Why do you believe what you do? And how did you get to that belief?

[Grace Seeker]

Born with sin?

That we are all deserving of punishemnt for the wrong done by our ancestors is one of the more repugnant concepts that religion has cooked up. Ranks up there with the concept that one person can be killed and his death pays for the wrong done by others.

In the spirit of the present discussion, how will you arrange a test to falsify that statement?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Funny you should mention noble prize winners.. I find it so ironic that a man who invented dynamite would want to reinstate grants for those who succeeded him.... it is soothing to know some of history's greats declined their awards-- Jean-Paul Sartre refused to accept his award and in 1958, and In 1925 George Bernard Shaw accepted the award but declined the monetary compensation. both citing objective reasons, and to the discerning reader, we know what those are!

peace!

Pardon me for going off topic (or rather more off than we already are):

According to the Austrian countess Bertha von Suttner, Alfred Nobel, as early as their first meeting in Paris in 1876, had expressed his wish to produce material or a machine which would have such a devastating effect that war from then on, would be impossible. The point about deterrence later appeared among Nobel's ideas. In 1891, he commented on his dynamite factories by saying to the countess: "Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops."

No person is all one thing or another. Most of us are a mix. Nobel never imagined that his great invention of dynamite might be used for war when he invented it. But he should have, his father was an inventor of weapons of war, and later in his life Nobel developed many materials of war at the same time that he was writing the idea of a special peace prize into his will.

Evidently, Alfred Nobel did not consider his involvement in the war materials industry and in the work for world peace as incompatible elements. Rather he gave expression to the prevalent 19th century understanding which maintained, that the scientist was not responsible for how his findings were used. Each scholarly discovery is neutral in itself, but can be used both for good and bad objectives. And when it was applied to weapons, Nobel held firm to his old opinion that this had a deterrent effect above all. I'm not sure that I can concur with Nobel's philospohy, but I can't judge him by my standards for he lived at another time and in another culture who thoughts and ways of thinking on these matters are so far different from mine as to not make them comparable.

 

[جوري]

Pardon me for going off topic (or rather more off than we already are):



No person is all one thing or another. Most of us are a mix. Nobel never imagined that his great invention of dynamite might be used for war when he invented it. But he should have, his father was an inventor of weapons of war, and later in his life Nobel developed many materials of war at the same time that he was writing the idea of a special peace prize into his will.

Evidently, Alfred Nobel did not consider his involvement in the war materials industry and in the work for world peace as incompatible elements. Rather he gave expression to the prevalent 19th century understanding which maintained, that the scientist was not responsible for how his findings were used. Each scholarly discovery is neutral in itself, but can be used both for good and bad objectives. And when it was applied to weapons, Nobel held firm to his old opinion that this had a deterrent effect above all. I'm not sure that I can concur with Nobel's philospohy, but I can't judge him by my standards for he lived at another time and in another culture who thoughts and ways of thinking on these matters are so far different from mine as to not make them comparable.

Thank you for offering that piece(peace) and I respect and appreciated it. I had different motives in my posting the above, not so much to exalt or deny achievements of anyone in particular, but to put an end to the seemingly sweeping generalizations that the so-called illuminati attributes to religion, further citing various figures of history who perhaps at a very zenith of their career established the very tools to augment the sins of man-kind.

I can understand and respect people's opinions in not wanting to adhere to one religion or another. But to blindly and condemningly attribute all the ills of man-kind to religion is not only faulty but under handed and despicable.

Anyone with a remote understanding of history can tell you, such is the nature of mankind. It doesn't matter whether you pin it on religion or lack thereof.. man kind is contentious and in constant state of toil and trouble (if anything religion is supposed to come establish a system to end all of that, and establish justice!-- if implemented appropriately)
The hatred of mankind to his brother could be observed as early as able and Cain. As well as the love of man to his brother-- Enough with the scapegoats to pin your ills on (not you Gene) a general statement-- instead of finding positive solutions to deal with the political, and socioeconomic impacts that are plaguing the world-- some rather cavort and advertise their science fiction and myopic views of the world around them.

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

In the spirit of the present discussion, how will you arrange a test to falsify that statement?

Ok, since you asked...

That we are all deserving of punishemnt for the wrong done by our ancestors is one of the more repugnant concepts that religion has cooked up.

To test this statement, poll the world population on the following question. If Jimmy's father kills his mother, is it right to punish Jimmy for this, with eternal torture? I predict you will get a resounding and nearly universal "NO".

Ranks up there with the concept that one person can be killed and his death pays for the wrong done by others.

To test this one, poll the following question to the world population: If Jimmy's father then kills Jimmy, does that excuse Jimmy's father for killing his mother? Again, I expect you'll get a resounding "NO".

 

[Grace Seeker]

Thank you for offering that piece(peace) and I respect and appreciated it. I had different motives in my posting the above, not so much to exalt or deny achievements of anyone in particular, but to put an end to the seemingly sweeping generalizations that the so-called illuminati attributes to religion, further citing various figures of history who perhaps at a very zenith of their career established the very tools to augment the sins of man-kind.

I can understand and respect people's opinions in not wanting to adhere to one religion or another. But to blindly and condemningly attribute all the ills of man-kind to religion is not only faulty but under handed and despicable.

Anyone with a remote understanding of history can tell you, such is the nature of mankind. It doesn't matter whether you pin it on religion or lack thereof.. man kind is contentious and in constant state of toil and trouble (if anything religion is supposed to come establish a system to end all of that, and establish justice!-- if implemented appropriately)
The hatred of mankind to his brother could be observed as early as able and Cain. As well as the love of man to his brother-- Enough with the scapegoats to pin your ills on (not you Gene) a general statement-- instead of finding positive solutions to deal with the political, and socioeconomic impacts that are plaguing the world-- some rather cavort and advertise their science fiction and myopic views of the world around them.

peace!

Another approach to the same conclusion would be to examine our nearest genetic relatives, the chimpanzee. This creature is known to kill not just for food, but for sport and for dominance.

article from Nature

One who knows the behavior of chimps intimately is Jane Goodall. When the famed scientist began her studies with African chimps forty years ago, most of her peers were agnostic or claimed to be atheists. The Big Bang theory left little room for inspired spiritual exploration. But the strong spiritual foundation created by Goodall's grandmother allowed her to confidently refute popular scientific beliefs and choose a scientific road including faith, hope and God.

"... We were expected to say our prayers at night, kneeling on the floor at the side of the bed. From the beginning we were taught the importance of human values such as courage, honesty, compassion, and tolerance."

The years Goodall spent in the wild, along with exploring the world's greatest cathedrals, further strengthened her faith, proving science and spirituality could successfully co-exist. Goodall writes that she questioned, even denied God's existance during tough life trials, but always regained her spiritual footing.

Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey, by Jane Goodall

Talking about a special moment in her life Goodall writes:

I have to admit anti-chance. And so I must believe in a guiding power in the universe--in other words, I must believe in God.

