unattributed quotes (Christianity)

Updated to sync with submit on August 15, 2007 - 6:13pm.

Subtitle: it matters not who or where - but what...

eigentlich isses mir ja scheiß egal, aber...

egal wo, wer, aber was.

-=*=-

Preamble:

« ... contribute something useful to a discussion on religion? You can't mate ... if you attack religious views [then] you just reinforce them. It's nuts I know, but it's true.»

Declaration: I do not wish to attack religious views, aka beliefs[0] per se. What the sheople® believe or not is a matter entirely up to them; my chosen blogging 'weapons' are observation, logic and rational thought. (I declared my own toadal® absence of belief in my 'one may lead an 'orse to wardah®....') Spurning the unreal, I propose to examine the real world.

Observations are made on real-life objects, the idea is to determine the fakts[1].

Logic is used to combine observations to reach conclusions; i.e. IF [some predicate(s)] THEN [some deduction]. Those wishing to further research this topic could try First-order logic, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory and Propositional calculus, say. This approach has a history; here's another Harvey[3].

Rational[4] thought is chosen over irrational; it should be quite obvious why. Included in rational, I will attempt to avoid fallacy[5].

-=*=-

Having set out to examine the real world, I have to specify what that is - and what it's not. For me personally, it's everything I can sense; see, smell, touch etc. There are also things 'invisible' to my senses, i.e. ionising radiation, or the deduced quarks, say. Quarks are a good example; I say 'deduced' because it is thought that it's impossible to observe an isolated quark, but the (scientific) evidence for their existence is strong. So I allow my universe to be expanded to include the scientifically observable. Note that science doesn't claim to actually prove anything, merely to reduce the probability that some theory or other is false to an irreducible minimum. Here I like to cite the 'conservation' laws; that nothing (matter, energy etc) can either be created or destroyed, a corollary being that no information can be communicated without the exchange of something real. This precludes - on both the scientific level and by definition - any communication with the supernatural.

The supernatural[6], on the other hand if such a thing were to somehow exist, is by definition not observable by any (known, verifiable) means, it is 'outside' our universe, and cannot communicate with us - 'us' here meaning science. Once one leaves the 'real world,' all things are possible (it's a lot!) - including any 'tricks' necessary to some religions, here exemplified by Christianity, namely an immaterial soul capable of eternal 'life,' say. (This 'life' being after conventional life, aka after death.) Another benefit of this soul, is that since it's also apart from the real world, it may be able to communicate with some g*d construct. That still doesn't explain how any 'g*d-info' might get into our minds, these minds being brain-based, i.e. part of the real world, as they seem to be. (The next obvious step may be to say that minds are not part of the real world either, but that might be tending to reductio ad absurdum[endnote].) That's my understanding of Christianity so far as it goes, but exactly since it's outside'a my 'real-world' realm, I can't say 'yes' or 'no' to any of it; I just have to say - nothing. Or, perhaps: hmmm.

Returning then, to the 'here and now,' what we do have is people with faith - they tell us so, and we have to accept that. We - actually, they - have something real to them; their belief, also called faith. And it is claimed that this faith has real benefits, here in the real world. Can this claim be tested?

Unattributed quote:

«Asking the armed men to come and listen to them they told these men that they did not hate them and that they were not afraid to die and that they forgave them for the terrible act that they would be committing. In amazement, the militia men asked why they would do such a thing only to be told that the promise of an eternal life and the selfless example of Jesus was enough for them. Their captors released them, threw away their weapons and joined them.»

Comment: Nice story. The principle works - if the story is true.

Immediate 'but:' Given that Christianity has now been running for 2000 years or so, why hasn't it become ubiquitous - and effective? How long before it does? (If ever. Waiting...)

More unattributed:

«If this is an act of gullibility then we are all better off for it. The gullibility involved in living a Christian life is far better than any other alternative lifestyle. It is better for the world. It is better for your neighbours. It is better for all those involved.»

Me: IMHO, it may only appear better for believers because they are essentially 'locked in,' as such they a) have no way out and b) have to conjure a positive for their own survival (recall my yesterday's "hag-ridden, death(g*d) fearing life. Once in, the death-agenda-monkey ...") It may well be nice for neighbours, but there just aren't enough of 'em (proper Christians), and as an influence on govt., business or society as a whole it's either -ve, null or ineffective.

More particularly; if GWBush claims to be a Christian, why then did we get "Shock'n whore®?"

Or why doesn't Israel throw down its nukes, and join the Hillsong 'happy-clappers?'

