Religion... Yay or nay?

[xavimat]

I also like stories that challenge our usual way of seeing things (religion, belief, moral, law, etc.). But not always authors have done a profound reflexion on that issues. Sometimes they only use some cliches. I’ve found a lot of it when films or series present christian characters. They usually have fundamentalist ideas that don’t reflect the majority of Christianity, but the oddest side of it.
That said, there are really good stories that make us think a lot about religion.

On the subject about atheism as a belief or non belief, I think of atheism as a belief in the non existence of god, and not as a neutral non belief. I think there is not such a thing as «neutral», because the deepest ideas about the universe, and the meaning of life and human being are basically a choice (with rational thinking behind it) and not a logical conclusion.

On «blind belief» I strongly disagree. I’m a catholic, and mi job is precisely think and explain the faith, mostly studying the Bible, and using our rational skills and methods. I understand «blind» as the opposite as rational, and it usually becomes irrational (maybe I’ve misunderstood what «blind» meant in the post before).

And, finally, on the subject of faith and science I’m not sure if we agree in the definitions of «religion» and «science» themselves. I like science a lot, and have studied some scientific methods, and a subject in college called «philosophy of science», and my idea of religion never collides with science. Both have different fields of action or scopes. Science studies the nature and the laws governing it, and has its methods. Religion tries to offer a meaning of existence and life.
As an example, when some religious people clam that the Bible talks about the creation of the universe, and that this is the opposite as the big bang theory or the evolution of species (that seems a major issue for some groups), they don’t understand the biblical language and meaning. The creation story (better: poem) of Genesis 1 is not a scientific description, but a symbolic way of describing another reality (in an age when science didn’t exist). Long story short, the creation poem thinks about WHY everything exist. The scientific theories explain HOW it exists. I like and need both reflections, and they don’t overlap.

[Taleweaver]

One interesting aspect of religion could also be the differences in interpretation even within the same set of beliefs. Christianity, for example, has drastically different views at how faith should be practiced, for example. Consider the differences between Roman-Catholics, Protestants, Greek-Orthodox Christians, the Amish, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, all of which call themselves Christians.

Religion is subject to interpretation, both individually by each believer and for religious sub-groups. Could make quite a good topic for a story - heck, large parts of history revolve around that. The US founding fathers come to mind, or the Thirty-Year War before that.

[thishumblemosquito]

There are two posts that I believe deal directly with statements that I made. To be fair to all, I'll reply to both here in the forum.

First up: LateWhiteRabbit

When the choice is humanity having either an "abusive parent" or an "absentee parent", I pick the latter one

The way you've stated this, actually ends up defining other belief (religous and non-religous) and not just your own.

You only provide two alternatives for the whole humanity - "an abusive parent" or an "absentee parent" . So, ergo, if I don't believe in an "absentee parent", the only other available alternative is an "abusive parent". "parent" is singular so, implicit is one God. And atheists don't get the "no parent" or "what parent" option. An agnostic is restricted to not having any true knowledge that God is either an abusive or an absentee parent.

So you've ended up telling people what *they* believe, not just what *you* believe.

As an aside: the phrasing you used, "I pick the latter" would imply you "decided" God is an absentee parent. I'm not saying that you did, but pointing out that it reads that way, as opposed to what I took to be the more important thing which is that your understanding of God is as an "absentee parent". I've seen this taken advantage of quite often as a form of rhetoric as well. Just to close that door: that would constitue neither a fair nor valid assessment of anyone's beliefs as it is based on the phrasing rather than the meaning of the words.

As for my own answer - I subscribe to the doctrine of Free Will. That is God acts around, through you, for you but not on your behalf, and conversely you can act in his name, but that doesn't mean you're acting on his behalf. Elisha cursing the children: Elisha. The bears - God. The state of the world - we are each responsible for our part of it, and shouldn't try and outsource our own or anyone else's portion of the blame to God, nor try and downplay that same portion, by focusing on His. I hope I presented this so it is clear this is an expression of my belief, not a counter-argument to anyone else's.


And, on to something, that just might surprise you:

So God is subject to dogma, and we can force his action (but not decide it) through our words? I don't see it

Actually, you do! As you've stated it, that is exactly what it comes down to! It forms part of the doctrine.

For any Christians in the house ^_^:
God is subject to dogma => God is bound by His Word.
we can force his action (but not decide it) through our words = invoke His Name in our request.

It's a case of accepting (accepting not believing) in order to navigate. If you don't, you get a whole valley of trees, but no forest. Like I would, if for example, I didn't accept that it's nature, science and physics, and not philosophy, art, history and law and then tried to navigate the Deist waters (as per the definition given) ^_^.

