
Among Global Warming Skeptics, there are TWO Camps:
1. Global Warming Deniers: Absolute Apathy to any evidence that Man Caused Global Weather patterns to change irreversibly.
2. Global Warming Agnostics: Seeking evidence to validate or refute Global Warming. Can be persuaded, but the evidence must be irrefutable. And like many things in science, data may require several generations of science and hundreds of years of prospective data points.
Substitute God for Global Warming and the arguments are near identical. Science vs Belief.
-
Every concept doesn't have to be polarized. To assert that agnosticism is somehow superior to atheism is similar to a believer saying that Catholicism is superior to Christianity. Agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism. Atheism means "no god" while agnosticism means "no knowledge." If you answer the question "do you believe in a personal god" with a "no," then you are an atheist. That said, if you answer the question "do you know if there is a personal god" with a "I don't know," then you are also an agnostic. Few, if any, atheists would claim that they know, i.e., can prove, that there is no god. Likewise, few, if any, agnostics would say that they believe in a god. Agnostics who won't admit that they are atheists may be just afraid of the social stigma associated with atheism.
What we believe is based on what we think we know, but the amount of knowledge necessary to arrive at a belief varies from person to person. In matters of personal belief, all are equally valid. No amount of study makes one's belief superior to another's. Will the sun come up tomorrow? Prove it.
-
Wow, Jacob, I'm trailer trash?
I describe myself as atheist, however I define atheism much differently than you. In fact, the opposite. I went from agnostic--being apathetic toward religion-to atheist after doing an extensive investigation into the history of world religions. You will find many books on religion on my bookshelf. We atheists always knew that on average we knew more about religion than the religious so this survey doesn't surprise us at all. It is because we have done our homework.
I don't believe in the supernatural because I see no evidence of it. I am open-minded to evidence but so far have not been presented with any.
-
I am an Atheist and I scored 14 out of 15 on the quiz.
I don't think I agree with Jacobs interpretation of Atheists vs Agnostics. I call my self an Atheist not because my eyes are closed to the beliefs of others. Rather I cannot look at the evidence before me and say that there is a reasonable chance that the universe is governed by a supreme being. I take a great deal of interest in faith and religion as a way of understanding humanity and the motives that drive humans. (perhaps I'm a Humanist) To understand religion is to understand those around you.
-
Religionists wrap up their religion in all sorts of things common to humanity and if we unwrap those things like peeling an onion down layer by layer to the core, all that is left, the only thing different between non-religious people and religious people, is the belief in a supernatutral being. Everything else, beautiful buildings, art, music, clothing, songs, rituals, morals, ideas of justice and how to treat our fellow humans, everything else is common to humanity and so is properly called Secular Humanism. So religionists have wrapped up their religion in Secular Humanism, respect for humans.
Now. Consider what is left after peeling every layer of onion away, ... nothing, it was all onion, and that is the same with peeling Secular Humanism away from Religion, the religionists believe in and worship something that they cannot prove exists, they believe in and worship "Nothing".
-
Is it Sweeps?
The findings or results of the quiz are not surprising.
I took the quiz before seeing the subject for the show.
I missed one historical question which was personally disappointing. -
I heard about the quiz on Morning Edition, as well as The Rachel Maddow Show and Countdown with Keith Olberman.
Although not being particularly religious, I answered 14 out of 15 questions correctly for a score of 93%. (I got the one about reading from the Bible as an example of literature wrong -- I thought no, as did 77% of respondents to the quiz.)
What surprised me when I heard about it on Maddow was that Catholics did so poorly, compared to Agnostics and Atheists.
-
The results should not surprise.
Much of "education" sponsored by religions is exclusive to the sponsoring religion.
Several of the currently popular religions forbid study of others.
-
As an atheist I have to say that aside from the historical elements of religion, there is no reason to study it because it doesn't teach you anything you can't get anywhere else without all the superstition.
Bottom line: all religions are mythologies and if believing in an invisible sky fairy makes you feel good, fine, but just because it makes you feel good doesn't make it true.
-
I find that many atheists have given more thorough thought as to the value and validity of religion. A lot of actions, including religion, has to do with social acceptance. This makes atheism a very intense decision. Fundamentalist type thinking relieves you of too much thought. You accept everything without exception so now you can live with all the contradictions and confusing doctrine. I have given a lifetime of thought to the value of religion and arrived at being a deist. I distrust buracracies and porphecy.
