He’s got it right; I need to learn
Oct 4th, 2007 by Amanda
I’m a fool. Truly, I am. I still have the “habit of religion” stuck in my soul. Proof positive of that was my reaction to the Driscoll video. I still think it’s funny, but I do see everyone’s point about a Rabbi teaching the OT.
I read this today, and it was like someone slapped me or knocked me upside the head:
After this post from the other day, I got some responses that seemed to say, “We’re glad you’re back!” But I’m not back. I haven’t returned the same man. Even though I sensed a strong recall of what I’m to be doing: inviting people to freedom, and once they’re there or on the way, to work to provide a community where this freedom is not jeopardized. And this, I’ve come to experience and know, is rare as hen’s teeth!
You see, once I’d seen the dark side of organized religion and managed spirituality, I would be a fool to go back into it the same way. I have seen the dark side… many times. I could solve it personally by retreating into the solitary life of a hermit. And believe me, I’ve been seriously tempted. But that’s not my task. My task is to do what I said above, and that requires community. How can people be free and also love others? Is it possible for a liberated person to commit themselves to others? Is it possible to be a free person as well as a part of a group or even society? Is it possible to be free as well as responsible? Is it possible to be free and married? Is it possible to be free and have children? Is it possible to be a child and be free? Is it possible to be free at all in community? These are serious questions that must be asked by communities and their so-called “leaders” everywhere, never mind religious ones. But nobody seems to be asking them.
It seems I have returned as the same woman. Dammit! I want to be different. But the old way comes out so easily.
The questions nakedpastor has asked resonate in my head.
But the biggest question I have to ask… Is it truly possible to change?
but I do see everyone’s point about a Rabbi teaching the OT
Well its nice to know that Musicguy and myself constitute “everyone”. LOL. It was just two of us. I didn’t mean to make you feel bad. If I did I am truly sorry. That was certainly not my intention.
Is it truly possible to change?
I strongly suspect that it is a rare instance that someone changes from atheism to theism, or vice versa. But why shouldn’t it be possible to change from one theistic perspective to another. This happens frequently.
From where I stand, you already did the hard part. That is, casting off the stuff that you grew up with. From there, I suspect, with work, anything is possible.
From where I stand, you already did the hard part. That is, casting off the stuff that you grew up with.
But did I really? I was really quick to pick up the mantle of “Christians can’t learn from Rabbi’s!”
This is going to be a really silly analogy, I apologize in advance.
As you know I am a prety stout atheist. however:
Does that stop me from saying “bless you” when someone sneezes?
Have I stopped saying “God Dammit” when I hit my thumb with a hammer
Do I no longer say “Jesus!” when I see something awful/spectacular?
I was just telling Berlzebub that I have a single sentence that I use as a basis for my actions:
Make your actions and reactions such that their effect is to decrease suffering and increase happiness while maintaining or promoting free will.
Do I still laugh when I watch “something about mary” which has tons of offensive humor in it? Of course. Other people found that movie totally stupid/disgusting.
do I still do things that do not fulfill my moral code? Of course!
I guess my point is: old habits die hard. Forgive yourself and learn.
And yes, you have done the hard part.
The object is not change in and of itself, but rather the integration of faith into your own life in a way that is meaningful, personal, and fulfilling.
It is a difficult thing to follow Christ and not be drawn into other Christians’ pet causes, theological movements, and labels. They can seem so appealing. When almost everyone around you is spouting stuff from the latest prominent speaker, choosing to go against the grain can be very uncomfortable, but is ultimately necessary for your faith to be your own.
At least that’s what I tell myself!
I think it’s called thinking for yourself
It’s always hard to go against conventional thinking but you seem to be doing a good job.
Amanda: I know what you mean. The human psyche has a heapload of momentum to it, and change doesn’t usually happen overnight.
What does happen is that faultlines start to build up. We start seeing that a given paradigm is not viable, that it crumbles under its own weight, and we start looking for something else to prop it up or replace it. Happiness is finding that something else before the big crunch hits us.
These days I see plenty of faultlines in pure skeptical atheism. The weaknesses relate to the philosophy of pragmatism, and they’re fairly deep. I think I’m OK - I’ve figured out a variation that seems not to have any obvious holes. Since completeness is what I value, I’m in a good place.
