Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could the problem be your rationale instead, or at least the likes of the statement I have bolded in your comment?
Especially if you go back in history, there has been a great deal of "conflict" between science and theists. I'm sure I need not provide the countless examples, since I don't want to write more than necessary.
Today, true, we can all be in general agreement about science. Not true I necessarily want to "pit" science against religion, but simply note the significant difference between the two, a difference that someone else didn't seem to recognize.
Again.., what science has determined as our universal truth is essentially commonly accepted, or put in the "TBD" file. Generally without any notions of divinity, deities or prejudice toward holy books.
Religion is quite different, and people of faith believe in these other things that science doesn't include. Although some people of faith may even choose to believe what has been scientifically proven over contrary religious notions, what they believe will surely be contrary to what other people of faith believe, and this is the significant difference.
My interest is not in why people of faith may also believe whatever that science has taught us, but why does the Mormon believe what they do about Mormonism despite what people of other faiths believe? What gives them that level of confidence in those regards when others of faith believe so differently, yet just as confidently?
We can and may all agree about most things science, but we certainly can't say the same about all things religion.
I also object to this notion that I am the only one claiming to have the real truth! I am asking why people believe what they believe to be truth that is not considered universal truth, not my truth! Universally, commonly accepted truth?
Right? Fair?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I don't think so...
You note exceptions, but the exceptions do not prove that upbringing and indoctrination is not a very primary, significant and compelling force all over the world. I came to this realization when I studied religion when I wore a younger man's clothes, much younger.
I had a look at a map of religions of the world and noticed how the primary religions where densely clustered in different parts of the world. You can do the same, and if you can explain those clusters, what we tend to believe, by way of truth rather than where we are born, I ask you to please do so.
Case in point, my wife and I recently enjoyed a trip to Thailand. In Thailand, if born in Thailand, odds are tremendously in favor of the fact that you are a Buddhist. The exceptions do not prove anything. There are always the exceptions, but ask yourself why there are so many Buddhists in Thailand? Christians in America? Muslims in Indonesia...
Is that a matter of truth or upbringing and indoctrination, typically at a very young age?
The answer is obviously the latter.
Earlier, you posted that you write long posts in order to clarify, but in the posts you've made in this thread the opposite seems to be true; you seem to want to cloud the topic and force those you are conversing with chase you within the discussion.
I point out that most theists have no conflict with science, and you attempt to change the conversation from the present to the past. When I point out that millions of people convert to other religions, you remove "upbringing and indoctrination" from being THE cause of people being religious to it being a "significant and compelling" force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
No, of course not, and I don't accept, but I sure would like to better understand others in this regard, and this is why I've posed the questions and made the arguments I have in this thread. Your acceptance, interest and/or participation is also not required...
Again, you are incorrect. As a religious Jew, my acceptance of halachah, my participation in our religious rites, and my interest in the teachings and philosophy of my religion IS required.
What you fail to grasp is that no one, on this board or in the world, can tell you why all religious people believe what they do (anyone who claims they can has a level of hubris that rivals your own). Each of us has our own reason for believing what we do, and they are varied as we are. What I can tell you is that I've never a theist who had hadn't, at some point, questioned their beliefs and challenged what they though was true. We've all gone through a crisis of faith at some point.
Pruzhany can't tell you why I'm Jewish anymore than I could tell you why the Dali Lama is Buddhist.
What did your Mormon tell you when you asked why he followed Mormonism?
What did the Taiwanese Buddhist tell you when you asked them why they followed their religion?
Good call! It is NOT too long to read, but too long to read before answering. I am quoting it to make sure that I can save it and read it at my leisure, which I WILL do. It looks interesting.
However, right in the beginning you say, "part of the issue in any case is how people come to define themselves." No, it isn't. That is a metaphorical ? poetic ? misuse of the word "define." In simple English, people do not define themselves. The process you are describing is "describing" (usually inaccurately), "predicting," "promising," "hoping," or whatever else, but it is not defining. You might wish so, but it ain't so.
I can "define" myself a Polynesian-American female, but I would be lying. Any Polynesian would say so, and anyone who saw me in the shower would say so. Wouldn't even need a doctor's "expert" opinion.
Sorry that this is about language instead of what you want to talk about, which may well be an interesting subject, but language is what we use to communicate. Or obfuscate. Or whatever.
Love it! Can't tell you how many times I've had to get involved in providing dictionary definitions of words, because others seem to have their own unique definitions that cloud understanding of the matter at hand...
de·fine
1.
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
I am not sure I am understanding you, but I do appreciate the want to make clear what we are referring to here. I believe I have been referring to how "we define ourselves" in altogether proper fashion.
Title of this thread is a question, because we all define ourselves in different ways, whether they be right or wrong, accurate or not. Even Jews, it appears from different comments in this thread, define themselves in different ways, as does my friend who is a Jew (if born of Jewish parents is what defines him as Jew(?).
Either way, the point here I think, or perhaps the point of most interest to me is back to what we BELIEVE and why, since much of what we believe is what defines us as who we are, how we will act, how we will treat others...
The beliefs that people hold are tools that help them live a more satisfying life. This is not limited to Jews.
Beg to differ...
Your definition is lacking in any case, because people can hold beliefs that are racist in nature, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semite, etc., that I would not argue "help them live a more satisfying life."
Or maybe this makes for a more satisfying life for some people, but this is to my point, about how our beliefs are so important with regard to the impact on others. This is why we should believe in only what is truth, or at least be critical of what does not appear truthful (as Buddhist tend to emphasize more than other religions).
A silly side point then, and I'm not being facetious when I say this -- I don't know how to define myself then; I'm not even sure I know what it means to "define myself." I would identify myself by my affiliations, or by my physical/emotional/mental characteristics, but I truly don't know what to do to define myself.