-
This study may have more to do with 'testing' than 'religion'. I suspect that you could test the atheist group on anything (world literature, organic chemistry, whatever) and they would score higher than the 'believer' group. They will be more educated and will test better on any subject, even 'Religion'. The 'believer' group surely knows more minutiae about their own religion, but will not test as well as the group with a higher IQ.
-
Three comments: (1) I am an Atheist and I scored 14 of 15 on the quiz. (@Desolated, I also find it personally disappointing. I missed the one about the preacher involved in the great awakening movement.) I will point out, though, that several of the questions were really US Constitutional law or cultural history questions that happened to touch on religion, rather than questions of theology. (2) @Jacob, your argument is a whole lot of fire and condemnation about a set of definitions that you apparently cooked up. You also fundamentally misunderstand the essence of rational inquiry. Rational people don't require absolute incontrovertible proof in order to believe something. They make the best call they can based on the available evidence and rational deductions from it. I am Atheist because I have looked carefully at the available evidence and I the rational conclusion from it is that no being that the religions of the world would call a god exists. That does not mean that I think that the existence of god has been disproved beyond any shadow of a doubt. If Yahweh or Vishnu or Athena or the Flying Spaghetti Monster suddenly manifested him, her or itself, I would certainly take that evidence into account in determining the existence of god(s). (3) @Bluewater42, I disagree. I think it is very important to study the world's religions, not for the wisdom they contain, but rather because they are such huge and continuing cultural influences. If you care about humanity and understanding why people do what they do, you need to look at religion. Not doing so would be like saying "I'm a geologist, but I don’t know or care anything about tectonic plates.” (Edit: Sorry about the giant paragraph, for some reason, carriage returns will not take in this post.)
-
This topic will generate a lot of heat because people invested heavily in any particular creation/god myth tend to believe that their "truth" supercedes their neighbor's "truth" if it is even a little bit different.
Religious literacy is a link to many fields of study and is absorbing. History, philosophy, psychology, human behavior, community building, etc. Those who consider the impacts of religious faith tend to discover that which is very good and that which is very troubling about human behavior.
In the PAC NW, we are generally considered to be among the highest percentage populations of "unchurched" peple in the US. I don't think this is a bad thing. The mainline denominations are losing membership steadily. Young people and those who ponder the root values of religion are looking for something other than a sacred space and a weekly hour of worship.
THe concept of "mission fields" and community outreach and genuine involvement of congregations in solving vital community needs tend to build strong and healthy congregations with members who do what they do in the name of their chosen deity. However, those groups are rare.
I think that the more one studies religion, the more one perceives that none of the established religions are getting it right. THere is still a hunger for answers to the human curiosity about spirituality. However, churches tend to cater to the lowest common denominator and are not conducive to intellectual study and are hostile to fundamental questions about basic doctrines.
-
I was reading the posts this morning enjoying the humor intended and not. I realized that I neglected to answer the question: “How well do you think you understand your religion or others?”
From the circles of Atheism, to the Halls of conformity and beyond to sciences, seek first to understand. Today, I have no religion; my life is going be too short to be so constrained by the temporal while facing the infinite. I do however have Faith. Faith is not Religion.
If you seek, it is the journey; if you do not, may you enjoy the Peace in the day.
Inshallalah -
When I went to confirmation classes as a teenager, I found that no one wanted to engage with the creed and core teachings of the church, but rather to have us memorize key statements, which were to remain unquestioned. I've examined a number of world religions, but am an atheist. The following quotation from database architect Stephen Roberts explains why: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-
I like that quote.
-
I'm wondering if you haven't adequately investigated the differences between spirituality and religions. Practice differences in particular. Not all spiritual people are religious, and strangely, not all religious people are spiritual. I am spiritual, but I follow no religion. I am just not a follower. I don't follow sports teams, I don't follow/belong to a particular political party, and I don't follow/belong to a religion. But I am spiritual - I do have beliefs in a greater entity. But I have to investigate these things for myself, I am largely incapable of following dogma - in any form.
I believe that the survey reflects that many religious peoples follow dogma without understanding it, without inner enlightenment, without spirituality. They are fans of their religion, without embracing it.
