Asperger's and Fundamentalism Related?

Post Reply New Topic

stroke, stroke, pat.

Wow. I’ve just been reading through this topic, and the amount of heated emotion amazes me! I hope that nothing I say will offend anyone, but have any of you committed believers thought how irrational (I would use a blunter word, but then I definitely might be thought offensive!) the whole thing sounds to someone who is neither a Christian nor has any belief in the existence of a personal, ultimate god who created the Universe including humankind?
I am a Buddhist. This is not the place to go into details of what Buddhist belief involves, but perhaps it is enough to say that although it accepts there is a spiritual side to humans, which can be expanded and developed , there is no belief at all in a god-the-creator who lays down laws and who can punish you or reward you for your adherence - or lack of it - to these. To a Buddhist, the responsibility for spiritual growth lies with each individual, although the teachings can guide him and help him . The teachings do not constitute dogma. (The Dhammapada points out that the path to enlightenment, joy and understanding is a difficult journey, and that while Buddhas can point the way, each traveller must take the first step and then make the journey for himself.)
Buddhists do not consider their faith or beliefs to constitute the only path, however ...it is just one way of many, and each person must find what works best for him, given his own inner nature and conditioning. This is where I think it differs greatly from religions such as Christianity, with their dogma and conviction that they are somehow “right” and that , consequently, other beliefs are “wrong”. Taken to extremes, this can lead to the conviction that your God will punish those who do not accept him , and that it is your job to prevent this by forcing such people to accept your beliefs. But we are not children who need threats of punishment or promise of reward to be good and behave ethically. Surely the spiritual value of what we do depends on our motives, not on blind self -interest; we are not being “good” if we do what we do solely to avoid being punished by God, or because we are afraid of hell. True goodness surely exists when we act thus because we want happiness and joy and enlightenment for all beings (including ourselves), because we want life to be full and peaceful and free of pain for everyone... irrespective of whether we get any reward at all or whether we might be punished for what we do.
That is why personally I cannot believe in the existence of a god who lays down laws which require unquestioning obedience. Don’t Christians believe their God gave them free will? How “free” is “will” when you you are coerced into behaving a particular way by threats of hellish punishment or promises of blissful reward? How' free' does this leave you to make your own judgments and decisions?
Indeed, I find myself questioning whether a personal God would even be interested in whether his creatures worshipped him or not. If he is omnipotent, then it can not harm him or make any real difference to him if men do not worship him (or indeed choose to worship “false gods”) ....to insist on these things smacks of both jealousy and vanity, and surely these traits are usually considered faults. But God is usually considered “perfect” and should not have faults ....I have to admit do not understand this point. Nor can I understand the concept of a god who is believed to create each individual’s nature but will then maybe punish him if he acts in accordance with that nature!
But above all, the point I would like to make is that none of us can “prove” our religious beliefs to be true , in any strict or rational way (I am thinking of the ‘Western’ preference for logical proof. I have come across “proofs” of the existence of God, and while I do not claim to be a genius of even deeply educated in such matters, it seems to me that such “proofs at best only convince those who are already inclined to believe; at worse they may contain logical fallacies that invalidate them as evidence for the truth. Therefore, I would suggest to everybody that it might be a good thing to consider that “I BELIEVE” and “I KNOW” are not the same thing. You may have religious beliefs that bring you great comfort and joy, and you might wish that other people shared such joy; but I think you cannot know for sure that you are in possession of the only, absolute truth.
Therefore , while we all expect freedom of speech, I think it is a mistake to try to force your religious beliefs on anyone, whether this is by argument, threats, or even embodied in law. Law allows freedom of religious choice; while it should be based on ethical behaviour for the protection of all, it should never be linked to a particular religion or sect so that everybody is forced to comply with the consequences of that belief. (For example, laws against rape and murder are common to all societies irrespective of religion, to protect individuals; but laws against contraception or divorce (say) might be based on the beliefs of a particular religion and therefore in my opinion should have no place in actual legislation, even if priests choose to teach their flocks that such things are inadvisable.
Incidentally, if anyone here thinks I might be condemned to hell for my lack of belief in God or acceptance of Jesus Christ, I don’t personally find that offensive! Sad perhaps, and a bit silly; but why should I - or anyone else - ever get worked up because other people don’t believe as I do?
To those who have read through this long ramble: Thank you!

Glenn
_________________

Whose new motto is “TO BELIEVE IS NOT THE SAME AS TO KNOW”

I was wondering if you were going to add to this thread Glenn.

Here's a little true story about BELEIF versus TRUTH.
A friend of a friend of a friend of mine (or however that bit goes) would always cut the end off the roast before cooking it. Finally her husband asked her why she did it. She instisted that this is how to cook a roast, because that was how her mother cooked it for years aswell. So the husband asked his mother-in-law why she would cut the end off the roast. Simple answer...her pan was too small to hold the full roast.
So her daughter had taken this on as a belief because it was something she was 'used' to. So the TRUTH of her BELIEF was not even known to her.

So in addition to your statement Glenn of To Believe is not the same as to Know, I'll add ... What is True for one is not neccesarily what is TRUTH.

Oh and this little prose I wrote last year...If you mistake knowledge for wisdom, your tongue will flap wildly and your ears will turn upside down.
Thanks for the post Glenn
I am not Buddist as such but I love the Buddhist philosophy as a guide to as they like to say...The art of living.

ElfMan

I don't if this is any correlation, but whenever I played Civilization II, I always settled on Fundamentalism as my preferred goverment. It had sufficient economy, a loyal population that never if ever rebelled, and if enough resources are dumped into R and D, your nation does not suffer this field much as it is something that this type of goverment had a penalty for in the game. I also hated that when I did upgrade to Democracy, they often sued for peace before the war was really over and even with nations that constantly did a underhanded sneak attack, an attack without official declaration of war, that really annoyed me. That type of nation, at the very least cannot be left intact as a powerful nation because it is a constant threat. Also Democracy in that game annoyed me because it impossible to keep the citizens happy, you had to have large military presences, subtract large numbers of citizens for the non useful solely entertainment functions, or constantly waste money buying and building endless recreation facilities in your cities. With Fundamentalism, I never had this problem, and winning the game is easiest with that goverment, and I rarely have trouble with neighbors or enemies, and the cheap fanatic brigades made building up mass numbers of military in times of need a snap. I could have advanced weapons and plenty of troops to carry them to their targets. The game is also much easier and more fun to play on a console than on the computer.