Duly noted...
I think "how we define ourselves" probably needs some parameters, because if left as a wide open question, we might expect anything from anyone. That said, I am not sure I am not correct to recognize that Jews tend to identify themselves as Jews in ways that are unique. Again, per the title of this thread. Without getting into those ways, that "uniqueness" is what causes much of the divisiveness that causes much of the friction that other ways of defining ourselves does not. Much of that divisiveness is common between or as a result of most religions in general, or so my time, study and research has lead me to believe.
I point out that most theists have no conflict with science, and you attempt to change the conversation from the present to the past.
Okay, let's break this down a bit, since I accept your criticism about how I addressed your prior comment as honest and sincere. Perhaps I can do better...
Perhaps I also need to better understand how "most theists have no conflict with science." As explained before, science does not posit a God or support the teachings about creation, our purpose, life, as written in holy books. How is that "no conflict" according to you?
We may all have general agreement about universal commonly accepted truths, like the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but my point is that religion was even in conflict with this truth in the past just like there is much similarly in conflict still today.
This is very different from scientists, people, all over the world who restrain their beliefs in what is truth to what science teaches us. For these people (like me), there is no conflict that creates the problems born of different beliefs that religions promote. People aren't killing one another because they believe in the existence of black holes, for example, or the theory of relativity. Right?
When I point out that millions of people convert to other religions, you remove "upbringing and indoctrination" from being THE cause of people being religious to it being a "significant and compelling" force.
What percentage of people do you think "convert to other religions" as opposed to maintaining the religion promoted to them by way of upbringing and indoctrination?" I don't think there is any easy way to find this number that justifies what you believe is a good argument against mine, but again I think the world map of religions is very telling. Obviously, people in the great majority of cases all over the world believe the religion that is prevalent in their area, or we would not see the dense clusters of religions where they are practiced all over the world. This is an obvious truth even though the work of missionaries is constant, and also why the primary religions of the world were able to get a following where there were people susceptible to indoctrination and/or evangelism.
Or maybe you have a better explanation for why Mexicans tend to be Catholic, Indonesians tend to be Muslim, Thais tend to be Buddhists...
How do you explain this?
This is not a function of people "who convert to other religions" though perhaps "millions" do according to you.
There are billions of people on the planet, over a billion Christians and over a billion Muslims.
Again, you are incorrect. As a religious Jew, my acceptance of halachah, my participation in our religious rites, and my interest in the teachings and philosophy of my religion IS required.
My hope is that your interest, everyone's interest, should above all else be the quest for truth, REGARDLESS what we are taught, by whom or for what reason.
Religions require a great many things, but no one is required to accept other than what they choose to accept, or not.
Again, I prefer the Buddhist emphasis on questioning, for the sake of knowing what is true. Not to believe or follow anyone's teachings without critical evaluation as to what is true and what is not, without concern for whether the agenda is self-serving or not. Truth is ultimately what matters most and ultimately our salvation.
The quest for truth in these regards is what has brought us from the Dark Ages and allowed us the progress we have managed, painfully slow this may be as ignorance always stands in the way.
It isn't truth that has us killing one another in these regards. It's ignorance.
What you fail to grasp is that no one, on this board or in the world, can tell you why all religious people believe what they do (anyone who claims they can has a level of hubris that rivals your own). Each of us has our own reason for believing what we do, and they are varied as we are. What I can tell you is that I've never a theist who had hadn't, at some point, questioned their beliefs and challenged what they though was true. We've all gone through a crisis of faith at some point.
Pruzhany can't tell you why I'm Jewish anymore than I could tell you why the Dali Lama is Buddhist.
What did your Mormon tell you when you asked why he followed Mormonism?
What did the Taiwanese Buddhist tell you when you asked them why they followed their religion?
Fair, I suppose, and duly noted, but I am in no way not aware that everyone has their own reason for believing what they believe. Really? This is something I "fail to grasp?"
I am not asking for EVERYONE'S reason for why they believe what they do. I am asking why YOU believe what you do!
Someone, anyone, tell me why THEY believe they are more correct to believe what they do than my friend's father who is Mormon. This is key, because if ANYONE can do so, in an intelligent manner, then I WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER.
I don't need or want EVERYONE'S answer, I just need one answer that works, makes sense, not only for me but universally, like we can agree is what science is committed to providing, as we should expect. Right?
My friend's father who is Mormon, could not answer why he believes he is right to believe what he does when so many others (like you) believe otherwise. He just knows, and BTW, he was raised a Mormon. Does that work for you intellectually? Of course we need not have ill feeling about such beliefs (necessarily). We need not recognize that we are all free to believe whatever "floats our boats." I understand and accept this. I feel strongly about freedom of religion as protected in our constitution, but do you recognize Mormon beliefs to be proper beliefs from a critical thinking standpoint?
Why not?
When I recommended he read "The History of the World" as I have done a few times, to get a perspective about religion a bit broader than his about Mormons in America, he told me he is too old to start learning such things...
I am not sure I am not correct to recognize that Jews tend to identify themselves as Jews in ways that are unique.
When I identify myself as a Jew, I include in that, "all the things that make Jews different from others." I don't know if that is any more unique than a Mormon saying "I am Mormon and that includes all the things that make Mormons unique." Each group is not part of another group because it claims certain aspects that are special to it. Each group believes it has a significant role or position -- as an American I can lay claim to al things that are unique to being an American. Group labels include one and exclude others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
that "uniqueness" is what causes much of the divisiveness that causes much of the friction that other ways of defining ourselves does not.
That seems to get to the question of "chosen people." People look at that title and decide that it is an exclusionary term, designating others to second class status. Judaism does not see it as such.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