[thishumblemosquito]

And the second post:

Also, on another concept mentioned in here, people seem to get really touchy when they believe their beliefs are being or going to be treated frivolously, especially arguing against considering stories i.e. from the Bible as myths.

I can actually say categorically I get as touchy about it as I did about the time someone told me I couldn't be in Africa, because Africa doesn't have internet. The point is someone claims to be the authority on my circumstances based on their preconception of my circumstances even though they are in a position where my circumstances are hidden from them.

Earlier I said it is more correct to associate religion with culture:

People seem to get really touchy when they believe their cultures are being or going to be treated frivolously, especially arguing against considering parts they consider as important as being treated as disposable.

[thishumblemosquito]

And finally to tie things up from my side the OP and anyone else:

Should you put religion in - no reason not to. Ask yourself what you want to achieve with it's inclusion.
Should you use existing religion? Depends. First think about whether you actually do understand it, or just think you do, and what your want to do with it

Whether you use existing religions explicitly, create an allegory or make your own:

1. Belief: There are those who believe in God(s), and those who do not believe in God(s).

For those who do not believe:
Agnostic are those who say there is no way to really known.
Weak atheists are those who have no belief in God(s)
Strong atheists explicitly do not believe in God(s)

For those who do believe:
Monotheists - only believe in one god (but not necessarily the same one. It has to be said ^_^)
Polytheists - believe in multiple gods
Pantheists - either believe God and the universe are one, or accept all gods.

Beliefs are important to those who hold them, forming part of their self-identity.

2. Religion
Not all parts of any doctrine are to be taken at face value
Not all parts of doctrine are treated equally.
There are two definitions of mythology presented in this forum. They represent two different viewpoints.
What an outsider thinks is religion, might be mythology to the insider. What an outsider thinks is mythology, might actually be religion to the insider.

3. Culture


There are elements that are actually:

• obscure to even those of the culture
  obscure to those not of the culture
  regional variations of the culture
  internal variations of the culture
  individual variations of the culture
  external perceptions of the culture
  internal perceptions of the culture

Regarding both internal and external perceptions
there are elements that are:

• thought to be still part of the culture, but aren't
  thought to no longer part of the culture, but aren't
  not thought to be part of the culture, but have become a part of it
  are thought to be understandings of the culture, but aren't
  are not thought to be understandings of the culture but are.

Now go ahead and replace culture with religion ^_^.

And lastly: I've found this to be a rather civil discussion between people of different beliefs, so far. So I think the discussion itself would be good framework to use where you don't need or want characters to be fighting over religion.
Just make sure we can't recognise ourselves! ^_^

[Sapphi]

It's also why Deists don't believe in miracles or divine intervention. Why would you create laws to govern everything, and then break them? Why force yourself to operate outside the system when it was yours to create from the ground up?

I dunno, maybe to send an obvious message to the creatures being governed by those laws that there exists a being who set them in place? I mean if there is a god and he wanted to get our attention... you don't think he would do it by letting everything function "normally" and wait patiently for thousands of years for our scientific capabilities to develop when he could just as easily bypass all that and yell "HEY MOSES!" ...do you? Of course I can already think of some objections to what I just wrote... but I think that's usually the argument people make. Why would the programmer break his own laws? So that the little free will instances would recognize there was Someone Out There. Why isn't his universe operating according to his exact wishes already? Because the free will instances have, you know... free will

I also like stories that challenge our usual way of seeing things (religion, belief, moral, law, etc.). But not always authors have done a profound reflexion on that issues. Sometimes they only use some cliches. I’ve found a lot of it when films or series present christian characters. They usually have fundamentalist ideas that don’t reflect the majority of Christianity, but the oddest side of it.

Yes. Guys, if you want to write a story that makes any kind of meaningful argument about this or about anything else, avoid creating straw-man characters for that purpose, PLEASE. The raving fundamentalist Bible-thumping country preacher.. the hyper-arrogant hyper-atheist college professor who is a terrible person... it's fine to include characters like this, because there ARE people like this, but the minute you start trying to represent, and subsequently conquer, the entirety of Christianity or the entirety of atheism with these embarrassing portrayals, I will first laugh at your attempt and then feel bad for you because you've wasted all this time writing something that hasn't advanced the discussion what-so-ever.

If you're going to write about something, but ESPECIALLY if you are going to argue against it, do your research!
KNOW YOUR ENEMY!

