ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Could you please, for just one moment, stop putting up your straw men and listen to what I have said

I will when you will!

I just want to know what kind of hippy-dippy church Karen went to. Mine was all hellfire and AIDs is a punishment for gays.

and that was just the Sunday School, amirite?

xp You're right about football of course, ailsa - but that's not to say that religion doesn't fulfil that function as well.

It does a lot of other things too, of course, which is at least partly what "I was raised in a religious tradition and I like to maintain at least some contact with that" meant to me. One of the things I'm interested in is religion's role in learning, or as a repository of knowledge. On the whole this has been a good thing, though you don't have to look too hard to think of where it's gone all wrong - the problem being when religion tries to determine what knowledge is or should be, I guess. Despite the best efforts of intelligent designists, this only really appears today to be a significant issue with islam. The others appear to have mostly accepted that they have to retreat gracefully before science, economics, politics, medicine, philosophy, the law, etc etc, but islam (at least in its most vocal forms) seems to be holding onto transmit mode only.

yes, and so not joking. xpost

football has the same function of religion (opium for the masses). what do you think about that ilx?

also the bible says that races shall not mix.

football? religion? same function?! (slaps forehead) eureka!

Fair point, but there's a distinction between what people think and what the guy at the front says. If you actually asked every Christian whether they believe that's literally true, and gave them anonymity and time to reflect, I'd expect you'd get a vast range of response.

Look, let's take this down to a very basic level:

1. When people pray to "God" (using quote marks here to not tie it down to a particular conception of "God" or any one "idea of God"), or say to someone, "I'll pray for you," what is it they're doing? Beseeching a particular, specific entity to perform some action? Calling upon the energy of the universe to effect a particular end? Simply hoping that the randomness of life results in a good outcome? Some of the above? None of the above?

2. When -- to limit this to the dominant US cultural narrative -- people pray "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" or "in the name of Almighty God," what are they doing then? Is it the same as or different from (1), above?

I know answers might vary by believer, but this "only a small group" thing is really bugging me, and I refuse to believe, based on my own experience every single day, that Christianity, generally speaking, has evolved into some sort of deism and does not believe in God as a specific entity, or in Christ as a real, living person/god who is the Savior of mankind. Maybe Karen's right, maybe that's how it is in the UK, but I would literally be shocked to find out it was so.

I am an agnostic in that I believe that we can never fully comprehend the nature of the universe, but I am an atheist in that I believe it is impossible for there to be gods or a God or any sort of supernatural beings with special access to & investment in this universe.

was joking about football and religion btw.

My impression of the UK was always that people believed in the Christian God, but most never really actively participated in church or prayed or followed his teachings. It was much more of cultural, we were raised in this way so why question it kind of thing.

2) When I did belong to a church, as I stated repeatedly upthread, we challenged our assumptions, questioned our faith, learned about other faiths (including a history of agnosticism and atheism) every god damn day of our lives.

In the course of any of these challenges and question, did anyone ever stand up and say, "Hmmm . . . you know, this whole thing really doesn't make any sense, see y'all later?" Or did everyone sort of come around to, "Well, if we simply define 'God' as 'X,' then I do still believe in God after all?"

What kind of a stupid question is that?

I mean, really; maybe I'm going out on a limb but I am more than reasonably certain there were instances of people leaving the church Karen went to, since it happens like all the fucking time everywhere.

but instead of the dogmatic rigidity of a standard church, this church had enough open discussion and exploration of ideas to ensure that people could intellectually rationalize their beliefs and thus never want to leave the church.

or more likely people come and go just like every other church

people could intellectually rationalize their beliefs and thus never want to leave the church

This presumes that the sole or main function of a church is to provide a framework of belief to its members. The relaitionship between a church and its members is much more complicted than that.

hey i'm just spitballing here

I thought the question was pretty simple, but maybe not. In the context of "Don't tell me I don't want my beliefs challenged, my church challenged them all the time" the question means, "Do you mean 'challenged' or do you mean 'gave you an opportunity to rationalize?'"

Because she really seems to be on a mission to convince people that either her experience is truly sui generis, or that the words "God," "person," "church," "belief" etc. mean something other than what millions and millions of people actually understand them to mean.

Not that I actually care that much, but my wife's asleep with a headache, I just did a bunch of lawn work and I'm bored. Like I said way upthread, people can believe whatever they want and by and large it's no skin off my back, I only care about what they do. But I reserve the right to think they're silly and misguided, too.

Phil you seem to me to have a really strange conception of what a church is like. It's not like it's some weird cult that people are not allowed to leave, ever. People came & went (including my family!) but more likely they'd go to another Anglican church where they liked the priest better rather than leave & not come back. Sometimes they went off & became Unitarians or Presbyterians. It was quite open.