But the conversations I have been reading and listening to in this subject haven't done any more than just touch on this basic, practical, difference between religions (as ritualized socialized spiritual dogma) and spirituality (inner belief in a greater entity and/or afterlife and an internal understanding of same).
-
Well Said!
-
I think that people are starting to see 'god' as an idea, a connection to what else is. At the same time, a rejection of institutionalized religion is prevalent. As societies values change, so do people's understanding of religion. I find a connection for my belief with others that believe, not neccisarily with those that believe what I believe. while I do not require others to believe as I do, I am also bolstered by a concept and understanding of inner devinity. "god' is in each of us, however it is manifested religiously, be it through catholic, or islamic, or an athiest tradition, or whatever.
With many of the people I have talked to, religious knowledge is not neccisary at all. Spirituality is the only real requirement. The religious ideas, come after the spirituality. And many of us are just fine, making up our own.
-
The Daily Show guest on Monday was Sam Harris, who wrote a book, "The Moral Landscape; How Science Can Determine Human Values". Essentially about how we don't need religionism. I'll be reading that.
Alison Gopnik has written a few books derived from scientific studies about babies and how they are far different from the ideas promoted by religion about people being inherently bad.
And there has been a recent study showing that babies show altruism from a very early age. Essentially, babies are born "Good".
In general, I would say that religion is libel and slander against human beings. It undercuts the natural trust in oneself and takes the responsibility out of oneself and puts it into the hands of power-hungry and controlling "priests".
There is an old saying that "mankind will never be free until the last Monarch is hung with the entrails of the last Priest".
-
Tom, Sam Harris is giving a free lecture on his book in Portland in a couple weeks: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/portland/events/sam_harris_lecture/
-
Thanks, Dani. I'm in Bend, though, and that's a bit more than I'm willing to travel for.
-
A large part of my seperation from organized religion comes from the idea of a inspired text and a chosen people. The chosen people smacks of elitism and prejudices. Prophecy generatates a lot of suspicsion. I also have troubel turning off my thought process simply because of some supposedly inspired text.
-
It's interesting that almost all of the comments are from agnostics or atheists. Is this because we are thinking and not just swallowing dogma?
-
.
-
In my case, I think, because I swallowed the dogma threatened and intimidated into me early in life and I have spent ever since then puking it up and trying to cleanse myself of it.
Religion is one of the worst evils ever inflicted on mankind!
-
This study (like most) could mean many things. In the best case scenario it could mean that atheists and agnostics are on average simply more intelligent then everyone else, so because they are smarter they will inherently know more about religion, because they will know more about most subjects. Or it could be more specific and suggest that atheists spend time thinking about many religions because they don’t belong to one. It could suggest atheists like to know who their enemies are. It could suggest atheists are atheists exactly because they know who their enemies are. Atheists could be atheists because they have learned a good deal about religion and it simply doesn’t make sense. Atheists could come from heavily religious backgrounds and atheism could be a rebellion---and in order to rebel you might inherently need to know what you are rebelling against.
I think Mormons are high on the religious knowledge scale because they are on the fringes, and in many ways they are not as accepted as other religions, so they tend to need to support their faith, or justify it. In order to combat the criticism they have had to learn how to do so, and part of that process is understanding what their enemies believe. Mormons share something in common with atheists, they are both on the margins.
For me, the results of this study are probably a combination of all the things mentioned above. I find it bothersome that many feel the need to suggest that one must have religious knowledge at all in order to not believe in a god. Religious knowledge is conceptually useless and thoroughly esoteric to the fundamental philosophical questions about faith, deism and atheism. You only need the most cursory knowledge to make a sound case against belief and religious belief. In the end, the study doesn’t amount to anything substantive, it doesn't say much about us that we didn't already know.
-
I think that anybody with a "Comparative Religions" course under their belt should score 15 outa 15. It is more of a history review from a liberal arts department head than a test of "religious knowledge"
-
Yes, well either way it doesn’t make a difference, even if the test would have been more in depth. That is the problem with it all! Even if the religious know more about religion it isn’t going to help, or hurt them. What difference would it make? How could it make any difference at all? It is just faith! The key part is the belief or faith itself, it all hinges on something in which the esoteric knowledge serves no purpose. It is like saying you must know a lot about the history, technology, engineering and statistics of a slot machine in order to win at it. Their is no substance to religion that makes any difference, all the knowledge in the world about it, will always, inherently and by definition be totally superfluous. The fundamental foundation is without proof, so all the decoration on top is just a useless diversion. And on the other hand all the knowledge an atheist might know about religion isn’t going to affect the conceptual and philosophical discussion.
