"I got ramblin' on my mind"

Marcia527 said:

answers
I've written three comments and deleted them all. Maybe because I really don't know what to say. How do I explain why I believe? I have to think about it some more.

soccerfreaks said:

good question
That is a good question, ms.sunshine. I suppose, in light of my understanding that religious belief is irrational (and by that I do not mean crazy, but rather, outside of the realm of the rational, outside of the realm of that which can be proven via scientific method or mathematical construct, for example), it would therefore have to be from some irrational source (some divine source, you might say), from something not now comprehensible to me.

I find Marcia's and RE's responses revealing and thoughtful for this very reason: whatever it is that provides their belief, their faith, it seems it is not something easily explainable in rational terms.

I have said in the past and say again: this does not mean that belief is wrong, not by any stretch. As I tried to indicate in the original post, I believe that true believers DO have that 'irrational' leg to stand on: not all is known, not all is comprehensible. I accept that.

But all I have today is what I know, what I comprehend. What is unknown, what is mystery, I have not been given the power to understand or to know.

Take care,

Joe

soccerfreaks said:

"Stairway to Heaven"
(Led Zeppelin reference, and I agree, Lucy, while it is considered rather trite among musicians these days, it is an awesome tune and always will be)

I understand, I think completely, Lucy. I am, of course, first and foremost, sorry for your loss. Secondarily, I am happy that you have your faith to rely upon, and I mean that with absolute conviction. What some people don't seem to get about me is that I am not anti-faith, anti-religion. I respect faith, I envy belief. I am opposed to having it jammed down my throat; I am opposed to having people who clearly have given little thought to what they purportedly believe in trying to tell me what is right and wrong; I resent when people try to quote the bible with obviously little knowledge of the books or their history or even what is really in them nor even with respect for the context within which their quotes were originally framed; but I have nothing but respect and even envy for those who are of true faith.

Yours is a most cogent argument for faith, Lucy, but also, to be honest, and I think I sense in you the willingness to listen, the very threads of that which I find most disconcerting about faith.

You certainly do not care to know this, but I will tell you anyway, and let you be the first in these boards to know some or most of this: I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Both of my parents attended catholic schools for the duration of their educations and insisted that their children, while not attending private schools, do the catechism thing, do the rites. I was the oldest of six and took this stuff seriously. At the age of 13 I was given the option of attending mass or not, and I chose not to do so. Still, as odd as it sounds, my intent at that time was to perhaps become a priest (or a jet fighter pilot, I must admit).

At the age of 16, I spent virtually an entire summer in the local library studying various religions. More accurately, I borrowed books, I brought them home, I read them, I took notes. I compared them.

I discovered some common themes, some good, some not so good, and was especially dismayed by the not-so-good. It struck me then, as it does now, that religions (organized religions both eastern and western) prey upon those in need. Contradictorally but equally true, they serve as corporate ladders for those aspiring to wealth and power. They ARE wealth and power. I realized that, as has been dragged out here time and again and I am almost ashamed to repeat, they are responsible for more death and destruction over the ages than any disease, any conquering Hun, continuing unto this very day. They mold the culture of their times, the art, the music, the history, and all that is ever left is what they decide can be left.

I theorized Lucy, over time, that religions were created to perform the above functions and also, perhaps most importantly especially in their gestational periods, to offer man reason for existence, reason for conformity, reason for community, reason for morality and ethics (good things, in the main). Reasons nonetheless, that had nothing to do with the actual existence of a higher power.

Religion explained solstices and eclipses and falling stars and rainbows; religion gave reason to kindness and also to vengeance; religion offered hope beyond our current existence. What's not to buy into?

Ultimately, Lucy, and you are bored by now, I am sure, I decided that religion bought us out of our Aloneness. This is the big one. I have since learned that this is really not original to me (:)). Seriously, though, I derived it on my own, not knowing of the purportedly great philosophers who had said the same thing in different terms. Religion allowed and allows us not to be Alone. Alone with a capital A. Man, Alone, would not have survived the evolutionary process, I do not believe. Man needs Man. And Man needs God.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, and I am most certainly not, Mankind, for the most part, is not wired to be Alone. Some of us accept it because we have science or math or orneriness or courage or some combination of these in our genes (perhaps it is stupidity or inability to comprehend and perhaps it is us who are next to leave the evolving tree?). It is a frightful place, at least for me, Lucy. It is a scary place to be, to be Alone.

