Religion, A Place Where Everyone Is An Expert

It was amusing to read of a split among Southern Baptists over treating Muslims as legitimate citizens of the United States. Not all Southern Baptists want freedom of religion to apply to Muslims. Certainly, the President does not want freedom of religion to apply to everyone.

This blog and the discussion page have been filled with people, including myself, who pass judgment on others about the quality of their religious beliefs. I, for example, do not think the Bible condemns homosexuality. Others are certain it does.

I don’t think the Bible condemns abortion. Several who post views on the discussion page are certain it does.

The same thing is going on with Christian’s views about the Muslim faith. There are Christians who view that faith as dangerous and others who think its problems stem from the countries trouble makers come from, not the Muslim faith.

We all know well the literal wars with killing among Muslim groups. Just like in Christianity, each group is certain it is right and all others wrong.

Religion is a phenomenon where everyone is an expert. There is no way to sit another person down and say, “You are wrong.”  Thus, a nonbeliever telling a believer there is not God is not more effective than a believer telling a nonbeliever he is going to hell.

My conclusion is that some portion of human beings are hard wired into religious belief of one kind or another. Currently, the world has a surplus of religions and experts on religion.

28 Responses

  1. Juan Ruiz

    “My conclusion is that some portion of human beings are hard wired into religious belief of one kind or another.”

    I believe Newsweek, Time, and National Geographic ran stories based on this hypothesis years ago. I guess the question would be “What is meant here by ‘hard-wired’?” Is it in the sense of language? The brain is pre-programmed? Or could it be we are hard-wired with curiosity, and a need for answers, with religions purporting to answer them?

  2. entech

    Religion is a phenomenon where everyone is an expert. There is no way to sit another person down and say, “You are wrong.” Thus, a nonbeliever telling a believer there is not God is not more effective than a believer telling a nonbeliever he is going to hell.

    Jon, we are about the same age yet you are so far out of date it is hard to believe. Your definition of religion in this Post Truth Age is no longer true, it might have been until quite recently , but now it is based on alternative facts.
    Religion, the good news, is what I (or anyone really) believes to be the true good news, everyone else is disseminating False News. As a consequence of this redefining Religious Freedom must take on a new and wider meaning, Religious Freedom is whatever I consider to be the requirements of my God must be recognised as a truth by the universe, people can be free to accept my words or they can be free to be wrong. The wrong have no rights to any freedom apart from that which I allow them.

    Now when I use the personal pronoun I, I do not mean I me (David, personally, but anyone who has a personal idea of what God is and requires) if someone agrees with them then it can become we. According to this definition atheism which is without a God cannot be a religion, hence all false definitions and arguments are from now on null and void and no longer operative.

    Using the defined version of I as the religious entity, indeed as the religion itself, Religious Freedom is anything not forbidden by religion. Religious Freedom does not include the freedom to disobey the demands of religion.

    Reading through this I see that I have suggested that this is a new and wider meaning, anyone that thinks that this is actually a restrictive or narrower definition is nothing but a lying hater.
    🙄

    1. entech 8:25 I have to concede that you are right. In this modern world of alternative facts religion fits right in. Instead of facts being what is in front of us, the facts are what is out of sight, invisible. Facts are gods, miracles, heavens and hell. I need to bring myself up to date. 🙂

  3. Henry

    Jon9:49:“Instead of facts being what is in front of us, the facts are what is out of sight, invisible.”

    In recent news, it looks like the global warming was fake news. NOAA lied. I am ready for some alternative facts, some of the current “facts” are suspect.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

    But some atheists find NOAA most informative.
    http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2014/02/22/increasingly-the-fear-of-a-moral-collapse-of-society-is-gone/#comment-318758

    Time to drain the swamp.

    1. Henry 10:33 In recent news, it looks like the global warming was fake news. NOAA lied

      I looked through all that and did not find the place where “NOAA lied.” That they used data from ships which “everyone knows gives readings too high” I don’t know anything about, but I would guess not everyone agrees they are too high.

      Whatever the case, the data on global warming is not invisible like the god, heaven and hell. Everyone can see it.

    2. entech

      Wikipedia editors recently voted to ban the Daily Mail tabloid as a source for their website after deeming it “generally unreliable.” To put the severity of this decision in context, Wikipedia still allows references to Russia Today and Fox News, both of which display a clear bias toward the ruling parties of their respective countries.
      It thus may seem like a remarkable decision for Wikipedia to ban the Daily Mail, but fake news stories by David Rose in two consecutive editions of the Mail on Sunday – which echoed throughout the international conservative media – provide perfect examples of why the decision was justified and wise.

  4. Henry

    Jon 1:01:“Whatever the case, the data on global warming is not invisible like the god, heaven and hell. Everyone can see it.”

    Ah, yes…..EVERTHING for the atheist must be viewed through a scientific lens. That may make for an interesting Valentine’s Day for the atheist’s wife. Rather than centering around love and feelings; raw data, scientific method, and peer review are used to establish, reaffirm, and/or continue the romantic relationship.

    1. Henry 2:09 Ah, yes…..EVERTHING for the atheist must be viewed through a scientific lens.

      Good idea to change the subject from invisible gods and invisible places. They are problematic.

      1. entech

        Such a modest change ths time, Jon. Last time he instigated a whole heap of agricultural machinery discussions from history to hide the fact that he would have had to admit he was wrong.

