Of Perceptions, Explanations and more than a few Accusations (On My Faith Part II)

Posted on by

Faith

Foreword: In addition to being a continuation from Part I
There’s Nothing Simple Out There (One Christian’s Declarations Concerning Their Faith and the Subject of Evidence. Part I)
The two together are also an expansion on a post from past August, which some might say. ‘OK that’s all we need to know. Give it a rest already’. That is your choice:
Religion. Another Viewpoint (With Some Assistance From Quantum Mechanics & Cosmology)
The intention of the two parts together is to seek to go deeper, and wider.

This post moves from the questions Physical (both Scientific and Historical) and into the more intangible concepts of the basics of Faith, Belief both in the Religious/Theological  and also in the Social…. and also gives more space to a few polemics,

Therefore:
The Theological Perspective
The Social Perspective
Finally a Summary

In this I will mostly restrict my commentary to the Christian Faith. If I do refer to other Faiths, brevity will be utilised and sweeping generalisations avoided in areas which require a more detailed knowledge.

Theology / Religiosity / Faith. All from Within

 Retrospect

In Part I I contended that when set against the backdrop of the Scientific Perspective with all the unexplored areas, by the same perspective there was therefore no reason to say a person cannot hold to a belief in a Deity. The non-existence of a Deity cannot be physically proven.

Folk will of course put forth their own arguments for that non-existence but will always come up against the problem that they cannot offer physical proof to support their case. And likewise neither can I point to the place where God is, as one would say a mountain. It all comes down to Belief, or which has equal importance Doubt. Some might argue that in a world which shows so many tragedies and harm upon the Innocent, Doubt is the most honest approach of the Three stances. And others would contend that in my last post I inadvertently produced a case for Agnosticism.

We seek out ways to perceive the Vastness in Space, Time and Reason. A journey we may never complete. Let that be so. However such knowledge should never stop us doing so.

On Some Assertions Concerning Religions / Faiths Etc.

Before proceeding I need to address two commonly made statements which appear to attribute to Theisms certain properties:

Religion Is The Cause of War

And so is Economics, so is Politics, so are Resources, so are Cultural Differences, so is The Desire for Independence, so is the Willingness to Be Led, and so is, so is, so is.
Claiming one cause is an unconscious attempt to let ourselves, that is Humanity off of the hook, the flaw in our natures in which we embrace War and its lesser relative Conflict.
Once more for Brevity’s sake, and using European thinking, of which they may like it or not Russia and the USA have embraced; yes there have been wars in which religion was a foundation. Looking at the European side of history.
Crusades (quickly to turning into a land grab, as well as alliances with Muslim states and wars with other ‘Christian’ states)
The French 16th Century Wars of Religion (nobles changes sides and beliefs like socks- And Henry of Navarre Huguenot / Protestant turned Catholic – ‘Paris is Worth A Mass’)
30 Years War. One of the more obvious ones. (Except for the fact that Catholic France was in conflict with Catholic Spain and supporting Protestant Sweden)

So whereas it can be argued religion started the ones mentioned above, politics soon became involved and in various forms eased into the driving seat.
There is a line of arguments within professional Historians circles that the term is actually a Western perspective, and is just one facet of a myriad causes.
Basically Humanity is the cause of War, to assume if there were no religions there would be no wars is to assume something very peculiar about the conflicts between 1900 and 1950, to cite glaring example.

Religion Is The Opium of The People  

There may have been a time somewhere between The Enlightenment and The Birth of Socialism / Communism that arose the argument for religion being something that the ‘Ruling Classes’ use to keep the population in line and to feel that all would be well if they believed.

Firstly as it will be seen from the experiences under authoritarian and atheistic regimes which entered the lexicon in the 20th Century, Religion was replaced by Party Doctrine as the ‘Opium’. Once more it can be pointed out that Humanity is very inventive in producing its ‘Opiums’. In Post WWII, in the West, Europe in particular religious observance went into a decline whereas materialism and consumerism went upwards ever upwards. In latter years the worship of Celebrity has become a factor, with a new schism of Influencer each bringing forth their adherents and of course nasty disputes between the various ‘belief’ systems.