-
I might worship a 'god' who could insure that the 'Thin Out loud" online feed wouldn't cut out. I would at the very least be quite greatfull. There may be a place in my personal pantheon for such a being.
-
Thin...Out Loud. Indeed. THe feed to the internets thins out to nothingness
-
Sorry that you're having trouble with the OPB stream. Please email us (thinkoutloud@opb.org) with as much detail as you can about the problems that you're having and we'll look into it.
Thanks!
Julie Sabatier, producer
-
Having grown up an alter boy (not violated) who repeatedly enjoyed carrying the cross into the service and moving the book from the Epistle side of the alter to the gospel side, I came to realize that the essence of my attraction for that faith was the beautiful music and social connection and consistent ceremony. Examining the various creeds and doctrines and words of the songs, I grew up to find them fantastical and beyond belief—understandably fitting the needs of western humans before the Scientific Revolution and Age of Reason.
Today I am reverent and respectful of all respecting faiths AND I have come to believe this to understand the plethora of different faiths—which is supported by the Pugh survey:
There are many faiths espousing many different stories and explanations of the world and most participants DO NOT REALLY KNOW or CARE about what their specific religion espouses. Standing shoulder to shoulder with fellow worshipping friends feels good. This is why the Pugh Study showed such little knowledge of their faith. I now believe that all of the different human faiths exist because they meet these human needs:
- The need for social connection with a right-sized community of other people for stable social groups (tribes if you will) to celebrate the family events of our lives but especially births, coming of age, weddings, deaths, tragedies, as well as everyday goings on.
- The need of every human to be able to state a belief and feel right about it—we each have a need to be “right” because it allows us to “look good” to others. Hence, the arguments between people of different faiths. Just listen to the current guests arguing for their beliefs—even though they are being civil.
I find peace in this model and it seems to fit the way we humans are. (And, I like being “Right” about this!) Thank you for the good show.
- The need for social connection with a right-sized community of other people for stable social groups (tribes if you will) to celebrate the family events of our lives but especially births, coming of age, weddings, deaths, tragedies, as well as everyday goings on.
-
In the old days, well, the English Queen is still the head of the Anglican Church, so maybe not that old, but consider the Pharoahs, they were promoted as the actual "Gods" and told the people what to do. The Queen is no longer Queen by Divine Right but think of why "Divine Right was promoted.
Consider who promotes religion, who are the current and past rulers who benefit from the submissive obedience of the population.
I suggest that religion is not compatible with democracy, which is a Government of The People, by The People and for The People. Religion is an artifact of the old type governments by Pharoahs, Kings, Caesars, Popes, Tsars, Monarchs, "Unitary Executives", Dictators, and other such Conservative "small governments" by a few strong-arm rulers.
-
This is Michael and I made some comments on air regarding belief vs practice. One response to my input was that meditation is a very small part of Buddhism. This shows that the commentator does not have direct experience with the tradition. In Buddhism, study, reflection, and meditation are all important but meditation is where the study(knowledge) is integrated. To embody the teachings, I have to go beyond intellectual knowledge. If what I know is simply a belief - without applying that knowledge in practice - then I risk separating myself from others and developing religious intolerance.
-
What a great topic!
I grew up in the Methodist church, but it was my mother's faith and not really my own. I kept some really lovely teachings from that denomination, but eventually went on my own journey to find out what I really believe. I found my spiritual homes in Buddhism and Pagan practice. It is very possible to be of more than one religious tradition.
Recitation without understanding is not valuable in my opinion. Recitation WITH relevance and understanding can be a beautiful and life saving thing. Study of a tradition without practice is just that... study.
:) Kristina Brewington
-
I have a hard time with either the term atheist or agnostic. The idea of creating a separate category - a "religion without religion" - I think misses the point, but perhaps it is in issue with syntax.
As a nonbeliever, but still deeply spiritual, I enjoy studying the teachings of religions, but I approach reading religious texts and reading about religions much in the same way I approach reading secular philosophy. In the same way that secular philosophy, religions are about the search for truth (but they often bring in sociological myth as a way to help us understand the distinction between "us" and "the other").
