If we have leaders who derive their governance from their religion, we do not have freedom from religion. It shall be imposed on us from the leaders' decisions.
We are granted the freedom from religion in the same way we are granted freedom of religion, by our constitution. They are one and the same. Our laws and governing bodies cannot bring in their religious beliefs without imposing religion on their constituents. Here's why:
"Freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions." - Austin Cline
Although I do not have a problem with any governing leader to be any religion, I do oppose any law making, governance, or justification for laws based on any religion. I particularly oppose these things justified by a god. I do not believe in a god as part of my religion, so I shall not have this god imposed on me by my legislators.
Do not allow your legislators to make decisions based on religion, even if you agree with their religious views. It sets a precedent that we all will not be free from religion, and there for not free to practice our own religions as we see fit.
Keep religion out of the government. Keep kind, generous, God loving people in there if you want, but tell them to keep their religion out of it and be good people because it's simply the humanly right thing to do.
Showing posts with label belief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label belief. Show all posts
February 26, 2012
June 3, 2011
The Bible and Science
I received a response on Facebook about my last post. Basically, arguing that there are passages in the Bible that show how much the people of that time knew about science, and that it was because God told them about it. Therefore, I'm assuming that to mean, that the stories in the Bible are facts for scientific discussion. This is my response.
Here is one collection of examples of where the bible is plain wrong about science, or contradicts what we currently know according to visible evidence. This is not the only list like this of its kind.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source for me to know what time it is.
The Bible is not to be generally discounted, but science relies on empirical evidence, not someone's stories about what is true or not. Many experiments and challenges have been made to evolution, and that's where it holds water. The challenges to the bible are unanswered other than more "it's in the Bible." That's not science. Again, not to be discounted, but it's not the scientific method.
The people who lived long ago were right about a lot of things. The people who made Stonehenge, before there was written language, probably used ball bearing technology to erect the 40 ton stones, and it wasn't until DaVinci's time that it was used again. That doesn't mean that the people of Stonehenge's time understood gravity, astronomy, chemistry, or even basic biology. We don't know what they knew, but even if we had written language from their time, we can't base today's understanding on their understanding unless we can reproduce their findings.
It's impossible to reproduce the findings that the people in the Bible have asserted - the existence of God, how plants and animals came to be, etc. They are stories that have no meaning or proof in today's science, but were probably very meaningful at their time. Until the stories of creation in the Bible are scientifically challenged and then proven to be the most likely scenario based on those results, it is not science. It not science any more than I can assert that a giant turtle rules the galaxy and kills people at will because he is actually a carnivorous turtle and is hungry and expect it to be taken seriously. Science takes what we see today, in our world that we live in right now, and uses that information to make an assessment of what is the best explanation. Belief takes stories, either of our own making or that have been handed down or read in a book, and then looks around to see proof.
I came to my belief in reincarnation by reading, listening to stories, and my own internal ideas. No empirical evidence at all. It's how anyone comes to believe in God, how anyone comes to believe in the afterlife or the beforelife, how anyone comes to believe that the world is here for humans' benefit. These things are told to us, so we believe. Or its something we've developed over time because it makes sense to us or we like them. Depending on where we grow up, we were taught to believe different things. And depending on whether we embrace science and spirituality together, but different, or whether we try to make science or spirituality the only thing that matters, will also affect what we believe.
Long ago, the church used to own science. When true scientists challenged the belief that the earth is flat, or that the earth revolved around the sun, they were rejected and even put to death, because belief resists change. Science encourages change, and it lends itself to being upgraded.
I determine the difference between science and belief like this - If an alien came down from another planet and looked at our claims to what we know, science would be the things that we can reproduce without language or words, and show them how it works. Beliefs are the things that we would have to explain with stories. It's impossible to explain creationism without language. Science, doesn't need language, it's simply there. For us to be truly human, we need both, although they are very different from one another.
Here is one collection of examples of where the bible is plain wrong about science, or contradicts what we currently know according to visible evidence. This is not the only list like this of its kind.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean it's a reliable source for me to know what time it is.
The Bible is not to be generally discounted, but science relies on empirical evidence, not someone's stories about what is true or not. Many experiments and challenges have been made to evolution, and that's where it holds water. The challenges to the bible are unanswered other than more "it's in the Bible." That's not science. Again, not to be discounted, but it's not the scientific method.
The people who lived long ago were right about a lot of things. The people who made Stonehenge, before there was written language, probably used ball bearing technology to erect the 40 ton stones, and it wasn't until DaVinci's time that it was used again. That doesn't mean that the people of Stonehenge's time understood gravity, astronomy, chemistry, or even basic biology. We don't know what they knew, but even if we had written language from their time, we can't base today's understanding on their understanding unless we can reproduce their findings.