But, for me, it is a place of integrity. I am not making anything up, I am not selling anything, although I could probably be a very good televangilist. It is a place of personal honesty. It is Sartre's existential angst and Camus' despair, to be sure, but it is honest to me.

Sorry for that Lucy.

That is where I am coming from.

To your points: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. As you might gather from the above, I do at least try to empower myself with knowledge, and I do not rely on anything less than fact if I can help myself.

Your second paragraph, Lucy, is a painful one for you to write, I am sure, and painful for me to read. Control is essential for some of us, you and I both, it appears. I have had to realize loss of control on a number of occasions, the first when I was still a very naive and headstrong 26 year old dad. My second daughter was lost, full term, in the hospital awaiting delivery, to a pinched umbilical cord. Doubt if that would happen today, and if it did, I would probably be a millionaire. Then, we were grieving parents, and I first learned that I was not in control of everything. I know what you are saying.

To your third point, there is nothing I can say but to applaud you for the recognition and acceptance. At the time I describe previously, I was not yet mature enough to be so accepting of that. At the time of my daughter's death, we were moving, Lucy. All that was left in the apartment was an abandoned kitchen chair of the 1950s variety. I placed it in the middle of the living room of our apartment and drank. And wept. And for the first time in more than 10 years talked to God. It was not a good conversation. It was one-sided, to be sure. However, this is not why I am agnostic. I was agnostic before that and I was agnostic the next day. That night was my last night of faith, you might say. I am not sure that is so. I had to rant at something or someone, as you might imagine. I might just as easily have screamed at Odin, but I wasn't raised that way, you know?

With respect to your next several sentences about the journey and your belief, I can do nothing less, again, than to envy you that firm belief. I shrug as I write this, but it is so: I do not have it. Some of my 'religious' friends seem to find something in me that tells them I will find it, but I am not so sure. I am rather empirical in my ways, I am rather hard-headed as well. But I am heartened by their hope, I am.

Your last paragraph is perhaps your best, Lucy, although, again, I applaud your first. In your last, you acknowledge as I do that there are mysteries that you have no answers for. You, you choose to have faith. Me, I choose to wait, I wait to KNOW.

I truly enjoyed your response, Lucy. I am hopeful that your faith carries you forward with some happiness. I am certain it is hard to lose the love of your life. I am certain that the uncertainty of moving on is difficult to deal with in real terms, in day-to-day terms. I am equally certain, based on your correspondence, that your faith will carry the day.

Consider me, Lucy, not an enemy or an antagonist, but someone who simply isn't where you are. I rely on rationality and the empirical and will until otherwise directed by that irrational force that compels you otherwise.

Take care,

Joe

soccerfreaks said:

"Stairway to Heaven"
(Led Zeppelin reference, and I agree, Lucy, while it is considered rather trite among musicians these days, it is an awesome tune and always will be)

I understand, I think completely, Lucy. I am, of course, first and foremost, sorry for your loss. Secondarily, I am happy that you have your faith to rely upon, and I mean that with absolute conviction. What some people don't seem to get about me is that I am not anti-faith, anti-religion. I respect faith, I envy belief. I am opposed to having it jammed down my throat; I am opposed to having people who clearly have given little thought to what they purportedly believe in trying to tell me what is right and wrong; I resent when people try to quote the bible with obviously little knowledge of the books or their history or even what is really in them nor even with respect for the context within which their quotes were originally framed; but I have nothing but respect and even envy for those who are of true faith.

Yours is a most cogent argument for faith, Lucy, but also, to be honest, and I think I sense in you the willingness to listen, the very threads of that which I find most disconcerting about faith.

You certainly do not care to know this, but I will tell you anyway, and let you be the first in these boards to know some or most of this: I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. Both of my parents attended catholic schools for the duration of their educations and insisted that their children, while not attending private schools, do the catechism thing, do the rites. I was the oldest of six and took this stuff seriously. At the age of 13 I was given the option of attending mass or not, and I chose not to do so. Still, as odd as it sounds, my intent at that time was to perhaps become a priest (or a jet fighter pilot, I must admit).

At the age of 16, I spent virtually an entire summer in the local library studying various religions. More accurately, I borrowed books, I brought them home, I read them, I took notes. I compared them.