People certainly talked & discussed & even challenged. Bible study was pretty exciting because my dad is an atheist & he was certainly encouraged to share his views. People were free to discuss. There were even huge schisms - I can remember leaving that particular church because the priest was gay & half the congregation supported him & half were trying to get his curate to replace him - we left in solidarity when the "coup" succeeded & actually the church dwindled afterwards because the curate was not as open minded & accepting as the original vicar!

When I left a few congregations down the line (& I discovered later on that the priest had really liked me because I asked so many questions in class even though they were difficult questions & didn't have answers) I was still greeted warmly by the priest when he came round for dinner with my mum. I remember him asking me for book reccommendations because he'd just read A Brief History Of Time & loved it & he knew I loved science. We had good talks for years even after I left the church.

I don't think that my experiences are in any way *uncommon*. Different denominations have different characters but mostly it's down to the charisma & character of the priest - like, one of the priests I've described in this post was Roman Catholic & the others were C of E.

You seem to have this idea of Christianity as this monolithic instititution but it varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, congregation to congregation, person to person. At least that was my experience, and within the people I knew over 3 places in 2 countries, it was FAR from unique. If your experiences of church were different, I'm sorry, but that doesn't invalidate what my & my family's & friends experiences were & are.

Karen, imo you've done an admirable job of stating and defending your own views on this subject.

I agree. I understand her point of view on religion and agree with most of it. It's the stuff about atheists being arrogant and "hardcore" about their indefensible positions (so go eat a bag of dicks) that I have a problem with. But admittedly I'm an ass, so it's probably totally unreasonable of me to be bugged about it.

I am a hardcore atheist. I don't want to go anywhere near a house of worship unless it's for my cousin's wedding.

I consider myself "spiritual but not religious" -- I'm more into, like, the poetry of the ocean at night, man

can't i have both?

Abbott pulled me up on this by email & we had a nice chat. I do NOT believe that ALL atheists are arrogant, not by a longshot! But people who like to TELL other people that their experiences or beliefs are RONG (especially when they have not listened to what those experiences ARE) - I believe those peoe are arrogant whether they are atheists or Anglicans or what!

Sorry iPhone typing. At Elephant now, have to find some aphex acid.

You seem to have this idea of Christianity as this monolithic instititution but it varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, congregation to congregation, person to person. At least that was my experience, and within the people I knew over 3 places in 2 countries, it was FAR from unique. If your experiences of church were different, I'm sorry, but that doesn't invalidate what my & my family's & friends experiences were & are.

But you seem to view atheists in a similarly monolithic way. And of course one person's experience of religion don't invalidate somebody else's experience, but it works both ways. Sometimes it is "like it's some weird cult that people are not allowed to leave, ever." Your personal experiences shouldn't invalidate that either.

xpost

I do NOT believe that ALL atheists are arrogant, not by a longshot! But people who like to TELL other people that their experiences or beliefs are RONG (especially when they have not listened to what those experiences ARE) - I believe those peoe are arrogant whether they are atheists or Anglicans or what!

I agree. But you seem to be have made this distinction of "hardcore atheists" as being the ones who are arrogant. And you've defined that as anyone who is certain that god doesn't exist. So if I'm personally certain that god doesn't exist, then I'm an arrogant hardcore atheist, right? Which is like a huge number of atheists who are probably perfectly nice people and never even discuss religion. I mean, I may be making an ass of myself on this thread, but IRL I've probably only mentioned that I'm an atheist to a handful of people ever.

oops, "doesn't invalidate"

Phil you seem to me to have a really strange conception of what a church is like.

I actually have been a member of several churches, including being an acolyte in my Episcopal church and a youth ministry leader in the evangelical church to which I belonged, but thanks.

It's not like it's some weird cult that people are not allowed to leave, ever.

Er . . . it sometimes actually is?

You seem to have this idea of Christianity as this monolithic instititution but it varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, congregation to congregation, person to person.

No kidding, but there is -- by definition! -- a set of unifying beliefs, at least at the dogma level, and those include that God is an actual person. And that fact that you have had a different experience doesn't invalidate that. I'm not telling you that your experiences or beliefs are RONG, but that I have known a lot of people from not only a dozen or more different Christian traditions, but as many non-Christian traditions, and what you describe is not only not at all characteristic of what I've seen, I don't believe it's even close to what the average plucked-at-random "religious person" has experienced.

IDK it seems even the cultiest cults always have ex-members. (Unless they kill you first, I guess.) Those are some of the most fascinating sites on the web, I think: communities for ex-whatever-religion members. Like the ex-Family site is just the most fascinating/heartbreaking thing ever. Just to make this post really corny, let me say this: yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on.

Correct. There truly are only two choices: accept our position or be left in the dust when New Society is achieved.

both phil and KDT otm, strangely. my small experience of christian churches has been much like hers: varied, but colored by the fact that my parents tended to seek out intellectual and left-leaning houses of worship. therefore: non-dogmatic, exploratory, more concerned with questions than answers. still, they were unified by the idea that god really is a "person" of some sort, dwelling in his heaven above. unitarian universalists were more open to the idea of an impersonal divine presence or cosmic energy or whatever, but they're not exactly christian, so...

