Our past religions
That's one of the things I hated about my roman catholic upbringing. We HAD to go to church every Sunday and feast day. Why? God only listened to them when they were there? Obviously not. Because my mother would pray in the kitchen, asking that her cake not fall. LEE ANDERSON.The fundamentalist is right. By strict interpretation of the bible, all they say is true. If you study and read it, as I have, you know that what they say is the right interpretation of the book. Their god is a monarch who DECREES what is sin and dishes out eternal punishment for the slightest transgression. To a human being who loves the earth and the universe and believes we are all part of the whole, it is a dangerous and destructive religion. That's why we have all left the churches we were brought up in, it doesn't make any sense to see "that" god as a loving father figure. RON HOOFT
As a young child I remember asking a preacher "Do birds go to heaven when they die?" The reply was something to the effect "No, they have no soul." How much that saddened me and still does to this day. Hence, the beginning of my disaffection with Christian religion. REGINALD ATKINS
Fundamentalists are terminally religious. STEVE HUMME.
Every person doing crazy things says it was the most rational thing as far as he/she managed to see. BERNT ROSTROM.
I'd like to share an amusing experience. On Sunday I was inescapably obliged to attend my son's scout service on St George's day. We all had to sing a hymn or two. Normally I remain silent at such times, but I found that by altering the words I could join in and have heretical fun.
Instead of:
Sing hosannah to the King of Kings
my wife and I sang:
Sing hosannah to the Universe.
We could sing:
"Onward pantheist soldiers,
Marching as to war,
With the Universe
Going on before."
And so on.
Of course not all creeds and hymns are adaptable in this way. For the bold of heart, the trick is to sing the words loud enough for people around you to hear. PAUL HARRISON
Top.Family divisions over religion
I have to tell you a funny (?) story. My wife is Catholic. For Easter we went to mass. The priest would say something and the congregation would repeat a "phrase." I sat back and saw a bunch of "robots" (forgive the phrase if there are Catholics out there.
On the way home, my wife said, "You know we really need to go to church more often." I said, "I attend "church" nearly everyday." We have a group....and she interrupted and said, "I'm not talking about that internet garbage." I had to laugh. She had no idea of what was going on. Her next response was , "I'm not talking about a heavens gate religion- I'm talking about a real religion." She made me laugh (really hard).
She was raised Catholic (obviously) My question is to make a long story longer....if she wasn't my wife...I would care...but she is. How could I get her to listen (not necessarily believe) but just listen. To her "church" is praying, passing the plate, getting dressed up,etc. To me "church" is an individual deal. I attend "church" when I sit and watch a stream, look at my kids and see their smile, think about how awesome the universe is, look at nature, etc. My "God" is all that - to me that is the most important thing(s) there are. Guess I would look pretty silly wearing a suit and tie sitting in the dirt watching a stream huh :)Tell her: God hasn't left enough evidence for us to prove that he exists. So if he is just, he won't punish us for using the reason he gave us and not believing in him. Also he has made his creation beautiful. Is he going to blame us if we regard the nature he created as our church? PAUL HARRISON
Religion can split a house right in half - but if you're lucky, the other person's half will have the laundry while yours has the kitchen and the bathroom :). JOOLIKINS.
Pascal's wager versus the pantheist wager
What is the scipannie answer to "What if you're wrong and there ARE pearly gates? What will you have to say for yourself then?" In the past, my answer has been that if there really is a Creator God, as the Judeo- Christians maintain, then the best way to give thanks and honor Him would be to enjoy, explore, and preserve the life and the universe He has given us now. JOOLIKINSWhat if there are Coca-Cola factories on Pluto? We can never know; in fact, there is no evidence for it, and Reason points otherwise; to answer "What if there really ARE pearly gates?" a Pantheist simply says: "There aren't; and if God is who you claim to be, i will be just fine as my own attorney--i don't need any savior or buddha or guru but Me" SAIF PATEL
You must have heard of Pascal's wager: Pascal said that if you had to bet whether there was a God or not, and you bet that there was, and there wasn't one in fact, then you would lose nothing. If you bet that there wasn't a God, and there was, then you'd lose eternal life and happiness. Therefore you should bet for God.
