Religious Tolerance

[filkertom]

"Tolerance" is an interesting word.

By and large, it means putting up with something you don't agree with. You tolerate it. On some level or another, you believe it's wrong, or at least not for you.

Organized religion hasn't been for me for a long time.

Sometimes I wish I could take succor in the belief of an All-Father watching over me, planning my life. It'd certainly make some things easier. But I can't do it.

I used to have much more of a problem with those who do need or want to believe. At this point in my life, I'm pretty good with just about everybody, so long as they don't try to legislate their beliefs onto others. (Some insist that atheists are trying to do the same, but that argument falls apart completely once you get rid of the spurious notion that atheism is itself some form of "religion". It ain't. About as far from it as you can get, actually. Religions insist on faith, and science -- the rational basis of this atheist's worldview -- demands proof.)

I do wish more religious people would review the tenets of their own faiths -- the ones saying Do Good Because It's The Right Thing To Do, Treat Others As You'd Like To Be Treated, Money Can't Buy Happiness, that kinda stuff.

By the same token, I wish more atheists -- myself included, I know I do it -- would have less contempt for people who believe. They have their reasons, just as we have our reasons, and who's to say they're wrong? Maybe they've found the right kind of evidence for themselves. Or maybe their faith is stronger than whatever evidence they've come across.

When it all comes down to it, everybody is the same. And everybody's different. We should celebrate both. And we should respect each other a lot more than we do.

I wrote my basic creed into a song a few years back: Mind Your Business, Clean Things Up, and Get Along. I think that's about as succinct as I'm going to get on the matter, and I think it works. It doesn't ask anyone to give up their beliefs; it says don't worry about other peoples' beliefs. It doesn't say change the whole world; it says clean up your part of it, with the implication that if we all did that, we'd have taken care of the whole world. It doesn't say love thy neighbor; it says be civil and friendly to others.

Mind your business, clean things up, and get along.

And may we all find God within ourselves.

Comments

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I agree with almost everything you say here. There's one point I'd like to make though....

"Religions insist on faith, and science -- the rational basis of this atheist's worldview -- demands proof."

Science is not the rational basis of atheism. It is the rational base of agnosticism.

There is no experiment you can do - or even conceive of in theory - the results of which could prove the non-existence of God. In technical terms, the existence of God is "non-falsifiable", and therefore outside the realm of science*. Science cannot prove that God does not exist, and therefore is not (and cannot be) a basis for a belief that God does not exist.



*This is exactly the same reason why "intelligent design" does not belong in the classroom - it isn't science. Atheism isn't science either. No belief (or disbelief) about God is science.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from. I suppose it goes against one of the few matters of "belief" I have on the subject: the idea some have that there's no such thing as a true atheist, because if there was incontrovertible proof of the existence of God then the atheist would believe, therefore the atheist is really an agnostic.

This makes me crazy.

To me, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an agnostic is still willing to be convinced. As an atheist, I've made my decision and I'm not looking for any more evidence. I spent a lot of years on the subject, and got what I consider to be way more than enough info to make my own decision, and now I have better things to do.

I also specifically said "this atheist's worldview", i.e., mine. I do not presume to speak for any other atheists as to how they got where they are. I know that in my case it was a combination of science and reason, with science having the larger part.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

Do you want to know what gives me comfort and succour? The understanding that if there is a [insert big bad sky-daddy here], it actually doesn't give a crap, is indifferent to both the most devout and the most critical, and is not conscious of our existence.

Religion is another word for social control. It's the creation of a bunch of choleric and constipated old guys who think they know better than the lot of us do, who want to control who gets the prettiest women, and who want to impose rules that [insert big bad sky-daddy] has whispered into their ears alone, but no one else hears, or can prove.

It's a load of codswallop.

I'm a realist and a zetetic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. For me, the existence of [...] is unimportant, because things are going to happen whether you believe in the concept or not.

That said, I do believe in - and embrace- the concept of synchrondipity- which is a marvelous and powerful collision of synchronicity and serendipity, and the closest thing to actual operational 'magic' we have. However, grasping it requires an active and curious mind, keen observation, and a sense of humor, which, sad to say, many religions totally lack, because they are so busy finding demons under every bed.

Religion is the antithesis of synchrondipity, because so much of it requires adherence to pre-set and pre-determined dogma and rules. Synchrondipity, on the other hand, requires fluidity, openness, and trust that the universe is operating just fine without any manipulative and unstable demiurge messing with it. It only asks that you approach life with open mind, open heart, and open hands, and be grateful for the wonders that unfold.

[janedit.livejournal.com]

I am personally very glad to see you have softened your stance on believers somewhat. It always bothered me. I always think of my mother, who was a devout believer, good and kind (and tolerant). To hear you say that she was delusional, mentally ill, stupid, or worthy of ridicule--well, it hurt.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Sorry for that, honestly. And part of the reason I have softened my stance is my own mother's growing faith over the years. She sings in church a couple of times a week, paints the occasional mural for holidays and such, and it makes her very happy, and I wouldn't dream of denying her that.

[warinbear.livejournal.com]

. . . in the belief of an All-Father watching over me, planning my life.

I do not see this belief as inherent to Christianity, though it is common among self-professed Christians (and members of many other faiths). This is probably because the word "Christian", to me, means "person who follows the teachings and example of Jesus" rather than "person who worships Jesus". Mileage varies, of course. <g>

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I'm a nontheistic pagan on a storytelling path. Everything is about Story. Deities and Myths are what we create to explain things to ourselves. They become what we need them to be, or we move on to other stories.

Tell the stories that are yours. Let others tell theirs. And there are worse things you can do than mix metaphors.

[thdrgngrl.livejournal.com]

"belief of an All-Father watching over me, planning my life"

Er..yeah no. Not everyone who's christian believes that.

I consider myself christian and I am -constantly- mortified by the behavior (and the fuzzy logic) of other people professing to be of the same faith.

Heck other people professing to be of the same -sect-. I have noticed a lot of them don't actually pay any attention to church doctrine and like to insert their own random things on in there and claim to represent the whole.

Of course I've come across quite a few atheists who were just as concerned with changing my mind and making me believe what they believe, as I have christians. Both sides make me twitch a little when they behave in this manor, and both sides think they're doing me some kind of favor by acting this way x.o

I respond just as badly to people who want to call me an idiot, as I do to people who insist I'm going to go to hell, just because I don't think the way they do.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

"There is no experiment you can do - or even conceive of in theory - the results of which could prove the non-existence of God."

Sure you can! It's easy! Simply hold said god up to all the hype about him/her. If said god fails then they're in the same realm as 5 sided squares and other paradoxes.

Take the christian god in the bible. That god claims to be all powerful. But when he decided to take human form, he didn't just do it. Nope, the christian bible says he NEEDED to make a pure woman then impregnate her with himself without her approval. An all powerful god does not need anything. Additionally said bible says that incarnation NEEDED to die for everyone to be forgiven for "sins" the god created and forced upon people with no way to avoid "sinning" in one form or another. An all powerful god would just rewrite the rules instantly, no narcissistic pseudo-sacrifice required.

So in the end we have a non-omnipotent god who can do anything. That's a paradox and therefore cannot exist.

You can also approach the problem from a historic angle too. If you read the christian bible then read the stories of older religions, you'll find that the bible copied just about everything. Huge floods, virgin births, savior figures, woman causing the fall of Man, paradise gardens, etc they all can be found in faiths that predate the bible. So how can a copy of a story be more true than the original?

The main problem, however, is defining what a god is. The meaning keeps changing. For example if you try to quote the bible, someone is going to claim you're either misinterpreting the passage or the passage was added for political reasons or some other excuse why it shouldn't count. The idea of god is a moving target, try to pin it down with a proof or non-proof and it slips away like trying to swat a fly with a pencil.

