Free Faithometer Readings!
I remember it vividly. I was standing on the edge of my toilet hanging a clock, the porcelain was wet, I slipped, hit my head on the edge of the sink. And when I came to, I had a revelation, a picture, a picture in my head, a picture of this! No, it's not the Flux Capacitor...but I have no doubt that Marty would describe it as equally heavy-duty...I call it the Hewitt Faithometer!
Before we go any further I'll need to ask you three questions. They're sensitive yes, but you aren't obligated to respond in writing or to answer out loud. However, in order for the Faithometer to function properly you must answer every one, definitively in your head with a YES or NO answer. Promise? O.K. you may proceed...1. Do you think that organized religion is a net positive force in the world?
2. Do you regularly attend and participate in religious services?
3A. Do you believe in a God (a conscious creator)? If YES then:
3B. Do you believe in a 'personal' God? (meaning one that takes an interest and intervenes in our daily lives, answers prayers, cares about sin, does miracles etc.)
3C. Do you believe that the Bible (or any other Holy Book) is the literal word of God or historically accurate?
It stuck me the other day that a one-dimensional spectrum of 'religiosity' is as flawed and polarizing as our one-dimensional spectrum of political affiliation. How could we better classify people to reflect reality? Your first question might be: Why bother?
Well, it seems to me that a great deal of the knee-jerk resistance to ideas like teaching evolution in public schools or funding Stem Cell Research is not actually coming from hardcore members of the Religious Right, but from people who feel a vague loyalty towards the church=good team (as opposed to the church=bad team). We can hardly begin a real debate on these issues until we separate people's belief in God from their support of organized religion or the political agenda of the Religious Right.
The questions above serve to give some deeper insight into the variety of religious opinion by addressing the three major religious issues separately: a private belief in God, belief in the positive impact of organized religion and active participation. Put your mouse on the image to see where each of these are represented in the Faithometer.
Now, take your mouse off, and look at the colorful, bottom Venn diagram. Each one of these colored regions, describes a specific classification of believer based on the overlay of the preceding diagrams. It seems to me that 8 major types exist. Some of the terms used here are already in common use, others I just made up. (NOTE: the diagram is not at all intended to reflect proportions just relationships.)
The ones that most concern me are what I've labeled the Traditionalist, the Conformist and the Deists. In the first case, these are people who don't necessarily believe in church doctrine or even God, but believe that the church provides a good moral compass for society. The second may harbor anti-church sentiment, but due to family or social pressure, go along with organized religion. The third case are people whose believe in a creator who started the ball rolling, but hasn't since intervened. These Deists don't care for organized religions or their Holy Books (Most of our countries fore-fathers were actually vocal Deists, including Franklin, Washington and Jefferson).
What's the point, Bob?Well, it is these three classes of people who will ultimately determine the course of public policy in the faith-related arena. They're the Holy swing vote. You may very well be one of them. If you are, please do not take this responsibility lightly. I strongly recommend the one-sitting read: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris for starters (and when you're finished, why not feed your shelf).
To you Atheists, Anti-theists and Agnostics: you'll make little progress assaulting people's personal belief in a higher being. However, if you can demonstrate that we in fact do not derive our morality from our religious texts (jam-packed with draconian stuff like slavery and stoning), that man's conscience transcends (and precedes) organized religion and that religion has been the greatest tool for exploiting and pacifying the masses, then you have a chance of moving the nation's policy in the direction of reason and tolerance. Godspeed!
By Robert - 3/21/2007
59 Comments:
OK Robert - they will be presently recalling you membership in Opis Dei
(just kidding)
Well, I may have had the most religious education of all your readers- but according to this Faithometer I am a agnostic/deist/alcoholic/tolerant/intolerant/ skeptic
Maybe....I could move to Colorado City, AZ...take three young wives and blissfully fit right in.
OH- a DRY town????....forget that
Olim habeas eorum pecuniam, numquam eam reddis: prima regula quaesitus
Sounds smart, I guess. Babble, pure athiest babble. Makes as much sense as Al Gore talking about "the world having a fever" in front of Congress. Hey, at least Sam Harris sold a couple books and Al Gore won an Oscar.
Atheist Babble?
Bob writes the most insightful political commentary I've read anywhere.
If you want run-of-the-mill politically bitching, just skip his posts, and avoid the comment section.
I assume you accuse this "babble" of being "athiest babble" because Bob accused the bible of being draconian.
Well????
Is it not?
Should a rapist have to purchase the raped woman from her father and marry her? Should a man who works on the sabbath be struck dead? I am sure you and I are in agreement that these morals are not the morals we share today, and I think this begs the question: just where and how do we derive our morals?