Another facet of the argument that religion kept the population in check tends to fall apart when matters are exanimated under the microscope of History. Over the centuries there have been a constant list of uprising from the ground level, often targeting the established religious set-up. Far from keeping folk in check once the system is seen to be with its abuses ‘rebellion’ be it in another form of religion or in a secular approach will arise. Reformation. Rise of Communism; just two.

Be honest folks. The problem is People. Always People. It is no use blaming one system or another, WE are the ones who run them.

Religion In General. And Faith. Which Can Be Quite Separate 

OK, having tried to get Religion off the hook and shift the blame where it belongs onto People, and with that theme in mind, let us consider that issue.

World Population 8 billion
Christianity 2.4 billion
Islam 1.9 billion
Hinduism 1.2 billion
Buddhism 520 million (0.52 billion)
Judaism 15.2 million (0.152 billion )
Also some estimated other religions 10,000 (mostly local) – exact numbers not available.

We could spend a great deal of time and effort  separating those figures by differing approaches, gender, age groups, geographical locations and cultural implications. This would still leave us with a large portion of the population of the planet having a theistic belief. There one question which itself sub-divides and that is.

How much Faith is there in The Religion? When I use the term Faith I am referring not to a confidence in the beliefs I am asking of dedication to those core beliefs which transcend the Social Norms, The Customs, The Ethnicity, and The Political aspects ever present in Life and which also have an influence upon us. Religion contains a dual purpose: To Explain and to Codify behaviour. At the very root, foundation, call it what you will lies essentially a path to embrace community and seek out that ever evasive Better Way.

Now it would be naïve of me to write the above words without knowing full well that there will be a substantial number of folk who would at least shake their heads in disagreement, and possibly howl in outrage, when ‘everyone’ can cite numerous instances or bits of religious works which argue the opposite. And yet imagine if the majority of those believing in a deity took to violence. The world is tragic enough with minorities using religion as their excuse taking up arms. Of course that does attract news commentary, which is only natural. Yet there are folk of Faith, quietly working away to try to make Life Better. Relying on their Faith

I will offer you this, based on my Faith, and on reflection as to the numbers of people with a religious based Faith. I believe that there is room enough for all Faiths. I believe it matters not to me whether a person’s religiously bound Faith is different to mine. If they hold to Compassion, Respect and Tolerance as part of their Faith that is fine. The rest is just not important. We choose different paths, which evolved from myriad reasons. As long as we meet on those three principals. What does it matter? And how does that square you ask? Are there lots of gods then? Well I would say no, just many ways to receive a message.

Yes, I would get into a bit of trouble with the hierarchy. Being Christian and Catholic I am quite aware that ‘The Church’ does not like the concept of Relativism. Yeah, well I square that with God at some stage. That’s where the final say on the matter will be. Though I’m still working out my own personal theological notions. Kind of Quantum? Yes?

The Impact and Reaction to Religion in Society. (Inside Looking Out)

There is a lot that annoys me and saddens me about the divides which are going on. In this case I’m sticking back with Christianity as this is my home turf as it were’. That said I am not allowing this come between me and my good atheistic friends here on WP.

Firstly, I repeat have no time for these quasi-fundamentalists who are only using religion as a convenience to fit their prejudices, their privileges, their hypocrisies, hates, fears and hysterias.

Secondly I would make a general appeal to a section of the atheist Community.
Will you please stop packaging all of us with that aforementioned group. You don’t do that with races, do you? And it does not occur to some that the remarks they make are downright offensive to us as well? I am sure these are mostly directed at the quasi-fundamentalists? But stop to think for a moment? Are you not profiling us all? Mock the hypocrites sure. But lay off basic beliefs will you? Just ask questions. Don’t make accusations or offensive remarks, or mock. That hurts. And by the way says more about you that it does about a moderate believer. Some of the throw away lines I have encountered are mere mirror images of the MAGA style self-identifying ‘believers’ ‘Religious BS’ is a common one? Seriously? Has the accuser ever spoken to a Christian who also embraces scientific teaching, the whole of Cosmology (well as much as we know)?
Sadly this is another fracture line. Society is filled with them.

