Religion
Related: About this forumWhy an Australian atheist philosopher moved to Egypt and became a Coptic monk
http://vimeo.com/13459920Updated by Brandon Ambrosino on November 9, 2014, 9:30 a.m. ET
Father Anthony El Lazarus is a Coptic monk living in seclusion in the Red Sea mountains, in a 4th-century monastery about 200 miles southeast of Cairo, Egypt. A former university lecturer in literature and philosophy, Father Lazarus spent 40 years as an atheist. It wasn't until his mother died of cancer that he left his native Australia and set out to come to peace with what happened. His journey led him to God — and to his life as a monk.
Filmmaker Remigiusz Sowa created a moving 18-minute documentary of Father Lazarus' daily life. Father Lazarus' experience in seclusion is unlike many of his brothers' lives. "If you ask any monk in the monastery, does he know where his father is, does he know where his family are? Yes, he knows very well, and they visit him, and he visits them, and they are very close still." Another unique aspect of Father Lazarus' monasticism is that, unlike many of his fellow monks, he is not Egyptian, and Coptic isn't his mother tongue. He is, in a very heightened way, an outsider both to the world and the monastery.
Sowa did a good job with this short film. The landscapes he's captured are beautiful, and the score he sets them to is equally moving. He's also found a good way to condense Father Lazarus' story down to under 20 minutes, though in a way that doesn't leave you feeling shortchanged. If you're looking for an inspiring weekend short about the mysteries of monastic life in a far corner of the Red Sea Mountains, then have a watch of The Last Anchorite.
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/9/7177553/why-australian-atheist-philosopher-moved-to-egypt-became-coptic-monk
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,850 posts)Neale Donald Walsch didn't need to seclude himself like that to "Commune" with God. What food is he provided and chores may be required? I have heard there are some folks in my neighborhood who don't eat unless food is brought to them. I haven't met them, just folks who do take them food. But I do wonder what they do with themselves during a day.
rug
(82,333 posts)He is pretty open about what he's doing and how he got there.
Still, it's pretty radical.
AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,850 posts)I wonder about folks like Edgar Cayce and Caroline Myss, how they "tap into universal consciousness" and are aware of things most of us are not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)understand how and why cancer actuall works/occurs.
Let alone a place/effort that might do something to prevent future cases of it.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's a pretty harsh path that I couldn't handle.
I don't think he's looking for the etiology of cancer though.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not only are there things we can do still, to eradicate cancer, but there are things we can do to aid the people currently afflicted with it, and other survivors of the victims that didn't make it.
I do not understand his choice of coping mechanism. It seems least likely to help him or anyone else.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's a moveable feast I think.
rug
(82,333 posts)Would be for me. So, too, comforting the survivors/dying.
https://m.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's a surer path to frustration.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)These aren't good reasons to believe something IMHO. Faith is not a virtue.
The piece says he knows where his (presumably dead) family members are. It's hard to appreciate the arrogance of such a statement in a world that coddles religion, but that is a very arrogant, extraordinary claim.
Any belief system that encourages self-delusion and wishful thinking to deal with life is despicable in a number ways.
rug
(82,333 posts)That itself is no more than an opinion.
What this going is doing is anything but self-delusion and wishful thinking.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)and self delusion? And a belief system that will encourage and support someone's belief in an afterlife, that they know where their dead family is, that their family visits them?
It's as disgusting as those mediums who tell people what their dead loved ones are thinking and saying etc.
rug
(82,333 posts)I suggest you start with a book.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Or you have no argument? I'm thinking the latter.
rug
(82,333 posts)I wouldn't know where to begin with you.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)to someone who specializes in evidence-free declarations that believers are deluded and suffer from intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Namely the definitions of words. But for religious apologists defending privilege, the go to is deflection with snark and (ironically) tone trolling.
Basically, you disagree with my opinion on an idea, religion, and therefore think people can be mean to me as a result.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's deflection, baiting and trolling, not that it was a very good attempt.
Not to be mean.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The OP especially, a story about a man with extraordinary claims having those claims supported by a group looks good to society if it has the right religion involved and looks bad or manipulative if not.