By the way bob, on your faith-meter just what is the difference between an atheist and agnostic? (I'm sort of in-between the two, I don't flat out deny the possibility of a deity, but I find it pretty... make that very unlikely)
I prefer the word skeptic personally.
yeah, I like that word too, but atheist, and agnostic describe just what it is we are skeptic about.
Based on your statements Jeff I would say you fall more into the agnostic category.
Great post and awesome graphics Bob
there are so many diferent issues here it is overwhelming. Where does one start and from what angle?
Perhaps the most concise statement would be: the founding fathers while opposed to a particular religion/and or church created a country whose foundation was built upon Christian-Judea principles. These are found not only throughout our founding documents and laws but also are pervasive in their individual writings. Jefferson was very empahatic in his staements that a nation that did not folow on a parallel course to those truths would not prosper.
Perhaps my bottom line is too simplistic but a society based on purely secular tennants becomes but one more religion. To attempt to champion secularism as the state religion is the very thing our founders opposed.
Jeff,
To me, the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is summed up in question 3A:
An atheist answers with a definitive NO, and an agnostic shrugs his shoulders.
I'd like to point out the third classification in that vein: "anti-theism." This is reserved for an atheist who feels that organized religion is truly bad for society. Authors like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been creating quite a following lately with this doctrine. I teeter back-and-forth across this line depending on my mood and (at the risk of trying to sound smart) what I'm reading.
For instance, I'm midway through the book 1491 by Charles C. Mann (which looks to reexamine what civilization in the Americans looked like before European intervention). The difference between genocide and Manifest Destiny seems to be nothing more than God's supposed will. And while, on one side of the Atlantic, the Aztecs held ritual human sacrifices to please the Sun, on the other heretics were burned, beheaded, drawn and quartered and impaled on city walls.
It could be argued that men do not get their conscience from religion, but a justification for ignoring it in the pursuit of selfish interests.
fred,
I think we have to be very careful here. What is an example of a praise-worthy "Christian-Judea principle" that did not exist in the teaching/practice of men before the birth of Christ?
Giving Jesus credit for the Golden Rule is something like holding George Bush accountable for the genesis of American Hegemony.
And with regards to Jefferson: a politician has to say a lot of things to stay in office, but these quotes from his letters leave no doubt exactly how Tom felt about the church:
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
"The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust."
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Secular:
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.
Secularism is not a religion.
Secular doesn't describe what one is, it describes what one isn't.
If secularism can be defined as a religion, than nothing is, or ever will be secular.
To me, a society that embraces religion as a personal endeavor is secular, such a society could never have a state religion of secularism.
Nice quotes bob
I wonder if Jefferson thought that the story of christ would be regarded as a myth by now?
bob,This reminds me of Alan Watts and his admission that to try to explain the state of being one with god is by defitnion not being in that state. Although it did not prevent him from trying over and over in his various writings.
I grant you Jefferson made those statements but they were I believe directed at Christianity as practiced. Read his second inagural address and listen to his explanation of the blessings America had been bestowed and the reason for them.
The fact remains the ccountry was founded on Cristian-Judea philosphy. Yes, one can make the case that the major religions have the same basic core beliefs. Does it then follow that these therefore are man inspired as opposed to being from the direction of a diety. That I assume is the major point of contention.
Yes, countless inhumane acts have occured over the ages in the name of religion. But if one is going to
to use that criteria as to deny the validity of religion then I must respond by pointing out the greater evil in the secular societies of the 20th century.
To Jeff:
Look at communism and Nazi Germany surely you do not deny that both idelogies were by defintion (Websters third definition)religious in nature and sold as such.
Bullshit Fred. The Founding Fathers were Deists. which by definition has precious little to do with Christianity whether in theory or practice.
That this country was founded as a Christian nation is one of the great myths we still live with today.
And anyway even it were true, whose Christianity are we defined by: The Pope's, Jimmy Swaggart's, Paul Crouch's, Reverend Ike's ???
Menck: I though I was the only one allowed to use "Bullshit"
Praise the Lord no fundamentalists showed up here quoting scripture at us
Sometime read the story of John Newton (Amazing Grace). That will at least leave you thinking that theres a higher power or some type of divine inspiration.
Can anybody out there reassure me that Heaven's innkeepers are not Mormons?
Halleluja Robert!
Fred, there is also some evidence that the founders were mystics - Rosicrucians, occultists....of course we all know about the Masonic connection also.
Jefferson Quotes:
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
One man with courage is a majority.
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
SALUTE Thomas J
Another good read about an interpretation of a "Higher Power"
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions
When I think the GW Bush holds the same office as Thomas Jefferson.....&%&&##2@****8...I wish Jesus would come back NOW and kick some DC Asses!