[LateWhiteRabbit]

When the choice is humanity having either an "abusive parent" or an "absentee parent", I pick the latter one

The way you've stated this, actually ends up defining other belief (religous and non-religous) and not just your own.

You only provide two alternatives for the whole humanity - "an abusive parent" or an "absentee parent" . So, ergo, if I don't believe in an "absentee parent", the only other available alternative is an "abusive parent". "parent" is singular so, implicit is one God. And atheists don't get the "no parent" or "what parent" option. An agnostic is restricted to not having any true knowledge that God is either an abusive or an absentee parent.

So you've ended up telling people what *they* believe, not just what *you* believe.

As an aside: the phrasing you used, "I pick the latter" would imply you "decided" God is an absentee parent. I'm not saying that you did, but pointing out that it reads that way, as opposed to what I took to be the more important thing which is that your understanding of God is as an "absentee parent". I've seen this taken advantage of quite often as a form of rhetoric as well. Just to close that door: that would constitue neither a fair nor valid assessment of anyone's beliefs as it is based on the phrasing rather than the meaning of the words.

Well, that IS what I believe. Not implying everyone else should believe that. But as a Deist, that's my own personal conclusion, based on nothing more than wishful thinking. But I DO see those as the only two valid options for defining a creator being. Either they are micromanaging everything, in which case they implicitly support the suffering, misery, and death of billions of intelligent lifeforms (abusive parent), or they are absent, and the inmates are running the asylum. I just personally want to believe the creator is absent, rather than a creator that supports cruelty. Of course, there is a THIRD option - the creator may not have the POWER to prevent suffering, misery, and death in the world. I.E. they are not omniscient or omnipresent.

But again, that was all from a Deist perspective, not an agnostic or atheist perspective. And again, I don't believe we can know one way or the other as matters stand, so the above is indeed me "picking" the most comforting idea for myself.

And, on to something, that just might surprise you:

So God is subject to dogma, and we can force his action (but not decide it) through our words? I don't see it

Actually, you do! As you've stated it, that is exactly what it comes down to! It forms part of the doctrine.

For any Christians in the house ^_^:
God is subject to dogma => God is bound by His Word.
we can force his action (but not decide it) through our words = invoke His Name in our request.

See, I knew that, but it is one of the main things that bothers me in the Catholic belief system. I find it ridiculous that an all-powerful being would be compelled to answer or act every time he/she/it's name was invoked. It is too human-centric a view of things in my book. It makes God orbit Man, rather than Man orbiting God.

It's also why Deists don't believe in miracles or divine intervention. Why would you create laws to govern everything, and then break them? Why force yourself to operate outside the system when it was yours to create from the ground up?

I dunno, maybe to send an obvious message to the creatures being governed by those laws that there exists a being who set them in place? I mean if there is a god and he wanted to get our attention... you don't think he would do it by letting everything function "normally" and wait patiently for thousands of years for our scientific capabilities to develop when he could just as easily bypass all that and yell "HEY MOSES!" ...do you? Of course I can already think of some objections to what I just wrote... but I think that's usually the argument people make. Why would the programmer break his own laws? So that the little free will instances would recognize there was Someone Out There. Why isn't his universe operating according to his exact wishes already? Because the free will instances have, you know... free will

This is assigning human-behavior/emotions to "God", so take it with a grain of salt and the silliness it implies, but I always kind of figured an all-powerful being would create a universe because they were bored. And if they did it because they were bored, they wouldn't necessarily want to know what the end result was going to be ahead of time. Instead setting up the rules and parameters and then just "letting the system run" to see what interesting things were created. I.e. they may not have any wishes or end goal beyond being entertained, and some uncertainty would be essential to that. ::

[Taleweaver]

Either they are micromanaging everything, in which case they implicitly support the suffering, misery, and death of billions of intelligent lifeforms (abusive parent), or they are absent, and the inmates are running the asylum. I just personally want to believe the creator is absent, rather than a creator that supports cruelty. Of course, there is a THIRD option - the creator may not have the POWER to prevent suffering, misery, and death in the world. I.E. they are not omniscient or omnipresent.

Ah, Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

[thishumblemosquito]

See, I knew that, but it is one of the main things that bothers me in the Catholic belief system. I find it ridiculous that an all-powerful being would be compelled to answer or act every time he/she/it's name was invoked. It is too human-centric a view of things in my book. It makes God orbit Man, rather than Man orbiting God.

Using the programmer analogy, - the Programmer has put into place a sub-routine that allows Him to manually override any aspect of the system, Universe, and which can be called from any instance of Human. This subroutine is generally called by an instance of Human when said instance experiences either a critical exception or executes special overrides of the Believing subroutine during its operation.