Blair is reputedly going so strong on the "I believe!" thingo now, that he's considering converting to Roman Catholicism.

Here (in our allegedly secular, once beautiful wide-brown), Howard is 'at pains' to specifically remind us "... according to the Judao/Christian ethic which is meant to govern conduct in this country" - and so on.

Given that Aus (by Howard&Co's decree; i.e. not in my name) is involved in invasive war and/or brutal occupation in the ME (possibly now a million Iraqis pink-mist murdered since '03), whatever these 'Judao/Christian ethics' are that he speaks of, they are clearly not those which caused the armed thugs in the prior quote to abandon their weapons, i.e. renounce all crime and 'come to Jesus.'

I'm quite prepared (yeah. Big of me,) to allow:

a) That genuine belief/faith may help those who possess it to enjoy life more than they otherwise might (but I express reservation), and that belief/faith may have positive effects. For example, some people say "Wha'da 'bout Mother Therese?" One may cite MT as proof that religion is not all bad; believers will take the stand that religion is on balance mostly, if not all good. (But then they'd have to say that, wouldn't they?)

b) That the confession of faith made by B, B & H and their ilk isn't to the 'real' Christianity.

However, having made those concessions, we have to then ask: what (bloody-hell) good could any'o this faith stuff ever do, given that the world is going ever further down the tubes? (Lies, cheating, greed in all its ugly forms then theft, murder & wars, pestilence; the greedastrophe®...)

I have proposed the chezPhil morality in which the basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder. The whole thing has nothing to do with any g*d construct, but is driven only by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered, therefore I agree not to murder some other); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"

Conclusion: forget any and all'a this g*d stuff. Over 2000 years, and no visible improvement. Go for reflexive altruism.

No more lies.

No more cheating.

No more theft.

No more murder.

NO MORE WAR!

-=*end*=-

Endnote: If one thinks about it (I do), my supposed (putative!) progression g*d -> soul -> mind as all belonging to the supernatural may well be a requirement for the 'life after death' thesis. IF one were to experience transcendence THEN some part of oneself must 'endure' beyond death, and it'd only make sense if that part was or included 'the essential self,' i.e. one's' mind, aka consciousness. Yes? But consciousness can easily be seen to be a part of the real world. Experiencing music, for example, depends on sound signals being received, processed then appreciated (or if (C)rap then perhaps not) - by the conscious mind. Then, MRI scans can 'see' extra blood-flow whilst thinking; different locations for different types of mental effort. See? Mind clearly based on matter. But for transcendence, mind not based on matter. Yet another paradox. Perhaps far worse, MRI scans reveal extra blood-flow whilst recalling memories...

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[0] belief n. 1 firm opinion; acceptance (that is my belief). 2 religious conviction (belief in the afterlife; has no belief). 3 (usu. foll. by in) trust or confidence. [related to *believe] [POD]

[1] Fakts: Born in a freezing Polish winter in 1922, Harvek Milos Krumpetski is a man destined for ... From the “fakts” that Harvie’s mother teaches him to gather...

Harvie's “fakts” are items in the real world, verified by his own observations. Harvie could be my analogue in this respect.

More: Harvie's greatest contribution (IMHO), is "Carpe diem!"[2]

[2] carpe diem exclamation used to urge someone to make the most of the present time and give little thought to the future.
ORIGIN Latin, seize the day!, a quotation from Horace (Odes i.xi). [Oxford Pop-up]

[3] From Methodology before Harvey:

«Though Aristotle used his mind to reason about the world, his reasoning did not lack realworld observations. He did not put himself in a dark room, disconnect his senses from the world, and then ponder about logic. Certainly he did think about logic as abstracted from the wider world (e.g. syllogisms), but that was not the totality of his studies. The observations he used can be called experiences; they are what every person living at the time might agree to be true.»

[4] rational adj. 1 of or based on reason. 2 sensible. 3 endowed with reason. 4 rejecting what is unreasonable or cannot be tested by reason in religion or custom. [POD]

[5] fallacy n. (pl. -ies) 1 mistaken belief. 2 faulty reasoning; misleading argument.  fallacious adj. [Latin fallo deceive] [ibid.]

[6] supernatural —adj. not attributable to, or explicable by, the laws of nature; magical; mystical. —n. (prec. by the) supernatural forces, effects, etc.  supernaturally adv. [ibid.]

[7] transcendent adj. 1 excelling, surpassing. 2 transcending human experience. 3 (esp. of God) existing apart from, not subject to the limitations of, the material universe.  transcendence n. transcendency n. [ibid.]