And consider what it means if there is no God. If the aggression of chimps is not something to which we assign moral value of good and evil, but simply survival behavior, then what of our own? How do we call it anything different than what we see in the rest of nature? As Goodall reflects:

Why is the human species so destructive? So selfish and greedy, and sometimes truly evil? At such times I feel there can be no underlying meaning to the emergence of life on earth. And if there is no meaning, doesn't this suggest, as a bitter New York skinhead once put it, that the human species is simply an "evolutionary good"?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Ok, since you asked...

That we are all deserving of punishemnt for the wrong done by our ancestors is one of the more repugnant concepts that religion has cooked up.

To test this statement, poll the world population on the following question. If Jimmy's father kills his mother, is it right to punish Jimmy for this, with eternal torture? I predict you will get a resounding and nearly universal "NO".

Ranks up there with the concept that one person can be killed and his death pays for the wrong done by others.

To test this one, poll the following question to the world population: If Jimmy's father then kills Jimmy, does that excuse Jimmy's father for killing his mother? Again, I expect you'll get a resounding "NO".

These are both opinion polls, that's all. If they all agreed that such actions were appropriate it would not prove anything either.

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker:

Yes, I propose that sin is the root of the problem. If only we could find a way to eliminate sin from the human condition then I think we could eliminate war, fatricide, and a whole host of other evils. We might even begin to take care of one another.

Now, how would we falsify that statement? If we can convert everyone and see them sanctified and we still experienced sin and the problems you have mentioned, that would falsify it. Will you take up the experiment?

Well, Popper would certainly object to your proposed application of his principle. I’ll quote from you know what (although the chapter is not yet posted):

Karl Popper (of the “Popper Principle” fame) was among those who expressed his concern. In general, the essence of Popper’s ideas about the philosophy of science (or knowledge or epistemology) is that, similar to life, science evolves. In science, the “natural selection process” is via criticism, especially critical experiments demonstrating that predictions of specific hypotheses are invalid. Consistently, Popper was highly critical of large-scale social experiments (such as the experiments he witnessed called Nazism and Communism), not only because criticisms of the experiments within the effected societies were suppressed (and brutally so) but also because as “scientific experiments” they were fatally flawed, with too many uncontrolled and uncontrollable variables.

But further, before you start your experiment, even I will require that you define ‘sin’. I’ll quote again (from again you know what – and this chapter is already posted, http://zenofzero.net/docs/P05_Some_Sad_Personal_Policies.pdf ):

If humanists fail to act morally (i.e., fail to use their brains as best they can), then borrowing the clerics’ word, it could be said that such humanists “sinned” – but we prefer to say we “made a mistake”! And when we make mistakes, then Mother Nature (with her principle of causality) is always there to dole out suitable “justice” or “punishment”; that is, generally one pays for one’s mistakes; generally one gets pretty much what one deserves.

An illustration that I encountered a few minutes ago is in the manual for my car. It states: “To avoid injury [when tightening a particular bolt], check to see what your hand would hit if the wrench slips.” How true! It’s exactly the right way to avoid smashing your knuckles! Translated into the language that I’ve been using, it states: “To avoid injury, use your brain as best you can!” It’s not a “sin” not to – but it sure can be a mistake!

Similarly with consequences (“punishment”) for mistakes (“sins”) in interpersonal relations, such as the mistake of not being kind to other humans (with keenness) or not recognizing that others have equal rights to pursue their own goals. As I mentioned in an earlier chapter, one of the best, down-to-earth summary statement of this that I recently heard was in some movie (title forgotten) in which the teenage heroine says: “What goes around comes around.” Buddhists call it ‘karma’. In the Bible (both at Job 4, 9 and at Galatians 6, 7) there is the idea: “You reap what you sow.” Some other good illustrative statements of the same idea are: 1) “Smile; it’s contagious”, 2) the great highway sign that seems to be everywhere in Texas “Drive Friendly”, and 3) the great expression “If you receive a favor, pass it on.” That is, Dear, usually it’s much preferable to live among humans who are generally kind to one another (with keenness) rather than among those who aren’t – because “what goes around (generally) comes around”.

Now, Dear, I hope that the above “humanist’s view” or “humanist’s scheme” of morality and justice seem totally obvious (and sensible!) to you. And if it doesn’t, then I hope very much that you (as a humanist!) will use your brain as best you can (which should include evaluating all available data) to improve on the scheme.

But then, Dear, for startling contrast – startling in its horridness – consider some of the stupid ideas promoted by the clerics of our culture. If you do consider them (as I’ll be encouraging you to do in Qx), then I expect you’ll agree that the Bible, the Qur’an, and the Book of Mormon promote an astounding range of stupidities (as judged by any humanist), which if transformed into actions, would be an astounding range of immoralities (as judged by any humanist).

For example, an overview of the scheme used by Christian, Islam, and Mormon clerics is the following. First, they promote the stupidity that the prime goal of humans (the “sheep” in their “flocks”) is to obey. Next, switching the analogy from sheep to donkeys, the clerics display both the carrot and the stick with which they proposed to move their donkey followers: if the people do what the clerics demand (if the people are “sinless”), then they offer the people “eternal bliss in a heavenly after-life”. On the other hand, if the people don’t do what the clerics demand (if the people “sin”), then the clerics threaten their followers with the stick of “eternal ****ation in Hell”. Thereby, the clerics use their God-idea to enslave their sheepish, donkey followers, with the key to their clerics’ chains (and their dungeons) being their concept of “sin”.

Of course this “carrot and stick approach” is very old. As I suggested in earlier chapters and will show you details in Yx, the same approach was practiced by Egyptian and Mesopotamian priests thousands of years earlier – and found to be totally inadequate to fill the clerics’ coffers. What the earlier clerics (and of course the Christian clerics) therefore added was methods for their sinful, sheep-like followers to “change their ways”. Thus, rather than just getting their knuckles banged for not checking what their hand would hit if the wrench slipped, or rather than getting a dose of their own medicine when what-they-sent-around came back-around, sinful sheep-like, donkey followers were told that if they pray (or bray!) to God (aka the clerics) for “forgiveness” of their sins, then (for a price) the clerics would forgive “the poor, wretched sinners”, rescuing them from the horrible fate awaiting them in their imagined Hell. Thereby, the clerics (and whatever gods they invented) played the role not just as “judges” but also as “saviors” in a fanciful con game. As H.L. Mencken summarized:

What is the function that a clergyman performs in the world? Answer: he gets his living by assuring idiots that he can save them from an imaginary Hell. It’s a business almost indistinguishable from that of a seller of snake-oil for rheumatism.

