Religion and Individualism

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Interesting points, Rex - I guess it's a matter of definition. What do they mean by "spiritual"? and if they don't believe in any gods, why would they object to being called atheist? They could qualify it by saying "spiritual atheist", but by "spiritual", do they generally mean they believe in "spirits" but not gods, or just that they are rather non-materialistic?

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I don't know. What do they mean by "spiritual"? That there is some force underlying and unifying the Universe in a way not observable to science? That we can relate to this force in ways outside our senses and reason?

They vehemently disagree with being labelled as atheist almost as much as they dislike being labelled as loony tunes which generally is the only other alternative for them in our narrowly focused society. And please realize these folks are coming from radically different spiritual paths from each other let alone from dominant society. Some believe there is an inherent spirituality in nature and its not derived from a single all powerful source so all of their focus is on nature itself and not on some need for there to be a creator (which remains irrelevant in their point of view). Some worship their ancestors but not as deities or gods but as spirits capable of helping them in the living world. For them there is "another side" but not a heaven or a place where god sits with the dead. Its just the living and the dead. Others believe as GrayMouser pointed out that there is an immaterial fabric connecting all aspects of the universe that we can tap into on a spiritual level. There are other nuances and variations in addition to these but surely you can see how a term like atheist would not work with these folks who often times are MUCH more spiritual in their thinking and behavior than many people who call themselves christian or jewish or muslim.

[BeardofPants]

I consider myself an atheist and a skeptic. I'm probably edging towards PZ Myer territory on that scale. Probably a 7.

[Tessar]

I am somewhat in disbelief that you guys are arguing about whether a positive non-belief is different from a non-belief. Does it really make a difference in the scope of the argument? In my opinion whether you say, "I don't believe in God," or "I believe there is no God," you mean the exact same thing... people who aren't sure can either believe they're not sure, or not-believe in their ability to be sure.

[brownjenkins]

What about 8... just doesn't have time for god.

I've always enjoyed the philosophies of the various religions of the world, but day to day it simply isn't relevant.

I think there needs to be a new category for people of this age. One has to remember that pre-1950, give or take, the idea of being atheist or agnostic or anything else was simple the realm of philosophers and intellectuals. All the common peoples of the world were religious in one way or another because that was how you got by. They didn't have the free time, or the education, to muse about what religion they may, or may not, believe in. They simply took what their parents and culture handed to them, as much of the third world still does today.

My parents grew up pure Catholic, born in the 1940s... their families were, their friends were, they went to Catholic schools and Catholic colleges. When they got older, they became disillusioned by the structure and politics of the Catholic church, so they decided to leave it when I was just a child. That said, they never gave up their belief in a god, they simply didn't think that any religion organized by people could get it right.

That was the belief system I was brought up in. Strong morality, without all that much emphasis on its source, just its practice. I don't muse about whether there is or isn't a god (outside the 'moot ), because it simply doesn't matter. It's a fun intellectual discussion, but it has no relevance to my life. For good or bad, I am who I am without any reverence to a greater being.

Religion is a cultural inheritance, much like the meals you cook and the languages that you speak.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion is a cultural inheritance, much like the meals you cook and the languages that you speak.

As a convert from one religion to another, I am in a position to credibly say, "That's bull****." True for many people, but to make a generality of it is contrary to the experience of quite a few people.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As a convert from one religion to another, I am in a position to credibly say, "That's bull****." True for many people, but to make a generality of it is contrary to the experience of quite a few people.

The need for religion, to put it more clearly.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The need for religion, to put it more clearly.

Ah. That is more plausibe, but still problematic, since some people raised in religious households have no real connection with religion, and people raised in secular households sometimes do.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ah. That is more plausibe, but still problematic, since some people raised in religious households have no real connection with religion, and people raised in secular households sometimes do.

I'd side with Grey on that... 95%, or something near that, follow the trend. The fact that some trend elsewhere can simply be chalked up to individual experience. If your neighbor happens to be an incredibly talented violinist, the possibility that you might take up the violin, or at least some musical instrument, would be vastly increased over the general population that may not have a virtuouso in the neighborhood.

But the occasional exeception does not prove the rule, it simply enforces it. Religion is a cultural inheritance that is occasionally picked up, or dropped, by those outside a give culture.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As a convert from one religion to another, I am in a position to credibly say, "That's bull****." True for many people, but to make a generality of it is contrary to the experience of quite a few people.

True in the US, (and probably Canada), much less so elsewhere.

44% in America, according to Pew surveys, though that includes changes in Protestant denomination at 15% and Catholic to Protestant at 5% (Prod to Catholic is so small it gets lumped in with "others"), which wiki dismisses as mere "reaffiliation".

11% is from affiliated Catholic/Protestant to "unaffiliated", which may include many people who regard themselves still as Christian.

Overall, about 95% of people worldwide never change their religion- the overwhelming reason most people are Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc is that their parents were and they live surrounded by others of the same religion.

That's why on those knowledge polls atheists/agnostics do better- they're people who've actually thought about religious beliefs instead of just following family tradition.

[The Gaffer]

GM, surely you're not saying it's actually the "Gullible Gene"??