      2. Henry

        For those who reject the Holy Spirit, it is very problematic. Invisible…..creation…….eternal power…….clearly seen……no excuse…….
        Romans 1:20

        1. Henry 8:01 I read Romans 1:20 and have to admit I cannot see the evidence of a invisible god. I also admit I have no excuse for not seeing this evidence. I have no ability to see invisible beings nor see evidence of accomplishments not made by these invisible beings. Again this is not an excuse, just saying how it is. What I do see is a verse written by someone or someones who want to control the people who read it.

          1. entech

            Jon, Please be assured you can reject with exactly the same degree of faith and confidence as you can accept.

            There is a difference though, rejection is a fairly simple straightforward matter – “show me some concrete evidence of why I should accept something that can’t be shown or the effect of which cant be shown”.
            Acceptance is a much more complicated matter, you take it as being true based on the words in some old book and have something called “faith”.
            There is no real reason to accept that the words in this book (collection of books called the Bible) are true anymore than the words in so many other books with competing truths (alternative truths 🙂 ) such as The Avesta and Aveda, Koran and Talmud and so many lesser known “Holy Books”.
            As this acceptance is actually quite a difficult task requiring much work to accept and even more to maintain that people like TheHenry need to constantly defend themselves with increasingly outlandish statements and constant denigration of “TheAtheist”, he increasingly reminds of TheDonald who finds the need to always do a put down on others in a desperate attempt to make himself look good.

            Actually “Holy Book” is a misspelling or perhaps an alternative name, the real name is holey book, meaning full of holes, gaps in coherent explanations and similar.

          2. Henry

            Concerning the man from Oz and the holes and gaps he alleges, he is apparently wiser than the former unbeliever, founder of Harvard Law School who to his surprise found the Gospel accounts quite well harmonized, lacking holes and gaps. I suppose the audience of this blog will have to hear the monotonous replies from the wrench-turner from down under why we must listen to his claims.

          3. Henry 7:19 It would be most helpful if you would provide us exactly where and when the Harvard Law School said the Holey Book is well harmonized and lacking holes and gaps.

          4. Henry

            Jon:“It would be most helpful if you would provide us exactly where and when the Harvard Law School said the Holey Book is well harmonized and lacking holes and gaps.”

            Here ya go:

            http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2015/04/19/i-hope-i-havent-made-this-mistake/#comment-487491

            I’ll pre-empt you a little bit and say you’ll need to get some wheels under your goalpost. At your age, it is much too much work to lift and reset. I would suggest wheels that are high flotation tires that can roll across all the deep stuff (“facts”, fake news, etc.) set down by the man from Oz. Tall boots required.

          5. Henry 11:06 Ah yes. Simon Greeleaf, member of the Massechusetts Bible Society reflecting the dominant culture of the time. I had forgotten that little out you use. I return to my point of a few days ago. There has never been, so far as I know, a court that has admitted the Bible as evidence of an event that is in dispute. That the Bible is included among ancient documents that are given a pass on the prohibition against hearsay evidence means it remains outside until admitted.

          6. entech

            @7:19 TheHenry continues his appeal to authority. And no you will not need to hear from the “Wrench-Turner”. Been there done that and I am sure that many readers, those that take any notice of your petty jibes or my long winded diatribes, are bored with hearing it all.

            Two for one this time Henry.
            The boosting of a converts opinion by his authority as a legal person, it would be more than strange if he converted to Christianity and found the opposite ???
            The opinion of a “wrench-turner” would obviously be of no value not having the aforementioned authority. No more value than your own !!!

        2. entech

          Henry. A PS.
          You forgot to make it “TheAtheist Wrench-Turner”. Doubling down on your ad hominem.
          For a man that is continually squawking about the fallacies and logical errors of “TheAthiest” you do use a lot yourself.

    1. entech

      This inquiry has been going on for six years and has been particularly wide ranging.
      Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. There were inquiries into 116 institutions including government run orphanages.

      I am not sure that any were found blameless, going back to the 1940s when many children were sent to Australia in the expectation of a better life than being an orphan in war torn Britain only to find cruelty and forced labour. Most institutions secular and religious were suitably contrite. From the beginning the most opprobrium has been shown towards the Catholic Church, covering up the covering up was the initial position. I have said before that in my opinion enabling the crimes to proceed unchecked is as bad as doing it yourself – that those in higher positions and demanding respect for those positions were doing this makes their crime worse than the perpetrators.

      Cardinal Pell, the photograph in the article was almost booed out of court when asked why even the slightest improvement should be well regarded said in a very cavalier manner, “oh well, better late than never”. He was in charge before being sent to The Vatican for safe keeping and was demonstrably instrumental in making sure any compensation was minimal, Pell was the author of “The Melbourne Response”.
      http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-response-catholic-churchs-suppression-of-report-fails-abuse-victims-20161118-gsstmw.html

      To be fare, it should be reiterated that the investigation covered 116 institutions and to blame all criminal rape of children on one institution will do nothing to help eliminate this abhorrent behaviour and its criminal cover up by institutional hierarchy, this is to not make light of the fact that the worst and most prolific offender has been the catholic Church.
      I will not go into some of the spectacular stories that have come up, when the Pope said last December he wanted zero tolerance and no one should be exempt I said I would wait and give him the benefit until (or if) proven wrong. A previous cancelling of a tribunal for an in house investigation does not increase confidence.

  5. Jinx

    Thanks Entech, I was thinking along the same lines but wanted more than just an opinion. Thanks for filling in the needed information. Could you say Pell was called to Rome much as Bernard Law was?

Leave a Reply