Sceptic: “So you have no person opinions on the veracity of those teachings ?

Apologies, typo in #329: That should obviously say “….no PERSONAL opinions…..”

But weren’t we talking about individual thinking and sorting out the answers for ourselves?

Again, that’s right, Ravi. I mean, if a person thinks that (random hypothetical examples) standing on their head on Tuesdays and Thursdays, anonymously bonking a suitable brunette (but not a blonde) they meet in a club every weekend, refusing to wear any fabrics blended with polyester, and listening to as much Amy Winehouse as possible will increase their level of spirituality and take them to heaven in the afterlife, and that eating Peri-Peri fries from Nandos, watching “Scrubs”, or talking to anyone called “Ravi Naik” over the internet are grave mortal sins, then more power to them — we all have to take responsiblity for the consequences of our own actions (either now or, as in this case, in the very long-term)…..

All I can add is:

1. Major problems can arise if they try to “institutionalise” all this by turning it into some kind of formal religion and (most pertinently) forcibly imposing it on other people, and:
2. If this becomes really self-destructive. Which of course leads to a tough question, ie. at what point should external parties intervene in such matters, should they even intervene at all or let the person reap what they’ve sown, etc etc.

I mean, the fact your ideals come from religion, does not mean you are incapable of discerning what is right and wrong, or that you are being spoonfed without questioning.

But weren’t we talking about individual thinking and sorting out the answers for ourselves?

Agreed, but problems arise when the following occur (and this overlaps with some of what Katy said in post #313):

1. “Good” religious person Bob: “My religion teaches X, Y and Z”
Sceptic: “Fine, but what do you personally think ?”
Bob: “It doesn’t matter what I think”.
Sceptic: “Why not ?”
Bob: “Because my faith provides me with all the answers, and who am I to question it ? Indeed, I am not a saint/guru/prophet/etc, and it would therefore be arrogant for me to presume that I am in any position to question these teachings or the religious figures who preached all this.”
Sceptic: “So you have no person opinions on the veracity of those teachings ? You haven’t independently, critically analysed all this, and reached your own independent conclusions ?”
Bob: “No. I completely defer to my religion in these matters. It is of divine origin, infallible, and therefore I believe all of it unquestioningly”.
Sceptic: *thinking* I wonder what would happen if Bob did think all this through for himself…..Maybe he’s afraid of the whole house of cards collapsing if he genuinely begins to doubt some or all of what he believes his religion teaches…..Or maybe he’s just really afraid of being “wrong”, and doesn’t trust his own judgement in these matters…..

OR:

2. Bob: “My religion teaches X, Y and Z”.
Sceptic: “Do you agree with those aspects of your religion ?”
Bob: “Honestly speaking ? Confidentially ? No.”
Sceptic: “So why do you follow these teachings ? You’re a smart guy, and I know from extensive experience that you’re more than capable of thinking for yourself.”
Bob: “Because I believe (or have been taught) that questioning these teachings is a grievous sin and that, if I don’t attempt to follow them to the letter, I’ll be punished in hellfire for a gazillion years after I die”.
Sceptic: *thinking* So it’s basically a severe fear of punishment in the afterlife which is motivating him, not genuine, freely-given conviction. Sounds like a documentary I saw a couple of years ago, which stated that apparently the reason OBL is doing all these nefarious acts is because he’s terrified of being punished by God if he doesn’t do all this.

And so on and so forth.

Katy & Sid,
I hate that story about Abraham and Isaac.
Abraham — arguably the most influential man in human history, and one that goes right back to the beginnings of civilisation. The godfather of Arabs and Jews alike. Clearly, he was an immensely charismatic and powerful individual. But he was also either a nutter or a cunt. There, I’ve said it. I’ve always wanted to say that ever since I was taught the Isaac story at Sunday school, before I started bunking off to play pool.

I think it’s fair to say that only in the last few decades there has been a big decline in religious worship in the UK, so we were are only in the early stages of post-Christian Britain. Likewise the same applies for much of Western Europe. The society we are today as well our institutions has been influenced by religion over the years. As we move away from the Christian period society will change again. What direction that takes remains to be seen.