Currently there seems to be three types of religion. There’s the uncomplicated Faith based one which is down to personal choice. There’s the Community one, in which folk of similar beliefs meet up and share. Those two overlap. And there is, as is usual in Human History the one which is used for Political Purposes and is soaked in Hypocrisy and Self-Service.
The latter has it’s partner in crime in Politics itself, where the political beliefs are twisted through the same processes of suiting the purposes of a party or grouping. Places where Sincerity is a variable commodity. Truth is that which is convenient to the group. And only the Opposition is guilty of Hypocrisy.

Therefore I have to say, all those charges which are placed at the doors of Religion will be equally fitted into Politics, Social Movements, Social Interactions and so on. In short Humanity is Guilty as Charged.

Summary

So, where do we draw the line between types of Belief? A person has a secular belief, be it, say, Social, Scientific  or Political. They hold to that belief. They hold to it strongly. They will demonstrate an opinion which others strongly object to, some will say their belief is illusory, and a threat. In the broad scheme, where is the difference therefore between faith in The Religious or The Secular. In the scheme of Human dynamics is there a difference? People hold fast to something.

Think on this one.
Many will say they hold true to Democracy. A laudable ideal.
However….In the disaster that was WWII Two Democracies (well for White folk that is) with colonial mentalities signed up with a violent totalitarian system to defeat two other like-minded totalitarian systems and in doing so allowed their ally to reap unjust rewards and while doing so caused the deaths of millions of civilians. Both those democracies along with other democracies also subjugated and caused large numbers of deaths amongst the populations of nations within their ‘spheres’ of influence. One Democracy had built into laws racial discrimination. Recently through its arcane flummery the same democracy allowed the minority vote holder into its position of president. A fellow of questionable qualities, opening the doors to new waves of  Intolerance.

Do just these few examples mean that you hold Democracy to be something to be held as false and even to be despised?

You would prefer one of the other systems? Seriously?

If you set out to target Religion in general along ethical grounds then you had better be ready to target that which you hold close too. Are you ready to condemn it as false?

Finally. This I will assert, repeat to be precise.

You do not criticise a person for having a religious belief without endangering yourself of profiling and with it having a limited perspective. If a person believes in the equality of others irrespective of race, belief and gender; if that person cares about the state of the environment; if that person holds that scientific knowledge to date is to be respected, even celebrated; if that person sees flaws in all systems and ‘We’ could and must do better, while having a belief in a Deity; then why is the latter a ‘mark’ against them? Careful how you answer that; your answer may say more about you than you care to admit.

If you are unqualified targeting Religion as a concept, you are looking in the wrong place. Look around you. Look inwards too. Theists have to do that, everyday, if they do have Faith, that is.

26 thoughts on “Of Perceptions, Explanations and more than a few Accusations (On My Faith Part II)”

    • Hi PT.
      I think I’ve had my say on the subject for the present 😀.
      Other matters are calling
      Had to go back to the drawing board with my book (I knew there was trouble when the characters started going ‘Hmmmm. Seriously?’.)
      And there’s posts about the importance of unity of the vote against Trump.
      And another one about the Art of Pantsing (as in flying by the seat of your pants) approach to writing stories ie not having a plan or plot to work on – just an idea.
      Annnnddd lots of posts to read and comment on…..
      Nope. I’m done on the subject 😀 (unless it’s replying to comments – of course)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  2. Roger, you’ve done a very good job of covering Cosmology, History, Quantum Physics, Theology, and Social Elements that all too often get overly and broadly integrated into religious “Faith” and “Belief.” I commend you on your 2-part work Sir. 🙂 I particularly liked your Part 1 paragraph here:

    Yet History is a collection of evidence, and one glorious aspect is that new or forgotten evidence is being constantly uncovered for examination. Even the absence of evidence carries a value all of its own. However, whatever be it evidence or none, that will be open to interpretation. One thing however is certain do not take a dramatisation as fact and tread wary of legends or a folklore. Nor read one historian’s account and say ‘That is all I need to know’. Remember those As, Bs, Cs, Ds and so forth? Who is telling you what A did? And Why? Keep your antenna and radar tuned.

    I think you are spot-on there regarding “dramatisations,” legends, and folklore. Very well stated Sir.

