The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Shall we go down the path of how the abolition of slavery was rooted in Christian teachings again? If the Bible is God's Word divinely inspired to use the hand of the accredited authors of each passage, then let's take a look at His thoughts on the matter.

Christianity's definition based on the most precise and exhaustively researched source ever made:

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.

Direct quote:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it (i.e., similar), Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

You may not believe this but, Jesus is God and His Word is Christianity. Done.

Regarding slavery:

William Wilberforce
Charles Spurgeon
John Wesley
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Benjamin Lay
Theodore S. Wright founder of the American Anti Slavery Society
Pope Benedict XIV
Pope Pius VII
And even John Brown

One document that sums up the drivers behind American abolition is from the definitely non-Christian organization - the National Humanities Center:

"Most students probably assume that the antislavery crusade that culminated in the Civil War was largely an outgrowth of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed, “All men are created equal.” Yet a nation of states of which one-half held African Americans in bondage did not fulfill that noble sentiment."

"The cause of immediate emancipation, as the abolitionists came to define it, had a different germ of inspiration from those Enlightenment ideals that Jefferson had articulated: the rise of a fervent religious reawakening just as the new Republic was being created. That impulse sprang from two main sources: the theology and practice of Quakerism and the emergence of an aggressive, interdenominational evangelicalism."

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm

 

[unofan]

You may not believe this but, Jesus is God and His Word is Christianity. Done.

I understand that's your belief, but there are hundreds of millions of Christians in this world who expand your definition to include things beyond the Gospels, such as the Old Testament, the rest of the New Testament, Church doctrines/edicts, and who knows what else.

Put another way, I've never heard a Catholic Priest say the Old Testament is meaningless in the face of the New Testament, and given that the entire Bible is the Word of God, I don't see how Christianity in its broadest form doesn't include all of the things St. Clown quoted.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So you're unable to directly find anything within the Bible, direct from God's mouth to your eyes, that decries the institution of slavery and instead couch your theory that others used the pulpit in order to sell it to the masses and to move forward with a truly just agenda of their own. That's what I see in your reply, rather than showing specific Biblical passages refuting slavery.

ETA: That was for 5mn major, not unofan

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I have none of Kepler's philosophical pretensions, so I'll be blunt. Most of you know I was raised Catholic, but I now think that the concept of a white, bearded, love-hate "GOD" is an answer for the mentally weak. Which is why I get frustrated when college-educated people (presumably, the vast majority of the posters here) still believe in fairy tales clearly written to control the behavior of the masses and make a lot of money. It's one thing to treat "turn the other cheek" or "thou shalt not kill" as life lessons to try and live by. That's admirable. It's another thing entirely to believe that some all-powerful being that you've never seen, says that if you reject his prescription for how to live your life, you're going to a place with lots of fire and smoke and torture. BUT HE LOVES YOU...

If that isn't the most dysfunctional, mentally and emotionally abusive marriage I've ever heard of, I don't know what is. That is how domestic abusers and dictators operate.

I have tried (and thus far failed) to be a pantheist - to believe in some sort of "life force" that comes from the universe, atomic energy, or something like that. Something that doesn't decree how you should live your life if you want to enter a fairy tale concept of "paradise" when you die - it just grants you life.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Fade, if you haven't I recommend you read Robert G. Ingersoll. He's probably the most impassioned and eloquent spokesman of what you are saying, and he has a wicked sense of humor.

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.

These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I have tried (and thus far failed) to be a pantheist - to believe in some sort of "life force" that comes from the universe, atomic energy, or something like that. Something that doesn't decree how you should live your life if you want to enter a fairy tale concept of "paradise" when you die - it just grants you life.

You might want to check out the Tao te Ching (or translated, The Way of Life), by Lao Tzu. Basically, spirituality transcends wisdom, because our minds are limited while the universe is vast, and indeed there is an underlying order and rhythm to everything, and our goal in life is to align the rhythms of our life to the rhythms of the cosmos.