What faultlines do you see in Christianity? Do you see any that you didn’t before? If so, you haven’t returned as the same woman - the change just hasn’t hit you yet. If you think it through, as you’re obviously doing, you’ll probably be able to jump to the next stepping stone before it hits you.
Techskeptic:
Make your actions and reactions such that their effect is to decrease suffering and increase happiness while maintaining or promoting free will.
Your last subclause there is redundant - promoting free will has a positive effect on happiness. See John Stuart Mill for more detail.
I had originally thought so too. The problem is that promoting free will does not necessarily lead to perceived happiness.
Someone asked me once…is it right to be happy but remain ignorant? I dont think we progress as a species if we let things remain.
Reducing ignorance is an act of promoting free will. Ignorance in and of itself may lead to happiness or suffering (refer to the recent “happiness of nations” study where some little island scored big). However, there is quite a lot of instances where distributing knowledge works to cause pain. For example, eating meat is all fine and dandy for most people, until they see how the cows are killed. Or, to use a hot topic, abortion could become routine (religious folks big nightmare) if we didnt make it clear what exactly is going on there (information is what should be the limiter on it, not criminality)
So I wrote it that way to enhance the idea that limiting free will is just as bad as promoting suffering. Its a balance of three aspects to a moral code that can only be worked out through debate and experimentation.
Reducing ignorance is an act of promoting free will.
I’m not entirely sure I’d agree here. The range of options available to us is not a function of the level of information we possess about those options. Informing people doesn’t give them any more free will - it just makes it more likely that they’ll exercise their existing free will in an optimal fashion.
Still, on reflection you’re right about free will not correlating with happiness. Most people have options they could do without.
Someone asked me once…is it right to be happy but remain ignorant?
I’d say: it’s not necessarily wrong, but it’s not a decision we should make for other people. That way lies authoritarianism.
Informing people doesn’t give them any more free will - it just makes it more likely that they’ll exercise their existing free will in an optimal fashion
hmm, no, i dont quite get that. If I don’t know I have some choices, then aren’t I more limited in my options that if I am fully aware of all the possibilities?
Isn’t forcing someone to make non-optimal choices (by withholding information) an act of limiting their free will?
Lets use food or toys as an example. The food you eat goes through a variety of processes that they do not tell you about: they irradiate food, they toss in a large amount of GMOs in with other food, even organics, they pump up livestock with so many antibiotics its incredible (this in turn crates the biggest source of antibiotic resistent bacteria), fish comes from disease ridden fish farms, and so forth.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t do these things (irradiation is harmless, GMOs could be great if we felt comfortable with the review process, etc)
You can eat organic which relieves SOME of these issues, but you can’t even vote one way or another if you are not informed of these things. Sure you can look it up but that is hard and even if you do, in most cases you dont know what the piece of food in your hands when you go to buy it has gone through.
Worse, with toys, and most obvious recently with the mattel fiasco even if we do know the possibilities, we have no way to verify anything about the toys we buy. I happen to have an handheld XRF machine that can tell me lead, bromine, mercury, cadmium and chromium content in anything. But not everyone uses a 40,000 dollar piece of equipment for their work. But even with this machine, I can’t tell the pthalate content in soft plastic toys.
My point is, without this information, our choices and free will becomes limited. With this information, particularly short term, we may not be happy, but long term, we can make buying decisions (cost vs risk) and political decisions in a far more efficient, far more beneficial, far more ‘optimal’ way without limitation.
I’d say: it’s not necessarily wrong, but it’s not a decision we should make for other people. That way lies authoritarianism.
OK Mr. Slippery Slope.
You dont have to force people to learn everything about everything. You just have to make it available. for example, in a toy store, you could put 1 2 or 3 stars to indicate the levels of toxic substances. all of them would still be at safe levels, but 3 stars would have smaller concentrations of fewer bad things than 1 star would.
The internet has been a great free will enhancer. Its a rich source of information. its what people do with that information that is not necessarily great (and ignores the first to parts of my sentence).
Still, on reflection you’re right about free will not correlating with happiness. Most people have options they could do without.
Well having options you can do without should not lead to unhappiness (unless bad options are your only options - like in unwanted pregnancy). But limitless opportunities clearly does not lead to boundless happiness.
You only have to ask Brittney Spears or Owen Wilson about that.