    As you may or may not know, I am a deconverted Christian since 1991 (Read my About page under Freethinking Humanist). However, during my near 12-years of full-on, not-luke-warm faith/belief of biblically-based Christianity—a theological system of ‘living by God’s expressed words’ and His commission to all Believers to follow. I personally put very little weight or significant validity in broad General Revelation. Why? Because of the messiness of human nature, human history, human inadequacies, and flawed human perception and consensus. These factors have always greatly contributed to human disunity, divisiveness, hate, and often wars and mass casualties throughout our history.

    This is why during my 3.5 years in seminary at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson/Clinton, Mississippi, 4-years of foreign and domestic missionary work, and 5-years on staff at Trinity Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, as a Deacon and the Co-Director of the Singles Ministry, I witnessed regularly all these contradictory, disunifying, confusing, bickering, fragmenting human behaviors of “General Revelation” amongst ALL believers/faithers those 12-years. It continues to this day. It was/is maddening to say the least. Therefore, this was exactly why I relied heavily on Special Revelation. IOW’s, God’s DIRECT unambiguous communication to His followers, His chosen. What is God’s Special Revelation?

    Obviously, it is His canonical Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and His canonical Greek or Hellenistic New Testament, or so it is claimed to be “His.” 🤷‍♂️ But I suspect Roger, given your obvious level of intelligence and reasoning that you already see Pandora’s Box thrown wide open with two-plus millenia of Christian retro-fitting and retro-grading of its Greco-Roman theologies put next to its actual, factual evidence… both Judeo-Christian and/or independent Pagan evidence, or lack of evidence.

    Therefore Roger, in my many many years of Christian research and ontological, etymological, exegetical, hermeneutical, and philosophical studies of Christendom and its Apologetics, it was always epistemology that in my opinion and studies/experience that carried by FAR the most weight for believers/followers.

    And for the sake of brevity here, this above evidential contextual history/revelation(?) always led me back to one simple question about the very basic cornerstone of Christianity and Christian followers…

    “Was Jesus a Jew?”

    Since he obviously was then the next reasonable, logical question is…

    Since there were several Late Second Temple Jewish sects in the western Levant during the 1st-century BCE thru the 1st-century CE, What particular sect did Jesus/Yeshua belong?

    It easily follows then to ask… What are the (large or colossal?) demarcations between Greco-Roman Hellenistic culture and that of ascetic, Late Second Temple Judaism/Messianism? What do we really know as fact or highly plausible?

    For me Roger, it doesn’t get much simpler than these initial questions and their known, extant answers and exhaustive evidence, both independent or Pagan evidence or no-evidence, as well as within contemporaneous literary evidence of the 1st- thru 4th-century CE Judeo-Christian manuscripts. In my opinion, it all leads to just one conclusion. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you PT for your words of support, letting me have insight into your background and those eye-opening questions and information on the various situations during the times of the New Testament and in the subsequent decades when the Gospels were written.
      Due to time differences and a tendency to ‘shut down’ in the UK evening and night I’m running a bit late in replying.
      I have to go out now and attend to ‘stuff’ but will be back to reply sometime in the next few hours (Written at 10.09 UK BST )

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • No hurry or worries Roger. We are both quite busy these days. My schedule and calendar gets crazier & crazier as we near Mom’s transition into a full-time permanent Assisted Living Memory Care facility in June or July. Tons for me to handle—I just finished Durable Power of Attorney for myself for her. Ugh. 😒

        Nevertheless, this writing, reading, and discussion has been enjoyable and informative. 😁

        Liked by 1 person

      • I do hope that transition goes well for you, both. It is a very testing time. ‘Durable Power of Attorney’ I can imagine, having had to handle one with the UK version. Fortunately being a Civil Servant it was just shifting work perspective to the ‘home’ / ‘domestic’ front. Still it is a drain on a person’s resources. Take care of yourself PT.
        Now, I have to find a smidge of time to reply fully (where did Tuesday go?)😕

        Liked by 1 person

      • Here I am again PT.