I cannot see how it can be said the Programmer revolves around any instance of Human, or even the entire class. The Program maybe, but not the Programmer. But that's me.

And when it comes to God, I more of a "Why? Why not?" person. I find it deals effectively with pesky presets of human logic.

Oh! And no fair! Why do Catholics get to hog Christianity ^_^? (I did state I wasn't Catholic, they're just the ones everyone seems to know the most about.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the phrasing of "When the choice is humanity having either an "abusive parent" or an "absentee parent", let me paraphrase to demonstrate the problem:

Mozziethehumble: "When the choice for humanity is either to go to Hell or to believe in Jesus and get saved, I pick the latter one." *

WonderlandRabbit: "The way you've stated this, actually ends up defining other belief (religous and non-religous) and not just your own.

You only provide two alternatives for the whole humanity - "go to Hell" or "Believe in Jesus and get saved" . So, ergo, if I don't believe in an "Believe in Jesus and get saved", the only other available alternative is "Go to Hell". "Jesus" is specific so, implicit is Christianity. And atheists don't get the "don't believe in God let alone Hell" or "what hell?" option. An agnostic is restricted to not having any true knowledge that we will go to Hell or that belief in Jesus is the means of salvation.

So you've ended up telling people what *they* believe, not just what *you* believe.

Mozziethehumble: "Well, that IS what I believe. Not implying everyone else should believe that." *

^_^.

*There are Christians for whom it is that strict. My critique is no less true for them, as I've demonstrated. And the declaration that one is not implying everyone else should believe that, I find patently misinformed, and a even a touch dismissive, of what is a legitimate concern. Please note, what is being critiqued is the frame that is being put around other people's beliefs, and not the beliefs themselves.

As for my own beliefs: I believe it is for everyone to act as they believe wholeheartedly is right. In my understanding of Christianity, when it comes to salvation, there are three roads: Salvation by deeds (Law of Moses), by faith(Jesus Christ) and by grace(God knows the truth of the how and the why of your life and will decide by that). Even though both can be considered Christianity, where would you fit it in with the way Mozziethehumble has put things? ^_^

[thishumblemosquito]

Ah, Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Firstly, let me point out that this has tell-tale signs that give it away as a piece of rhetoric. Don't believe me? Refer to Mark Anthony's speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar - acknowledged for it's brilliant rhetoric, and then come back and read this. In particular, compare the question - answer format, "draw your own conclusions" comparisons and use of repetition motifs while all based on an assertion that the speaker has no possibility of influence over his listeners, and that their final response will be a logical conclusion uninfluenced by him.

Search for "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" ^_^:
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesa ... r.3.2.html

But let's take it as logic.

Fallacy: misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
Logical Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning that is present in a logical argument.

Taking your own beliefs, can you spot anything that would make the Epicurus argument a logical fallacy as it relates to you? I know I can!

Ready, steady, go! ^_^

[Taleweaver]

Firstly, let me point out that this has tell-tale signs that give it away as a piece of rhetoric...

Um, I wasn't arguing with Epicurus. I merely wanted to point out that the thoughts LWR put down are actually neither uncommon nor particularly related to our modern age. Criticism in divine powers is at least as old as ancient Greece.

[Cyrus]

Ah, Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Firstly, let me point out that this has tell-tale signs that give it away as a piece of rhetoric. Don't believe me? Refer to Mark Anthony's speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar - acknowledged for it's brilliant rhetoric, and then come back and read this. In particular, compare the question - answer format, "draw your own conclusions" comparisons and use of repetition motifs while all based on an assertion that the speaker has no possibility of influence over his listeners, and that their final response will be a logical conclusion uninfluenced by him.

Search for "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears" ^_^:
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesa ... r.3.2.html

But let's take it as logic.

Fallacy: misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning.
Logical Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning that is present in a logical argument.

Taking your own beliefs, can you spot anything that would make the Epicurus argument a logical fallacy as it relates to you? I know I can!

Ready, steady, go! ^_^

Talk about rhetoric ... sheesh. You managed not to state a single thing wrong with a quote which has clearly upset you. Relax. No need to defend your faith every time someone makes a comment. We can all believe different things and I know you don't want to come off as a fanatic. Well this post is a stone throw from being locked and thank God for that.

[thishumblemosquito]

You know, I was scratching my head for a while asking myself, "Huh? These posts don't quite make sense."

Then it hit me....