It's impossible to reproduce the findings that the people in the Bible have asserted - the existence of God, how plants and animals came to be, etc. They are stories that have no meaning or proof in today's science, but were probably very meaningful at their time. Until the stories of creation in the Bible are scientifically challenged and then proven to be the most likely scenario based on those results, it is not science. It not science any more than I can assert that a giant turtle rules the galaxy and kills people at will because he is actually a carnivorous turtle and is hungry and expect it to be taken seriously. Science takes what we see today, in our world that we live in right now, and uses that information to make an assessment of what is the best explanation. Belief takes stories, either of our own making or that have been handed down or read in a book, and then looks around to see proof.
I came to my belief in reincarnation by reading, listening to stories, and my own internal ideas. No empirical evidence at all. It's how anyone comes to believe in God, how anyone comes to believe in the afterlife or the beforelife, how anyone comes to believe that the world is here for humans' benefit. These things are told to us, so we believe. Or its something we've developed over time because it makes sense to us or we like them. Depending on where we grow up, we were taught to believe different things. And depending on whether we embrace science and spirituality together, but different, or whether we try to make science or spirituality the only thing that matters, will also affect what we believe.
Long ago, the church used to own science. When true scientists challenged the belief that the earth is flat, or that the earth revolved around the sun, they were rejected and even put to death, because belief resists change. Science encourages change, and it lends itself to being upgraded.
I determine the difference between science and belief like this - If an alien came down from another planet and looked at our claims to what we know, science would be the things that we can reproduce without language or words, and show them how it works. Beliefs are the things that we would have to explain with stories. It's impossible to explain creationism without language. Science, doesn't need language, it's simply there. For us to be truly human, we need both, although they are very different from one another.
Science vs. Faith
Some say that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. I suppose for some, that might be true. But not for me. I use no faith to come to my understanding of how our world works and do not "believe" in evolution. It happens to be the best explanation out there given the evidence, but I'm willing to change my opinion at any time given new information. It's the same approach I give to understanding history. I don't have "faith" that things happened. I have evidence, and I change my view of history as I receive new evidence, knowing full well that most likely, whatever it is that I understand about what happened in the past is from snippets of evidence. That's not belief. Belief requires no evidence other than simply believing. For example, I believe in reincarnation - but there's no reproducible evidence for it or against it, and it can never really be known if it's true (until our species evolves enough that we can have a shared experience of the afterlife).
Some creationists are very offended when their belief that man was plunked here on Earth by the hand of God is labeled "anti-intellectual." Calling it judgmental. There are people who judge creationists for other reasons, and but calling a story believed first and then using evidence to prove it as "anti-intellectual" isn't a judgment. For example, saying that believing in reincarnation is anti-intellectual, I am being told that I derive my opinions from belief, not my intellect, which is absolutely true. It's not a judgment, so much as discriminating understanding of how one comes to a conclusion.
It is possible to reconcile evolution and religious texts, even with an orthodox reading of them. I know enough people who do to know it's possible. One thing that I believe (and it is not scientifically proven, however I see lots of compassionate people believe this, too) is that science and religion are two sides of the same coin, coming at trying to understand our existence from two different approaches. Neither is better, but they are indeed different. I think teaching our kids this distinction is very good for them, because it allows them to be able to have their own personal beliefs (and not be threatened by others) while also being able to look objectively at the world and let the world (that many believe God created) teach us about who we are and where we can go. Without science/intellect we are lost in a bubble of inbred stories, and without belief/faith we are lost in a void of loneliness and separation from our humanity.
We need science and faith. And they are not the same. We need both scientists and spiritualists. And they are not the same. To me, the most amazing people, and the ones who are able to see what others cannot, are those who have both within them, who can separate, yet reconcile the two sides of the coin. Alan Watts, good example. Albert Einstein, another one. Pema Chodron, another one. Deepak Chopra, yet another.
It's those who divide themselves into one or the other, and then fight each other, who will always be fighting, and never growing or learning. And if there is a God, I'm sure that would make him very sad indeed.
Some creationists are very offended when their belief that man was plunked here on Earth by the hand of God is labeled "anti-intellectual." Calling it judgmental. There are people who judge creationists for other reasons, and but calling a story believed first and then using evidence to prove it as "anti-intellectual" isn't a judgment. For example, saying that believing in reincarnation is anti-intellectual, I am being told that I derive my opinions from belief, not my intellect, which is absolutely true. It's not a judgment, so much as discriminating understanding of how one comes to a conclusion.