Again, Dear, everyone makes mistakes – even you! Mother Nature (causality) makes you pay for your mistakes: generally you’ll need to pay what you owe! Yet, there is a sort of “redemption” available for making mistakes: if you’re wise, you’ll learn from them. Religious people, on the other hand, are “sinners”. And in contrast to Mother Nature, the clerics demand that you pay them for what they define to be “sins”. If “sinners” pay the clerics enough (now-a-days, they take cash, checks, and credit cards!), then they’ll give the “sinners” tickets to Heaven; otherwise, to Hell with them! The “longshoreman philosopher” Eric Hoffer saw it clearly, and saw it was the same for all “mass movements” (be they religious or political):

The technique of a mass movement aims to infect people with a malady and then offer the movement as a cure. An effective mass movement cultivates the idea of sin. It depicts the autonomous self not only as barren and hopeless but also as vile. To confess and repent is to slough off ones individual distinctness and separateness, and salvation is found by losing oneself in the holy oneness of the congregation.

Similar stupidity is still promoted by politicians. For example, as I write this, just last week our stupid president George W. Bush stated at a news conference (associated with comments about homosexuality): “We’re all sinners.” What guck! What gibberish! What gobbledygook! What Jabberwocky!

Dear: no “secular humanist” ever was or ever will be a “sinner”. According to my dictionary, the primary definition of ‘sin’ is “the breaking of religious law or moral principle, especially through a willful act.” Rejecting all religions, we humanists therefore never sin! Of course we make mistakes, but we don’t “sin”. We make mistakes – and we pay for them, with everything from banged knuckles to lost friendships. Religious people, in contrast, are conned into “believing” that their mistakes are “sins” against their gods – to be paid for not with banged knuckles and lost friendships but with produce, cash, or whatever else the clerics can con from the people!

The stupidity is enough to drive me to suggest a bumper sticker: “I may be mistaken, but you have to be religious to be a sinner.” Or maybe better, because it’s shorter:

MISTAKES… SURE . SIN… NEVER

How did it come about? Surely it was childish ignorance, fear, and greed. Just as with children today, no doubt the earliest humans could hardly perceive anything except in relation to themselves. This is called an “anthropocentric view”. With anthropos the Greek word for ‘human’, ‘anthropocentric’ means “conceiving of everything in the universe in terms of human values” or the view that “considers humans as the central factor, or final aim, of the universe.” And although “anthropocentricism” is the central tenet of all organized religions, yet there isn’t the tiniest shred of data to support it. Stars are born and die, the sun keeps burning, the sky is blue, clouds float by, it rains, rivers swell, floods occur, ants go about their business, and rocks pretty much do what they’ve always done – without the least “concern” for humans!

But when ancient people first started thinking about their surrounding, almost certainly they did so with an anthropocentric view – just as do modern children as well as, unfortunately, a huge number of current adults: Why did that stupid rock trip me? Those darn ants ruined our picnic. Why did that flood ruin our crops? Alternatively, it was (and still is): I must have done something right for the sky to be so beautifully blue! Thank God the sun finally came out! The stars must have some purpose! That is, Dear, people “project” their own views onto the universe, even to the extent of assigning the human concept of “purpose” onto “things” (such as rocks and rivers and stars) that “haven’t a clue” about the “meaning” of ‘purpose’.

And as silly as it is to assign the human notion of ‘purpose’ onto inanimate objects, the next phase of this silliness is even worse: not only to claim that such purposes are known but also that people’s actions can influence such assumed purposes. That is, if the Sun doesn’t shine, a volcano erupts, a drought occurs, the river floods, the people starve, a hunter is killed, a mother becomes ill, a child dies, or if any of innumerable misfortunes occur, then rather than recognize that all are “normal” fluctuations of nature (with, in some cases, inadequate precaution taken by “the victims” of such fluctuations), people with an anthropocentric view of the universe mistakenly attribute their misfortunes not to nature’s randomness (or to their own carelessness) but to their “sins”.

Now, Dear, you may think that the above is silly, because you have learned to identify other causes for such misfortunes as illness, hunger, death, and so on. For example, a disease descends on a village not as “social justice” from the gods but as “justice” for inadequate hygiene, an inadequate mosquito-control program, or similar. But, Dear, try to imagine the primitive thoughts of early humans: insofar as they were convinced about the existence of powerful gods (who ruled thunder, lightning, volcanoes, the stars, life and death, and so on) and so long as the people experienced misfortunes (becoming ill, being hungry, losing children, etc.), then it must have appeared to be “obvious” (and logical) that in some way or other the infliction was retribution by “the gods” for “the sins” of the sufferer – and the first priests seized the opportunity to start their con games. As Voltaire said: “The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool.”

Now, Dear, it would require too much space, here, to show you details about how this con game developed. I showed you some in earlier chapters and will show you more in Yx. Here, let me just mention a few summary points:

• Subservience to gods and some sort of payments for sins probably started with prehistoric humans. Hints of this are available not only from archeological finds but also from observations of children and animals such as apes: weaker males and females normally pay the strongest male some type of tribute. Similarly, when confronted by some threatening unknown (an erupting volcanoes, a lightning storm), prehistoric humans probably tried to appease some “god” with subservience and some booty.

• The behavioral pattern was then available when human communities developed, with their needs for customs and laws: the leaders and their henchmen (the priests) claimed (and clerics still claim) that the community’s laws were given to them by “the gods”. This was a widespread (if not worldwide) technique, used for at least 2,000 years before Moses allegedly adopted the same method in his proclamations of his many “commandments”. If a person broke one of these laws, i.e., if a person “sinned”, then “the sinner” would be punished.

• The essence of this method can be seen even in a dictionary definition of ‘sin’:

1. a) the breaking of religious law or moral principle, especially through a willful act, b) a state of habitual violation of such principles 2. any offense, misdemeanor, or fault.

This definition, however, is not historically correct (or, as a minimum, it’s misleading), because stating that ‘sin’ is “the breaking of religious law or moral principle…” fails to inform the reader that, in earlier times, all laws and all moral principles were claimed to be religious (i.e., given to the people by the gods).

• As for how the people would be punished if they broke the laws (i.e., if they “sinned”), it depended upon the times and the rulers. For example, as I showed you in M1, approximately 500 years before Moses, King Hammurabi of Babylon proscribed punishments for the ‘sinners’ who broke his god’s laws. These punishments were generally of two types i.e., with two goals: either to deter future crimes (e.g., cut off a thief’s hand) or to compensate for damages (e.g., pay a person if you put out his or his slave’s eye).

• There was, therefore, a time period when the concept of sin was beneficial to community life, as a form of “crowd control”. If someone were so inclined, one could argue that Hammurabi demonstrated the final useful application of the method; since his time, the power gained by the clerics corrupted the method, turning it into a con game designed not for the community’s benefit but for their own. An overview of this con game is that, in it, the clerics claimed all power: legislative power (making the law), police power (arresting people for suspicion of breaking the law), judicial power (deciding if the law has been broken and the penalty for breaking the law), and taxation power (collecting payments from the “sinners”).

• During the most recent 2,000 – 3,000 years, a clash of two principle methods to govern community life has been occurring. On the one side, the clerics have continued to claim control through their manipulation of the concept of sin; this method is still prevalent in many Islamic societies throughout the world, and remnants of the method continue even in this country, especially where some type of “fundamentalism” continues to be strong (e.g., in Utah). On the other side are the “civil governments”, with a strong start in Ancient Greece and Rome (as I’ll sketch in Ux and Yx), which started when people saw that it wasn’t the gods but other people who made the laws, and therefore, that it should be some civil rather than some clerical authority that administers justice. The resulting clash was particularly acute in Israel 2,000 years ago, when the Romans ruled the country with their civil law while the clerics tried to continue to rule the people with their “divine” law – which they continue to try to do today!