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
HL Mencken 1956
Bob,
It's great to see you back! What an elegant post. As a frequent reader of this blog, I've always been left with something meaningful to ponder after your thoughful posts. I have nothing but disdain for the inanity that is christianity and other western religions. These religions have bred so much intolerance it's disgusting. I'm pretty sure that our founding fathers never intended that.
Why single out western religions, eastern ones are just as silly.
Wow bob, has a post ever reached 20 comments so quickly??
Fred. So communism was secular.....
So?? Secularism doesn't have to be communism. A secular government doesn't have to trample on religious freedoms. Equating secularism with communism and nazism is like me equating christianity with the spanish inquisition and and the crusades. Do you feel that our government limits YOUR religious freedoms? If so, I want some good examples.
fred,
I'd like to respond to this comment you made earlier:
"Yes, countless inhumane acts have occurred over the ages in the name of religion. But if one is going to to use that criteria as to deny the validity of religion then I must respond by pointing out the greater evil in the secular societies of the 20th century."
Critics of atheism often point to Hitler (and Stalin). Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is debatable, but insignificant. The real question isn't whether or not he was an atheist, but whether or not he and his followers committed their crimes in the name of atheism. Hitler was a vegetarian, too. No sane person would point to this as proof that vegetarianism is a dangerous belief system.
While countless wars have been fought in the name of religion, you'd be hard pressed to name one waged with the intent of spreading the doctrine of atheism. While it's common place throughout history for heretics to be persecuted for not falling in line with the prescribed religion of the day, can you name an instance where atheists have persecuted their neighbors for not being secular enough?
Phrased another way, the doctrine of atheism doesn't demand that one convert or save one's neighbor. One of the perceived "Christian-Judea principles" that you mentioned earlier is the duty of the faithful to do exactly this, and by force when necessary. Plus the dogma of religion provides the added violence-lubrication of dehumanizing your Godless enemy.
I'll go out on a limb and bet that while the historical accounts of violence generated throughout the world in the name of religion would not fit into the stacks of the Library of Congress, the accounts of violence generated in the name of atheism would fit in a single volume.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
Adolf Hitler
Doesn't sound like an athiest to me.
Jeff,
You're right. Eastern religions are silly too. It seems to me, though, that most of the major problems caused by religion--today and in the past--have pretty much always been the result of zealots who practice western religions. I've never heard of people being massacred or a war being fought in the name of religions such as buddhism or taoism, although I could be wrong.
There were some links between Pol Pot and a sect of Buddhism. I doubt there was any approval from
Buddhists in general of Pol Pot.
That may be. But as I understand it, the Khmer Rouge was only using some aspects of buddhism to justify their political agenda. They weren't using it as a means of conversion. The atrocities that occured under their rule was mainly due to their communist beliefs and paranoia.
I'm no specialist on Eastern Religions, but I've always viewed Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. I've seen it labeled a "non-theistic religion" which to me seems like an Oxymoron. My spectrum is really only meant to deal with people's stance on theism.
I found a few interesting tidbits at Wikipedia regarding this. One of which was that:
"Buddha was a notable non-theist: when asked whether God existed, or any similar question of metaphysics, usually responded with complete silence."
And regarding its teachings:
"Although Buddhism has a vast number of scriptures and practices, the fundamental core of Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, are distinguished in the world of religion as being absent any mention of God(s) or any notion or worship of any deity. They are purely ethical and meditative guidelines..."
I think Bob is "divinely" inspired
Those examples are the actions of men. To appreciate any religion, don't we have to separate the actions of extremists from the basic values of the religion?
BTW, when Marx wrote that religion is the opiate of the people, he could have meant that religion can be used to calm people - ease their pain, help them through life. That statement has been perverted by communist dictators. There's no reason to believe that Marx wanted to forbid religion, is there? Opium was not illegal at the time - so why would it be translated to make religion illegal? That statement has been twisted by all sides. (note: I'm not stating my opinion here - these are ideas to consider)
This post has been removed by the author.
Petey,
Only if God is a masochist.
Terra,
Here's Marx's quote in context:
"Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."
C'mon Terra, don't be so friggin' PC. Marx's comment about religion was meant to be derogatory. I don't know how you could take it any other way.
yes Petey the the third step does refer to turning our will and lives over to the care of god as we understand him. The program has convinced me that there is a higher power,one I am not able to define or even understand but one that if we are willing to earnestly seek and follow can lead us in the right direction. Is that statement one that can be empiraically proven? No. Do I care that it cannot be proven? No.
Robert,
You disappoint me. The "communist" governments doctrine was to eliminate the old thinking. At the top of that list was the denial of a the existence of god and their forceful suppression of traditional religion. While the The new religion was the power and rigtness of the state untill the ultimate evolution to a stateless society where man lived in peace and harmony as a product of his own enlightenment.
The Creator is a comedian whose audience is afraid to laugh."