It is possible to reconcile evolution and religious texts, even with an orthodox reading of them. I know enough people who do to know it's possible. One thing that I believe (and it is not scientifically proven, however I see lots of compassionate people believe this, too) is that science and religion are two sides of the same coin, coming at trying to understand our existence from two different approaches. Neither is better, but they are indeed different. I think teaching our kids this distinction is very good for them, because it allows them to be able to have their own personal beliefs (and not be threatened by others) while also being able to look objectively at the world and let the world (that many believe God created) teach us about who we are and where we can go. Without science/intellect we are lost in a bubble of inbred stories, and without belief/faith we are lost in a void of loneliness and separation from our humanity.
We need science and faith. And they are not the same. We need both scientists and spiritualists. And they are not the same. To me, the most amazing people, and the ones who are able to see what others cannot, are those who have both within them, who can separate, yet reconcile the two sides of the coin. Alan Watts, good example. Albert Einstein, another one. Pema Chodron, another one. Deepak Chopra, yet another.
It's those who divide themselves into one or the other, and then fight each other, who will always be fighting, and never growing or learning. And if there is a God, I'm sure that would make him very sad indeed.
February 15, 2011
Why People Don't Like Each Other - Letting Go of Us/Them
It's logical to think that when someone treats us badly, we like them less.
But that's not true. It's actually the other way around.
When we treat others badly, we like them less.
It can take a long time for someone treating us badly for us to finally get the message that our love and affection is better spent elsewhere. Why would we put up with years of abuse, or let a "friend" bully us, or keep going back to partners who talk down to us if people treating us badly makes us like them less?
Whereas, when we treat others badly, we are less likely to want to be around them, to like them, or to give them future affection or love. When we treat others badly, we significantly increase the chance that we will spend our affection elsewhere.
Why is this? It stems from cognitive dissonance. Deep down, we all want to think of ourselves as good people. We wouldn't hurt anyone, or do anything bad. Well, unless, the other person deserved it. In order to maintain that we are good people, when we hurt someone or treat another person badly, we have to create a story in our mind that the other person deserved it. It was something bad about the other person that makes us treat them badly. It's their fault we behave the way we do, so we like them less.
With this understanding, we can see that treating people well isn't effective at getting them to like us better. Treating people well helps us like others more. Treating other people well cultivates a continuation of being compassionate to others and of continuing to treat them well - no matter how they treat us.
That's the key to this meditation - if we treat other people with respect, integrity, and compassion, we will like other people more, be happier, and even like ourselves more. When we like other people more, and we treat others well, we will feel more loved, and feel like we have more friends in the world. The concrete number of people who we can count as friends makes little difference. Our feeling of support and love comes from the feeling of how often we treat people well (not how often they treat us well). Think about this again. Our feeling of love and support doesn't come from how others treat us, but from how we treat others, and why we treat others that way.
If we understand this, when other people treat us badly, we will see not that this other person is a bad person or anything is wrong with them, but that they are simply treating us badly. It's when we treat others badly that we think they are bad people. If we want to get out of the "us/them" paradigm, the key is simply to treat others well. Treating others well isn't for them, but for us. How much they like us won't stem a whole lot from what we do. They will base their feelings for us much more on how they treat us.
So it's fruitless to treat others well to try and manipulate people into liking us. That not only doesn't work, but it sets up the scene to feel unappreciated and used. Instead, what works better is setting our boundaries and not allowing others to treat us badly. If they continue to treat us badly even after setting our boundaries, then it's not about us. If they treat us better after we set our boundaries, then we've made a potential friend based not on us trying to appease them or do what we think they want to make them happy, but based on two people who are treating each other well because they like themselves.
This teaching made an impact on me, because it allows me to continue to treat people well for my own reasons, rather than trying to be a peace maker or trying to "get" people to like or appreciate me. I treat people well for me, because I like other people, because I like me, because it's who I am, and because it's good for me and then, consequently, others. All of us are are responsible for our own feelings and behaviors. And if someone treats me badly, and they don't like me, I understand now that it's not me they don't like, but their own cognitive dissonance, and stories they create in their head. I do it, too. It's human. It's not personal. And that makes people's difficult behavior a lot easier to deal with emotionally.
But that's not true. It's actually the other way around.
When we treat others badly, we like them less.
It can take a long time for someone treating us badly for us to finally get the message that our love and affection is better spent elsewhere. Why would we put up with years of abuse, or let a "friend" bully us, or keep going back to partners who talk down to us if people treating us badly makes us like them less?