I’m only moderately religious myself, but I would prefer to live in a society that tolerates different religious practices rather than suppressing it. I would also like to live in a society that tolerates agnostics, atheists and religiously sceptical people. We tend to hear the extremes of religious intolerance these days and yes, I agree that religious folk thinking that they speak for the majority could lead to bloodshed, but I like to think religion has also had a lot of positive influences on our lives over the years.

We are, largely, a completely irreligious state. Have been for quite a while. So far, we have not seen the moral backsliding you seem to think is concomitant on a lack of diety worship. I am fed up with being compared to Russia or China. France can’t find sufficient folk to replace their priesthood. Are they barabaric? No. They probably try to work out their morals in the same way as you or I. From first principles.

I’d argue that the lack of religious certainty has been a positive over the last couple of hundred years. Lest you actually think that a University Degree in Divinity is any more valid than a quack qualification in Astrology. To wrap that up, you’d give moral authority to folk that believe the unbelievable? Well, good on you.

What might lead to bloodshed is religious folk continuing to think that they speak for the majority, when they quite clearly do not. You, god-fearing folk, are quite fortunate that non believers are not an organised group.

The reverend said, interestingly in another article he said

“…characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bed-rock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.”

I do agree with Nazir-Ali here. Most of the institutions in this country are inherently Christian, and I think it would be pity if we became a completely irreligious state. You just have to look at the former Soviet Union and China to see what kind of situation we could face – totally authoritarian atheist states with no regard for human rights. Without any code to guide our morals, laws and justice system we could even slowly slip back to the days of barbarianism.

What I don’t agree with, which Nazir-Ali also seems to advocate, is the state sponsored supremacy of one religion – when our leaders see it as their right to defend their faith and take actions accordingly. This is going to lead to bloodshed.

But weren’t we talking about individual thinking and sorting out the answers for ourselves?

Sure, but you can do that without having a religious bone in your body. I’m not at all convinced that religion doesn’t take us into a series of dead ends.

Prescriptive stuff, which we are tending to find debateable these days, such as ‘an eye for an eye’, etc. A recipe for vendetta, I’d have thought.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is now open for discussion. Lots of US states have given up on the death penalty, for instance.

Though the God fearing Texans still have it. Which is why I think religious convictions lead to bad governance. Being informed by your God is one thing, the practicalities are quite something else.

Personally, I’d be looking for a Kalashnikov, some body armour and a nuclear bomb. And a list of questions. Shower of bastards, the lot of them! Let the real battle commence!

I should probably die, given their abilities for turning water into wine, parting seas, etc. But I’d go down fighting!

They are a shower of adolescent delinquents.

It ought to be incumbent on all of us to be personally responsible. Gods make it externalised. Which is rubbish.

“Hence the dangers involved in having a formalised, institutionalised priesthood in a religion (or people who take up that mantle themselves, even though it may be unofficially).”

Definitely.

Of course, the flipside approach includes the danger of a “make it up as you go along” approach to religion and spirituality, with people becoming wildly misguided and in extreme cases creating cults.

But weren’t we talking about individual thinking and sorting out the answers for ourselves?

“I mean, the fact your ideals come from religion, does not mean you are incapable of discerning what is right and wrong, or that you are being spoonfed without questioning.”

This is true too.

Look, I know (and acknowledged in my very first two comments) that mine response was more emotional. It’s because more often than not, I find that discussing things with very religious people can often be an extremely trying experience.

I am trying to be more accepting of people whose thinking and logic do not make sense to me (but might very well make sense to others).

“I mean, if that’s your definition of “fundamentalism,” that’s a really generous definition.”

I stand corrected. However, I think it is irrelevant where your source of ideals and moral conduct comes from – whether it is from a religious book, from society or culture. I mean, the fact your ideals come from religion, does not mean you are incapable of discerning what is right and wrong, or that you are being spoonfed without questioning.

“Basically, “civil rights” does NOT have to be tagged with religion”

Indeed. Although I think it has little to do with religion itself, but with politics, power and identity. Something I have been quite vocal in the past here in PP.