Your snarky attitude and deflection on the topic of religion is based on the privilege religion has in society.
Religious privilege is pervasive, and many believers still do not see it in their own attitudes and reactions.
rug
(82,333 posts)Bigotry against religion is pervasive, and many nonbelievers still do not see it in their own attitudes and reactions.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Religion as an idea or belief system gets away with morally questionable acts that other ideas would not all the time, such as encouraging delusional thinking.
rug
(82,333 posts)As are the other opinions you just posted.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Most of American society sees these things as benign or good. That's the privilege. Replace Coptic Church with Scientology and see the reversals. In fact, show a story of a particular conservative ideology encouraging delusional thinking on a number of topics, and liberals on here quickly recognize its not praiseworthy, but worthy of criticism.
rug
(82,333 posts)What's wrong is an organization that promotes and encourages delusional thinking.
rug
(82,333 posts)There is a flaw, though, in your logic. Since this man is both a priest and devotee of the organization you despise, it follows then there must be much wrong with this deluded choice, as opposed to "Nothing..."
If there is indeed nothing wrong with his choice, which is the result of his embrace of this organization, then it may not be promoting delusion at all.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)on his claims, but I don't see that as a moral wrong. I think organizations and belief systems that encourage and promote delusional thinking to be morally reprehensible.
People suffer through all sorts of crap in life and face depression or other mental illness as a result. Reinforcing delusions people come up with to deal with these issues always comes across as morally repugnant and not in the interest of the person but of the belief system, and sometimes to the physical detriment of the person.
I find it fundamentally dishonest.
rug
(82,333 posts)That assumption is colored by revulsion (which is another thing altogether from criticism) at religion.
I find that to be fundamentally dishonest.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Whether a person has a mental illness or not, it's not moral to promote delusional thinking. It is with the mentally I'll that there is the potential for the most harm, as they don't get the help they need and religious delusional beliefs are given special status over other types.
People suffer through all sorts of crap in life and face depression or other mental illness as a result.
This man is taking his religion a lot more seriously than many. If I read you correctly, he must be depressed and/or mentally ill "as a result."
If you believe what you typed, why would you think he is not?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)has a form of mental illness, the article doesn't go into detail on his.
Then the question is whether when someone claims a delusional belief, do they really believe it?
I think many religious people don't, and it is more about social conformity, but it's impossible to know so I have to take them at their word. It's just that so many people act like they don't believe the crazy things that mainstream religion puts out there.
rug
(82,333 posts)From your answer I assume you believe that not all religious people are mentally ill or deluded.
Or, are you saying that religious people who are not mentally ill or deluded don't really believe their religious beliefs?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)At least they're not mentally ill due to religious delusions, doesn't mean they can't suffer from something else.
rug
(82,333 posts)By that standard, shall I assume you're a believer?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I don't exempt religious beliefs from the definition of delusion and give it privileged status. That's dishonest, discriminatory and unfair.
Being mentally ill is pretty normal, like physical illness, it is part of life for everyone, with some types more serious than others.
Everyone lies to some degree or other, especially when it comes to identity and social acceptance.
None of this is very surprising to me. It may be surprising to the cloistered privileged though.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is that other people have the right to treat you exactly as you treat them.
Karma, baby.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)From just this exchange, you obviously think legitimate criticism of an idea can be met with deflection, snar lines and as hominems, from what I see on here, you support bullying behavior to defend a privileged status. The parallels between religious privilege and male privilege and white privilege could not be more painstakingly clear, and you do all you can to make it clearer.
okasha
(11,573 posts)or being "mean" to you. Leave that bullshit on the second-grade playground where it belongs.
You're being held accountable for your own snide and unsupported denigration of people who disagree with you. Get used to it.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Criticism of an idea isn't snide or unsupported denigration, you sound just like the overly defensive defenders of all sorts of privilege.
You support snarky behavior and ad hominem attacks against people who criticize the idea of religion, you have said so explicitly, you're doing it now, and I've seen you do it other times.
Instead of discussing the topic, you support attacking people, and you see any criticism of religion as automatically personal because of your privilege. It's similar to how some white people become personally offended when criticism of racial structures is brought up.
