Are the details of your religion important to you?

[Silent3]

If you follow a particular religious faith, do the particular teachings and customs of that religion matter to you, or are they just window dressing, with the "real" religion being some difficult to define (or vaguely defined, or undefined) spirituality? Something in between?

Are details even as big as monotheism vs. polytheism vs. non-theistic animism (where the world is filled with "spirits", but none of them are gods) unimportant to you?

If you're a monotheist, do you feel more kinship with practitioners of polytheism than you do with atheists? If so, is it that the polytheists "get it" (whatever "it" is) in a way that atheists don't?

If you're a Christian, is the literal crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus something you view as an historical fact, not mere legend? If you found out that story of Jesus was only a legend, would you be upset? Would your faith be shaken?

If you're a Christian but not a Mormon, are you willing to take the Mormon's belief in Joseph Smith being presented with the Golden Plates as a historical fact?

When I ask a pointed question like this last one, do you bristle at the question itself, considering it either rude or somehow naive, something I wouldn't even ask if I really "understood" religion?

If you are yourself very flexible about the details of of your religion, how much do you think your own flexibility characterizes the majority of religious believers?


Why do I ask?


It's not that I expect a word like "religion" to have a simple and consistent meaning. It's common in human language for words to have multiple means and shades of meaning in different contexts. I can deal with that.

I do, however, expect that in an honest discussion that people either stick to one meaning, or make it clear when they are shifting meanings, and that they don't (consciously or not) shift meanings merely to duck criticism or difficult questions.

One of those things that seems to shift an awful lot, particularly when atheists criticize or question religion, is the importance of the particulars of different religions to the meaning and significance of religion.

[William769]

1. There will never be a honest discussion in this forum about Religion. NT

[1620rock]

2. +1

[roguevalley]

43. I don't care about the details of my religion because they came

from men and the nuances of the meaning have been pre-empted by the literalists. All paths lead to the same house. I can find God everywhere and don't need formalized behavior to do so.

[demosincebirth]

6. +100

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Why not honest?

[William769]

11. All one has to do is read through the threads in this forum to know the answer.

I rarely post in this forum for that reason.

IMHO this forum should not be called "Religion/Theology", but instead should be called Atheism.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. There's nothing dishonest about atheism

Do you think the word "honest" means "agrees with you"?

[William769]

20. There is nothing dishonest about atheism.

I talk to atheists all the time in my community & I have no problem with atheists, we just have different views. But there are several atheists in this forum that are here for one reason & one reason only to knock religion. There is one poster in particular in this thread that I describe. Thats why I said there can not be honest discussion. Disagree with me if you want thats just how I feel.

[darkstar3]

24. And there are some atheists who spend their time here responding to broad-brushes like that one.

[Silent3]

25. How does "only knocking religion" equate to not having an honest discussion?

In and of itself, having a negative view of religion, and voicing that negative view, is not dishonest. If you really do have a negative view about religion, yet you were to sprinkle a conversation with positive comments anyway, that would be dishonest.

Being negative and being dishonest are only related if a person blatantly ignores or distorts claims that have been reasonably substantiated.

I think you're confusing pleasant agreeableness and gentle diplomacy with honesty.

When I talk about dishonest discussion I'm talking about dishonest rhetorical tactics: evasiveness, slippery definitions, constantly shifting goalposts, loose standards of proof for one's one claims along with ridiculously harsh standards of proof for competing claims, conveniently ignoring difficult questions, etc.

[roguevalley]

44. each side has people who hate and smear it all over the topic

each time it comes up. The only way to solve the 'religion' problem is to die. So far, no one is taking up the crusade.

[Silent3]

48. That still sounds like a comment addressing tone...

...not honesty. There may be some loose connection between those things, but tone and honesty are ultimately separate issue.

[Thats my opinion]

60. But there is a noticeable change here

That is why you are needed to keep posting. And I say that without knowing anything about your point of view.

[cleanhippie]

12. At least not from many of the religious posters.

That is self evident.

[William769]

13. Thanks for proving my point.

ON EDIT: And it sure isn't your point.