Questions are worthless if they do not lead to hard, firm answers.

Are they?

You are wasting our time.

Agreed that both Phil and Karen are right. Of course people can leave whenever they want. I did, after all. But this is a big cultural question. I grew up in a conservative city so nobody sought out 'left-leaning' churches, and there probably weren't any aside from maybe Catholic and the African-American ones. Most of my friends in the UK are atheist/agnostic (did we decide upon this?), but that's because they were raised with minimal church influence and, when the time came they questioned it, and just wound up not buying it. Most of my friends in the US are Christian, because they were raised with the church ever-present, and the notion of questioning it at all has never really occurred to them, or if it has it's been swiftly swept aside. I remember when I was in middle school I had a classmate who asked some difficult (and totally logical) questions during Bible class, and they called her parents and had a big sit-down. The teacher came in the next day and said we should all pray for her, because the devil was causing her to lose her faith.

I don't have a problem with people having faith or being religious in some way. I understand it. I'd prefer they weren't, but that's because a.) I don't believe it to be necessary anymore and b.) it is just one avenue that can (easily, I'd say) lead to a negative or destructive pattern of beliefs that can affect the population as a whole. If that makes me arrogant, then so be it.

I honestly don't know in what way my experiences are supposed to be so "atypical" and indeed I kinda question the motivations of why anyone would try to insist that my experiences were so uncommon. But as always YMMV.

It's not the middle ages any more. One of the things about freedom of religion is that it kind of ensures that most people over the age of majority who are involved with organised religion in our culture are there because they want to be? That's certainly been my experience.

You don't think that Altermeyer book you were keen on discussing suggests there might be a whole world of complexity behind that "because they want to be"?

It's not the middle ages any more. One of the things about freedom of religion is that it kind of ensures that most people over the age of majority who are involved with organised religion in our culture are there because they want to be? That's certainly been my experience.

― Karen D. Tregaskin, Saturday, September 18, 2010 11:47 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

you can't believe it's as easy as this.

I honestly don't know in what way my experiences are supposed to be so "atypical" and indeed I kinda question the motivations of why anyone would try to insist that my experiences were so uncommon.

Because the United States' political and cultural landscape wouldn't like what it does today if your experiences were even within one standard deviation of "typical" here.

The Altemayer book was about Right Wing Authoritarianism and a very specific kind of fundamentalist evangelical religion. It certainly did not describe the sum total experience of all religiosity.

I don't know if it makes you feel somehow better about your enlightened atheism or what to believe that the majority of religious people are simply brainwashed fools who never question what they are taught, but this simply is not necessarily the case.

Phil D that is a naive simplification. You act as if there were no religious people at all in blue states. 2/3 of my life within the church was within liberal churches in blue states. You can't just wish that away because it doesn't agree with your expectations.

Is it possible for you to stick to one strawman at a time? Or for at least more than five minutes?

I mean, the fact that there are religious people in blue states -- which, duh, and which I never questioned -- has no bearing on whether -- again! -- the experience you describe is "typical" nor whether it dominates the political/cultural narrative in the US.

"was joking about football and religion btw."
I'm not! I was reading this book on hooliganism and the author described his experience as a kind of religious ecstasy he'd never felt before.
I suppose it's possible to experience the same by knitting, but that would have to be some kind of knitting!

Oh-ho, knitting is my compass star and I'd never grant it that status. Far more likely to piss you off than send you into otherworldly ecstasy.

but this simply is not necessarily the case

Of course it isn't 'necessarily' the case, but it is often enough. I'd argue that a majority of Christian churches actually work towards that kind of brainwashing. It's built-in.

where's the panantheist option for us spinozian + pseudo-spinozian types?

I heard a reverend on cable access use the phrase "pantheist pussy" and the phrase has never left my mind.

Haha, was just reading John Cole's blog and saw this:

I don’t want to start a religious flame war, but it really says something weird about the country that in 2010, you can be a viable Senate candidate believing masturbation is evil and that gays just have a personality disorder or even admitting you’ve dabbled in the dark arts, but if you stand up and say “I’m an atheist,” you’ll just get destroyed in the election.

People believe in and do all sorts of crazy shit and get elected to higher office, but the one surefire barrier (save Pete Stark) to elected office is not believing in something. Saying “I don’t believe in the virgin birth” makes you a crazy person. It’s just weird.

Must be because of the widespread typical American Christian experience of being open, liberal and constantly questioning one's beliefs.

I think this is more a function of reasonable Christianity being too polite to shout down the fundies, who are more shouty.
There was this lady who was holding the line against ID creeping into the school system in the South, and they were just savaging this woman, calling her some secular humanist devil or something, and she was a regular churchgoer, her dad was a minister.