DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: rumborak on September 28, 2010, 08:20:44 AM
-
https://mobile.latimes.com/wap/news/text.jsp?sid=294&nid=23170009&cid=16686&scid=-1&ith=1&
Not super-surprising to me to be honest. I too have found in conversations with religious people (not necessarily here, but outside) that I often know more about their religion than they do.
rumborak
-
"I think that what happens for many Christians is, they accept their particular faith, they accept it to be true and they stop examining it. Consequently, because it's already accepted to be true, they don't examine other people's faiths. … That, I think, is not healthy for a person of any faith," he said.
I think this sums up the situation quite well. I would go a step further and suggest that we do this with almost everything, politics for example. People are raised to believe that the Republican (Democrat) party is the "good" party, so they cease to learn much about politics or American history - or they learn everything through the filter of their preferred cable news network.
-
"I think that what happens for many Christians is, they accept their particular faith, they accept it to be true and they stop examining it. Consequently, because it's already accepted to be true, they don't examine other people's faiths. … That, I think, is not healthy for a person of any faith," he said.
I think this sums up the situation quite well. I would go a step further and suggest that we do this with almost everything, politics for example. People are raised to believe that the Republican (Democrat) party is the "good" party, so they cease to learn much about politics or American history - or they learn everything through the filter of their preferred cable news network.
Good point. It's pretty easy to be intellectually lazy.
-
It is very easy to just regurgitate the mantra of your social circle. I have a friend who is atheist/agnostic, but he's as unknowledgeable about atheism as the religious people mentioned in the article. But it's safe for him, since he is surrounded by atheists/agnostics.
rumborak
-
BTW, as a former Catholic I can also say that this lack of knowledge is somewhat desired by the Church, i.e. enforced. Sure, you hear a short snippet of scripture during mass, but to my knowledge they never bothered to explain their theology, i.e. transsubstantiation, why the Pope supposedly has the authority etc.
It's not too surprising either, given that the CC only stopped reading the Bible in Latin (so that nobody would understand it) when Luther forced them to.
rumborak
-
The fact that non religious people know more about the religion is what probably makes them a non believer.
-
It is very easy to just regurgitate the mantra of your social circle. I have a friend who is atheist/agnostic, but he's as unknowledgeable about atheism as the religious people mentioned in the article. But it's safe for him, since he is surrounded by atheists/agnostics.
rumborak
I'm confused; what do you mean by this?
-
It is very easy to just regurgitate the mantra of your social circle. I have a friend who is atheist/agnostic, but he's as unknowledgeable about atheism as the religious people mentioned in the article. But it's safe for him, since he is surrounded by atheists/agnostics.
rumborak
I'm confused; what do you mean by this?
Well, when the topic comes up he justifies his atheism/agnosticism by reeling off the usual "well, religion is there to control the masses, it's a big lie" etc. etc.
If you meant "how can on be knowledgeable about atheism", I see your point :)
rumborak
-
I find this all true. I'm Atheist, but religion fascinates me. I've gotten into a large handful of arguments with Christian friends over religion (over details in the Bible, not over whether or not one should be religious) and I've always ended up knowing more about the source material than they have. A lot of them get the most basic facts wrong.
"I think that what happens for many Christians is, they accept their particular faith, they accept it to be true and they stop examining it. Consequently, because it's already accepted to be true, they don't examine other people's faiths. … That, I think, is not healthy for a person of any faith," he said.
I think this sums up the situation quite well. I would go a step further and suggest that we do this with almost everything, politics for example. People are raised to believe that the Republican (Democrat) party is the "good" party, so they cease to learn much about politics or American history - or they learn everything through the filter of their preferred cable news network.
This is how the world works, and it's disgusting.
-
It's not disgusting, it's just how humans work. We evolved to get the maximum benefit for the least expenditure of energy, and many people follow that paradigm to the T.
rumborak
-
"I think that what happens for many Christians is, they accept their particular faith, they accept it to be true and they stop examining it. Consequently, because it's already accepted to be true, they don't examine other people's faiths. … That, I think, is not healthy for a person of any faith," he said.
I think this sums up the situation quite well. I would go a step further and suggest that we do this with almost everything, politics for example. People are raised to believe that the Republican (Democrat) party is the "good" party, so they cease to learn much about politics or American history - or they learn everything through the filter of their preferred cable news network.
You are 100% right.
-
I agree 100% with rumborak, William Wallace, and hefdaddy42. (which, given that we're in a P/R thread, is a really bizarre thing to write. :lol )
-
The fact that non religious people know more about the religion is what probably makes them a non believer.