[cleanhippie]

17. Oh, I think you are doing just fine on your own.

You don't seem to need my help.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. I'm really curious to know why you think the discussions are not honest

After the terrible things done to this country by religion, many of us here are hostile to religious ideas. You confuse that hostility towards ideas with a hatred of believers. They're not the same thing.

I think many believers are turned off by this forum because some of us are too honest about religion.

[PassingFair]

3. I can't answer any of your questions, but I think it works like this:

[Dogtown]

10. Excellent response

:applause:

[PassingFair]

18. When the shoe fits!

:hi:

[NMMNG]

23. It does

But it's considered impolite to point out that fact, or to ask people why they chose a particular dish while ignoring another (while claiming the entire cafeteria is the sacred and inviolate truth).

[Thats my opinion]

27. I don't know anyone who does that--

and i doubt if you do either.

[dmallind]

36. You think a third of the country is unlikely to be known to any of us

you included?

Do you keep forgetting this, or just refuse to accept its truth?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

[NMMNG]

40. Of course I do

But you keep imagining I don't if it will help you sleep better at night.

[iris27]

57. TMO, please don't assume your personal experience must be universally shared.

I can assure you I know more people who do that than those who don't.

[HERVEPA]

42. Yup. As long as your religion doesn't interfere with my life, or the lives of others.

e.g. pregnant women desiring an abortion

[laconicsax]

4. Rec'd to zero. n/t

[dtexdem]

5. Yes, details like a lack of dogma.

Although I am on the outs with the Unitarian-Universalist Association, so do not belong, I still consider myself a UU.

And the lack of a specified belief is an important detail to me. I tend to be in the humanist wing of UU, but there are pagans, other spiritually-oriented, and even some who call themselves Christians in the UU. Thus, even the basic doctrines that defined the Unitarians (denial of the Trinity) and the Universalists (universal salvation) are no longer doctrines in the UU -- important especially because among today's UUs there are atheists (and agnostics like myself) and those who don't believe in an afterlife.

What UU does have is commitments to principles.

[Silent3]

9. Do those commitments actually fit well...

...into what most people would understand as a "religion"?

UU has always seemed to me more like a humanitarian club (a good thing in my book) than a religion. From what I understand the degree of religious trappings can vary a bit from congregation to congregation.

[tama]

37. What most people would understand as a "religion"?

In academic anthropological comparative study of religions there is no generally agreed defintition of religion, just a fuzzy family resemblance of objects of study. And that is the reason why academic community today speaks about study of comparative anthropological study of world views rather than religion.

And same applies for "what most people would understand as "religion"", ie. undefinable family resemblance concept. Major difference between atheists, who by the look of it understand "atheism" as a well defined or definable concept, and often seem to project their definite expectations towards their object of criticism (and also rhetorical attacks), religion for which atheists like seem to attach purely negative connotations, but whics is not definable in the same way atheists define atheism.

This situation of false expectations towards definability of religion, connotative evaluations of the word/concept by the most negative prototypical examples seems to create lot of confused discussion where words use people instead of people using words.

A common example of the false expectations is the situation where an atheist jumps into discussion about some aspect of the fuzzy family resemblance concept with an axe to grind against the most negative prototype of the fuzzy concept that is his main target of criticism and emotionally felt enemy. Such behaviour often frustrates others, because of the negative emotional content of the "strawman attack" against quilt by association, having to either defend or renounce the most negative prototype that the atheist wants to criticize, which usually has nothing or very little to do with the aspect of the fuzzy concept that was previously discussed.

Is there a point to this rant? Well, what I'm trying to say that there would be less confusion and a better atmosphere in this forum if atheists took their battles against anti-abortionists, sky-daddy worshippers etc. most negative prototypes of their chosen enemy concept, to the battlefields where their actual enemies can be found, instead of lashing out constant strawman attacks of guilt by association also in this forum, where none of their real prototypical enemies cannot be found.

[Silent3]

49. "anthropological comparative study of religions" are a bit removed...

...from what the typical believer thinks about his/her own religion and religion in general.