Saying someone is engaged in a delusion it cognitive dissonance and pointing out why in order to believe an idea is part of criticism of an idea. It's not an insult, it's necessary to understand and discuss the reasoning behind any idea. If you disagree, say why it's not delusion or cognitive dissonance. I've noticed reasons are rarely given, just lots of outrage, tone trolling and deflection, and the reasons that have been given aren't convincing, and belie the privilege and special status of religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is called challenging your ideas.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)All I see is deflection, bringing up previous unrelated topics, and even failing to discuss those new topics that have been brought up. All I see is tone trolling. If the poster is offended that I have voices my opinion that cognitive dissonance and delusion are inherent in many mainstream religious beliefs, so what? Offense doesn't mean your right, or that you even have a good reason to be offended. Conservatives are perpetually offended. If the poster wants a discussion, they should say why they disagree.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Perhaps you should consider how you come off to people.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You always deserve it? Seems like very weak reasoning to me.
I definitely disagree that you "get what you give" in any medium as a rule, especially Internet forums.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)being challenged is bullying.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Deflection, ad-hom attacks, and snarkiness directed at individuals instead of discussing the actual issue. Heck, if the actual issue was discussed in a snarky way it would be an improvement.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Is it that hard to believe? I stated an opinion with reasoning, he told me I was wrong with no reason, just "read a book". Dismissive at least. When I asked him his reason? He told me he was just being polite since he wouldn't know where to begin with me. That's snarky and rude, in other words, mean.
To his credit, he eventually does start to discuss the issue this time, but the meanness isn't necessary.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And to be rather frank I think you should look at yourself before you complain about others.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think you're defending bullying behavior, and that your opinion is weak, as it has no reasoning behind it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Rug is no bully.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)They would be more convincing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)So it is hard to take your claim setiously.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)you never addressed it at all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It's subjective, and I gave a specific account of what I thought was rudeand why, you never addressed why that specific account, so your opinion is not convincing.
You seem to have a very hard time understanding what it means to provide reasons for your opinion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You can make a point he was snarky but bullying you have made no case to me.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)It becomes bullying IMHO, and when engaged in by more than one person. I see deflection and making it personal used often enough by the same posters every single time to think of it as bullying behavior.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I don't think I even get angry at bullying behavior on the Internet as much as frustrated.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you want to keep going but I think it is over now.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)On insisting this isn't bullying behavior with no reasoning behind your opinion.
Do you think your opinion doesn't need reasoning to be convincing?
It's similar to explaining a opinion to someone with reasons for it, and their only response is "I disagree". Not very useful, is it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have not convinced me. Your issue not mine.
I don't have to say a thing.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)If you want a discussion, you need to have reasoning behind your opinion. If I haven't convinced you, but you don't say why, then I could really care less, as discussion is pointless at that point.
If you simply state your opinion with no reasoning or intention of discussion in a discussion forum, it comes off as classic trolling behavior. Trolls are there to disrupt discussion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Have a pleasant day.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)when it comes to "tone", I think you use a lot of passive aggressive insults, I think you disrupt many discussions because you have no intent on discussing anything, I think you are intellectually dishonest in the way you fail to back up your opinions and deflect to other topics instead of addressing the issue of an OP, I think you are dishonest at a fundamental level for coming to a discussion forum with no intention to discuss anything. I think this thread is a great example of most of the above.
Anyways, have a nice day!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I feel the same way about you.
Bye.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But I do hope you'll consider having discussions in a discussion forum.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)for differing opinions? And then you post glib one liners to those you hold grudges with from a long time ago with no intention of discussion? That's all on you. That's petty and mean.
If you don't care about what I think, and if I burned the bridges long ago, then why are you posting to me at all if you have no intent at discussion? Just to be a troll?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't have the link at the moment but you said this to me.
I believe you were making the point because I was not a biblical literalist you did not think I was a real Christian.
It pissed me off enough that I put you on ignore for two months.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)just to goad me?