I discovered some common themes, some good, some not so good, and was especially dismayed by the not-so-good. It struck me then, as it does now, that religions (organized religions both eastern and western) prey upon those in need. Contradictorally but equally true, they serve as corporate ladders for those aspiring to wealth and power. They ARE wealth and power. I realized that, as has been dragged out here time and again and I am almost ashamed to repeat, they are responsible for more death and destruction over the ages than any disease, any conquering Hun, continuing unto this very day. They mold the culture of their times, the art, the music, the history, and all that is ever left is what they decide can be left.

I theorized Lucy, over time, that religions were created to perform the above functions and also, perhaps most importantly especially in their gestational periods, to offer man reason for existence, reason for conformity, reason for community, reason for morality and ethics (good things, in the main). Reasons nonetheless, that had nothing to do with the actual existence of a higher power.

Religion explained solstices and eclipses and falling stars and rainbows; religion gave reason to kindness and also to vengeance; religion offered hope beyond our current existence. What's not to buy into?

Ultimately, Lucy, and you are bored by now, I am sure, I decided that religion bought us out of our Aloneness. This is the big one. I have since learned that this is really not original to me (:)). Seriously, though, I derived it on my own, not knowing of the purportedly great philosophers who had said the same thing in different terms. Religion allowed and allows us not to be Alone. Alone with a capital A. Man, Alone, would not have survived the evolutionary process, I do not believe. Man needs Man. And Man needs God.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, and I am most certainly not, Mankind, for the most part, is not wired to be Alone. Some of us accept it because we have science or math or orneriness or courage or some combination of these in our genes (perhaps it is stupidity or inability to comprehend and perhaps it is us who are next to leave the evolving tree?). It is a frightful place, at least for me, Lucy. It is a scary place to be, to be Alone.

But, for me, it is a place of integrity. I am not making anything up, I am not selling anything, although I could probably be a very good televangilist. It is a place of personal honesty. It is Sartre's existential angst and Camus' despair, to be sure, but it is honest to me.

Sorry for that Lucy.

That is where I am coming from.

To your points: I agree 100% with your first paragraph. As you might gather from the above, I do at least try to empower myself with knowledge, and I do not rely on anything less than fact if I can help myself.

Your second paragraph, Lucy, is a painful one for you to write, I am sure, and painful for me to read. Control is essential for some of us, you and I both, it appears. I have had to realize loss of control on a number of occasions, the first when I was still a very naive and headstrong 26 year old dad. My second daughter was lost, full term, in the hospital awaiting delivery, to a pinched umbilical cord. Doubt if that would happen today, and if it did, I would probably be a millionaire. Then, we were grieving parents, and I first learned that I was not in control of everything. I know what you are saying.

To your third point, there is nothing I can say but to applaud you for the recognition and acceptance. At the time I describe previously, I was not yet mature enough to be so accepting of that. At the time of my daughter's death, we were moving, Lucy. All that was left in the apartment was an abandoned kitchen chair of the 1950s variety. I placed it in the middle of the living room of our apartment and drank. And wept. And for the first time in more than 10 years talked to God. It was not a good conversation. It was one-sided, to be sure. However, this is not why I am agnostic. I was agnostic before that and I was agnostic the next day. That night was my last night of faith, you might say. I am not sure that is so. I had to rant at something or someone, as you might imagine. I might just as easily have screamed at Odin, but I wasn't raised that way, you know?

With respect to your next several sentences about the journey and your belief, I can do nothing less, again, than to envy you that firm belief. I shrug as I write this, but it is so: I do not have it. Some of my 'religious' friends seem to find something in me that tells them I will find it, but I am not so sure. I am rather empirical in my ways, I am rather hard-headed as well. But I am heartened by their hope, I am.

Your last paragraph is perhaps your best, Lucy, although, again, I applaud your first. In your last, you acknowledge as I do that there are mysteries that you have no answers for. You, you choose to have faith. Me, I choose to wait, I wait to KNOW.

I truly enjoyed your response, Lucy. I am hopeful that your faith carries you forward with some happiness. I am certain it is hard to lose the love of your life. I am certain that the uncertainty of moving on is difficult to deal with in real terms, in day-to-day terms. I am equally certain, based on your correspondence, that your faith will carry the day.

Consider me, Lucy, not an enemy or an antagonist, but someone who simply isn't where you are. I rely on rationality and the empirical and will until otherwise directed by that irrational force that compels you otherwise.

Take care,

Joe

Tricia02 said:

Good point!

Good point Phil - the ones who wouldn't accept it would be catholics and the ones that would accept it would be protestants lol. That's according to UK rules!

There was an agnostic dyslexic insomniac that laid awake all night wondering if there was a dog!