Besides, like I said, I don't have a problem with there being varying definitions of "religion", I have a problem with suspiciously convenient blurring and shifting usage of different definitions. For example, an individual Catholic trying to defend a professed belief in transubstantiation shouldn't be jumping around from treating what the Catholic faith means to himself/herself when it starts to get tough to answer questions about how a piece of bread literally becomes the Body of Christ, nor conveniently warping and shifting what "body" and "literally" means either.

The types of believers you are trying to dismiss as "straw men" (a terribly misunderstood and abused debating term) such as anti-abortionists and "sky-daddy worshippers" constitute a significant portion of religious believers. Only if someone makes an argument that works only against said anti-abortionists and/or sky-daddy worshippers, then proceeds to act triumphantly as if they have thus proven something against all religion, can you say that a "straw man" has been employed.

Merely feeling "guilt by association" when someone criticizes a subset of religious believers without bending over backwards to make sure other religious believers don't feel like they are getting lumped in is not a case of being attacked using a straw man.

[Thats my opinion]

61. thanks for that

My interest is getting other believers into the discussion. I'm about through trying to answer the antagonists who hate all religion and spend enormous effort saying so. I'm interested in how we engage both believers and non-believers in the struggle for civil rights for GLBTs, economic justice, peace, and all the other things which flow from our ethical backgrounds. Your participation in this forum is important. Stay with us.

[laconicsax]

63. Who are these antagonists who "hate all religion"?

I've been here for a long while and I can only think of a couple posters who ever said that, and they don't post here anymore.

[tama]

78. There is allways the possibility

of over-interpretation and danger of over-genaralisation, but there seems to be strong antagonistic and anti-religion tendency among at least some the posters who define themselves as atheists. To avoid over-generalisations and other knee-jerk reactions it's good to remember that the real picture is allways much more nuanced and each individual is a unique world view.

[cleanhippie]

14. And that is why I belong to a UU Fellowship.

The principles are inclusive, tolerant and honest.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

53. I agree with you. I feel at home with the UUs.

And I consider myself a secular humanist who studies Buddhism and Hinduism (As Buddhism is a distilled version of Hinduism).

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Here's how it works in America: The details are very important

when they apply to people you do not like, for example 'the Bible is against homosexuals'. At the same time, if the details are about your own behavior then the details do not matter at all, thus one can both shout about the Bible at gay people while ignoring the long list of silly details the Bible commands you yourself to do. That is how it works.
Also, if the details of a teaching do not fit your idea of a good time, you are also free to simply ignore them and to the opposite. Example that I love is praying in public. Jesus himself forbids his followers from doing so in great detail. But they like to pray in public, so they say 'fuck off Jesus' and engage in performance prayer. On TV. At the inaugural. Before the swearing of an oath before god, also incidentally forbidden by that wet blanket Jesus, oaths he said are 'from evil'. So to review, at the Inaugural they HAD to have a famous anti gay minister pray before millions prior to the oath in order to honor Jesus, who forbade both the prayer and the oath and said nothing against gay people at all.
The idea that they 'follow the Bible' is utterly without merit. They reject it as much as they wish, in deed and in action.

[cleanhippie]

15. Wow, man. That was beautiful!

Bookmarking.


Well put.

[LeftishBrit]

35. I recently read a message-board comment by a British Conservative ...

where he was ranting about David Cameron's support for introducing full gay marriage in the UK, and complained about how this went against the Bible, etc. In the course of his rant, he mentioned casually that he was on his 'third straight marriage'. Of course, if you look, the Bible includes much more explicit condemnation of divorce and remarriage than of homosexuality; but this didn't seem to occur to him.

I should add that there is far less association between religion and conservativism in the UK than the USA, and that it is quite common for bishops to annoy right-wing governments with their criticisms of wars and of harsh economic policies that favour rich people and increase poverty. But Christian-Right types do exist.

[jeepnstein]

39. I'm a Christian and couldn't agree more.

The Bible, especially the New Testament, is not some simple document you can just go around using like a menu for the religious. It takes a long time and a willingness to be humble to really "get it". No, I'm not there yet.