        Trying to replying, or encompass, or something…

        In the recent years of retirement reading up (or listening to on audio books) on history, science (mostly quantum /cosmology ) and having time to go into my Faith, you can see from my posts there was a sort of mental nuclear fission as they all came together.
        Now I wouldn’t call that an epiphany in the traditional sense nor would I go near the Revelation approach. This was more a personal perspective jig-saw; well some parts of the one million piece jig-saw anyway.
        One section revealed to me ‘Let’s face it. Humanity keeps on screwing up with even the most basically obvious messages. Egos and Agendas keep fouling everything up. We’re flawed’
        The other section was easier. Fitting Science and Belief/ Faith together and getting a ‘Wow!’ interlude. I just knew there would never be full comprehensive answers to Everything, we as individuals and as a Species would just have to keep on keeping on; the case of the latter if we survive long enough. Personally this was very liberating as if for a bit of a second there was this insight into Everything, but the concept was too large to hold; the memory wasn’t though.

        Thus the answer became simple(ish). Compassion, Respect, Tolerance, if we aim for those all will be well. Then it was back to Earth with a bump because the evidence of that First section had to be taken into account. We, Humanity will not embrace that, until we have tried everything else (and thereby possibly wipe ourselves out-failure to evolve and not even around long enough to make a big impact on the fossil record- just a smear).

        On reflection I guess I have moved into the area of General Revelation. What can I say? Maybe refer back to what Luther was alleged to have said (apparently the historical jury is out) ‘Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God’ (probably had more weight in what German he spoke). To be honest PT, I’m not sure, still working on that one. Maybe looking through the dual lenses of Science and Faith is a sort of Special Revelation? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m detached from much of the debate and sticking with the basics. Faith. Awe at the Whole of Nature /Creation. And trying to hold to Compassion, Respect and Tolerance.

        Personally, again. What a cool journey to be taking.
        Great to be exchanging views with you and learning a lot more.
        Onwards, ever onwards.

        You take care now
        All the best
        Roger

        Like

      • I did it. I tried to write another comment directly into the comment box, and halfway through my tablet crashed. All gone. Hope to see you in a while.

        Liked by 1 person

      • On Compassion, Respect, anf Tolerance

        It makes me happy to see you have reached this level of consciousness, Roger. Funny that the way you ordered them, they have the same initials as Critical Race Theory. I wonder what the MAGAts would say to your formulation — they certainly would not like it any better than their CRT.
        I like it, but I feel that it is incomplete. I would like to suggest adding another R, one that I see as the glue that holds your vision together. Certainly Compassion, Respect, and Tolerance can allow humans to live a good life, but the way I see it, there is need one more component — another R, Responsibility. I do not mean this in the way of taking responsiblity for a  action or non-action, but rather in the way of taking on the burden that is implied by being alive. As long as I am alive, I feel the responsibility that all other living beings get to live too, in the best way they are able.
        In my rant above I mentioned that we, every living being, are all related. Our DNA demonstrates that. To me that means when and where I can, I must do my best to help other living beings to live free from pain and suffering as best they can, no matter what they are (This does not extend to the necessity of continuing one’s own existence — eating — since all living beings use other living beings for sustenance. We cannot get energy out of swallowing inanimate objects) except those beings who use sunlight  as their only food source to turn it into energy — the start if the food chain.
        Back to the topic at hand. No one or no thing puts this responsibility on me, for me it is there by virtue of being a living being myself. I cannot pick and choose whom I will have compassion for, or whom I will respect, or whom I will have tolerance towards — my responsibilty is to feel and act the same for all living beings. Simply put, it comes with the territory.
        I am allowed to defend myself if I so chose against intentional attack or violence by another living being, but it is incumbent upon me to use the least force possible for this porpose because that is how I would want another living being to intentionally act towards me.
        And if I so choose, if I think the other living being is more deserving than I am, I am free to not defend myself.

        Ah, once again I have said more than I set out to say, but that’s me. My apologies for commandeering so much of your time. Peace.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sorry for the delay here.
        It’s been all of a busy the last few days.
        Anyway good friend/ Yes that is a good addition…Responsibility, I must remember that one.
        It is also an important subject you have raised on defence and violence. One which has tested the minds and hearts of many a person down the ages. Your resolve and judgement are worthy responses far superior to my own. I salute you on this score.