Got to give him credit, he is actually quite a smart cookie. For actually, if you read the actual article, te rev. is advancing the argument for reinvigorating British society with Christian values, the Muslim separatism is merely there to show the consequence of the absence of this.

The reverend said, interestingly in another article he said

“…characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bed-rock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.”

This I think in reality is part of a wider debate of how Christianity is to remain the dominant faith in Britain, (under threat from Islam) and importantly for Nazir Ali, how its values are to be made intelligible in public life.

Moreover, if they are intelligible, how does he envision them being turned into coherent policies, which will influence our shared public space.

I think we will hear a lot more from Nazir Ali on these points in the future, as he is trying to spark a debate on these issues.

They are just good people, not good “religious” men!

But that’s my point. People make decisions about their actions because of the sort of person they are, not because of what religion they are. To generalise horribly, good people do good things. If they’re religious, they’re religious in a good way. I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.

The Sri Lankans bombers are not doing it for their religion.

But that is my point. If you agree that suicide bombings wouldn’t disappear if everyone turned atheist overnight then we both disagree with Dawkins for the same reason, don’t we?

I don’t believe that religion turns people who wouldn’t do terrible things into people who would. I think it provides them with an excuse, sure. But if everyone turned atheist overnight, the kind of people who commit atrocities would find another excuse to commit them.

@Sid: quite.

I disagree with Dawkin’s suggestion not for the reasons you do, but because it’s historically dishonest. Suicide bombings/missions have been carried out by Sri Lankans (most of them Hindu) and the Japanese. The Sri Lankans bombers are not doing it for their religion.

They are just good people, not good “religious” men!

Religion has inspired great art, great music and fascinating philosophy and it’s also sparked terrible wars and atrocities. But it’s because it’s a focus for people, not because it’s an intrinsically evil thing. It can neither take the credit for those things nor be held responsible for the other things. It’s what people make of it that counts. Stalin’s Russia was pretty a-religious and yet more people died under his rule than in World War II, or so I believe.

One of the things that Dawkins strongly implies in the God Delusion is that suicide bombers, etc, would not exist if it wasn’t for religion. That’s ridiculously naive. As long as people have different opinions about things they will argue, and some of them will argue aggressively and commit atrocities in the name of whatever cause they’re arguing about.

I suppose what I’m really trying to say is that religion is only as good or as bad as the person who’s practising it. Good religious men don’t hit their wives even if they think their holy book says they can. Bad religious men commit adultery even though the Bible says they can’t.

“You are probably pissed off, because it thus sound arrogant for anyone to say out loud “We belong to culture/religion/parents X, and thus we have values Y, Z”, which is not to say it is false.”

No, it’s not that it sounds “arrogant” to me,it just does not make any fucking sense. Not too long ago, I had a discussion with someone who fought for “Muslim Civil Rights” in the US. When I took issue with that, saying that coining a term such as “Muslim Civil Rights” is a bit of an oxymoron and I am not sure how condusive and feasible in the long run it is for people to set up special interests civil rights, the guy tried to make the argument, “Well, what about the Blacks Civil Rights Movement in the US? Don’t you agree with that?” My response was that the CRM in the US WAS largely spearheaded by blacks, but they were fundamentally fighting for rights that are accorded to people of ANY race, not just blacks. When I then asked him what he meant by “Muslim Civil Rights,” he was at a loss.

I had a similar convo with someone who feverently believes in “Islamic democracy.” Again, I asked this person to define what exactly that meant, and he too could not respond (to his credit, he admitted that he didn’t really know, it’s all “vague,” he said). When I started to draw out his opinions- that ‘democracy’ is inherent in Islam and that for the “masses’ in Pakistan to accept any kind of change, it has to be stamped with “Islam” and similar claims he was making– and I beat back every point and some more, he then said, “I am not the best person who is qualified to speak about this.” I have been told this over and over again by anyone whom I question; I’m wondering where all these “experts” are on stuff like this.

Basically, “civil rights” does NOT have to be tagged with religion, neither do “democracy,” human rights, freedom of speech, socio-economic justice and equality and so on. All these things can exist without being branded by a particular religion; they do not need to be justified by any religion. And yet people continue to do this.