Americans like things simple and direct. The New Testament is neither. So we hire "preachers" to boil it down to whatever is pleasing to our ear. Problem is the New Testament warns us clearly about people who do just that thing.

2 Timothy 4:3

New International Version (NIV)

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

[Scuba]

16. When I was a practicing Christian, the details were the ONLY part that mattered...

...and my atheist family still celebrate some of the traditional Christmas rituals.

[NMMNG]

21. You can't have an honest discussion about religion here

Religious people want to have an echo chamber, not a discussion. Yay god and Kumbaya. If you question or challenge them you're being mean. If you point out inconsistencies in religious texts or behaviors you're being belligerent. If you dare to say some beliefs/behaviors cause harm to others you're being militant.

Religion is unique in that it can question and challenge everyone/everything, but nobody can question or challenge it--except other religious people. It's OK for a Christian to go to someone else and tell him "your god is false so come to mine (or burn in hell)". You're an asshole if you tell the Christian his god is just as false as all the rest.

[Meshuga]

26. I am a Reform Jew so...

The spirituality component is pretty vague and leaves room for the individual Jew to believe in a "personal" god or other god ideas that would sound "atheistic" to those who subscribe to the traditional idea of a monotheistic god.

However, the focus of the religion is not on belief but on Jewish identity and keeping Judaism alive by living a "Jewish life." The other movements in Judaism also focus on "survival" but they disagree on the approach. Orthodox Jews believe that the key to survival is in the strict adherence to Jewish Law. Conservative Jews find Jewish Law important but they don't require full adherence fearing that forcing Jews to follow it will drive them away. Reform does not adhere to the law but they will follow the tradition that he/she sees fit and makes him/her express his/her "Jewish self."

But regarding belief, there is natural flexibility since there is no formal set of beliefs or dogma.

[Silent3]

28. Doesn't that almost become more of a cultural tradition then...

...than what is typically meant by "religion"?

Thank you, by the way, for being the first person to identify as religious and to actually answer my questions.

[Meshuga]

38. Yes,

And Judaism is pretty weird in that way. Heritage, survival, birthright, etc. is the Jewish way. Any "traditional religious" aspect is used as the carrot at the end of the stick and mostly for the Orthodox (i.e., if Jews follow tradition and law the "messianic age" will come).

I will try to explain it better tonight when I have more time to write.

[Pterodactyl]

29. The answers!

Q: Are details even as big as monotheism vs. polytheism vs. non-theistic animism (where the world is filled with "spirits", but none of them are gods) unimportant to you?

A: No, the details are very important.

Q: If you're a monotheist, do you feel more kinship with practitioners of polytheism than you do with atheists? If so, is it that the polytheists "get it" (whatever "it" is) in a way that atheists don't?

A: Not especially, no.


Q: If you're a Christian, is the literal crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus something you view as an historical fact, not mere legend? If you found out that story of Jesus was only a legend, would you be upset? Would your faith be shaken?

A: Yes, yes and yes.

Q: If you're a Christian but not a Mormon, are you willing to take the Mormon's belief in Joseph Smith being presented with the Golden Plates as a historical fact?

A: No, I don't believe that. Although I do think those who believe that are sincere in their belief.

[Silent3]

30. Thank you for your answers.

Can I guess from your last answer that sincerity is an important thing for you, perhaps even that it's more important to be sincere than it is to be factually correct?

While I value sincerity somewhat myself, it's not of overriding concern to me. In politics, for instance, if Obama had to lose to a Republican, I'd rather it be an insincere guy like Romney who is obviously pandering to the Tea Party, but has a record of being more moderate, than a sincere believer in Tea Party politics. That kind of sincerity is a huge negative as far as I'm concerned.

[Pterodactyl]

31. My respect for the sincerity of others is based on my respect for them as human beings.

There are lots of people who disagree with my religious beliefs (billions of them, in fact), but if they motivated to do good and serve God, that's a good thing.

[Silent3]

32. How do you deal with people who sincerely believe bad things?

I'm sure there are people who aren't merely using religion as a cover for their own prejudices, but who sincerely believe in sexist, homophobic, and racist ideas, truly believing in their own minds that their beliefs are what God wants.

