Thanks Trevor,
I have my idea on why people do not understand me sometimes (many reasons possible anyway I'm not in there head and they are not in mine). That's why I don't put that much weight on it emotionnaly ...
Since I've reach the conclusion that in life we have to agree to desagree, even to give up at some point when it doesn't lead anywhere further ... it is still always fun, however it is handle, to give my opinion. And I like opposition as much as agreement, it's good ... we need to challenge our views. Sometimes I'm waiting for the argument which will have an impact on my view ... it happens ... and it leads me farest (on the subject or some other subjects regarding to "what", "how" and "WHY" things are expressed). it's all learning from others about others and also myself ...
Science vs. Religion - Must We Choose Between Them?
by bavman 74 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
RAF
-
trevor
RAF: And I like opposition as much as agreement, it's good ... we need to challenge our views. Sometimes I'm waiting for the argument which will have an impact on my view
With this outlook you are likely to find the answers that you are looking for.
We can only entertain other peoples viewpoint when we are ready to be challenged andprepared to make changes if proved wrong. No one can be made to change, they must be ready.
-
serotonin_wraith
Narkissos, your beliefs certainly have me intrigued, but I still see one part as contradictory (which I'm sure you'll be able to clear up in no time). Do you believe in God or not, because in one post you say you don't, and in an earlier one you talk of a personal God in your life. Is your God different in meaning to most people's interpretation? You say: "I don't believe in God, or gods, in any realistic sense." Is it possible to explain in words the kind of 'God' you believe in, and possibly even your honest reasons for your beliefs?
trevor, I can completely see how there is a human need for things unreal or unproven - I'm a big sci-fi fan! - and most of it is harmless. However, religion brings about much of the persecution, wars and hypocrisy we see in the world. I'm sure that horse has been flogged to death on this site, but I think it remains valid. I see a big difference in entertainment, and living your life to rules filled by a need for a higher being. I don't follow the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition, for example. I see it for what it is, and in my day to day life, it will have little influence. But for people who follow the bible in their 'need', their actions can influence the very fabric of humankind's existence. Religion infects politics, disrupts science and closes many people off from searching for facts. I'm not saying every religious individual is responsible for this, but it would be wrong to think religion does not run much of the world's events today. And certainly not always for the best.
For your question:
"How far we will have to advance before we can live without illusion of any kind is anyone’s guess.
What I ask is - would such an existence be better than the balance that the world has arrived at now."
my answer would have to be- there needs to be a distinction between religion and entertainment fiction, but in the case of religion, YES.
-
Narkissos
your beliefs certainly have me intrigued, but I still see one part as contradictory (which I'm sure you'll be able to clear up in no time). Do you believe in God or not, because in one post you say you don't, and in an earlier one you talk of a personal God in your life. Is your God different in meaning to most people's interpretation? You say: "I don't believe in God, or gods, in any realistic sense." Is it possible to explain in words the kind of 'God' you believe in, and possibly even your honest reasons for your beliefs?
Hi sw,
First, I readily admit to many contradictions.
Second, it's not exactly about "beliefs". I had many beliefs when I was a JW, and I have seen their number decrease steadily ever since. It would be presumptuous and foolish to say that I have none -- just sitting in front of my computer and typing implies many "beliefs" (or trust in things I do not really understand and control) when you think of it. But as far as religious beliefs are concerned I have not too many left (I think).
My earlier reference to a "personal god" (mind the lower case) was not exactly about my "belief," rather a general remark on the value of this ancient polytheistic notion, over the monotheistic pattern, in what I would call a postmodern age for the lack of a better word. When people construe their individual experience as connecting them to (the only) God (or a non-contradictory "reality"), this tends to dramatise their differences. If two disagree one of them, at least, must be wrong. Plus, everyone must build a consistent imaginary map of "reality" around his/her experience, which multiplies the temptation to twist data to make everything fit in, resulting in further conflict with other views. The pattern of the "personal god," otoh, inclines to tolerance and respect, because it leaves room for ignorance.
That being said, I don't believe in a "personal god" as something really existing "out there". Ironically, our common monotheistic past has made that impossible. The monotheistic condemnation of idolatry was, after all, very compelling -- what it had not foreseen is that it wouldn't spare the ultimate Idol -- the only God himself. But the end of realistic belief has made the gods (and perhaps, someday, will make even God) available as metaphors. Which I find quite useful.
How? Through a provisional, punctual, "suspension of disbelief". That which you do, very naturally, when you read or watch a fiction, or play in a drama. You cannot enjoy it (or act good) if you remind yourself at every line that "it's not true," even though you know it is not true. If you read mythology, attend a religious service (I don't, in case that would be your next question, but I did for some time), you have to enter such a provisional "contract," if only to understand anything (credo ut intelligam?). From this perspective, the Bible or theology are not meaningless to me. Even "prayer" is possible with a similar attitude if you feel like it, although a "true believer" would not call that "prayer".
A last thing I should add is, the less I (realistically) believe, the more I sense the mystery of everything. Which makes it very easy for me to connect with religious symbols as I tried to explain above. But I understand how puzzling it may be to someone else, especially in a different culture which favours a black and white approach to religion ("it's all crap" vs. "it's the absolute truth").
-
serotonin_wraith
Narkissos, I'm (hopefully now!) coming to understand you a little better. I too suspend disbelief during the many times I discuss religion, if only to make things easier to understand, or to relate to the more religious person. For example, I can believe God does not exist, yet I would also act like he does when saying things like 'God must not care about humans if he allowed his word to be corrupted by so many translations and interpretations of the bible'. Or asking a Christian why he will not follow the barbaric, out dated rules set down in Leviticus, when Jesus says in Matt 5:17-19: 17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It is the discussion of religion from their viewpoint, in a way they makes more sense to them, but with the ultimate goal of trying to get a personal point across. We need the opposite view to be acknowledged before our own can be set as opposition, otherwise, there is no debate. The bible and theology are, as you say, not meaningless in that sense.My culture doesn't teach the black and white approach, perhaps my youthfulness does at times (!) but if I understand you correctly, I agree with what you are saying in regards to this.