Whereas, when we treat others badly, we are less likely to want to be around them, to like them, or to give them future affection or love. When we treat others badly, we significantly increase the chance that we will spend our affection elsewhere.
Why is this? It stems from cognitive dissonance. Deep down, we all want to think of ourselves as good people. We wouldn't hurt anyone, or do anything bad. Well, unless, the other person deserved it. In order to maintain that we are good people, when we hurt someone or treat another person badly, we have to create a story in our mind that the other person deserved it. It was something bad about the other person that makes us treat them badly. It's their fault we behave the way we do, so we like them less.
With this understanding, we can see that treating people well isn't effective at getting them to like us better. Treating people well helps us like others more. Treating other people well cultivates a continuation of being compassionate to others and of continuing to treat them well - no matter how they treat us.
That's the key to this meditation - if we treat other people with respect, integrity, and compassion, we will like other people more, be happier, and even like ourselves more. When we like other people more, and we treat others well, we will feel more loved, and feel like we have more friends in the world. The concrete number of people who we can count as friends makes little difference. Our feeling of support and love comes from the feeling of how often we treat people well (not how often they treat us well). Think about this again. Our feeling of love and support doesn't come from how others treat us, but from how we treat others, and why we treat others that way.
If we understand this, when other people treat us badly, we will see not that this other person is a bad person or anything is wrong with them, but that they are simply treating us badly. It's when we treat others badly that we think they are bad people. If we want to get out of the "us/them" paradigm, the key is simply to treat others well. Treating others well isn't for them, but for us. How much they like us won't stem a whole lot from what we do. They will base their feelings for us much more on how they treat us.
So it's fruitless to treat others well to try and manipulate people into liking us. That not only doesn't work, but it sets up the scene to feel unappreciated and used. Instead, what works better is setting our boundaries and not allowing others to treat us badly. If they continue to treat us badly even after setting our boundaries, then it's not about us. If they treat us better after we set our boundaries, then we've made a potential friend based not on us trying to appease them or do what we think they want to make them happy, but based on two people who are treating each other well because they like themselves.
This teaching made an impact on me, because it allows me to continue to treat people well for my own reasons, rather than trying to be a peace maker or trying to "get" people to like or appreciate me. I treat people well for me, because I like other people, because I like me, because it's who I am, and because it's good for me and then, consequently, others. All of us are are responsible for our own feelings and behaviors. And if someone treats me badly, and they don't like me, I understand now that it's not me they don't like, but their own cognitive dissonance, and stories they create in their head. I do it, too. It's human. It's not personal. And that makes people's difficult behavior a lot easier to deal with emotionally.
May 30, 2007
How Can You Hate God....
if you don't believe in him?
Barefoot Bum, brings up a good point. Atheists have been accused of hating God. But, how is that possible? If atheists don't believe in God, how can they hate him? It's like saying people who don't believe in the tooth fairy hate her.
If I found out right now, some definite way, that the Christian God exists as they believe he does, I might be put in the position to hate him. But, since I'm pretty much convinced he doesn't exist, or that at least, he doesn't exist in any way we can possibly conceive, I have no opinion at all. I can't have an opinion about something that I don't think exists.
I suppose, however, one can have an opinion about people who believe something exists. My opinion on that? People who believe in God have a different viewpoint. And so long as they don't try to have me hanged (literally or figuratively) or change the laws so I am forced to say I believe in him, I don't care what they believe. If believing in God makes them happy and have a meaningful life, more power to them.
So, hate God? Not possible for me as a non-believer. Hate between people with different beliefs - totally possible. And not at all reserved to just one POV. If we're gonna point fingers out, we gotta point fingers inward too. We're all human.
Barefoot Bum, brings up a good point. Atheists have been accused of hating God. But, how is that possible? If atheists don't believe in God, how can they hate him? It's like saying people who don't believe in the tooth fairy hate her.
If I found out right now, some definite way, that the Christian God exists as they believe he does, I might be put in the position to hate him. But, since I'm pretty much convinced he doesn't exist, or that at least, he doesn't exist in any way we can possibly conceive, I have no opinion at all. I can't have an opinion about something that I don't think exists.
I suppose, however, one can have an opinion about people who believe something exists. My opinion on that? People who believe in God have a different viewpoint. And so long as they don't try to have me hanged (literally or figuratively) or change the laws so I am forced to say I believe in him, I don't care what they believe. If believing in God makes them happy and have a meaningful life, more power to them.
So, hate God? Not possible for me as a non-believer. Hate between people with different beliefs - totally possible. And not at all reserved to just one POV. If we're gonna point fingers out, we gotta point fingers inward too. We're all human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)