Wednesday, July 24, 2002
A Useful God
The belief is god has many attractive qualities. Religious belief has traditionally given a sense of community, a place to meet your neighbours so to speak. It passes down traditions from generation to generation. I think the most important thing though is that it allows the faithful to make sense of the world. It gives understanding to the incomprehensible, meaning to your life. For some, the alternative is just too awful a prospect and that makes god a greatfully accepted idea. What if there's no design, it's all an accident, we all return to dust and nothing more. You see my point. I think most people are apathetic at best. They may believe it god but in a more agnostic way than they care to admit. Heh-heh, so there's still hope for some .. couldn't resist.
The belief is god has many attractive qualities. Religious belief has traditionally given a sense of community, a place to meet your neighbours so to speak. It passes down traditions from generation to generation. I think the most important thing though is that it allows the faithful to make sense of the world. It gives understanding to the incomprehensible, meaning to your life. For some, the alternative is just too awful a prospect and that makes god a greatfully accepted idea. What if there's no design, it's all an accident, we all return to dust and nothing more. You see my point. I think most people are apathetic at best. They may believe it god but in a more agnostic way than they care to admit. Heh-heh, so there's still hope for some .. couldn't resist.
Sunday, July 21, 2002
Can You Know God?
There was an interesting if brief letter to the editor resulting from the last 2 blogs' subject matter. A gentlemen wrote in telling someone who asked how we could know god and he said, I'll send him a copy of the bible. I was confused by that as it was most likely edited for content. Did he mean the bible is the exact word of god? Or did he mean we could interpret the bible to know god's meaning as Christianity purports to do. Do you, the reader, not agree that god and religion is more of a personal experience and expression? Even those that believe the bible is the exact word of god for example. However misleading, they too are having their own personal experience of what they believe, they just believe that they are right of course and the rest are wrong. As humans, Christians et al ... we try and humanize god by giving him human qualities or a super-human quality. They would say he's all-knowing, wise, loving, holy, external ... you get the picture. But to define something is the give it limitation too which goes against the grain. Let's resort to math since I'm trying to be logical here. If being "A" has attribute "X", then being "A" has attribute "not-X". This would imply that god has limitations, an absurd notion according to religion. When this happens, and it's quite obvious from many standpoints mentioned here and elsewhere (ie... why would a benelovent god allow such atrocity to occur) the Christian falls back on, we cannot know god or his ways. So which is it, do you purport to know god or generalize what he's like or not? It's not a 2-way street.
Anyway, stay tuned if your interested in the subject matter as I hope to be a little more timely with the notes here and present more ideas on why it's absurd at best to believe in god anddddddd, the usefulness of belief anyway. Two contradictory notions but then I'm not dumb enough to believe that some don't need religion but I do think the world would be better off without it longer term.
There was an interesting if brief letter to the editor resulting from the last 2 blogs' subject matter. A gentlemen wrote in telling someone who asked how we could know god and he said, I'll send him a copy of the bible. I was confused by that as it was most likely edited for content. Did he mean the bible is the exact word of god? Or did he mean we could interpret the bible to know god's meaning as Christianity purports to do. Do you, the reader, not agree that god and religion is more of a personal experience and expression? Even those that believe the bible is the exact word of god for example. However misleading, they too are having their own personal experience of what they believe, they just believe that they are right of course and the rest are wrong. As humans, Christians et al ... we try and humanize god by giving him human qualities or a super-human quality. They would say he's all-knowing, wise, loving, holy, external ... you get the picture. But to define something is the give it limitation too which goes against the grain. Let's resort to math since I'm trying to be logical here. If being "A" has attribute "X", then being "A" has attribute "not-X". This would imply that god has limitations, an absurd notion according to religion. When this happens, and it's quite obvious from many standpoints mentioned here and elsewhere (ie... why would a benelovent god allow such atrocity to occur) the Christian falls back on, we cannot know god or his ways. So which is it, do you purport to know god or generalize what he's like or not? It's not a 2-way street.
Anyway, stay tuned if your interested in the subject matter as I hope to be a little more timely with the notes here and present more ideas on why it's absurd at best to believe in god anddddddd, the usefulness of belief anyway. Two contradictory notions but then I'm not dumb enough to believe that some don't need religion but I do think the world would be better off without it longer term.
Monday, July 08, 2002
Pledge Letters
The whole Pledge of Alligiance controversy has so little to do with Canada and yet it's co-opting the letters to the editor in our local papers around here anyway. A young woman wrote an article supporting Dr. Newdon's case to remove "under God" from the pledge. She correctly pointed out who's god (or lack thereof) are they talking about in the pldege? If you do believe in god, then whom that god is would largely be a personal matter wouldn't you think? There are, of course, quite a few that believe that only their definition of god is correct and that's the one they see in the pledge.
As usual, the letter writers are more concerned with the young lady's lack of belief in god than they are with the issue itself. They assume that only god can grant human rights and make moral judgement so he must exist whether we choose to believe or not, we only have to look close enough. Uh-huh! The court that originally upheld the ruling mentioned that it might as well be "under Vishnu". I wonder if all these good folks would be writing in to support that? Of course not as that wouldn't fit into their definition of god right away but that's the entire point. It isn't everyone's god, it can't be. This to me contradicts the First Amendment. We all believe or don't believe in a different god and we can do so because church and state are supposedly seperate. The U.S. was founded by those fleeing religious persecution and it was purposely spelt out in the constitution so that that wouldn't happen again.
On a side note ... I had prepared a response myself to the "letters to the editor". I waffled some as I wasn't sure if I should. I was actually concerned that someone may look up my name in the phone book and begin harrassing me or my family. I find it sad that the thought even occured to me. I got ready to press the send button when my computer froze. I took it as a sign from god that I shouldn't bother .... just josh'in ... but I never did send another one.
The whole Pledge of Alligiance controversy has so little to do with Canada and yet it's co-opting the letters to the editor in our local papers around here anyway. A young woman wrote an article supporting Dr. Newdon's case to remove "under God" from the pledge. She correctly pointed out who's god (or lack thereof) are they talking about in the pldege? If you do believe in god, then whom that god is would largely be a personal matter wouldn't you think? There are, of course, quite a few that believe that only their definition of god is correct and that's the one they see in the pledge.
As usual, the letter writers are more concerned with the young lady's lack of belief in god than they are with the issue itself. They assume that only god can grant human rights and make moral judgement so he must exist whether we choose to believe or not, we only have to look close enough. Uh-huh! The court that originally upheld the ruling mentioned that it might as well be "under Vishnu". I wonder if all these good folks would be writing in to support that? Of course not as that wouldn't fit into their definition of god right away but that's the entire point. It isn't everyone's god, it can't be. This to me contradicts the First Amendment. We all believe or don't believe in a different god and we can do so because church and state are supposedly seperate. The U.S. was founded by those fleeing religious persecution and it was purposely spelt out in the constitution so that that wouldn't happen again.
On a side note ... I had prepared a response myself to the "letters to the editor". I waffled some as I wasn't sure if I should. I was actually concerned that someone may look up my name in the phone book and begin harrassing me or my family. I find it sad that the thought even occured to me. I got ready to press the send button when my computer froze. I took it as a sign from god that I shouldn't bother .... just josh'in ... but I never did send another one.
Tuesday, July 02, 2002
The Pledge of Allegiance
Dr. Michael Newdow sought to remove the words "under god" from the U.S. pledge of allegiance. It was first supported by a court in California and then suspended shortly thereafter. Mr. Newdow has since become the centre of a huge ensuing furor his challenge created and he's been plagued by death threats. Just goes to show that not all religious extremists are muslim. The entire U.S. Congress went out on the steps to say the pledge after the news hit the stands. President Bush was having his photo taken reciting the pledge in schools.
Some side notes to help shed some sanity to a ridiculous story of Christianity gone awry. The original pledge never mentioned the word god which was added in 1954. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly seperates church and state as was intended and yet this seems to be lost on not only the President but Congress too (could have been the Senate, I know longer remember). The First Amendment "prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another". Mr. Newdow says, "My main concern is that government is throwing religion at the kids." I wholeheartedly agree. Good luck Mr. Newdow, you'll most certainly need it.
Dr. Michael Newdow sought to remove the words "under god" from the U.S. pledge of allegiance. It was first supported by a court in California and then suspended shortly thereafter. Mr. Newdow has since become the centre of a huge ensuing furor his challenge created and he's been plagued by death threats. Just goes to show that not all religious extremists are muslim. The entire U.S. Congress went out on the steps to say the pledge after the news hit the stands. President Bush was having his photo taken reciting the pledge in schools.
Some side notes to help shed some sanity to a ridiculous story of Christianity gone awry. The original pledge never mentioned the word god which was added in 1954. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly seperates church and state as was intended and yet this seems to be lost on not only the President but Congress too (could have been the Senate, I know longer remember). The First Amendment "prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another". Mr. Newdow says, "My main concern is that government is throwing religion at the kids." I wholeheartedly agree. Good luck Mr. Newdow, you'll most certainly need it.