BTW, this too, definitely. I mean, while my initial opposition to religion (i.e. when I was 15 or something) was based rather on lack of "self-evidence" of a deity, these days with my somewhat-decent knowledge of the workings of Christianity there's an almost violent opposition to its tenets. As an example, to me proper Christianity ended about 50AD. What came after was a "reinvention" of it by the apostles.
rumborak
-
BTW, as a former Catholic I can also say that this lack of knowledge is somewhat desired by the Church, i.e. enforced.
Catechism? Growing up we had to learn quite a bit before we could be confirmed. That focus was on Catholic theology.
Jesuit education in university required that everyone take general theology courses, which meant understanding the basics of all major religions as well as breaking down the theological differences, and their related histories, in Christianity.
Yeah, lots of people don't know jack about their own religion, and many Catholics upset me because they don't understand it at all. However, the Catholic Church is large and some aspects of it do push understanding. If someone doesn't want to learn, they aren't going to no matter what happens in a mass. It takes effort to learn on the part of the follower. Honestly, if you're going to follow, I don't see why you wouldn't bother to learn if you accept it or not. Those that just follow and don't try to have any understanding can be really bothersome.
-
After taking the excerpted version of the test, I realized that it's really more about people being stupid in general. I know very little about religion, and I got 14 of 15, placing me in the 98th percentile. A modest understanding of history and a little common sense are all that's required to do pretty well on the thing.
Here's the quiz, for anybody interested.
-
??? What test?
-
probably forgot the link.
Or is the test to find out what the test is and somehow that determines your religious knowledge?
-
Sorry. I suck. https://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/
-
I got all 15 right. El Barto is right, a kindergarten education should be more than enough for this thing. Seriously, shit like this makes me believe that humanity is much closer to extinction than I thought.
-
15/15, but only because of a successful guess on the last question.
-
14/15
SPOILERS
The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday? I thought it was Saturday.
-
Sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
-
14/15
SPOILERS
The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday? I thought it was Saturday.
Yeah, that one probably stumped a lot of people. My mis-step was the First Great Awakening; whatever the fuck that was.
-
14/15
SPOILERS
The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday? I thought it was Saturday.
Yeah, that one probably stumped a lot of people. My mis-step was the First Great Awakening; whatever the fuck that was.
Same here.
-
13/15
I don't think that quiz is very accurate marker of intelligence or your knowledge of religion.
-
Why not?
-
12/15
I say that is because I am young. I get a break, and it is still better than 87% of the people that took the test.
-
Why not?
Because its a one time, overly short, and multiple choice. I was able to guess two or three of the answers based on a little deductive reasoning. I would probably have scored less if it was administered over the phone, and I consider myself a generally intelligent person.
-
The fact that non religious people know more about the religion is what probably makes them a non believer.
lol I more or less became agnostic after 2 years at Bible school.
-
I spent 10 years in catholic schools, each year losing more and more faith.
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
-
14/15
SPOILERS
The Jewish Sabbath begins Friday? I thought it was Saturday.
Friday at sundown till saturday at sundown.
-
14/15
I got the last one wrong because I don't, in any way, keep up with american preachers.
-
13/15
Messed up the Jewish Sabbath one. Forget the other one though.
-
15/15 though I hesitated on the one about nirvana
-
Actually, Jewish ppl scored higher than the atheists.
(https://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/img/quizchart-affiliation.gif)
Also:
-Those who attend more religious services scored higher.
-Men scored higher than women.
-
Represent.
-
Actually, Jewish ppl scored higher than the atheists.
That's true, but keep in mind that the statement is regarding atheists vs. religious people.
When you fold the Jews into the religious pile, their higher score will no longer outweigh the lower scores of the other religious groups.
rumborak
-
10/15 :blush
but in my defense
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?
-
Why are Mormons on the list while some major religions like Islam, Buddhist and Hindu are left off? Did people of non-Western religions score less?
-
I would think they were left out simply due to lack of participants.
rumborak
-
I got 12/15. Whether it's reasonable to do so or not, I always mix up the characteristics of Buddhism and Hinduism, because I'm really not that familiar with either one.
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?
I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....
-
10/15 :blush
but in my defense
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.
I think it was actually referring to the last supper itself, when Jesus said "This is a cup of my blood, this is my body, etc..." I think during a mass it is more of a symbolic thing.
-
Nope. There's a reason Communion is held to be so sacred.
-
10/15 :blush
but in my defense
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
Also the question about the bread and wine communion felt like it was a trick question… at least it tricked me.
I think it was actually referring to the last supper itself, when Jesus said "This is a cup of my blood, this is my body, etc..." I think during a mass it is more of a symbolic thing.
No, this is one of the core differences in theology between Christian divisions. Transubstantiation vs Consubstantiation vs many others. Put too simply, does the bread and wine become God in substance, in spirit, or is it simply a representation without God's presence? I personally like some of the Orthodox approaches, something like "we don't really care about the details."
-
Actually, from what I understand, Consubstantiation still attributes special things to the bread and wine, just not visible.
rumborak
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?