        Take care now
        Roger

        Like

      • Far superior is not a description I accept. We are where we are, along a path to somewhere. No being is superior to any other. Where we are in inconsequential. What matters is we are on the path. Peace to you and yours, Roger.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Audrey. Somethings will not rest until they are written…Ah the lot of the writer….Would we have it any other way?

      (Although I would have preferred it if my febrile thought processes in the writing of both parts had NOT found grounds to de-construct the basis of the fiction I was currently writing….Oh well back to the drawing board- the characters did warn me I might have to!)

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  4. Too many places to start, so, as usual, I will start where I want and hope I get to all those things I am trying to get to. But I’m gonna do it offline so it doesn’t disappear on me. Be back in a while.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Humans are in no way superior to other forms or species of life. Decidedly we look, think, and speak differently, but when we get down to our DNA we are all related. We all evolved from the same starting point some 4.1 billion years ago, or whenever. Without all those other evolutionary advances, we would not be here. No, it is not possible for science to discover what those individual advances were, though they would like to. Scientists can tell us a story of our planet, but they cannot tell us the of how life started, or all the steps it took to get to us.
      And just because we humans have spread out to cover almost all the land masses existing on our planet does not mean we are the pinnacle of evolution. Yes we have opposing thumbs, and large brains, but when you look at the way we are mistreating ourselves and our home, I don’t see any real intelligence. In fact, I think we are pretty stupid as a species. No other lifeform sullies its homes in their natural habitats, not the way we do — intentionally! Maybe we didn’t start that way, but by now we should know better, yet we cannot work as one group to save ourselves. What does that say about us?
      And as Roger declares, we humans kill ourselves on purpose, no matter what we tell ourselves is the reason. That is just as stupid as contaminating the only place we can live. Whether or not that changes in the future depends on us having a future. Right now we do not have one!

      So what are we doing with our time? The stupidest thing we are doing I can think of is fighting over the existence or non-existence of an invisible Super Being, my apologies to both sides. It is important to you for some reason, this I am well aware of. Roger (without originality) told us it is impossible to prove the non-existence of said Superior Being. You may as well try to prove a qwat exists. (I happen to know what a qwat is, but since is does not exist in our space-time continuum, don’t bother asking.) The corallary to the above statement is: We cannot prove the Supeior Being does exist either. So why are we even discussing this?
      Sure, it is important to believers that they believe, and it is important to non-believers that they do not believe, but these things are personal to each person, and truthfully does not affect us no matter what side we are on. The truth is, if we spent that same energy trying to stop our planet from becoming uninhabitable, we could succeed in saving it. So why are we ignoring the elephant in the room to debate the hair on the nose of the mouse! It’s not going to matter when humanity commits speciescide, and take a hekkuva lot of other species with us!
      And having arrived at this point, those other things I said I would address, what’s the point? Another number of years, and it will all become meaningless.
      So have fun accomplishing nothing when you could be doing something meaningful…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Here I am again; catch-up.

        I do tend to use my ‘Cosmological Search for God or No God’ just as an illustration to demonstrate the whole issue is one of personal choice.
        A few years back when I got talking on internet sites about religion there was this branch of UK atheism who were verbally violent to any belief. They did not want to discuss, just have me say ‘Yes. Yes I recant. Forgive,’ like a mirror image of the MAGA crew or an Inquisition.

        So, yeah. My choice. I can’t prove it, simply believe in a God I’m not going to get angry with someone who does not believe. I will defend my own right to believe and that’s that.

        Yes, I have a feeling that this species Humanity is going to be the cause of another Extinction Event, and we will be gone- puff! But Life will go, it might not even notice that we were here.

        In the meantime I will keep on keeping on. Books to write. Posts to put up. Family to support in one way or another. Try to contribute something positive to the vulnerable. Just do the best as I can, when I can, how I can.

        Have to go now. That book needs kick starting again, the last plot fell flat. Or maybe I need kick starting.

        See ya ’round.

        Like

      • Trying. I wrote the first draft in 1994. I can only say this for now, it is a book, it tells a story, but it is not a novel. You didn’t expect it to be a novel, did you? Considering the source!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment