TIME MAG: The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is...

[Outis the Unready]

"The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is something called spiritual humility and sincere religious doubt."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541466,00.html

My only, very small contention with this article is that "sincere religious doubt" CAN include self-assurance about your relationship (or non-relationship) with the divine...when it includes the understanding that UPG (unverified/unverifiable personal gnosis) is ONLY enough to base decisions that don't exceed the realm of the personal. In otherwords, decisions you make about you, not others.

But that's a very tiny contention, and a semantic one, at that, to an otherwise awesome article. 

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

My only, very small contention with this article is that "sincere religious doubt" CAN include self-assurance about your relationship (or non-relationship) with the divine...when it includes the understanding that UPG (unverified/unverifiable personal gnosis) is ONLY enough to base decisions that don't exceed the realm of the personal. In otherwords, decisions you make about you, not others.

But to me (and speaking as a rather non-religous person), that seems like asking quite a lot.

As a person who has enough knowledge of chemistry and biology to know that carbon monoxide will kill you, I would feel it was my duty to save someone who's being exposed to it, even if they protest that they can't see or smell it.

If someone "knows" in their heart of hearts that, for example, unbaptized people will go to Hell for eternity, and knows this with just as much conviction as I know that carbon monoxide kills, how can I expect them to not act on their convictions and try to convert me?  Or keep me from "sin"?  What right do I have to stop people from acting in keeping with their beliefs, when I do the same thing with a different set of beliefs?

The premise "you should not act on some beliefs that you are certain are true" seems to be a secular one, and I believe runs contrary to the teachings of many religions.  "Unverified personal gnosis" is still gnosis: it is total certainty and experiential knowledge; how can a person be expected not to act on it?

I agree that the world would likely have less conflict if people acted in the way you suggest, but I believe that in many cases, it would be akin to saying "act contrary to your heart and the desires of your god(s)," and therefore would be virtually impossible to make happen.

[Outis the Unready]

If someone "knows" in their heart of hearts that, for example, unbaptized people will go to Hell for eternity, and knows this with just as much conviction as I know that carbon monoxide kills, how can I expect them to not act on their convictions and try to convert me?  Or keep me from "sin"?  What right do I have to stop people from acting in keeping with their beliefs, when I do the same thing with a different set of beliefs?

The right, as a member of society, to live in society, but I'll get back to that...

...Because if your deity is WORTH following, s/he would give you means beyond UPG to act upon.

Since there is no proof of hell or sin, they just can't be that important to a deity that makes it so easy to detect Carbon Monoxide, for example.

To put it in a Christian framework- if it was important enough to God to make you know it and not others, God would give you means to convince people. It only stands to reason that if God does not give detection of "going to hell" the ease of detecting smoke, or fire, or that you are on the edge of a cliff, that it must not be very important to God. Or that detecting it is not your job.

Now, if God is telling YOU what YOU need to do to avoid going to hell, then it is YOUR job to be "right with God." If God, however, tells you that other people are going to hell and "he" wants you to stop it from happening, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that God will give you a mechanism to save people-not UPG alone. UPG is like internal dialog, it works for you and you alone.

Futhermore, Abrahamicists are told to NOT "lean on their own understanding." [Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths."] Therefore an Abrahamicist who acts for others on UPG alone is not merely violating the unspoken contract required to be part of society, but also his own scriptures. His understanding is not enough "God will make a way" and all... if what it takes to stop me "from sinning" is a nun with telekinesis and the power to explode trees, then it is reasonable to expect that of God if God is trying to make YOU stop me from sinning.

Back to society: You are born human, but once you are capable of making decisions for yourself, you choose to be a part of society. If you do not want to play by the rules of society, you can leave it. One of the rules of this particular society is that people in control of themselves are free to make decisions on their own. If people are free to make decisions on their own, that means other people aren't free to make decisions for them....if people aren't free to make decisions for them, then people can't act on UPG for anything but their own choices.

To reiterate- If it is UPG, it must be made for YOU, not others, or it would NOT be UPG. Therefore, if you believe that god will send you to hell for being gay, don't be gay, but if you wish to be part of civil society, don't stop other people, because if it were your job to stop OTHER people, you'd have more than UPG.

The author of the article's idea of "Religious doubt" is essentially the same as that quote in proverbs- don't rely on your understanding...

In otherwords, UPG, which is personal, can only be trusted at that level.   

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Since there is no proof of hell or sin, they just can't be that important to a deity that makes it so easy to detect Carbon Monoxide, for example.

Not all religions agree with your premise; the position of the Catholic Church, for one, is that belief in Christ and God can stem from judicious use of logic and the examination of facts and history.  Personally, I disagree, but there is a wide spectrum of views on this.

if what it takes to stop me "from sinning" is a nun with telekinesis and the power to explode trees, then it is reasonable to expect that of God if God is trying to make YOU stop me from sinning.

What the heck are you doing that would need a telekinetic nun and exploding trees to be thwarted?   

To reiterate- If it is UPG, it must be made for YOU, not others, or it would NOT be UPG. Therefore, if you believe that god will send you to hell for being gay, don't be gay, but if you wish to be part of civil society, don't stop other people, because if it were your job to stop OTHER people, you'd have more than UPG.

I think I see an important distinction here: I see your point, as I understand it, to be that imposition of one person's individual beliefs on another is incompatible with the ideals of civilized society; I would agree.  My point is that people in society will act contrary to this and try to impose their beliefs on others because they think it is their right or duty.

However, I took the point of the article to be that everyone could get along if we only use our religious beliefs to inform our own actions, and stay out of the lives of others, which I disagree with, because a significant number of people have beliefs that are incompatible with staying out of the lives of others.

So... I that that saying "if people could only not impose their beliefs on others, the world would be a better place" (as I think the author is doing), while true, is akin to the old line "if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'."  It's fine as an ideal, but likely impossible to put into practice.

I agree with what you've said, but I think you're speaking to what should be... I was trying to speak to what could be, based on how people have behaved in the past.

[Sibling Chatty]

The Christian of faith, if following the teachings of the Bible, has a duty to tell, AND a duty to say "OK, i've told you, and you're in charge of your life. I planted the seed. You decide if it grows." At that point, the believer is to back away from trying to change the other person. Nowhere does the Bible say to hound others until they 'believe' out of a desire to be left alone.

And a Christian really isn't 'charged' with judging the state of another person's soul either, but is warned to NOT do it.

Certain faiths are more doctrinaire about it, certainly, but there's a popular school of thought about prevenient grace.

From a Glossary of Biblical Theology:
The grace that goes before salvation. It is the grace of God conferred upon all mankind to enable them the freedom to choose between right and wrong in spite of their total depravity. This suggests that not all grace is saving grace, but some grace is preventative and precedes and prepares each individual for the offer of saving grace. Because this grace enables us to decide between alternatives, it makes God just in condemning the unrepentant because they were given the ability to do otherwise. Also, because this grace is conferred upon us, it makes God the Initiator in salvation, thus eliminating the possibility of human merit for salvation. (See also http://www.eternalsecurity.us/prevenient_grace.htm )

The same grace that informs the 'preparation' for the presentation of the gospel also infers upon God the responsibility for the "loss" of that soul to Eternal Salvation. (If God had REALLY meant for the guy to be a Christian, he'd have made it so that it was automatic, like  perceiving light or hearing sound waves...remember thas some people are born blind or deaf.)

Some zealots never recognize that NO is a choice. That inability to accept the rights of others doesn't relieve them of the obligation to humanity to behave in a decent manner

[Opsa]

Great discussion, here.

Just for a lark I looked up the word "Gnosticism" in my deskside Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, and here's the definition it provides:

"Gnosticism: A philosophicoreligious movement of pre-Christian times and later, having several forms, Pagan and Christian, all of which were characterized by the central doctrine that emancipation came through knowledge, gnosis, the possesion of which saved the initiates from the clutch of matter."

Pretty interesting. By this definition it might be inferred that how the knowledge is delivered is not as important as the fact that it is possesed.

[Bluenose]

I agree with Ops that this is an interesting discussion.

My slant on this is that I do not believe in anything absolutely.  As I said in another post hereabouts somewhere, with the sole exception of some branches of mathematics, I do not believe that you can truly know anything.  There is always doubt and it worries me when people claim perfect knowledge of something or other.

Consequently I do not try to "convert" others to my way of thinking, although I am happy to discuss my ideas with a willing participant.  Whether or not they change their mind is of course up to them, but I do not like proselytising of any flavour.


With regards to the carbon monoxide example, I am not sure what I would do.  If the person was an adult, of apparently normal mental ability, I would certainly try to convince them to move by giving them the information that I had that they apparently do not.  However, I do not think I would forcibly move them against their wishes.  With a child or a person of diminished mental capability I think I would take matters into my own hands, but I would not be happy about it.

Bluenose