Therefore, Dear, to summarize the above ridiculously brief overview, the Bible (and similarly the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon) can be viewed as last desperate gasps of the clerics to their presumptuous claims that they had (and still have) the authority (from God) to govern their communities. Maybe even more ridiculously, they claimed (and continue to claim) that they have the competence to govern: they claim competence to be police, lawyers, judges, legislators, sociologists, psychologists, and even doctors and scientists – while displaying knowledge less than should be learned in elementary school!

And if you think that the above has nothing to do with you, Dear, then please think about what you’ve been taught ever since you were a baby. For example, consider again LDS President Kimball’s statement:

…Since the beginning [of religious con games!] there has been in the world a wide range of sins. Many of them involve harm to others, but every sin is against ourselves and God…

Please, Dear, don’t buy into such stupidity. Of course I totally agree that it’s generally unwise (in fact, usually dumb) to murder, steal, lie, and so on. People have trouble enough in this life without living in societies without such obviously desirable restrictions on behavior. But are violations of such restrictions “sins” against some god?

Let me put it this way. In so far as all ideas about all gods should be dismissed as “mere speculation”, so should all ideas of “sin”. I very much hope, Dear, that you understand what I’m trying to say: when you can break free from all silly speculations about the existence of any god (or gods), then of course there is no longer any meaning to the concept of “offending the gods”, i.e., there is no such thing as “sin”. Of course, there will continue to be actions that you might take that are potentially damaging to your trio of survival goals (and therefore these actions are “immoral” – or just plain dumb!), but they ain’t “sins”!

Stated still differently, Dear, please be assured from the lifetime experiences of your “grandfather with the beard” that never once in your life have you ever committed (or will you ever commit) a “sin”. True, you may have done (or may yet do) something foolish or stupid (and thereby, immoral), but never once have you ever offended (or will you offend) any god. Again: if you’ll forego the immorality of believing in gods, then I guarantee you that you’ll never “sin”!

And now, I gotta get back to work – or I’ll not meet my self-imposed schedule to post a chapter per week – which would be, not a sin, but another one of my mistakes.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker:



Well, Popper would certainly object to your proposed application of his principle. I’ll quote from you know what (although the chapter is not yet posted):



But further, before you start your experiment, even I will require that you define ‘sin’. I’ll quote again (from again you know what – and this chapter is already posted, http://zenofzero.net/docs/P05_Some_Sad_Personal_Policies.pdf ):



And now, I gotta get back to work – or I’ll not meet my self-imposed schedule to post a chapter per week – which would be, not a sin, but another one of my mistakes.

I have to say that while it may not appeal to others, I tend to agree with your wife, it might have an appeal for some. I myself, enjoy that you have written it in a very casual way to your granddaughter.

Now, as to my definition of of sin. As you are asking for me to define it in relation to the experiment, I'll not be able to use all the various definitions of others, An experiment can have only one definition. That definition which I prefer to work by is that which not only defines, but has the added benefit of also describing both sin and its consequence: sin is that which separates a person from God. You can guess the natural consequences of sin I'll bet, separation from God. In terms of what I get out of donkeys who bray to God for forgivness, I will get nothing. Well, maybe a little mule (pronounced mu-lah) from the sale of my new book "Don't be as big an ass as Balam." (I really hope you are biblically literate enough to get the second half of that very intended pun.)

However, you can see that with sin being defined as that which separates one from God, then the prime goal of humans that this stupid cleric promotes is interestingly, not obedience. You may have to go back and rewrite some of your chapter, or at least provide explanatory footnotes, for I know that in a work of science you will want what you present to be factually true, even if it is not what you personally ascribe to. What my definition of sin promotes is that the prime goal of human beings is to live in communion (i.e. connectedness) with God.

Btw, what does a non-thiestic, but secular humanistic science say is the prime goal of humanity? Would it not be the same as all other living beings, primarily to reproduce themselves? Which I think I can produce an experiment to falsify that concept rather easily, but that is for another conversation.

As to your ascertion that humanists never sin, maybe that depends on what you mean by sin. Even using the definition that you provided "the breaking of religious law or moral principle", it is certain that secular humanists have done these things. Immanuel Kant, John Locke and Thomsd Hobbes didn't agree on much, but all recognized the existence of a moral law, and all recognized that even secular humanists break it from time to time. Further you only stated that you don't accept the religious law as your standard, and don't expect to be judged by a god for breaking it. Fair enough. But, you do admit that religion does exist and that there are in place religious laws. So, while you propose that you will not be held accountable for the breaking of religious law, you do admit that there is a religious law that one can break. Perhaps it has no authority or power, but it exists and if all sin is not a real moral failing or a real separation from God, but merely (as you have defined it) the violation of some relgiously codified behavior, then I propose that it is broken frequently, and especially by people who do not believe it to have any real substance to it. By definition (yours at least, though curiously not mine) these people would be sinners, even if there is no resulting consequence to their sin other than the shame that certain clerics might try to foist upon them.

Thus it is that whether one sins or not is not dependent on belief or disbelief in God, but the simple act of how one defines sin. Aside from my personal belief in God, I think you may have misled your granddaughter in saying otherwise. But then again, if one does not believe in God at all, maybe there isn't much point in defining sin or worring about violations against an imaginary God. If that is what you want to say, I think you could put it to her that simply and she would understand.

Of course, you might also remind her that there is the .00000000000000000001% chance that you might be wrong about the existence of God. In that case, she is 100% certain to have to deal with the question of sin on something other than a theoretical basis.

 

[snakelegs]

snakelegs:

You make many good points – yet, let me provide some notes on some of your comments.



Yes, after having read the Qur’an, I infer a connection, but no, I’m not assuming an absence of political factors.

the bible has a whole lot more violence in it than the qur'an!

As am I – and maybe “offended” insufficiently reflects my concern.
for me it is an understatement as well.



I agree.



He was an amazing fellow. For me, his message was Zen (as in www.zenofzero.net !). As Shunryu Suzuki said: “The most important point is to accept yourself and stand on your [own] two feet.”

j. krishnamurti makes more sense to me than just about anyone else.

In my view, that’s the key to ending this “field day” of “fanaticism”. I would urge you to give your response more thought.

there are reasons for this fanaticism and some i can identify with. the world is changing at such a rapid pace, there is a deep sense that something is terribly missing - people are turning to that which they see as unchangeable and reliable. (over simplification)

I agree that it’s unwise to tell anyone that specific points about some dogma are wrong: though that may be your conclusion, saying so almost certainly won’t lead to your desired outcome (and will probably generate hostility). Instead, effort should be expended toward revealing the fundamental error in holding any “belief” more strongly than is warranted by relevant evidence. And I don’t think it’s “arrogant” to promote that concept, any more so than it’s “arrogant” to promote “common sense”.

it is not just unwise. i think your view about religion is not that different from mine, but would you be able to say "christianity is wrong." "islam is wrong". i know i wouldn't, no matter how dim a view i have of organized religion. people who feel a need to "reveal the fundamental error in holding any belief more strongly than is warranted" are expressing a belief themselves. i think it is arrogant to "reveal" such things to others. i don't like it when they do it to me.

I have a similar feeling about missionaries, and I agree that my suggestion (and the suggestion of many others) is a form of “violence”. But then, if you find a kid playing with matches near a can of gasoline, it’s also “violence” to try to stop her – but simultaneously, almost certainly, it would be done out of kindness.

Thus, as is so common in life, one must choose between “means” and “ends” – and my experience has been that the best procedure is to assess the relative value of the “ends” versus the “means”, which are ends in themselves. In particular, I’m convinced that an “honorable” means to achieve the “desirable” end (of having more people use common sense, viz., evaluate the evidence supporting their beliefs) is to try to alert them to their fundamental error (viz., their falling into the “proof by pleasure” logical fallacy).
re-education camps? i bristle when someone wants to "alert me to my fundamental errors"!

And of course (and in general) I couldn’t care less what other people believe – so long as their beliefs don’t influence me (e.g., “kill the unbelievers”). But then there’s an insidious connection between all religious beliefs: all such believers consider it acceptable – even admirable! – to adopt ideas (and hold them strongly) in the absence of appropriate evidence (to just have “faith”). Such has been demonstrated to be very bad news for the rest of us.


To stimulate you to think about such matters, let me put it this way. Four of the most famous supporters of the terrorists are OBL, the Pope, Blair, and Bush. That is, by displaying their own commitment to accepting ideas in the absence of evidence, the Pope, Blair, and Bush provide enormous support to OBL’s similar stupidity.

do you think religious people have a monopoly on accepting ideas in the absence of evidence? what about political ideologues?

Yes, I understand – but then, I doubt (and I expect that you doubt) that it’s so. I love the story about dolphins (the truth of which I’ve had trouble validating): a dolphin will swim beneath its wounded cousin, periodically lifting it to the surface, so that it can breathe. I expect that the vast majority of people are instinctively as kind as dolphins – since, as similar social animals, such kindness gave an advantage to the survival of the species. I therefore expect that without their religions, most people would behave at least as well as dolphins. As Stephen Weinberg (winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics) said:

this gets in to speculation about belief systems re: human nature. my own is that we are all capable of both great good and great evil. if our evil outweighs our good, we will do evil things whether we are atheist, agnostic, hindu, christian, muslim, jew etc etc. and i believe the reverse is also true.
when it comes to human nature - both of us are going by what? - our beliefs!

 

[One Man Army]

wanted 2 leav snakelegs some positive feedback, bt it seems it is not possible to do so bcuz of a blok...

 

[snakelegs]

thanks, ultimate. you just did!

 

[Pygoscelis]

These are both opinion polls, that's all. If they all agreed that such actions were appropriate it would not prove anything either.

It would determine if the statements are correct, which is what you requested a test to do. It would show that our common moral sense finds these things immoral. And that they are central to a religious doctrine shows the power of socialization and that it can sometimes overcome moral values that would otherwise be upheld.

 

[MustafaMc]

Finding one's personal relationship with God is obviously important. People who are Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc that have children will obviously want their children to be of the same faith. It is up to the individual in the end to find their own relationship with God, regardless of their upbringing.

Interesting that I became a Muslim despite my Christian father's objections and likewise my son considers himself a Christian despite my objections. Though not in my case, I think fitting into societal norms plays a part in choice of religion.

 

[zoro]

Grace Seeker:

Thank you for your kind comments. Sometime, even before the 48th year, I learned to just do what she says – not, of course, to always do it immediately (not only for “image protection” but also, sometimes, associated with some “strategic planning”, e.g., “Okay, I’ll make the appointment, provided you…”), but nonetheless, to do it, eventually. [Although no doubt that conclusions could be another source of contention. It reminds me of a comment made to me almost 50 years ago by my father-in-law (who, at that time, had been married for about 25 years): “The first 20 years are the easiest!” But with due respect for his many other fine attributes, I’m not sure his comment was either wise or valid: many times I’ve heard myself saying “You mean it gets worse?!” But I digress.]

That definition which I prefer to work by is that which not only defines, but has the added benefit of also describing both sin and its consequence: sin is that which separates a person from God.

Well, of course you see the “operational problem” with such a definition: since the existence of God hasn’t been established, the concept of separation from something not known to exist has no meaning.

Of course, it’s demonstrably the case that people have various ideas about God; consequently, there’s no doubt that the idea of God exists; therefore, perhaps your definition of ‘sin’ (and its consequence) could be salvaged in a form such as: sin is that which separates a person from the idea of God.

In that case, however, you’d need to face the criticism that such a definition definitely poisons the well. Rephrased, it’s something similar to “anyone who doesn’t believe in the idea of God is a sinner” – which is just a little bit short of “kill the infidels”.

Yet let me add that, otherwise, it would seem that all atheists would be please to accept your unmodified definition of ‘sin’, since from their assessment that there is no god, it immediately follows from your definition of ‘sin’ that they never do!

In terms of what I get out of donkeys who bray to God for forgivness, I will get nothing. Well, maybe a little mule (pronounced mu-lah) from the sale of my new book "Don't be as big an ass as Balam." (I really hope you are biblically literate enough to get the second half of that very intended pun.)

Wow, that one went too fast for me. I think I saw later in your post that you were a cleric. So, rephrased, the first sentence seems to be: “What clerics profit from this concept of ‘sin’ (viz., separation from God) is nothing.”

Well, that depends on how well they play their con game! If they then advocate that the way to gain, say, union with God is via their services, then…!

As for the rest of the paragraph, I’m sorry, but it loses me. I have read the Bible cover-to-cover twice and then re-read at least the Pentateuch and the New Testament so many times that I can almost quote chapter and verse, but sorry, the pun wasn’t the fun that was meant to be done.

However, you can see that with sin being defined as that which separates one from God, then the prime goal of humans that this stupid cleric promotes is interestingly, not obedience.

Well, again, it depends on how the cleric chooses to play his hand – even with your proposed (non-meaningful) definition of ‘sin’. If he says something similar to, “Hey, I don’t have a clue what God is (or even if God exists); all I have is my own idea of God; go out and find your own meaning.”, then I’d agree with you – almost – that no ‘obedience’ is implied. And I added ‘almost’, because the statement “go out and find you own meaning” implicitly suggests ‘obey’.

But of course, that’s not how the clerics of the world play their hand! Instead, they bark out their orders. In contrast, it would seem to be better, by far, if the hypothetical cleric would follow a Zen master’s procedure, which might be to say to his student something similar to, “When you learn what ‘sin’ is, then you will know sin”, or maybe (looking at your next quote) “If you want to live in communion with God, then why to you continue to communicate with me?”

What my definition of sin promotes is that the prime goal of human beings is to live in communion (i.e. connectedness) with God.

But then, again, it can be a real challenge to connect to something that doesn’t exist! If you mean connectedness with the God idea, then what you’re promoting (as the “prime goal of human beings”) is, obviously, connectedness with just an idea. But to promote such a scheme can do (and has done) humanity huge harm. Meanwhile, the mystics of the world delight in such schemes, but simultaneously, they choose to be parasites on the producers of the world.

For the rest of us, while the mystics are “in communion” with their god, we get the “dirty jobs” of “connectedness” with reality. While the mystics dream (only occasionally pausing to hold out their collection plates), the producers figure out ways to control fire (and keep it burning for the clerics), irrigate crops (to feed the parasite priests), make wheels that can spin on axles (to carry the useless carcasses of the clerics), and so on, out to and including figuring out how to change rocks into collection plates!

Thus, in my view and based on all the data that I’ve ever encountered, the prime goal of humans is a trio of survival (or even “thrival”) goals: of oneself (since it’s rather difficult to pursue any other goal if you’re dead), of one’s family (whatever “extent” one recognizes to be the extent of one’s family – from “immediate family” to tribe to nation to all humanity to all life), and of one’s values (which, in the main, for realists, are derived from the first two of their survival goals). Stated differently, my reaction to the suggestion that “the prime goal of human beings is to live in communion (i.e., connectedness) with God” is: “Pshaw! Surely you’re not serious! That’s crazy!”

Oh, now I see:

Btw, what does a non-theistic, but secular humanistic science say is the prime goal of humanity? Would it not be the same as all other living beings, primarily to reproduce themselves? Which I think I can produce an experiment to falsify that concept rather easily, but that is for another conversation.

So, I’ve already addressed that – and “Btw”, essentially all of http://zenofzero.net/docs/BoardMeeting.pdf is devoted to the question about the prime goal of humans, and I do my best to “falsify” religious concepts of “the purpose of life” in http://zenofzero.net/docs/P01_The_Purpose_of_Life.pdf and the subsequent two chapters.

Re. your next paragraph, which starts with

As to your assertion that humanists never sin, maybe that depends on what you mean by sin.

Yes, of course! But re. your later suggestion (in the same paragraph) that because religious laws exist, I violate them, and therefore I sin, be aware that such laws do not apply to me (or other secular or scientific humanists). Similarly, there are laws in other countries (e.g., the law in the U.K. that requires driving on the left-hand side of the road), but I do not break their law when I drive here, because they don’t apply. Similarly, I don’t break any law applicable to me when I “take the Lord’s name in vain”, because I’ve concluded that such a law don’t apply to me, since I’ve reached the conclusion that such a “law” was concocted by con-artist clerics solely to fleece the people.

Immanuel Kant, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes didn't agree on much, but all recognized the existence of a moral law, and all recognized that even secular humanists break it from time to time.

Yes, but in my view, the highest “moral law” (or better, the act of highest morality) is to always use your brain as best you can (which of course includes checking all your ideas against data). And though I agree that sometimes I am immoral, what that means is that sometimes (not infrequently!) I do things that are dumb (i.e., I didn’t use my brain as best I could have).

Thus it is that whether one sins or not is not dependent on belief or disbelief in God, but the simple act of how one defines sin. Aside from my personal belief in God, I think you may have misled your granddaughter in saying otherwise. But then again, if one does not believe in God at all, maybe there isn't much point in defining sin or worrying about violations against an imaginary God. If that is what you want to say, I think you could put it to her that simply and she would understand.

Well, I tried to say that, and to state it “that simply”, but thank you for your comments – and I’ll go back to try to say it more clearly. I did conclude with:

Stated still differently, Dear, please be assured from the lifetime experiences of your “grandfather with the beard” that never once in your life have you ever committed (or will you ever commit) a “sin”. True, you may have done (or may yet do) something foolish or stupid (and thereby, immoral), but never once have you ever offended (or will you offend) any god. Again: if you’ll forego the immorality of believing in gods, then I guarantee you that you’ll never “sin”!

Finally, re. your

Of course, you might also remind her that there is the .00000000000000000001% chance that you might be wrong about the existence of God. In that case, she is 100% certain to have to deal with the question of sin on something other than a theoretical basis.

Yes, good point. Once again I’ll add the phrase (as I’ve done elsewhere) “as nearly as I can guarantee you anything”… I guarantee that never once in your life have you ever committed (or will you ever commit) a “sin”.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Unless you object I’d like to list “Grace Seeker” in the Acknowledgements and a reference to your post.

But meanwhile, all the above seems to have drifted off from the topic that had drifted off from the topic that had…! You stated that sin is the root of the problem (of evil) and suggested that your hypothesis be tested. I requested your definition of “sin”. That got us into the above.

I would go back to Socrates’ idea (modified), “There is one good, willingness to learn, and one evil, refusal”, add Hippocrates’ idea (modified) that the way to learn about the reality external to our minds is via application of the scientific method, plus add the critical idea of protecting “human rights”, to conclude not just that the best way to solve our problems intelligently is via applications of the scientific method while protecting human rights, but also that a great evil is being perpetrated by clerics who refuse to learn about and apply the scientific method, e.g., to investigate their premiss that any god has ever existed. If they can demonstrate that any of their gods exist, then great! I for one would be delighted to dump all the huge problems of the world on some god’s shoulders! But where it stands now, I say to all the clerics of the world: “Put up or shut up!”

 

[zoro]

snakelegs:

I’m afraid that I couldn’t find much traction in your post; maybe you should remove your legs and try crawlin’ around like the rest of us; according to some silly myth, that was God’s intent.

I might agree “the Bible has a whole lot more violence in it than the Qur’an”, but 1) it’s a lot longer, 2) violence against whom? 3) what weighting is given to the infinitely horrible idea of Hell? 4) so what? – that is, what’s it got to with the point made re. 9/11?

If your point is that if there were no Bible, then there’d be no Qur’an, then that would be an interesting point. If your point is that it was horrible that Ezra and co-conspirators concocted the Old Testament to foist a version of the Zoroastrian religion of their Persian masters onto the poor Hebrew people, I would agree. If your point is that you’d wish that the Bible (and all “holy books”) were eliminated (save for a few copies filed away in some “scholarly libraries”), then again I’d agree. But if your point is that Superman comic books are more violent than…

I agree that there are many causes of the “angst” that’s rampant; much effort is needed, on many different topics (overpopulation, environmental degradation, water availability and quality, starvation, AIDS and other diseases, wars, injustices,…) to solve human problems intelligently. But since in this Forum most discussion is on religion, it seems appropriate to focus on solving problems derived from religions.

Could I say specific religions are wrong? Yes. All of them! They’re mental constructs devoid of supporting data; their hypotheses provide no testable predictions; they’re mere speculations. To be sure, they can provide people with comfortable delusions, but so can (I understand) various narcotics, to which I’m also opposed. Humanity is facing some real problems needing realistic solutions – so to all religious people of the world I would say: “Get real!”