I turn this on its head. First, Pascal was wrong that you had nothing to lose betting on the Christian God and everything that goes with that God. Basically, you stand to lose the integrity of your reason, (because you'll have to believe a load of nonsense) and the intensity of your connection with this earth (because you'll have to believe that this life and earth are only a staging post for something much more important). That's rather a lot to lose - and these are real things you'll lose, things we all know exist, in exchange for the offchance of an invisible something that might not exist at all.
Second, if on the basis of your reason plus the lack of clear evidence you bet there isn't a personal God, and there is one, and he is the way they say he is, ie, just, then he won't punish you anyway for using the reason he has given you. If he isn't just, then nothing you can do can influence him, so it makes no difference how you bet.
That is Harrison's wager.
There are other logical holes in Pascal. For example, even if there is a God, there may be no eternal life to be gained. There's no logical connection whatsoever between these two beliefs. PAUL HARRISON."I am a demo religious meme which has been replicated here. You will be saved if you copy me and pass me on to infect the next mind. And damned if you don't." (Pascal's wager reduced to its essence?) JAN GARRETT
Another problem with Pascal's Wager--we have no clue which God to believe in; if we accept al-Lah, Jesus condemns us; if we accept Jesus, Jehovah casts us into Hell; if we accept Jehovah, the host of Greek, Hindu and other tribal deities will eat us alive. SAIF PATEL
Cults
Many cults and religious charlatans will have a heyday with the approach of 2000 C. E. The best way to counter their irrational approach is with reason: The year 2000 is just another date on a calendar. Bible scholars tell us that Jesus was probably born between 4 and 7 B. C. E., so it has already been 2000 years since his birth. As far as I can tell, the world did not come to an end between 1993 and 1996. The year 2000 is not the beginning of a new century, 2001 is. This is because the first year of the Common Era was 1, not 0. Therefore, every succeeding century begins with a 1, not a 0. As I see it, these belief systems are based on the desire to see human affairs as having cosmic significance. Given humanity's lowly place in the cosmos, this view is patently irrational. Rather than waiting for someone to come to earth to save us, we should work to make this world a better place! MICHAEL SHANKThis is just the latest in a line of cult suicides or atrocities: Jonestown, Waco, Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate. What they all show is the frightening capacity for unreason that humans have in the departments of religion (and politics). Actually this unreason is the strongest reason why we need a rational religion.
But I think they all grow out of another ground too: the belief in an immortal soul and in an afterlife better than this life. The New Testament and the book of Revelation drum these concepts into every child's head in our societies, so they're pre-programmed. If those people believed firmly that this is the only life they'll ever get, and learned how to be positive about it, then they would not throw it away so lightly.
Mass lunacy is possible in any cult based on assertions without evidence and subjection to gurus (the two tend to go together, since only personal charisma can get people to believe a load of transparent nonsense.) Mass suicide is possible only where the suicides believe their souls are going on somewhere better.
Any pantheist's like that? I sure hope not. If they *were* like that, I don't think they would be pantheists anyway. Pantheism is empirical: everyone can see things for themselves using their senses, reason and science. They don't need gurus, and they have a habit of not believing things without good evidence.
And pantheism is positive about this earth and this life: there isn't a better place awaiting us anywhere, there's only here, so we must make the best of it. PAUL HARRISON
Atheists can be pantheists
I was thinking today about a conversation I have with a Christian on IRC. We actually have me, 1 christian and 2 atheists in one room. We all became pretty close (after 15 minutes or so), we all had so much in common. I referred the christian to a page about bible contradictions. He came to my (our) point of view ( the bible is a book..a good one at that!- but a book).
The atheists were amazed at the scientific pantheism page. One said after reading it [are you a pantheist] {I quote} "Oh shit, I think I am a pantheist!" It was a fun day. SEEKER MIKE
Reductionism
[This debate began when Ron Hooft said that humans were "viruses on the Butt end of the universe".] I think the reductionist language of atheists is something we should try to avoid. Examples are "cogs in the wheels of a machine", or the common use of words like we are "only" or "just" or "merely" matter or machines, or statements that life or the universe are "meaningless."