Even though Toaism isn't isn't really a theist religion, I have enjoyed reading Toaist texts the most. My quest certainly involves a certain amount of "self discovery" as one of your guests mentioned, what appeals to me about Toaism (and Buddhism) is the "emptying of self", and breaking off my resistence to "what is". Maybe I've been looking for a counterpart to the egoism that is American culture.
-
Geez, these guys talking about searching, well if the religious predators stopped preying on and attacking children from the earliest possible time with their lies about supernatural beings, confusing the kids so badly, kids might have a chance to grow up without having to "search".
Shameful.
To paraphrase the Beatles, "Give Peace a Chance", how about "Give Children a Chance", ... to grow up with being damaged by Religionists and Religion.
-
Curious about the source of your vehemence.
-
The source is experiences that enlightened me about religion and religionists and the damage they do to humanity and the reasons why they do that damage.
-
Sorry if this shows up twice...I had trouble posting.
I read that those who are college educated are more likely to be atheist/agnostic/secular than those without. (can't remember the source). The Pew study also asserts that, more than religious affiliation (or non affiliation), the people who scored best were more educated. This correlation seems to work in tandem with the idea that the more you are trained to ask and seek knowledge, the less dogmatic you may become.
I have spent time studying many religions and the one thing I regularly notice is that people seem to be unaware of basic religious history outside of their own. I grew up in a secular Jewish home (We celebrate our ancestry without the identification of faith). When I was in a religion class in college, the professor mentioned that Passover was coming up, and none but the Jewish students knew what she meant. I assumed that the Exodus stories were widely known in Western culture, but apparently, it was news to a lot of people. Now all those college educated students do know more than they did before that class and probably did better on the Pew quiz.
-
Passover has taken on this warm and fuzzy meaning that you describe, that of the Exodus, but I wonder how many understand what "Passover" literally means. Who passed over what? It's actually kind of disturbing to celebrate the death of children to me, even the children of your enemies.
-
@DaniT... I don't think you got the point of the comment. It was not "look how great Passover is" it was about how education can illuminate more information on religious history.
I also think that you are a touch off the mark in the tone of your comment slyly suggesting that passover is a celebration of the death of children. It's not. The passover represents the sparing of Jewish life (being passed over), not the destruction of others (though that is the implication)... If you read the rabbinical teachings, some do refer to the suffering of the oppressor as a key part of history, while others remind us that the Jews suffered the plagues as did the Egyptians, thus one of the reasons gentiles are invited to join in Passover, because it is a shared history. The purpose is to continue an oral history of the people, to be passed from generations. It is far more a complex and subtle a topic than you paint it, and perhaps you meant no offense, but you might want to be a bit more reasoned the next time you take aim at an important tradition for many...It would be like saying that Easter is the celebration of the brutal death of a religious leader. It's part of the whole story, but not the crux of it.
-
Amy, Easter IS celebrating the torturous death of a religious leader. It's a "suffering" cult. Have you not seen The Passion of the Christ? All of 8 minutes of the film doesn't have any violence or gore in it. If Christ were put to death today they would be wearing Electrocution Chairs around their necks instead of crosses. It's twisted.
And Jews have twisted the meaning of Passover to rationalize feeling good about all the death and suffering their god caused. After all, the Pharoah was ready to free the Hebrews after the third plague but "Yahweh hardened his heart so that He could show His might."
My boyfriend is also a secular Jew. We've had some interesting discussions! I think it's odd that secular Jews celebrate a myth as if it's real, and such a disturbing one at that! There are Passover toys on the market that make my jaw drop. Check out the "First Born" death mask, http://www.amazon.com/Factory-Card-and-Party-Outlet/dp/B001QF5FXK/ref=pd_bxgy_t_img_b. Who buys this stuff?!
It reminds me of Mother Goose nursery rhymes. They're twisted. Why would anyone sing "Rock-a-Bye Baby" or "Three Blind Mice" to their children? Understanding our ancestors is interesting history, but why do we have to keep the traditions of our ancestors when we recognize that we would act in a much more civilized manner today?