I have several translations because the original is more poetry than prose, and so to access what Lao Tzu "actually" wrote comes through differently depending upon who translates (some cantos are very similar between translations while others are nearly unrecognizable as coming from the same source).

It is a lot more accessible than Hindu or Buddhist texts, IMHO, though I have read much more of the former than the latter.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

You might want to check out the Tao te Ching (or translated, The Way of Life), by Lao Tzu. Basically, spirituality transcends wisdom, because our minds are limited while the universe is vast, and indeed there is an underlying order and rhythm to everything, and our goal in life is to align the rhythms of our life to the rhythms of the cosmos.

I'd rather not have the goal of my life ascribed to me by someone who has never met me.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I'd rather not have the goal of my life ascribed to me by someone who has never met me.

It's been a long time since I read any of the Tao te Ching but to call it a "goal" is probably not the best choice of words. In order to achieve true inner peace one must be in harmony with the universe. Striving, as would be suggested by the use of a goal, is somewhat antithetical to the Tao.

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations

The Tao is a somewhat difficult concept to wrap ones head around (The way that can be named is not the true way) Some heavy duty mysticism that can be rather appealing when you explore it.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Believe it or not, because of negative atheist contingency I've been down this road many time on this site. And every time I do, the poster I make the point to 'picks up their ball and goes home'...but here we go again. First, nobody said Christianity didn't have negativity. Every single societal concept does...every socio economic system, political system, ideology, etc. So holding just Christianity to that standard is setting an extremely high bar.

The point is that its positives have had far reaching monumental societal implications (and you'll note, I am very specific on my language). So first the negatives. If you believe that Jesus is the son of God (i.e., in the trinity actually God), then his Word is the whole deal. What is the Word? Its turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth and the golden rule. The message is repeated over and over and over. Frankly none of the negative outcomes you discussed or any others I have ever seen have anything to do with the Word. In fact, every single one of those examples you provide is diametrically opposed to the Word. These are exactly the activities Jesus is preaching against. Tell me if I'm wrong here. I suspect you, Cloud, Kep, etc won't.

The positives. From the hour that the Bible was printed (and it is the most widely distributed and read book in the history of the world), western society has been on a 500 year fast tract to mirror its broader concept. One has to keep in mind that this has occurred in the face of all the same human selfishness - greed, power, discrimination - that has always been there and is deep rooted in human nature. Much of this has been accomplished by Christian impact on the list of beneficiary institutions (health care, education, slavery, child labor, British/US democracy, charity, women's suffrage, civil rights) which I have picked very carefully. At various times over the last couple of years, I have presented reams of information showing that Christianity was a top change agent in each of these areas. I can't spend a couple of days to track all this stuff down to have skeptics go 'huh, yeah' and walk away (which happens pretty much every time). But one example off the top of my head is health care. The bad? Healthcare research was hindered by the Papacy. Where does Jesus infer this is that right move...to hinder human assistance? On the other hand, health care was started in monasteries and medieval villages used religious institutions for all their health care needs. When the modern hospital was created it was largely done so by Christians. Countless lives have been saved...as I recall in 1900 some 70%+ of practitioners came from Christian institutions. How many hospitals have a Saint in front of their names? The net message is that health care is decades ahead of where it would have been without these innovations. As a result without Christianity, we would be without the latest technologies and procedures, and we'd be missing countless generations of people. And much of this was as a result of human inspiration from Jesus Word. Charity is another. The vast, vast majority of major charities have a Christian foundation. And those that aren't Christian have been inspired by Christian examples.

Do the research.

If you spend much time here, you'll find I enjoy intellectual discussion on these topics more than most. And although I may disagree, there is nothing wrong with Keps positions. .....

This is a discussion thread that has a title that implies both believers and atheists are welcome to say what they think. You appear to have a very strong reaction to things that do not impress me as offensive. The posts appear to me to be tongue in cheek or creatively worded to try to get the point across. At times they remind me of when siblings poke fun at each other, saying things to see if the person will react or laugh it off.

