Hard News: Belief Media
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Would you prefer if I replace the offending term with puritans or religious extremists?
Yes - because I'd feel perfectly comfortable joining you then. I'm a Catholic with a Church of England "Good Lord, is there any need to make a fuss?" kind of sensibility. :)
“There are those for whom faith certainly is a crutch. It’s easier than fronting up to the full complexity and uncertainty of our existence.”
Replace "faith" with "fucking" or "politics" or "a well-stocked liquor cabinet" and that statement seems equally valid to me.
-
Hebe, in reply to
How about 'beyond ourselves'? Though I know that doesn't express a more holistic weaving of it through us.
That's the thing for me: holistic. A bit of me exists in a bit of you that also exists in a bit of Islander and so it goes. Basically a unity, oneness... and there another tangent goes off eh? Endless.
-
Islander, in reply to
Endless.
My shroomhead friend – who I havent heard from for nearly 5 years*- says “You cant slice what’s in a (scientific name deleted so as not to catch the eye of authoritays) because it’s a hologram.”
* He has always said that his friends would know when he died. So I am not worried. I just havent heard from him.
Just incidentally, I dont use shroom hallucinogens: I think they are very powerful, and not to be played with. There is quite a bit of good archaeological evidence that they were being used by humans (Homo sap.sap, and, controversially, H. neanderthalis) over 60,000 years ago… -
Um. In the Anglican tradition I grew up in, godbotherer was an affectionate term meaning “churchgoer”, as opposed to nominal or non-practicing Christian. This forum is the first place I’ve heard it used pejoratively.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Replace “faith” with “fucking” or “politics” or “a well-stocked liquor cabinet” and that statement seems equally valid to me.
No argument from me. But "fucking", "politics", "fucking politics" or liquor don't have much to do with religious media, do they?
-
Islander, in reply to
Only if they’re agin it Chris!
(And, for quite a long time within ANZ, they have been, one way or the other…)To wit - prohibition, SPUC, etc.
-
Allow me to propose a definition of spirituality inspired by many of the comments so far:
Spirituality is the thoroughly describable but utterly inexplicable experience of being human.
I propose this because I see so much to identify with in everybody else's comments, and yet your experiences are all so completely different from mine, and vice versa. And science is awesome, but it doesn't seem to do much more than attempt to describe the workings of the physical world around us, all the while raising a thousand new questions with every answer it generates (and don't get me wrong - that's precisely the beauty of science - we never stop learning until the moment we die (and then, who knows?)), and even if consciousness really is nothing more than a complex interweaving of a gazillion more chains of chemical reactions than we've currently got a handle on, science still doesn't come close to describing our experience of life.
And when we look at traditional knowledge(s) we see a lot that is really weird and doesn't stand scientific scrutiny, but we also see a lot of true wisdom about ourselves, our lives, our psychologies, our societies, and the environments we live in encoded therein. Science may discount the existence of taniwha, but we'd be fools to rule them out of our lives - see the currents of the Cook Strait or the Waikato Expressway for examples.
A fair chunk of what I find so powerful about Tiki Taane's Tangaroa is the 'wow, shit, I've never seen anything like this before' factor. But mostly it's because I have far too many memories of sitting on a remote section of Wellington or Dunedin coast in my teens and early 20s looking out to sea and feeling deep in my bones Tangaroa's presence and power. This is not to say I believe in Tangaroa's existence - I was raised Christian and I'm Pakeha - but I've seen enough of the ocean to know that it must be treated with the utmost respect. Tangaroa's existence may be only metaphorical, but that doesn't change the fact that what Tangaroa wants, Tangaroa will take. One can apply a similar principle to any other form of traditional knowledge - it may be 'only' metaphorical or allegorical truth, but it remains truth.
-
Dunedin was a Free Church settlement wasn't it?
-
Completing the panel is the former Dean of Holy Trinity Church in Auckland, the Reverend Richard Randerson, who is often seen as the moderate, liberal voice of the church in the media and was somewhat inaccurately seen as doubting his own faith in a controversial Herald interview (his meaning was more nuanced, in that he really said he regarded parts of the Bible as allegorical and poetic, rather than factual).
Surely it's only Fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literally true? (and even Fundamentalists are selective about which bits they pay attention to!) I would expect the leader of any mainstream church to treat the Bible as allegory and fable and poetry more than as historical truth or unalterable law.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Petra Bagust asked me if it was a matter of morality vs. equality. She didn't quite know how to respond when I replied, "Whose morality?"
I'd have had the presence of mind to give Petra Bagust a quick primer on various people who regarded equality as a moral imperative -- Reverend Martin Luther King, anyone? William Wilberforce, who like many Evangelicals regarded the slave trade as depraved and unchristian?
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Chris, what you say about allegory and traditional knowledge resonates with me.
And perhaps I can say something which is different but not unrelated.
I think it is possible to see religious ritual as a meaningful personal and cultural practice without believing in the cosmology that’s supposed to go with it.
I’ve attended rituals with a Jewish friend who has a non-religious interpretation of the Jewish festivals as an opportunity to connect with her culture and history, and to also to evaluate/discuss/debate the issues they raise. Also to sing songs and prepare and eat delicious food with people she loves.
I feel a little that way about the Christian festivals that are my own heritage. Although I’m determinedly atheistic, I feel an attachment to the stories and the music and the art and the architecture, and the history of religious observance in my ancestry.
For me, Christmas is all about connecting with people, writing and sending cards and emails, especially to people I value but don’t often communicate with; spending time with my family; counting my blessings. Also greeting anyone, “Happy Christmas!”, even though they are probably no more Christian than I am. It’s a way of expressing friendliness.
Similarly, I don’t at all mind being prayed for, unless it’s for my conversion (anyone who prays for my conversion to anything doesn’t respect my free will and can bite me). If someone tells me they’re praying for my safety, happiness or wellbeing, I take that as a gesture of love and caring, and thank them for it.
I’ve attended pagan rituals that were enjoyable and empowering theatre. And again, an opportunity to connect with other people at their best. (also to sing and eat – hard to go wrong with singing and sharing food :-)
I guess what I’m saying is that religious observance has to do with a lot of other things than belief in a god or gods, and some of those other things I really want to keep.
-
Tangaroa's existence may be only metaphorical, but that doesn't change the fact that what Tangaroa wants, Tangaroa will take.
I prefer the idea that if you happen to be in peril on the sea, rather than Tanagaroa wanting you, it may be a case of your boat not being up to the moment. Happening 1000km from land there is a very high probablility that the sea will take you.
Why would Tangaroa "take you" out 1000km and then "take you"? Giving a name to a "taker" - like god - seems to be a common theme with spiritualists.
Build a better boat.
-
Er, namesake, about Wilberforce. Six out of ten for his sterling antislavery efforts, but nought for his advocacy of draconian political censorship and anti-union politics. Yup, feet of clay. Fundies and evangelicals go on at great length about Wilberforce unless the corrective is applied.
I'm in several places about this one. New Zealand's LGBT community have lower rates of religious observance than our straight fellow citizens, but even the general public is getting disenchanted with Christian religious observance. 'No religious observance' has been the largest 'faith' category in our census for over a decade. Conservative denominations aren't growing either (ie the Baptists and Salvation Army), while Buddhism is now the second largest religious community behind Christianity (possibly due to East Asian immigration), followed by Hinduism (South Asian) and then Islam (ditto). Therefore, we live in a secularised and multifaith society.
I have a lot of time for liberal churches when it comes to welfare policy and criticism of the Key administration's New Right legislative agenda and emphases on rehabilitation within criminal justice policy.
As for the Christian Right, gak. Where do I begin? They are so dependent on the US Christian Right for their propaganda, tactics and strategy that it's laughable. Apart from the euthanasia debate, they've lost practically every single political battle that they've waged since 1983 (the anti-abortion Status of the Unborn Child Bill)- the UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Homosexual Law Reform, the 1987 General Election, the Human Rights Act 1993, the Care of Children Bill 2004, the Civil Union and Statutory References Acts 2004-5, the anti-belting legislation... The recession has eroded their access to available income and forced them to rationalise into three main pressure groups- Right to Life New Zealand (anti-abortion), Family First and the Conservative Party. Even in the case of Family First, their shoal of supportive fundamentalist small business donors appears to have thinned out.
As I suppose namesake can tell you, the National Party doesn't get on all that well with them. From what centre-right social liberal friends tell me, powers that be are pissed off at Family First for last year''s Value Your Vote guide, which contained recommendations to vote for Winston because he was a puckered- oops, pukka, social conservative.
Family First tends to slavishly reprint stuff from Focus on the Family US, as well as the rabidly antigay Christian Institute and Canada's Lifesite. Significantly, they've got a lot of funding from the US-based "World Congress of Families" for their latest so-called "Forum on the Family",,,
-
On the subject of contemporary Christian media, I've been hunting through my old feeds for a graph that flicked by recently showing that far be it that Christians had no say in media, policy and politics. It was more a matter of whether they had disproportionate power based on congregation size.
Nicky Hagar raised the same point when he pointed out the problems of binding Citizens Initiated Referenda. Church networks are stronger and more reliable that the pluralist diaspora. Whether the cloud can beat the flock has yet to be seen.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Why would Tangaroa “take you” out 1000km and then “take you”? Giving a name to a “taker” – like god – seems to be a common theme with spiritualists.
Build a better boat.
Do you enjoy poetry, Ross?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I didn’t know that.
It's one of those safety habits most scientists get taught. If you wear a lab coat it's because what you are working with has some potential hazard OR what you are working with should be contained in the lab. It then becomes obvious that you don't wear the same lab coat out of the lab, say, to pick up and hug your kids. So good lab practice has lab coats never leaving the lab, it does depend a little on the kind of work you are doing.
But for someone with my training it's something instinctively "wrong".
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I’m sure any scientist would tell you that if you look into the nature of absolutely anything deep enough, you will find a point beyond current knowledge and understanding.
People with faith don’t have this particular problem.While it's true that science probably has a higher percentage of agnostics and atheists than other professions there are a significant number of scientists who have faith in some kind of god AND enjoy the wonder of looking as deep into reality as they can.
For me it creates a cognitive dissonance but that isn't true for all scientists by any measure.
-
Hmm, not sure about the resilience and cohesion of church congregations anymore, Will. Take NZ Presbyterianism for example. Its professional middle-class elements are exiting at an accelerated rate due to the perceived fundamentalist capture of that denomination. According to the Economist, the same phenomenon may eventually destroy the Church of England.
Pentecostals tend to be the worst- according to a recent Steve Killgallon SST article, what happens these days is that if they disagree with whatever subcultural celebrity pop preacher TM says, they flock off to another sect. They aren't growing as fast as secularisation is, and their loyalty and affiliation rates are low.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
But for someone with my training it’s something instinctively “wrong”.
I'm glad you explained that, for a moment I thought you were suggesting something far more risqué. i.e.
"So I tore off the flimsy gown and.... "
But you didn't, eh?.there are a significant number of scientists who have faith in some kind of god AND enjoy the wonder of looking as deep into reality as they can.
See, to me that seems like a cop out, having a Bob each way as it were.
I would imaging a good scientist, such as yourself no doubt, would have "faith" in the ability of the scientific process to find all, eventually. -
Hebe, in reply to
to me that seems like a cop out, having a Bob each way as it were.
I would imaging a good scientist, such as yourself no doubt, would have "faith" in the ability of the scientific process to find all, eventually.To me, that is black and white thinking, which takes no account of the million shades of grey within each of us.
-
andin, in reply to
See, to me that seems like a cop out, having a Bob each way as it were.
-
To me having a religion is like having a penis.
I'm okay if you have one.
I'm okay if you're proud of it.
Just don't bring it out and swing it around in public.
And don't, whatever you do, shove it down my throat. -
Pascals wager is no longer a 50-50 toss of a coin. I suspect it is more weighted to no god by the odd zillion to one. So why bother (with) god?
Poetry Russell. Given my thoughts long ago on that. Got no problem with tangaroa in a poem. But I have great difficulty accepting that tangaroa** should be consulted before sailing away. Or, keeping it local, that a taniwha needs to be considered before a road or river is moved. The fact that 1) the media pick up such a fight and 2) that media seem to support the idea that this spiritual "object" should be considered is the bit we should be discussing here. It has no other description other than superstition, supernatural, spiritual and/or religion. And yes, I realise that a taniwha may have been invoked at that place to keep people from harm because there may have been a death. But the chances are that there will be a physical and rational explanation for the death. How that impacts on shifting a road beats me.
**Feel free to put any other religious deity in place of any mention of tangaroa or taniwha.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
would have “faith” in the ability of the scientific process to find all, eventually
For everyone it's a different balance. Hebe is exactly right, it's about shades of grey and a continuum of experience and belief.
For me there is an unpleasant dissonance in the idea of looking for evidence and basing decision making on evidence and the faith involved in religion. But that is for me, there are many scientists for whom that dissonance does not exist at all or exists to a different degree.
But to be picky, it is often said that scientists have a "faith" in the scientific process. Again for some that may be true but the more common understanding is that the scientific method and science as a whole is about discovery of facts, testing of hypotheses, observing results and basing new hypotheses only on valid observations. The only reason we use that method is because it works pretty well, that I'm writing this on a computer and you are probably reading this on an LCD is a direct product of that approach to the universe.
That isn't a faith, it is an approach to dealing with the unknown. Instead of making up a story about the unknown the scientific approach says "we don't know" and leaves it at that. We can postulate hypotheses but their only purpose is to define the next experimental test. Scientists don't (or shouldn't) "have faith" in a hypothesis, far from it, we instead try our damdest to punch holes in the hypothesis.
That's where my personal discomfort with religion lies.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Pascals Wager
Indeed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.