Comments on: The Multiplicity of Faith

By: Gibbs Burke

Gibbs Burke — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:16:38 +0000

Name calling is not constructive from any point of view, and goes against the nature of the point being made in the piece.

By: t-rex

t-rex — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:45:43 +0000

WLB – so your cerebral? Hmmm.. is that code for pompous? Just wondering…

By: Gibbs Burke

Gibbs Burke — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 04:03:37 +0000

One must not blame “the tool” for the action.

An individuals implementation of the “tool” is what decides the morality.

So do not blame “the tool” for the wrong doing, but rather the individual.

By: whatliesbeneath

whatliesbeneath — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:36:05 +0000

I thought this was about multiplicity of perspectives, T-Rex. Because I gave a so called intellectual response, you feel the need to berate me. Why? Maybe that is how I process things. It doesn’t make me removed from reality because I process my own experience in a cerebral fashion. We communicate differently, isn’t that the point? Who shit in your cornflakes? Are you going chuck sand in my eyes next?

Gibbs, thank you for your response that gives me something to further consider. I understand what you’re saying and appreciate the message but the message leaned on morality found in religion/faith, just as you said “so much that is good about us is derived from faith and religiosity”. My meager hope is that we can also derive meaning in anything we choose if helps us grow, even if it’s not a higher being assisting us to get there. My “tools” from my experience (outside of faith, outside of religion) can contribute towards morality that is just as purposeful. But, I guess it comes down to how we define faith? What outcomes are we looking for when we have faith in something? When do we have faith in something?

By: Gibbs Burke

Gibbs Burke — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:08:19 +0000

I believe that an author’s duty to the reader does not stop at the end of the page, but rather should continue on into a discussion format. It is so hard to take the multitude of thoughts on a subject matter and condense them into a concise fully encapsulated argument. With that being said I would like to respond to whatliesbeneath’s post.

By my above quoted statement, I was not trying to argue that without religion people would lack morale compass. This was not meant to be if you’re not A then you must be B, when you very well could be C, D, or E. It was more of a reference to the fact there are many ideologies behind “Human Nature.” I could have very well have chosen to highlight Freudian thought in the belief that religion is meant to oppress our animalistic nature. Would you then argue that I thought that we need religion or we would all become animals?

It is interesting, as you brought up, that within a discussion of say a book or an album we as individuals can respect people’s thoughts and opinions. But if you were to bring up the same subject matter in the veil of a religious discussion, people would ignore other points of thought, and defend their stance to the death.

If we boil down religion to its core points it serves as a reminder of human character. The beliefs in hope, charity, sacrifice, etc… are points that every man of every belief can agree with. So while one might set an alarm as a reminder to do something, faith in many ways is that constant reminder.

I do not believe that one “needs” religion. I am simply adding it to the list of tools that are applicable in the creation of morality.

Thank you all for your responses, and I look forward to reading many more of your educated responses.

By: t-rex

t-rex — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:10:52 +0000

whatliesbeneath – wow you are so smart. You’ve enlightened all of us with your grand wisdom. Typical intellectual bullshit. You ignore the whole article and its overall message of coming together and mutual respect to focus on one line??? Then you launch a pretentious arrogant attack with some looooooong winded ready made philosophical counter. Sorry for the short post… very interesting comment.

By: whatliesbeneath

whatliesbeneath — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:52:53 +0000

“And for those of you who think we would eventually learn the moral essence of humanity within a secular vacuum free of religion”. So society needs religion to glean the moral essence of humanity because we are selfish creatures and will act delivshly without out..is that what you are saying? Are you saying further to this that religion helps people behave and without it we are just walking ids? I appreciate your candour and your thoughts on the media weighing in on the negative aspects of religion but religion is just another thing we like to fight about and just another thing that co-exists with other things like political affiliation, sexual orientation. Religion is just another competing norm or interest and vesting that much of yourself and that much of ones moral development into sublime assurance, is scary to me. However, it’s good if it helps just like a good album or book which also can steer your morality. In your article, you never mentioned common sense, strength in character, learning from mistakes, learning from others, intelligence including emotional intelligence and genetics. All of this also acts as a moral compass. Religion is not necessary to point in the black or the white direction. I think your argument completely ignores those that choose to or simply did not have religious or faith based upbringing but developed all the moral canvassing you described including what is “good”. Is there room for survival without religion at all? Is religion so paramount that those who reject it, surrender their right to exist, or am I too being fanatical?

I prefer Nietzsche’s characterization as the majority of humanity as “weak” and “sick” because they lack the power to direct their aggressive instincts outward. I think religion or faith can (not always..it can be a beautiful thing) reward us for being content with weakness in choosing to not move beyond or grow strong just as Nietzsche argued.

Sorry for the long post…very interesting article.

By: Midnight_Rambler67

Midnight_Rambler67 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:08:42 +0000

Within the American political Arena there seems to be two extremes in terms of religion. I have seen Conservative Christian fundamentalism grow here, just as Liberal Agnosticism and Atheism. We grow wider apart by the minute, and more medium ground is needed, more of what you are calling for here.

By: the Queen

the Queen — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:02:50 +0000

I couldn’t agree with your the message within your post more and it is entirely possible despite what Mr. Dark and Gloomy says above. We are more the same than we are different. Its only in the details, details, if we take the time to learn them, that will seem so much less important.

By: just_plain_old_ and_ordinary

just_plain_old_ and_ordinary — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:01:45 +0000

In a perfect world we could all stop and talk to each other, respect how each of us has chosen to find security and happiness in our lives, and empathize with each other like brothers and sisters. The only problem is that this isn’t a perfect world and it never will be be. Holding hands and singing kumbaya is just never gonna happen. Its not in our nature to do so.