Have you heard of Russel's Teapot? It's the idea that there's a tea set between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. You can't prove it's there and I can't prove it isn't. But the odds of it being true are too slim to even consider it being true. Gods are the same way.

Something isn't real until it's proven it's real. No one has ever proven a god to be real and that alone is enough to prove that they are not.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Seems to me, that's a semantic distinction based on the failure of people to agree on what agnosticism means.

There's a lot of people who feel like hedging their bets and saying that without evidence, there's no way to tell whether there is a God or, if any God out there is Jehovah or Buddha or Allah or some philosophical "unmoved mover". Other people, who have already made up their minds, reject the very concept of agnosticism and insist that there MUST be a choice.

Theologians like Pascal and Karl Barth say that anyone who does not accept the church is an atheist.

Outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins apply the literal root "a-" and "theism" to define atheism as anyone without affirmative theism to claim all self-defined agnostics as really in the atheist camp.

Other theologians, like Andrew Greeley, say that anyone who has not definitively rejected the church is still within God's circle and potentially saved.

Seems to me, at least some atheism is science, in that it applies the scientific method to the cosmos and finds the hypothesis of some gigantic lifeform above the earth, presiding over a heaven and consigning others to a hell beneath the earth's surface, with none of this detectable in any way, to be so laughably improbable as to have been disproved, with the burden of proof having fairly shifted to the theists to provide some scientific evidence.

Self-defined agnostics, who call themselves that so as not to have to take a position in the first place, are understandably annoyed at being caught in the middle of a tug of war.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Thank you for participating in the "September 11 is a day for religious tolerance" project.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

"By the same token, I wish more atheists -- myself included, I know I do it -- would have less contempt for people who believe."

The problem is less with the Atheists than with the believers who feel that
1) They are entitled to special considerations because of their beliefs
2) They are somehow superior to others on the basis of that alone
3) Secular law must bend to their faith law
4) Their faith should be immune to criticism even if it means resorting to violence
5) It's acceptable to punish people who don't believe as they do

Nine years ago we saw what religion did to America. People who thought their religion entitled them to do anything to further their faith committed a horrendous act that millions have suffered for since. It's this sense of entitlement that is contemptible.

Over 50 years ago christians made it so to pledge allegiance to America country, you also had to say an oath to THEIR god; thereby putting their faith above all others despite the clause in the Constitution forbidding an establishment of a religion. We've also seen the same idea on our money and the National Day of Prayer. There are too many christians who feel their views should be given preferred treatment and other views should be censored. (Remember the Atheist ads on buses? Many of the people who opposed them supported an anti-islam ad on buses in LA.) Isn't that contemptible too?

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

A while back a Christian acquaintance (on LJ) told me that I, as a non-believer, needed to have MORE faith when I see the universe around me and not believe it was created by a God-like entity. I didn't really buy it, but I thought it was interesting.

PS Speaking strictly for myself I think of myself as an agnostic who is not willing to be convinced.

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

I might add "be kind" and "show a little class". But, yes.

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

I have no contempt for believers (for example, my good friend dglenn, who is a religious Christian) when believers don't behave in contemptible ways.

And, frankly, there are some believers whose beliefs are indistinguishable from untreated mental illness -- the woman I ran across who was blogging about her child's illness and said "I KNOW he'll be leaving the hospital safe and sound," for example.

The child died, at which point she immediately claimed to KNOW they'd be together in Heaven eventually.

How many times do you have to KNOW something that turns out to be utterly false before you give up on it? Infinitely many, apparently, if you're a deluded, mentally-ill religious person who doesn't get the help you need because in our culture, religious mania gets a pass because it's "just religion." That kind of wanton magical thinking is a public health hazard, but it gets a pass.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

I go about it this way...

The way I see it, there are two things a human being must do while they are alive...

First, they must look at the universe around them and realize it is a magnificent place, full of mystery and wonder.