HLM 1949
Thanks for the clarification Bob. I stand corrected.
Fred, 10-4 on the twelve steps...I think within there is some true peace and something real and good to believe in.
Most persons wont quite understand it by i can tell you have been there - like I have.
As for Religion in general - it has the same basic function if all the crap is peeled away - to comfort man so that he can sustain a useful productive life.
& in fairness : many persons practice useful and kind religion to their benefit and humanities.
Too bad there is so much potential for bad usages
Fred,
You claim there is "a higher power,one I am not able to define or even understand but one that if we are willing to earnestly seek and follow can lead us in the right direction". How can one be led in the right direction by something they don't comprehend? I don't understand how anyone could possibly do that. Do you choose what direction you're headed in or do you blindly accept that whatever happens is according to some divine plan and couldn't have happened any other way? Why do theists believe that some omnipotent being has set out the way we should live our lives? I happen to strongly believe in many so-called religious morals, but this has nothing to do with what I read in some book or what some soothsayer tells me. I have those morals based on what my own reason and rationality tell me is right or wrong. As far a being led in the right direction, as a rational and reasonable being, I choose that path. Whatever happens to me will be my own doing. Placing my will and life into the hands of something I cannot know would be irresponsible as a human being. I would rather be dead.
Religion is the opium of the masses.
Mr. Toneff,
I cannot refute one thing you say. I quess that is why we have the saying never argue about religion.
fred,
This may come down to the way one looks at it.
Assuming for a moment that communism is a religion: we have just another historical example of Religion A suppressing Religion B. As you said: "the new religion was the power and rightness of the state," not atheism for atheism's sake. The State simply replaced God as the object of worship.
More later...
Most religions find it easier to just kill each other rather than to argue beliefs because arguing requires critical thinking. The argument is therefore dumbed down to "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend and I have the hardware to prove it".
I just remembered... it was Kurt Vonnegut in "A man without a country" that presented that idea about Marx, opium, and religion. (as I said, not my opinion - just a thought)
I agree with you Fred. You can't usually get anywhere with these kinds of arguments.
Terra,
Speaking of Vonnegut & religion: I just finished his book The Sirens of Titan. It is my favorite yet (even more so than Slaughterhouse Five and Cat's Cradle)!!! As it says on the cover:
"His best book...he dares not only ask the ultimate question about the meaning of life, but to answer it."
-Esquire
If you could know the meaning of life, assuming one exists, would you really want to know what it is ? Would you even know what to do with that information ?
Everything you need is right under your noses, but that would be too easy to admit. Every day is Christmas Day...... " But , but.... IS THAT ALL THERE
IS ? "
Menck, we will never know - all we are is stardust
O Ye of little Faith:
1.) pick up a 6 pack of beer
2.) Rent the original Blues Brothers and watch it
3.) Now think: "Am I on a Mission From GOD?"
Oh.....forgot, be sure to have downed about 4 beers to be loose & ripe for the John Lee Hooker steet festival scene
I've never heard of Stardust Beer.
Is it an import ?
I have seen a kosher beer.... " HE-BREW ".
My Children:
Kick Back some...grab a pizza, beer and your woman (GreaT cREATION eh?) AND enjoy life.
It's all fanaticism.
Doesn't really matter what you believe. Most people are willing to be fanatical in order to get their points across. Religion only complicates matters because faith is boundless.
If I believed my stapler was God and it wanted me to stop the abomination that is paper clips, I would do it. Not because I don't believe in paper clips, only because I believe in the one True Stapler. Swingline was born, will die and will rise again! And that Stapler says no paper clips. Due to my undying faith in the paper binding machine I will fight to my death to rid the world of the evil paper clips.
It's all so arbitrary and fanatical.
If you have access to itunes you should download The national public radio show This American Life episode: Godless America. Its not even a dollar and well worth the price. Very interesting and very appropriate for this blog topic.
I have heard if one plays a Black Sabbath album backwards - one will SEE GOD
wow gold cheap wow gold buy wow gold world of warcraft gold wow world of warcraft wow gold WoW Warrior WoW Hunter WoW Rogue WoW Paladin WoW Shaman WoW Priest WoW Mage WoW Druid WoW Warlock power leveling powerleveling wow power leveling wow powerleveling wow guides wow tips google排名 google左侧排名 google排名服务 百度推广 百度排名 网站推广 商业吧 机床 LED灯 电池 塑料 摄像机 移民 甲醇 染料 福州热线 体育博客 股票博客 游戏博客 魔兽博客 考试博客 汽车博客 房产博客 电脑博客 powerlin518 logo design website design web design 商标设计
runescape money runescape gold tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia money buy runescape money runescape items
runescape money runescape gold tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia money buy runescape money runescape items
Post a Comment
<< Home