[tortoise1956]

33. Yes, there are...

Depends on what they do with their beliefs. An example would be someone who firmly believes that all gays are going to hell, but doesn't use this as an excuse to hate those who are gay. (I know it sounds weird, but there are people like that out there).

Then you have those who absolutely hate some group or groups. Most of these people aren't worth spit. Personally, I think that the second group has a high percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths that use religion as a cover for their lunacy. (Think Westboro Baptist church). If there were no religions, they would find something else to justify their hatred.

[yodermon]

45. believing that someone is "going to hell" is identical to hating them.

[Pterodactyl]

47. Not necessarily. Someone on the highway to hell is in need of rescue!

[tortoise1956]

34. I didn't answer your question

Those in the first group can be engaged in discussion. It might not do any good, but at least you have a chance to provide counterpoints to their arguments.

The second group deserves only contempt and scorn.

[Pterodactyl]

46. We send the military to Afghanistan to work on those folks!

Just kidding! For people who sincerely believe bad things, I ignore them... or rebuke and correct them when I encounter them.

[trotsky]

50. "motivated to do good and serve God"

But that's the rub here, isn't it? How do they define "good"? How do they define "serving god"?

Fred Phelps thinks it means he should protest funerals with nasty signs.

[Pterodactyl]

54. Fred Phelps is full of it. I'm not trying to excuse bad behavior here.

I'm talking about feeding the poor, healing the sick, educating children and other good works. If a Baptist or a Muslim or a Hindu do these good things, they are doing good and serving God, even if their theological motivations don't match.

[laconicsax]

56. What if an atheist does good?

Are they serving God?

[Pterodactyl]

64. God is pleased when they do good.

They are not intentionally doing it to please him, but it is still pretty cool!

[trotsky]

59. But you're missing the point.

"Bad" behavior to you is "good" behavior to Fred Phelps. He feels that by alerting people about what HE and his god view as sin (homosexuality), he is doing a lot of good.

[Pterodactyl]

65. Just because Phelps THINKS he is doing good, does not make it so.

There is a real right and wrong in the universe. Humans may perceive right and wrong imperfectly, which is natural since we're only human. But a human falsely beleiving he is doing good when he is actually doing wrong does not make his actions right.

If a human is hateful, that's wrong - even if he thinks he is doing good.

[Thats my opinion]

73. You bet your booties I know.

Phelps does evil in the name of good. It is an embarrassment and a disgrace--and is ungodly.At this point I have no problem in affirming the NTS answer.

[skepticscott]

75. And if Fred Phelps

accepts Jesus Christ as his savior, will he still go to heaven, as the Bible promises all baptized believers will? Or do you think Jesus lied about that? Are what you consider to be Fred Phelps "sins" (which are not sins according to the parts of the Bible he chooses to cherry-pick) something that god will forgive, and that Jesus' sacrifice can wash away?

[cleanhippie]

85. ...

:popcorn:










You think you will get an honest answer to this very simple question?

[skepticscott]

88. If so, I will probably be told

that the notions of "heaven" and "salvation" are very old and discredited theology, and that "modern", "progressive" theologians in hundreds of seminaries all over are making discoveries that go far beyond that. Or that it's all very "complex" and that an answer will be forthcoming in 3 or 4 weeks. Maybe.

[Deep13]

41. When I was trying to be a Christian...

the details were important to me but became less so over time. This is because I was doubting the miracles and the idea that God would reveal Himself to a select few while ignoring China, for example.

[Pterodactyl]

55. It is taking a long time, but Christianity is spreading in China.

For His own reasons, God has given humans the job of keeping and spreading the truth. For a long time, His chosen people were the fortunate few. Then about two thousand years ago, He really kicked it off and the good news has been spreading ever since. The project continues!