Second, they must look at their fellow human being and see that they are worth knowing. Perhaps they're not always worth helping or saving... But they are worth knowing.

What matters are these ends, not necessarily the means by which they are achieved. Some people require the adoption of belief in spirits or deities in order to achieve these ends... So be it.

I think they'd be better off if they didn't have to... I consider not having to as a sign of greater intelligence... But as long as the ends are met...

So be it.

[xydexx.livejournal.com]

I prefer disorganized religion.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

:) "If there's a God, your purpose is to LIVE. To help people. To make the world a better place.

"And if there's NOT a God... your purpose is to LIVE! To help people! To make the world a better place!"

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That's almost exactly the progression, and timeline, I took. I'm still a pagan sympathizer, at least to the extent that I certainly group paganism with other religions as something that people follow.

And I'd missed that Del Ray line. I like it.

[theturbonerd.livejournal.com]

The Del Rey quote is interesting. I am an agnostic and I've been saying for years (said it earlier today in fact): "Intellectually I'm an atheist, but emotionally I'm a deist.". I grew up in a very enclosing religious environment and spent much of my childhood studying to be a minister. So breaking an emotional gestalt like that is tough in spite of whatever reason tells me.

I use the same "can't be proved" argument of why I'm an agnostic instead of an atheist. However, it isn't much of a jump to believe there is no god of any kind, be he hoary thunderer or cosmic muffin. But there is a little bit of a jump. To me atheism is a statement of belief based on lots of circumstantial evidence, or lack thereof.

Science appears to be finding that religious feelings seem to have evolved. I can see how it would be useful in binding groups of people together. It still does. It doesn't impact my belief (Agnosticism is a belief too).

One last thing that makes me an agnostic instead of an atheist is the following sentence: "There is no god... yet.". If you admit "a vastly incomprehensibly more powerful being that wields incredible power to create and destroy and could blink me out of existence", then yes I think "gods" may eventually exist. More simply: Any sufficiently advanced sentient is indistinguishable from a god.

Hopefully they won't notice us.

[theturbonerd.livejournal.com]

You messed up the joke:

The Believer says, "There is a God. Your purpose is to LIVE. To help people. To make the world a better place."

The Non-believer says, "There is no god. Your purpose is to LIVE. To help people. To make the world a better place."

The Believer then says, "Heretic! Unbeliever! Stone him!"

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[peachtales.livejournal.com]

I want to see that copy of Archangels Monthly, Tom!

While I grew up in a place where christianity is the state religion, there was one heck of a lot less of an uproar about it. Religion is there but it's not so pushy every day and in everything, and the different states didn't even agree on protestantism or catholicism. Participation was completely voluntary. I went through confirmation mostly because the priest teaching our classes was a really excellent teacher. Walbert Kutzarow, from the former Soviet Union, and his wife (whose name I have sadly forgotten), made for an excellent learning experience.

I do not consider myself a christian, most especially not in the US. I do not wish for a moment to be connected with the atrocities committed in the "name of" christianity these days, plus it's really not me. I don't believe that way.

Some people who consider themselves religious have called me a pagan, but I don't particularly subscribe to that label. My beliefs are fairly straightforward: Try to live the best life you can. Be good to people and other living things. Respect the environment. Try not to take advantage of others. Respect yourself.
To be honest, that last one is still the most difficult one for me.

I believe that there is a divine presence, but it's just there, it doesn't judge, but it does encourage me to do better. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps it's just my conscience?
It's a spirit that is present in the beauty of a flower meadow, the peace emanating from a cat's purr, the sensual pleasure of a bewitching scent, the joy of spending time with friends or hearing good music, reading a book or just relaxing.

A few years back, similar to what Tom describes, if someone did the "have a blessed day" thing to me I would have felt compelled to make sure they were invoking a blessing I was comfortable with. These days I just say "you too". Who am I to decline a wish for blessings?