Humans and life and matter are never machines, and never "only" or "just" or "merely" anything: they are fantastically, wonderfully, exuberantly, divinely anything. Life and the universe are self-sufficient, not "meaningless."
In my view it is just as important for pantheists to avoid reductionist language as it is to avoid words that have the taint of theist religions. The positive, embracing view of our material and natural existence is what distinguishes pantheists from atheists. We believe in human dignity and in the beauty of nature and the universe. PAUL HARRISONWe don't want to see ourselves as "just" cogs in the wheel, but that is the "objective" truth. We don't want to see ourselves as machines, but again, by all definitions of a machine, we are (if you like) sentient machines or "systems". We are not separate and confined. We have many parts that work semi-independently but symbolically to provide us with continuity. If the smallest parts break down, the entire system is at risk. We play a part in this [the universe] to be sure, but to think man kind plays any more of a part in it, or that we are even major players, is in my opinion a false assumption. RON HOOFT
Religious relativism
We do like to think of ourselves as having a "rational approach" to reality, but should the truth be fully considered, it is simply another belief system, hardly less, but certainly nothing more. There is little point in our taking pot shots at someone else's beliefs. We may instead, and profitably I should hope, learn from it that beliefs are hardly worth such total commitment . . . In fact, I rather doubt that I even BELIEVE in Pantheism! I just consider it a lovely theme around which to carry a life. IRV THOMASRelativism can be dangerous. The belief that all beliefs are equally valid is also a belief, and a self-undermining one. Because then the belief that all belief systems are *not* equally valid would also be valid.
Beliefs are the basis for actions, and not all actions are equally good. Is there no difference between going out to see the comet because you think it's a marvelous thing in itself, and admiring its beauty - and looking at the comet as bringing a message that the world will be "spaded under," and that Jesus is coming, and joining in a mass suicide - having first castrated yourself because Jesus once said there are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? This is an extreme example, but Christianity induces many people to devalue this life and martyr themselves and see life only as a stepping stone to the next. PAUL HARRISONHow many times have I gagged when my Fundamentalist Step-Mother-In-Law (figure that one out!) shakes her head, clucks, and says: "If only those poor souls had been touched by the true ministry of Jesus; this would never have happened." If everyone were pantheists, we would still have gullible, lunatic, deranged people, but they would be deranged Pantheists instead of deranged Christians. JD STILLWATER
Yes there will always be gullible people. But there is a difference between a religion that instills respect for evidence and reason, and encourages open-mindedness to new evidence, and one that trains people from an early age to accept impossibilities and to believe that questioning them is evil and will be punished by God. PAUL HARRISON
The meaning of tolerance
I feel it is important to be politically incorrect. Many of us have been saying we should be tolerant of all faiths and beliefs. There is a great difference between tolerance and agreement. We must be free to speak our minds no matter what our opinions are. RON HOOFTTolerance means respecting the rights of free speech. It should mean polite debate about ideas, not about present persons. It means non-violence, friendly persuasion, accepting the same ground rules in the inevitable competition between belief systems.
I personally don't think it means not criticizing other religions. Criticism is the meat of debate, it is the means by which ideas test each others' validity. No system of ideas, no scientific theory ever spread without criticizing the systems that preceded it.
Imagine a market with stalls - like the ones they have at university when you arrive, for different societies you can join. At one stall are the Christians, offering a God who loves you through all your sufferings, and then eternal life, bliss in heaven, followed by resurrection on a magically transformed earth. A few stalls along are the pantheists - offering joy and acceptance and rationality in the present life. On the face of it, what the Christians offer seems better - with a few fatal provisos: these things are not really available to be offered, and all the evidence to support the offer is incredibly shaky, and accepting it can seriously damage the health of your relationship with this world.
If the pantheists at the pantheist stall don't point out these shortcomings, we don't stand much chance. PAUL HARRISON
Digest index.
Scientific pantheism index.