I don't remember the details of that discussion, but my general feeling is that if words are to be useful, they have to have meaning, and when it comes to religious labels especially I hate the way many liberals identify with explicitly bigoted religious beliefs and texts and then excuse it away by saying they conveniently don't believe the most explicitly harmful parts, gaining the privilege and benefit of a predominant belief system that causes a lot of harm, and not being held accountable for doing so.
It pisses me off even. Yet I haven't put you on ignore. And I always try to have a discussion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)in this room. So I took the five people I had on ignore off and was not thrilled about it. I think two have since put me on ignore.
I felt that being on mirt my ignore list hindered my ability to see posts in thd religion room.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Since I don't do the whole ignore thing, but if you post to me, be willing to have a discussion. If you don't want to, don't post to me.
okasha
(11,573 posts)for your opinion. Oh, you say, you have definitions of words. Good for you. Definitions of words are not evidence of behavior. You have no right to demand from rug or justin that which you yourself have refused to provide over and over again. This isn't the first time you've whined about "bullying" and "meanness" when you couldn't produce a rational basis for your claims, or resorted to ad hominems. Again: you're being held responsible for your statements, and it's you who are doing the deflecting. If you want to be treated with greater respect, start by showing it to others.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)to read a book and that you won't have a discussion with them because they wouldn't know where to begin is holding a person responsible for an opinion. Of course you support bullying behavior.
I think that's great evidence of rude behavior right here in this thread, which you don't even aknowledge. When the same thing happens again and again, it is bullying. It's not necessary or useful.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I doubt there exists a book with adequate proof of an afterlife.
Not even the necronomicon, lol.
KLAATU VERATA NI*COUGH COUGH* UH
rug
(82,333 posts)What do you consider adequate proof?
(BTW, the question is whether belief in an afterlife is wishful thinking, not whether there's proof of it. OTOH, if you think anything without proof is wishful thinking, return to the regularly scheduled subthread.)
Klaatu: I find it works well enough to get me from one planet to another.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(and passes peer review, etc.)
Given the enormity of CPU cycles humanity has spent on the question, with zilch to show for it, yeah, I'd say wishful thinking. If we spent that effort on fusion instead, we'd have been living on Ceres a long time ago.
rug
(82,333 posts)How do you subject a belief, as opposed to a hypothesis, to a peer review? What are the parameters?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Many mathematical theorems that do not pertain to (known) reality for example.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm just giving an example where we, as a species can and do test intangibles.
So, why can't we test this one?
rug
(82,333 posts)God is commonly attributed to be omnipresent, omniscient, all-loving, et cetera, et cetera. How on earth could anyone describe that, let alone test it?
For me, the only salient test is internal contradictions, a/k/a philosophy, not science. Science excels at debunking specific material claims but is speechless at this ultimate claim. This is why Epicurus' argument is so much more engaging.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Throughout the bible would be useful.
rug
(82,333 posts)It would not suffice to disprove god(s) any more than the failure to explain it proves god(s).
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
rug
(82,333 posts)The use of the term suggests that someone wants the belief to be true, or needs the belief to be true, and therefore reaches it from simply wishing it to be true.
Many have found peace in the thought that there is no afterlife. Marcus Aurelius immediately comes to mind. This monk did the exact same thing for decades.
What's going on here is a consideration of beliefs and, accepting (without tangible proof) their truth, examining their implications. I think that's what's going on here.
His choices and his conclusions, though you may disagree, have the hallmarks of rationality, the absence of which is another characteristic of wishful thinking.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Someone desires the world is a certain way, so one believes the world is that way to meet that desire.
This particular belief is based on bad reasoning IMHO. Whether there is rationality to it or not is irrelevant. Believing something because you wish it was that way isn't a good reason to do so, do you think it is?
rug
(82,333 posts)Has anyone, besides you, said that?
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)bad reasoning can be rational if your beliefs align with it. Of course, what is good or bad reasonig is subjective, but I find reasoning associated with wishful thinking to be bad. Which is why I consider the subject of the OP to be engaged in bad reasoning and/or self delusion.
And I find religion often reinforces, supports, and encourages bad reasoning and delusion. It's manipulative to some degree.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)He found peace in life without the expectation of another. He was acutely aware that death may well be final and was content nonetheless.