• Rhetoric can be taken two ways: technical and social meaning.
  I switched from religion in one post to linguistics in the next.
  Not everyone would have picked up on the switch.
  Taleweaver's name's in the quote.
  Oh!

Taleweaver, I apologise that my statement read as an accusation against you. I promise it wasn't meant to be one. It's no fun getting attacked for what you thought was a harmless remark.

To be clear, it was not Taleweaver but the *Epicurus Argument* I was accusing of rhetoric, and not even in the context of Taleweaver using it.

It was more like - oh! look at the shiny rhetoric thingy!, and I sat down to play with it... and after I fiddled with it to find out how it works, I decided to offer it to you all to play with as well. And all the religion discussion had gotten pushed to the back of the queue. Yes, even though Epicurus is about God, linguistically, that's not the main point. And, I'd found applying the belief systems shared here was enough to break it's device.

Oh, when I say rhetoric - I mean rhetoric as a technique of language. To be precise, I called it that because it employs a rhetoric device. Hence the reference to a widely acknowledged example in English literature.

To quote the Wikipedia:
Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."

And in terms of the"challenge", commonly, rhetoric suffers from a logical flaw, which gets exposed when it it is tested as logic.

As for Epicurus, the solution I mentioned earlier:

The flaw is that it only factors ability and willingness as the most important/only determinant's of God's action/inaction.

As an example: existence for atheists, and presence for the Deist views shared here are more important than either ability or willingness.

That's the basis for my statement that the Epicurus argument is rhetoric - i.e. using available means to persuade, rather than being a correct argument of logic.

My apologies to anyone who was startled by the switch, and my apologies to Taleweaver, especially.

[dramspringfeald]

Michaela from Seraphim Entertainment here:

Alright.. this one questions bugs me, especially while I write my next story/visual novel..

Religion.

Especially in the mindset of fantasy (Time period feel: Renaissance, Medieval times, Arthur and Merlin, etc.), is it bad to incorporate God (The Christianity/Catholic Bible God) in a fantasy world where Magic also rules? (I.E in my story, The Paladins of the West worshiped God versus the Mages of the South practiced dark magic and the Clerics of the North practiced light magic.) and show the conflict between characters because of their belief differences?

Is this a bad idea?

Now, Don't listen to them about "be respectful" to religion it will serve no one. Simply having God, Buddha or Allah in a sentence is going to offend roughly 1 to 2 billion people maybe more. Being afraid of offending people is the number one cause of censorship and the reason so many hold such hatred for those who say things that are "uncomfortable" with, so have at it.

Skyrim is a good example. It is quite literally Christians (The Thalmor) VS The Nords (Nordic Pantheon). Assassins Creed, The Moores VS the Christians

The question and hopefully answer you bring up is why? Don't add religion for the sake of religion. If you want to include religion then ask what is it you want to say about it? What about the people? What about the culture? Why do you Care about the religion? What is your take? Why are you putting this down on paper/code?

Just be ready for the backlash because some people can't handle their faith being questioned and even more cant handle asking themselves those same questions.

[arachni42]

Now, Don't listen to them about "be respectful" to religion it will serve no one.

It seems to me, from this thread, that it's misrepresentation that has the potential to be the most offensive, as opposed to merely mentioning God, Buddha or Allah. That being said... the more I think about it, the more I think the fantasy genre in particular lends itself to stories that involve religious conflict. The religions are often fictional, but also often have a real life corollary.

Skyrim is a good example. It is quite literally Christians (The Thalmor) VS The Nords (Nordic Pantheon). Assassins Creed, The Moores VS the Christians

As a writer, I like examples.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the recent British TV series Merlin? It is a TV drama/comedy. It tells a King Arthur story from a teenager point of view, and definitely plays up a conflict between magic and... well... outlawing magic and ostracizing witches/warlocks. But "religion" is quite noticeably missing. They are clearly careful not to mention God or paganism or anything specific. Even when there is a wedding, there is no priest per se. I am very sure this is done purposely to avoid stepping on anyone's toes, probably because, after all, it is not some sort of deep, epic show. I am curious what you think of that approach.

The question and hopefully answer you bring up is why? Don't add religion for the sake of religion. If you want to include religion then ask what is it you want to say about it? What about the people? What about the culture? Why do you Care about the religion? What is your take? Why are you putting this down on paper/code?

Just be ready for the backlash because some people can't handle their faith being questioned and even more cant handle asking themselves those same questions.

I agree with this... but I'm not even sure there would be that much of a "backlash".... backlash implies a widespread response, and I don't think I've seen that to existing media. (Was there a backlash against Skyrim that I missed??) Although I suppose it depends on where you live.