-
Personally I think all monotheism is above all else false - manufactured for political &/or personal gain for those throughout his-story (which it initiated & wrote) who feel the need to fuse their need for power with their sense of spirituality/justify/rationalize it; or for those more evolved than this, something to hold onto for those who still need someone to tell them what morality is/what to do with their lives to be better/or on a worse not again, to validate their sense of morality, or lack of it for some. But patriarchy on top of monotheism - saying that God should not only be anthropomorphized, & have a gender. That it is a male gender is no accident - patriarchal religions came about universally by slaughter of previously Goddess-worshipping people, see Ishmael - Daniel Quinn, The Alphabet vs. th Goddess - the recently passed Leonard Schlain, & When God Was A Woman (which says that Islam was originally much more honest & disclosing about its refusal to worship the feminine), & means society as a whole - that is to say world society, values patriarchal, or at least masculine values, above femine values, overwhelmingly.
I think our souls somehow congealed the way the planets & stars did, & we incarnate into physical bodies to learn lessons we chose, sometimes with group karma. I know a couple that are really nice Christians, but I don't think their belief in a god that wants to be worshipped - which I don't believe any god would want - is what makes them good. They do excellent deeds though. I've met a Muslim & another Christian I'd say the same about - so it doesn't make someone a bad person, it's just a belief that seems to widely be used, feasibly, to allow the justification of bad behavior on those who don't buy the same belief.
So what lessons do you think you're here to learn this life? Us as a whole?
-
That is an interesting comment about the feminine. I've talked to Conservative Christian Republicans and they reject the Jesus teachings as "feminine" although they claim to love him and be "saved". In Catholic terms, "they have faith without works".
It is a such weird contradiction, they embrace Jesus and simultaneously reject his teachings.
-
Anyhow, what I was initially going to ask is why don't Muslims everywhere denounce the violent fundamentalists as not being Muslim? Because they would be killed too? This is a valid reason, but I think it might help?
-
I have been a Secular Humanist since the early 1970s. My parents are Lutheran and Methodist, and due to their influence I didn't give religion a though as a child, but as I entered high school, I started noticing how religious behavior did not relate to public behavior.
It wasn't until I entered military service that I started to analyze the various religions. On looking at the various gods, I found that all of them exhibited severe behavioral problems, thus contradicting their supposed 'perfection'. Also the fact that the gods did all their major communications to individuals in ancient times and that individuals who talk to any of the gods, of various religions, today, are often found to have psychiatric problems...
I therefore determined that all religions are based on ancient stories, that have little basis in fact, and all gods are myth.
-
How do you both feel about public funding of elections?\
It is my opinion that corporate money corrupts our system and makes a mockery of our election process by allowing lobbyists to control our legislators.
-
Why do we spend so much time, energy and effort discussing, arguing and debating religion in this country?
We are crippled by belief and desperately need to move on.
-
I am a Mormon, have a graduate degree, and try to stay informed about other people's beliefs in order to understand them better. I was relieved when I got 100% on the quiz.
In the comments, and in my daily life, I see many people who think that religious belief is outdated or misguided. Without religion, we would be giving up a rich diversity in our world and in our country. Thank you for discussing this interesting and important topic.
-
Emilee, I would find your eloquence about "rich diversity" sincere if it were not for the fact that Mormons are known for knocking on doors all around the world trying to convert everyone on the planet to Mormonism.
-
I don't think that it is accidental that the very part of the world where western civilization began is also the epicenter of western religion.
It's clearly not accidental that proto-christian religions with shared narratives were in the Middle East for thousands of years. For example, one of the Egyptian sun gods, Horus, was born of a virgin on about 12/25 with three kings following a star, was a wise teacher at 12, baptized at 30, betrayed and executed only to arise from the dead three days later. Numerous pagan gods shared this life story. The number of parallels are staggering.
What's tough for me, though is the built in elitism and therefore divisiveness of so many religions. Morality comes from God. Those that accept God naturally have access to goodness that others can't match. I camped by Christian boy scouts and overheard a lecture with their leader telling them that only Christians can be heros! No wonder wars with religious overtones are longer and bloodier.
-
Comments are now closed.
I heard about that survey on NPR and I thought it was interesting about the atheists being so knowledgeable.
I wonder if it is like they go right through religion and finding nothing there just accept that there is no God, there is absolutely no evidence of a supernatural being. Like they search through the haystack for the needle, examining every piece of hay and finding no needle, just accept that there is no needle in the haystack, they get honest with themselves.
And that leaves the question: Cui Bono, Who Benefits, from telling and promoting the Great Lie that a supernatural being exists? And that search is very interesting. Who benefitted back in history? Who benefits now?
And how do they benefit?