"Soon you will have forgotten the world, and soon the world will have forgotten you." - Book VII
And, of course, "If there is a god, all is well; and if chance rules, do not be governed by it." - Book IX
The Stoics had a lot of wisdom.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)it was the Epicureans who held that this world was our only existence.
rug
(82,333 posts)Marcus Aurelius in particular lived under the big "if". If there are no gods, if all is chance, if all things end, it is still a good to have lived.
I see much in common here with Buddhism. Is a vague oblivion really an afterlife?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)One can likely prove an intangible, like a mathematical theorem, by turning to another person and working it out with adequate support. The theorem might be entirely 'unreal' and still valid.
In this case, the noncorporeal nature of the claim isn't the limiting factor in providing proof to that outside party for verification, or to convince them.
Previous posters analysis looks accurate to me.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)His father may be alive and actually visiting him.
I would substitute a different claim for the test of Delusion;
He claims he heard the voice of the 'Holy Virgin' exhorting him to his quest.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you look carefully, that poster based it on him 'knowing where his father/family are.'. I think the context that poster read it in was that the family/father was dead, and Lazarus knows for certain where they are in the afterlife.
But the mother is dead, no indication of the disposition of the rest of the family. They might actually be visiting him in meatspace, literally.
rug
(82,333 posts)Thoughts about the afterlife, and the beliefs that flow from some of them, are some of the earliest and most common expressions of the human mind. They are not susceptible to observation, replication or material proof, as you well know.
However, they are based on some of the most profound expressions of the human mind and are far from delusions or wishful thinking.
The real argument is about the premises of religious belief, the existence of the supernatural, god(s), an afterlife, etc. Those premises can be rejected, though not disproven or proven, but one cannot say that considering their implications is in the least irrational.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Likely because I am utterly without any knowledge, suspicion or desire to have, an afterlife. Some humans do, and I don't know why.
It makes no sense to me, and I know i am not the only human who finds it so, though we are a minority.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I know we're mostly agreeing to disagree here, but the age of the belief and its apparent commonality is not an argument in favor of it being rational, to me.
There's no end of old, common beliefs that simply never held water at all. Granted that they were wrong doesn't speak to whether it was rational in a primitive knowledge context. I guess I would compare it to something like the Indigenous NA ideas of a thunder bird bringing lightning. That doesn't seem rational to me. Even granting a knowledge limitation. Just an example.
Felt like I didn't fully address your previous response.
rug
(82,333 posts)Appeal to antiquity and appeal ad populum and all that.
Still, with the billions of human minds applied to it over thousands of years, to dismiss it as ignorance or delusion rings hollow.
BTW, did you see this today in LBN?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014941314
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not surprising. The more we dig, the more we'll find and learn. The perils of age. A site like that had to be in the right conditions to be preserved naturally, and also remain undisturbed for millennia. The odds are not in favor of such evidence surviving to today. A lot of the assumptions we make today can be overturned in a heartbeat, hundreds at a time, over a single find.
I think we'll find more of that, and older examples too.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I always felt called by God and as I grow older I realized it is not tp the ordained ministry but to a ministry of fellowship, outreach to those in need, worship, and hospitality.
okasha
(11,573 posts)as a linguist, I"m fascinated that his accent is a blend of Aussie and English as spoken by native Arabic speakers.
It's a combination I've never heard before.
rug
(82,333 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)It's partly his vowels and partly the rhythm of his speech.
pinto
(106,886 posts)His choice seems a very tough one. Coptics are a generally insular segment of Orthodox Catholicism. Monastic practices, in some way shape or form, have been a part of it. There's a long standing, viable group in Ethiopia, iirc.
(aside) Orthodox Catholicism refers to all the Catholic groups that split from the Roman Catholic Church - Greece and its neighbors, Turkey, the eastern Mediterranean, the Caspian regions, Russia.
Ink Man
(171 posts)Beautiful video. I was born again in 2011 and fell much like he does. He talks about the sin of pride. IMO pride is the most destructive sins we have in this world. The man looks to be at total peace in his life.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's a good way to put it, he's at peace. It's no easy task to be comfortable in one's own skin. He's chosen a rigorous road. More power to him.