Your statement “People who feel a need to ‘reveal the fundamental error in holding any belief more strongly than is warranted [by relevant evidence]’ are expressing a belief themselves” is shallow. Of course we all hold beliefs. I believe that there’s less than a 10% chance it’ll rain, here, today. I believe with 99.99999999999% confidence that another dawn will occur tomorrow. But my point: I have evidence to support such beliefs and use such evidence to estimate the probablities for the validities of my beliefs.

And a lifetime of experience has led me to conclude with 99.9999999% confidence that it’s unwise (better, dumb) to hold beliefs for which there isn’t a tiniest shred of evidence – especially when your beliefs influence other aspects of your community’s welfare. In contrast, if you believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then my response would be “whatever”. But if you believe that Martians are about to invade the Earth and, therefore, you’re gonna take my granddaughter into a cave to save her, then I’d advise you, strongly, to keep your cottin’ pickin’ hands off her. If you say that it’s arrogant for me to require that you provide evidence to support your beliefs about the Martians, then I’d say: “It ain’t nearly so arrogant as the barrel of the shotgun that you’re staring into.”

You use the term “re-education camps” seemingly for derogatory purposes. I’ll say it differently: I want every child in the world to learn basic critical thinking skills. And of course I agree that political ideologues play the same horrible game – which again supports the need for kids to learn to think critically, so they can suitably weigh the claims of any charlatan, any quack, religious, political, or whatever. I’ll quote how others have said it:

The persistence of erroneous beliefs exacerbates the widespread anachronistic failure to recognize the urgent problems that face humanity on this planet. (Murray Gell-Mann)

Scientific education and religious education are incompatible. The clergy have ceased to interfere with education at the advanced state, with which I am directly concerned, but they have still got control of that of children. This means that the children have to learn about Adam and Noah instead of about Evolution; about David who killed Goliath, instead of Koch who killed cholera; about Christ’s ascent into heaven instead of Montgolfier’s and Wright’s. Worse than that, they are taught that it is a virtue to accept statements without adequate evidence, which leaves them a prey to quacks of every kind in later life, and makes it very difficult for them to accept the methods of thought which are successful in science. (J.B.S. Haldane)

Credulity is not a crime for the individual, but it is clearly a crime as regards the race. Just look at the actual consequences of credulity. For years men believed in the foul superstition of witchcraft – and many poor people suffered for this foolish belief. There was a general belief in angels and demons, flying familiarly, yet skittishly through the air – and that belief caused untold distress and pain and tragedy. The most holy Catholic church (and, after it, the various Protestant sects) enforced the dogma that heresy was terribly sinful and punishable by death – imagine (but all you need do is to recount) the suffering entailed by that belief. When one surveys the causes and consequences of credulity, it is apparent that this easy [belief] in the impossible, this readiness toward false and fanatical notions, has been indeed a most serious and major crime against humanity. The social life in any age, it may be said, is about what its extent of credulity guarantees. In an extremely credulous age, social life will be cruel and dark and treacherous; in a skeptical age, social life will be more humane. (E. Haldeman-Julius)

And re your final sentence, final clause, you again miss the point. There’s nothing wrong with “beliefs” – the question that desperately needs to be addressed is: what are they based on?

 

[Pygoscelis]

To join in as the third non-believer disagreeing with each other, I see no harm in comfortable delusions, so long as they remain confortable delusions and don't become harmful ones telling you to change people, or worse, kill people.

Of modern day religions, I have no qualms with buddhism or taoism. I have no qualms with hinduism or shintoism. It is only the monotheistic religions that bother me. The ones that claim their way is the only way and their god is the only god - that invariably leads to conflicts that are very bloody. And it can also lead to murder - witness the thread in this very forum on apostates leaving islam (they are to be killed).

 

[zoro]

Pygoscelis: I agree with you, especially re. Tao & Zen. But where the caste system in Hinduism and the racism of Shintoism persist, I would want fellow humans to be free.

 

[ranma1/2]

Pygoscelis: I agree with you, especially re. Tao & Zen. But where the caste system in Hinduism and the racism of Shintoism persist, I would want fellow humans to be free.

Im familiar with the caste system in Hinduism but I have never heard of the racism of Shintoism, unless you are speaking about the racism torward the Natives of Japan. Or perhaps more likely the stigma torward leather workers in the past. But i dont think those were related to Shintoism but more of the culture since shintoism realy doesnt have any doctrin or dogma.

 

[zoro]

ranma1/2:

Im familiar with the caste system in Hinduism but I have never heard of the racism of Shintoism, unless you are speaking about the racism toward the Natives of Japan. Or perhaps more likely the stigma toward leather workers in the past. But i dont think those were related to Shintoism but more of the culture since shintoism really doesnt have any doctrine or dogma.

Please notice that I qualified my statement to Pygoscelis with the word “where”, viz., “where the caste system in Hinduism and [where] the racism of Shintoism persist, I would want fellow humans to be free.” If your response is (basically) that there is no “where”, and if you are correct, then not only am I very glad to hear it but also I sincerely apologize for my suggestion that there was any “where”. I know nothing about the two examples that you mention.

I should also admit that I have read only a very little about Shintoism and would be grateful if you would help me learn more and purge any of my errors. In the meantime, let me go through just the first few items of a google search for Shintoism +racism to suggest to you how (in the past, and not from these example, but I can’t recreate my old sources) I could have “smelled” hints of racism in Shintoism.

1. Webster:

Shintoism: One of the two great systems of religious belief in Japan. Its essence is ancestor worship, and sacrifice to dead heroes.

Insofar as a religion contains “ancestor worship” and if the emphasis is on heroes of one’s own ethnicity, it thereby promotes racism.

2. From the publisher’s review of the book “Religion and Nationalism in Early Kamakura Society” by Achilles S.C. Gacis:

In this chapter I argue that Nichiren's upbringing and lifelong exposure to the indigenous tradition of Shinto (which emphasized the divine nature of Japan) provided an ethno-spiritual nationalistic element to his Buddhist teaching…

For me, the “divine nature of Japan” suggests racism.

3. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/010712_shinto.shtml

Little is known about the Shinto faith in the West, despite being a rigidly enforced state religion until the 1950s. Up until that point the Emperor was worshipped as a God…

If any religion is a “rigidly enforced state religion”, then it’s unlikely to be devoid of nationalistic emphasis, and insofar as Japanese nationalism promotes (or promoted) “ethnic purity”, I expect that such emphasis would include racism.

4. From “Rise of Nationalism in Japan” by Hauquan Chau (at http://www.g21.net/asia30.htm):

The fundamental beliefs that these ultra-nationalists, or uyoku, have is that, first, Japan must return to its 1930's "sacred values" -- including a militaristic ideology, deification of the Emperor and Japanese as a pure and homogenous people. There are almost 1000 far-right groups throughout the country with membership of more than 100,000, with the majority being affiliated with the National Conference of Patriotic Associations.