I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....
So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.
-
Actually, from what I understand, Consubstantiation still attributes special things to the bread and wine, just not visible.
rumborak
That was why I listed "in spirit" to match up with Consubstantiation. Literally, like Holy Spirit or it actually is God, just in the physical substance of the bread or wine.
-
I got a perfect score. I decided not to take the quiz.
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?
I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....
So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.
No. I believe Christians should constantly be learning about other religions, perspectives and theories. They should not be afraid to challenge what they believe and contrast it in the view of other ideas. This is one of the fundamental ways we learn.
-
^Listen to that man, he's a genius.^
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
I'm confused, are you saying people should try to avoid learning about other religions than their own?
I'm saying that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship....
So are you saying christians should avoid learning about other religions? A simple yes or no would suffice.
No. I believe Christians should constantly be learning about other religions, perspectives and theories. They should not be afraid to challenge what they believe and contrast it in the view of other ideas. This is one of the fundamental ways we learn.
Great advice. Nothing has strengthened my faith more than challenging it.
-
Too bad the overwhelming majority dont REALLY challenge their own beliefs, but merely ask the questions with the sole intent of finding the answers that already fit within the framework of their beliefs.
-
Yeah, that would be my criticism too. If it's just an exercise to show yourself what you're not believing in, then you might as well not do it in the first place.
rumborak
-
true...but I don't think it is a religious problem as much as it is a human problem. we all do it in regard to what we believe (or don't believe)
-
Too bad the overwhelming majority dont REALLY challenge their own beliefs, but merely ask the questions with the sole intent of finding the answers that already fit within the framework of their beliefs.
Most people don't even do that. But I think finding answers that you already accept is difficult if you actually search out the facts. The historical record is there for all. Nobody owns it.
-
I would love to know what the questions were. Because from experience I have noticed that most non religious people tend to read the Bible and study it like a textbook but fail to understand the deeper and truer meaning the text they have read. Case in point that most atheists will always point to Leviticus and argue hypocracy when Leviticus is 1) Old Testament and 2) much much more than a set of rules which hardly ANYONE follows anymore. Non-educated religious tend not to delve deeply into a text and usually take a literal and not a pragmatic approach to the text either. When I read the Bible I usually have a commentary and we have a whole library with passages from saints and desert fathers who talk extensively about the passages and their meanings. Not one atheist save well educated ones who actually studied theology and philosophy and actually use it has ever been as profound or meaningful as these saints have been with the text. So I am skeptical about the legitimacy of this test and think it more on dogma which is fine, but that's not the foundational information I find to be the most important. Questions like what is consubstantiation is fine, but a question like what does the Eucharist mean or what does the washing of the feet mean I find to be FAR FAR more important.
One of my arguments against atheists who keep quoting leviticus is "Well back in the 19th century I could kill you if you dishonored me in some way. Does that law still exist? Why not? How is this similar to the Bible?" and the response, The Bible is written by God is not correct. Sorry. ;)
-
this is another reason why religion is for the birds...
the goal ought to be to know God/Scripture rather than human religious dogmas
Exactly this. Well said, Yesh.
-
The fact that non religious people know more about the religion is what probably makes them a non believer.
BTW, this too, definitely. I mean, while my initial opposition to religion (i.e. when I was 15 or something) was based rather on lack of "self-evidence" of a deity, these days with my somewhat-decent knowledge of the workings of Christianity there's an almost violent opposition to its tenets. As an example, to me proper Christianity ended about 50AD. What came after was a "reinvention" of it by the apostles.
rumborak
Yes, most of what today's Christianity is might better be termed Paulism. If you accept the new testament accounts who who Jesus was supposed to be then he was a jewish teacher teaching the jewish law to his fellow jews, including the requirement to keep the jewish law. Paul directly contradicted Jesus teachings on this in Galatians. In fairness to Paul, the chances are that Chritianity as such probably wouldn't exist today, were it not for him. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is a moot point, obviously. It is a shame that the old mysogynist had to bastardize it to suit his own theological bent along the way.
One of the problems with religion is that most people approach it purely from a devotional perspective rather than from a historical, critical or philosophical perspective, so they never learn anything othtr than what they are told to believe. The clergy and the church as a whole can shoulder much of the blame for this - priests who attend theology departments of universities and seminaries are taught both old and new testament literary criticism and also such things as the failures of the classical arguments for the existence of god, but none of this ever gets passed on to the congregations. I guess this is because religions in the US do contain a strong business element, so the churches are encouraged to give the population what they want rather than the knowledge they have accrued during their training. I guess Chip and Betty are only interested in whether they're going to get to glad-hand Jeebus and sit on a cloud for eternity rather than the finer points of how the Epic of Gilgamesh was incorporated into Genesis or whatever.
The point about people needing to learn about other religions and such was very well made, too!