[brownjenkins]

For most nonbelivers, I think it's mostly that belief or nonbelief isn't an important part of their lives. Strong belivers tend to have grown up in a culture that nurtures, and even requires, common belief. It's only those that grow up in more mixed cultures that delve into the philosophical choices of religion.

[Nerdanel]

*bump* and some fun news from austria!

Austrian driver's religious headgear strains credulity:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

[GrayMouser]

May the FSM bless this true believer with a touch of His Noodly Appendage

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

May the FSM bless this true believer with a touch of His Noodly Appendage

Ramen.

[Insidious Rex]

Dear Catholics,

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it? Honestly... Enough with the Hitler and Nazi comparisons...

[inked]

Rick is free to run.

Just be glad that Nancy Pelosi and Kathy Sabelius aren't running. They have Obama to front for them. Then again, Sabelius is making her interpretation of what was written "law" and she's appointed not elected.

So, your point was........

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Dear Catholics,

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it? Honestly... Enough with the Hitler and Nazi comparisons...

There really is no such thing as "the Catholic community" when it comes to politics. Catholic opinions on birth control, abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, war etc. are basically identical to other Americans in their same ethnic/economic category.

"Stop Talking About the ‘Catholic Vote’! It Doesn’t Exist"
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-perma...c-constituency

[Willow Oran]

Is Rick Santorum seen as anything other than a frightening joke as a presidential candidate within the Catholic community as he is by most people outside of it?

Very likely to depend on which Catholic community you talk to.

I can tell you that among the practicing/lapsed Catholics in my immediate area: having grown up trying to feed families of 9+ people on a can of spam makes birth control pretty popular, one of the few good priests I know is gay, and the Church has yet to rebuild its credibility in wake of all the child molestation scandals.

American Catholics right now have some very good reasons to be skeptical of anything the Bishops are supporting, including Santorum's style of conservatism. That said, there are also suburban Catholic mega churches whose parishioners are likely to trend more conservative republican and more likely to see Santorum as a candidate they agree with on moral values.

[GrayMouser]

Yea, these are the people I'd rely on as moral authorities...

Feb 25, 2012:

Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua ordered aides to shred a 1994 memo that identified 35 Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a new court filing.

The order, outlined in a handwritten note locked away for years at the archdiocese's Center City offices, was disclosed Friday by lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn, the former church administrator facing trial next month.

They say the shredding directive proves what Lynn has long claimed: that a church conspiracy to conceal clergy sex abuse was orchestrated at levels far above him
.......
Bevilacqua discussed the memo in a March 15, 1994, meeting with Molloy and Bishop Edward P. Cullen, then the cardinal's top aide, the filing says. After the meeting, Bevilacqua allegedly ordered Molloy to shred the memo.

One week later, Molloy allegedly destroyed four copies, with the Rev. Joseph Cistone as a witness. "This action was taken on the basis of a directive I received from Cardinal Bevilacqua," say Molloy's handwritten notes.


According to the motion, that safe remained untouched and unnoticed until 2006, when archdiocesan officials found it and hired a locksmith to open it. It's unclear why the records inside were only recently turned over to Lynn's lawyers and prosecutors, although church lawyers have said they have been reviewing thousands of files to comply with trial subpoenas.

Bevilacqua had cited the 35 priests before. In February 2002 - as the abuse scandal was roiling Catholics across the country - he said the archdiocese had turned over information on 35 suspected abusive priests to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. He did not mention any memo from eight years earlier or his order to shred it.

During 10 appearances before a grand jury in 2003 and 2004, Bevilacqua denied knowing details or playing a significant role in the handling of sex-abuse complaints, saying he delegated those duties to Lynn.
"I saw no evidence at any time that we did any cover-up," he testified.


Prosecutors have not disputed that a conspiracy to protect abusive priests stretched beyond Lynn. Last month, one assistant district attorney called the archdiocese "an unindicted coconspirator" in the case.

Lynn's lawyers argue that Bevilacqua's testimony may have been perjury and that it colors the current case. "Had this recent grand jury been aware of the cardinal's successful efforts in 'deep-sixing' a significant document prepared by Msgr. Lynn, its view of him as a potential defendant may have been entirely different," they wrote. "It is clear . . . that Msgr. Lynn has been 'hung out to dry.' "

Lynn's lawyers also contend that Cistone, now the bishop of Saginaw, Mich., and Cullen, the retired bishop of Allentown, misled the grand jury by not acknowledging the memo or the cardinal's order to shred it. Neither responded Friday to messages left at their dioceses.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...d_abusers.html

Apparently lying to a grand jury about covering up child rape qualifies you to lecture other people about their sex lives.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Willow has the right of it. I do know some extreme conservative Catholics who support Santorum. The slightly-less-extreme conservative ones tend to favour Newt. And, of course, you get the ones who support Paul, either because they agree with his basic libertarian bent (which is obviously out of keeping with most Catholic ways of thinking), or because he seems to them to be the only one running who may, in fact, be human. More credible, but the Canada Party still sums up my view of Ron Paul pretty well.

Wow, GM, I hadn't heard that. With Rigali, too, Philadelphia seems to be doing particularly poorly in this department.