Chau’s quote (source not clear to me): “Mafia-style intimidation towards media outlets that in any way denigrate their sacred view of Japan and the Emperor has always been the oyoku's main tool in getting their way. For example, the Asahi Shimbun, a national paper known for its liberal views, has faced many attacks from the uyoku. In one instance the attack was provoked by the newspaper allegedly not using the Emperor's name with the correct honorific title. The main office has been surrounded a number of times by the black vans of the uyoku and have actually been rammed into the Asahi Shimbun building itself.”

It does seem that such (stupid) ideas of ethnic purity (“a pure and homogeneous people”) don’t have a large following (probably not proportionally larger than similar kooks in the U.S. and other nations), but I would hope that all such “racism” would vanish from the Earth.

5. From “A Postwar View of the Greater East Asia War” by Michiko Hasegawa (published in the Journal of Historical Review; available at http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p451_Hasegawa.html):

In striking contrast to the situation in North America and Europe, historical revisionism enjoys widespread support and even official sanction in Japan. The growing willingness of the Japanese to reassess their nation's role in the "Greater East Asia War" received worldwide attention during the so-called "textbook controversy" of 1962, when new Japanese high school history textbooks were introduced that portrayed Japan's wartime role in a more positive light. Recent documentary films and "docudrama" television series about the war years have also contributed to the revisionist trend. And last August Yasuhiro Nakasone became the first postwar Prime Minister to make an official visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, a Shinto holy place in Tokyo honoring Japanese war dead, including wartime Prime Minister Hideki Tojo and other leaders who were hanged by the Americans as war criminals.

The article that follows is reprinted from a special 1984 issue of the attractive quarterly magazine, Jupan Echo, which consisted entirely of revisionist essays. It was widely distributed by the Toyota Motor Company, Japan Air Lines and the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Hayao Shimizu of the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies introduced the special issue with an editorial essay entitled "The War and Japan: Revisionist Views." Besides the various objective factors, he wrote, the subjective or psychological factor behind the remarkable recent growth of revisionism in Japan has been "the fervent enthusiasm ordinary people have shown for reconfirming their identity by means of a fresh look at history." The impetus has not come from scholars, but is rather based on a growing desire "among the Japanese in general to re-establish their sense of national identity." Shimizu went on to explain: "Perhaps we can say that at the root of such developments is a manifestation of the natural nationalism of the Japanese, which for most of the post war period was suppressed, sometimes openly and at other times in covert fashion." Not surprisingly, leftists in Japan and abroad are not happy with this trend…

Again, the link between nationalism, ethnic purity, and Shintoism smells to me of racism. But also again: if I’m wrong, if my nose needs recalibration, please let me know.

 

[snakelegs]

snakelegs:

I’m afraid that I couldn’t find much traction in your post; maybe you should remove your legs and try crawlin’ around like the rest of us; according to some silly myth, that was God’s intent.

I might agree “the Bible has a whole lot more violence in it than the Qur’an”, but 1) it’s a lot longer, 2) violence against whom? 3) what weighting is given to the infinitely horrible idea of Hell? 4) so what? – that is, what’s it got to with the point made re. 9/11?

If your point is that if there were no Bible, then there’d be no Qur’an, then that would be an interesting point. If your point is that it was horrible that Ezra and co-conspirators concocted the Old Testament to foist a version of the Zoroastrian religion of their Persian masters onto the poor Hebrew people, I would agree. If your point is that you’d wish that the Bible (and all “holy books”) were eliminated (save for a few copies filed away in some “scholarly libraries”), then again I’d agree. But if your point is that Superman comic books are more violent than…

it was you who originally mentioned 9/11 and said you see a connection with the qur'an.
I agree that there are many causes of the “angst” that’s rampant; much effort is needed, on many different topics (overpopulation, environmental degradation, water availability and quality, starvation, AIDS and other diseases, wars, injustices,…) to solve human problems intelligently. But since in this Forum most discussion is on religion, it seems appropriate to focus on solving problems derived from religions.
point taken.

Could I say specific religions are wrong? Yes. All of them! They’re mental constructs devoid of supporting data; their hypotheses provide no testable predictions; they’re mere speculations. To be sure, they can provide people with comfortable delusions, but so can (I understand) various narcotics, to which I’m also opposed. Humanity is facing some real problems needing realistic solutions – so to all religious people of the world I would say: “Get real!”

the nature of belief is that it cannot be proven. it also cannot be disproven. ultimately there are some things that are simply unknowable. so you cannot logically tell someone to prove their religion is true. it is certainly true to them. i share your belief that religions are strictly man-made and we would probably be better off without them, tho in reality, no doubt something else would be substituted.
most of us have political opinions about things that we are not able to prove or disprove either. most americans believe it when their government tells them it is necessary to invade iraq because they have WMD. i didn't believe it at all, and to me, it was obvious bush was desperate to attack (even the excuses changed from day to day). could i prove it? nope, but i believed we were being lied to.

Your statement “People who feel a need to ‘reveal the fundamental error in holding any belief more strongly than is warranted [by relevant evidence]’ are expressing a belief themselves” is shallow. Of course we all hold beliefs. I believe that there’s less than a 10% chance it’ll rain, here, today. I believe with 99.99999999999% confidence that another dawn will occur tomorrow. But my point: I have evidence to support such beliefs and use such evidence to estimate the probablities for the validities of my beliefs.
i confess - i am a reactionary when it comes to people trying to change the way others think.

And a lifetime of experience has led me to conclude with 99.9999999% confidence that it’s unwise (better, dumb) to hold beliefs for which there isn’t a tiniest shred of evidence – especially when your beliefs influence other aspects of your community’s welfare. In contrast, if you believe that all invisible flying elephants are pink, then my response would be “whatever”. But if you believe that Martians are about to invade the Earth and, therefore, you’re gonna take my granddaughter into a cave to save her, then I’d advise you, strongly, to keep your cottin’ pickin’ hands off her. If you say that it’s arrogant for me to require that you provide evidence to support your beliefs about the Martians, then I’d say: “It ain’t nearly so arrogant as the barrel of the shotgun that you’re staring into.”
agreed, but again, there is the political example. in the modern world we form beliefs and opinions about many things that we cannot offer concrete proof for.

You use the term “re-education camps” seemingly for derogatory purposes. I’ll say it differently: I want every child in the world to learn basic critical thinking skills. And of course I agree that political ideologues play the same horrible game – which again supports the need for kids to learn to think critically, so they can suitably weigh the claims of any charlatan, any quack, religious, political, or whatever. I’ll quote how others have said it:

absolutely no argument here. i think it's horrendous the hate and fear that are taught to children and critical thinking skills are vital.

And re your final sentence, final clause, you again miss the point. There’s nothing wrong with “beliefs” – the question that desperately needs to be addressed is: what are they based on?

point taken, but again "beliefs" do not require proof in the same way science does - religion is a different system. i wouldn't really compare science and religion.
p.s. you give me a good run for the money - especially because our thinking is not that different.