Simply put, I do not require others to believe as I do. I am not offended when they say they don't agree. I believe. I state why I do. Some of what they say regarding Christianity is undoubtedly true- but- to me the message of Christ is the thing that is important. That message that I feel comes from Christ is a message they agree with in principle, even tho they don't feel he is the root (as far as I can tell.) Whether belief is required or actions are enough is between God and the person.

On to healthcare. This is something I have a fair amount of knowledge about having had to study the development of medicine and being obsessively interested in the history of it for some time. Christians most certainly were not the leaders or even the most astute regarding healthcare. That is a western/church construct. Other cultures including the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc (included would be local healers) were all very well versed in healing. Eons ahead of Christians. They were actively routed out. Christianity did more to hinder medicine than any other force in history. They actively suppressed knowledge, persecuted those who tried to move forward. The lag in the western world when compared to other advanced cultures was remarkable enough that it is in any class you take regarding the subject. To this day there are some areas they still block actions that would protect people from dying (think the Pope forbidding condoms in HIV filled Africa as the most glaring example in recent years). [the ethics of the Church regarding healthcare is a discussion that takes up whole semesters in school]

Yes Christians started hospitals but they were not the first to do so and for the most part they were NOT centers of healing. Only the poor went there until well into modern history. The filth, lack of success in treatment and poor outcome associated with hospitals kept all but the most poor in their own homes. The clean up of hospitals, the regulation of medical practitioners was done, for the most part, by secular people driven by science. Think Florence Nightingale for one. I actually have an Great Great Aunt who ran the first Aseptic hospital/OR in Scotland- Secular. Yes the Church did support some of what you claim but it was NOT the soul supporter. It was not the driving force in modernization. It was a follower. It may have had the proper motivation to help but it certainly wasn't the brains behind the operation in many cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals#Modern_hospitals You will note in the France the Catholic Church was important but in other countries the Church (of any sort) was not the main source.

I am not saying the Church was not important or didn't mean well but if you are going to pick anything to use as an example this was not it.

Take home message- The message of Christ is great. The Word has great wisdom. Humans are not so great. Some but not all have warped the message and used it to gain or maintain control for personal/institutional gain against what Christ would probably have wanted. If there were more Dietrich Bonhoeffers, Mother Theresas, or Pope Francis in the world it would be a better place. They live(d) the true meaning of being a Christian. (Disclaimer, I am not a Catholic)

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

On to healthcare.

Sorry, but you're way off. Christianity has always been critical in health care. All the information is right in your link (and wiki's catholic church in health care):

"Christians most certainly were not the leaders or even the most astute regarding healthcare. That is a western/church construct." Not leaders?

Medieval hospitals in Europe followed a similar pattern to the Byzantine. They were religious communities, with care provided by monks and nuns. (The old French term for hospital is hôtel-Dieu, "hostel of God.")

Catholic hospitals were established in the modern United States prior to the American War of Independence.

The Sisters of Saint Francis of Syracuse, New York, produced Saint Marianne Cope, who opened and operated some of the first general hospitals in the United States, instituting cleanliness standards which influenced the development of America's modern hospital system

The declaration of Christianity as an accepted religion in the Roman Empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. Following First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. construction of a hospital in every cathedral town was begun.

During the late 8th and early 9th centuries, Emperor Charlemagne decreed that those hospitals that had been well conducted before his time and had fallen into decay should be restored in accordance with the needs of the time.[29] He further ordered that a hospital should be attached to each cathedral and monastery.[29]

The Spanish and Portuguese Empires were largely responsible for spreading the Catholic faith and its philosophy regarding health care to South and Central America, where the church established substantial hospital networks.

"Other cultures including the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc (included would be local healers) were all very well versed in healing. Eons ahead of Christians." Christians eons behind?

The first physicians under Muslim rule were Christians or Jews in conquered areas in the 7th century.[20] The first prominent Islamic hospital was founded in Damascus, Syria in around 707 with assistance from Christians.[21]

The bimaristan (medical school) and bayt al-hikmah (house of wisdom) were headed by the Christian physician Jibrael ibn Bukhtishu from Jundishapur and later by Islamic physicians.[ In contrast to medieval Europe, medical schools under Islam did not have faculties and did not develop a system of academic evaluation and certification[27]

"Yes Christians started hospitals but they were not the first to do so and for the most part they were NOT centers of healing. Only the poor went there until well into modern history." You make it sound like helping the poor was of lesser benefit. But not centers of healing?

Mediaeval hospitals had a strongly Christian ethos, and were, in the words of historian of medicine Roy Porter, "religious foundations through and through" "Within hospitals walls", wrote Porter, "the Christian ethos was all pervasive".

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of health care services in the world.[1] It has around 18,000 clinics, 16,000 homes for the elderly and those with special needs, and 5,500 hospitals, with 65 percent of them located in developing countries.[2] In 2010, the Church's Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers said that the Church manages 26% of the world's health care facilities.[3]

During the 10th century, the monasteries became a dominant factor in hospital work. The famous Benedictine Abbey of Cluny, founded in 910, set the example which was widely imitated throughout France and Germany.

No less efficient was the work done by the diocesan clergy in accordance with the disciplinary enactments of the councils of Aachen (817, 836), which prescribed that a hospital should be maintained in connection with each collegiate church.

Nursing was professionalized in France by the turn of the 20th century. At that time, the country's 1,500 hospitals were operated by 15,000 nuns representing over 200 religious orders.

In the U.S., the number of hospitals reached 4400 in 1910, when they provided 420,000 beds.[54] All the major denominations built hospitals; the 541 Catholic ones (in 1915) were staffed primarily by unpaid nuns. The others sometimes had a small cadre of deaconesses as staff.[55]

"It was not the driving force in modernization. It was a follower. It may have had the proper motivation to help but it certainly wasn't the brains behind the operation in many cases." Hasn't been a force in modernization?

Thus in-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital, was an invention driven by Christian mercy and Byzantine (a Christian society) innovation.

The Protestant churches reentered the health field in the 19th century, especially with the establishment of orders of women, called deaconesses who dedicated themselves to nursing services. It became a model, and within half a century there were over 5,000 deaconesses in Europe.

Monasteries of this era were diligent in the study of medicine, and often too were convents. Crusader orders established several new traditions of Catholic medical care.[24]

English physician Thomas Percival (1740-1804) wrote a comprehensive system of medical conduct, 'Medical Ethics, or a Code of Institutes and Precepts, Adapted to the Professional Conduct of Physicians and Surgeons (1803) that set the standard for many textbooks.[47] Percival was a devout Christian.[9]

Catholic scientists in Europe (many of them clergymen) made a number of important discoveries which aided the development of modern science and medicine. Catholic women were also among the first female professors of medicine, as with Trotula of Salerno the 11th century pysician and Dorotea Bucca who held a chair of medicine and philosophy at the University of Bologna.[31]

Italics/Bolds to help see relevant info.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Did you perhaps read all of the article or skim around to find anything related to Christianity? If you did you would notice it covered more than Christians. I am too lazy to type a further response. You believe the Christians drove the development of medicine. Obviously the knowledge I have of world history and medicine is deficient. I will have to make sure to tell my Public Health Professors so the next time I see them and chuck out all the books they taught from. (In case you missed it the sarcasm meter is red-lining)

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Listening to the radio this AM heard this- http://onpoint.wbur.org/2016/02/25/new-silk-road-china-world-history
I wasn't as interested in the new Silk Road but the history behind the Silk road and the view of other cultures during that time was interesting. That era of history has always been something I found fascinating. They briefly discuss some of the reasons that may have been possible for the decline in the sciences including the Church's role in teaching that nothing more was needed than accepting God's will so further discovery was moot (paraphrasing). Also that Christopher Columbus went out to find a new route to fund further wars to regain Jerusalem and the Holy Land. I think I may have known that at one point but forgot.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I'd rather not have the goal of my life ascribed to me by someone who has never met me.

wow, you are so touchy over literalism when someone speaks metaphorically!

So pick a different word then.

"It is better to live in harmony with the natural order of things than to be in constant conflict with your own inner nature."

Is that better?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It's been a long time since I read any of the Tao te Ching but to call it a "goal" is probably not the best choice of words. In order to achieve true inner peace one must be in harmony with the universe. Striving, as would be suggested by the use of a goal, is somewhat antithetical to the Tao.

The Tao is a somewhat difficult concept to wrap ones head around (The way that can be named is not the true way) Some heavy duty mysticism that can be rather appealing when you explore it.

That is very well put.

"Goal" was indeed a very poor word choice, more like "better to be in harmony with the world than to be in conflict with your own better nature" or something that implies letting go of striving through conscious relaxation.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

A good article here that describes how scientists also must rely on faith in order to succeed in their work.

Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli [wrote that] The scientists who made the gravitational-wave discovery were pursuing a “dream based on faith in reason: that the logical deductions of Einstein and his mathematics would be reliable.”
....
the relationship between faith and science is far closer than many assume, and Mr. Rovelli is not alone in drawing attention to this important connection.

Arizona State University physicist Paul Davies has noted that the work of science depends upon beliefs—that the hidden architecture of the universe, all the constants and laws of nature that sustain the scientific enterprise, will hold. As he wrote in his book “The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World”: “Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will therefore rise tomorrow. The belief that it will—that there are indeed dependable regularities of nature—is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.”

Recognizing the existence of this kind of faith is an important step in bridging the artificial divide between science and religion, a divide that is taken for granted....People often assume that science is the realm of certainty and verifiability, while religion is the place of reasonless belief. But the work of Messrs. Davies and Rovelli and others, including Pope John Paul II in his 1998 encyclical “Fides et Ratio,” demonstrates that religion and science sit within a similar intellectual framework.

The fundamental choice is not whether humans will have faith, but rather what the objects of their faith will be, and how far and into what dimensions this faith will extend.
[emphasis added]

 

[LynahFan]

A good article here that describes how scientists also must rely on faith in order to succeed in their work.

Complete nonsense, except perhaps to philosophers. I have "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow because I personally have witnessed it more than 16,000 times, written human history documents that it has happened more than 3.6 million times, and evidence-based cosmology shows that it has happened about 1.5 trillion times before. Religious people believe in hings that have been observed or credibly documented exactly zero times. You want to use the same word "faith" to describe those two things, well, be my guest. But words have multiple meanings, and the meaning in those two cases could not be farther apart.

Cheap word game, nothing more.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Complete nonsense, except perhaps to philosophers. I have "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow because I personally have witnessed it more than 16,000 times, written human history documents that it has happened more than 3.6 million times, and evidence-based cosmology shows that it has happened about 1.5 trillion times before. Religious people believe in hings that have been observed or credibly documented exactly zero times. You want to use the same word "faith" to describe those two things, well, be my guest. But words have multiple meanings, and the meaning in those two cases could not be farther apart.

Cheap word game, nothing more.

That's what he's got. You're scolding a dog for his fleas.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Seems to me the most accurate portrayal is somewhere in between. There is belief involved in science, but the author is overstating its importance/implications. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Nothings changed by that debate.

But if you want an faith/science analogy I believe is fitting - faith (via good works) is like a scientific theory for a cure that although never proven saves lives regardless.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Gimme that olde tyme religion, gimme that... uh, on second thought...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Religious people believe in things that have been observed or credibly documented exactly zero times.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?


Some religious people pray and then have their prayers answered. I suppose that is not "credible" to you. Yet if a person prays for specific thing "x" and then "x" does occur, why would that not be credible?


There is no good reason why science and religion need to be seen in opposition. They are complementary. One deals with the world without, the other with the world within.