[Deep13]

103. So how many Chinese people have gone to hell in the meantime.

And why is it good news to tell someone "You were born evil and are going to hell, but don't worry because a long time ago we murdered an innocent man to save you from that. He came back to life and now all you have to do is turn your life, your will and your reason for being over to him to go to heaven. Tah-dah!" I think I know why it has taken so long. At least the OT god left you alone after you died.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. I take something like the approach Meshuga describes

I assume that all theologies fail to grasp the whole of the mysteries of the intangible, and so I adopt an approach that fits me culturally.

I came to this approach many years ago when hearing two religious studies majors arguing over the nature of Christ.

And I thought, "Christ is not going to change his nature based on which of those two makes the more convincing argument."

Believing a check list of theological points is not at all important to me. The practices that bring me in touch with the divine are. I'm a believer about the existence of the Divine. I am an agnostic about the details.

I do feel more spiritual kinship with believers in other religions than with atheists, even though I may feel more political kinship with atheists (unless they're Ayn Rand libertarians) in everyday life.

[Silent3]

52. I appreciate your response. I hope you can understand...

...however, why some atheists might be a bit bothered by what you're saying.

Not anywhere near as bothered, of course, as by fundies who turn their religion into a political agenda, or as bothered as by Christian Science practitioners who refuse to take their sick children to doctors... but still bothered.

A "Divine" as vague as what you describe, that ill-defined, that poorly understood by the people who profess to believe in it seems an utterly bizarre thing to attach much importance to, or to believe in the existence of when you don't even quite grasp what it is you seem so sure exists. This "Divine" is much more likely to be a feeling generated by quirks of human psychology than anything that has an external reality beyond pure imagination.

While a lack of concern for a defensible epistemology is often harmless, I think the very same philosophical squishiness that props up kindly, liberal, ecumenical faith can just as easily lead in negative directions, particularly the idea that "just knowing" something "deep down in your heart" is as good as any form of evidence, since people can claim that very same justification for all sorts of things.

If even "external reality" is beyond one's concerns, the practice of a faith seems to me to be a form of play acting, like taking the idea of lighting candles to "set a mood" to an elaborate extreme that permeates one's life.

PS: On a completely different subject, I love your GK Chesterton quote. :)

[Thats my opinion]

58. If you are really interested in a rational discussion of these questions

that's one thing. If you are just looking for a crack in the armor to attack religion, then these are, "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. I'll assume the former.

1-the real heart of religion is compassion for everyone. It was Jesus' primary message. It is what has been affirmed by the whole "Parliament of Religions" backed up by a research project by a host of modern scholars who really know and understand the world's religions. Please take the time and read Karen Armstrong's "Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life"

2-I accept as colleagues both polytheists and atheists if their social goals are similar to mine (see #1). In my experience I have had much more working agreement on the goals and values from atheists I know than from the polytheists I know. My atheists friends tend to be deeply humanistic. I celebrate that. Those whose vocation is simply to bash religion and never argue for solid compassionate social values are not in my orbit whether they are atheists of polytheists.

3-Neither historic facts or legends, but ways in which the early church tried to tell stories of important realities that are always true but never purely historic. They are a affirmations of life against all the powers set to destroy it--for everyone. This is the heart of the Christian message--not doctrine.

4-The Mormon stories are their stories, and they are welcome to them. They are not my stories, and I'm not a judge. The question I ask has to do with actions. "By their fruits(not their doctrines) you will know them."

5-No

6-Sadly, not nearly enough. And that is why those of us in the social minority get questions from you all. I never claimed we were a majority. But them Christianity has never gotten anywhere when it was the majority. It has then always tended to be repressive. Thus the real horror stories of religion--and I know many more than you all. It has been the minority without political power which is the clearer voice.

I have tried to address your questions. Your penultimate paragraph is loaded and far from the honest questions you raised. Most of the rest of your post seems fair. I really hope these were not just "gotcha" questions.

[Silent3]

66. How is "looking for a crack in the armor", as you put it...

...antithetical to a rational discussion?

"Rational" does exclude having an opinion of one's own and challenging others to see if what they say supports or refutes that opinion.

I said to someone else in this same thread, "I think you're confusing pleasant agreeableness and gentle diplomacy with honesty." That comment could apply here as well if you substitute "rational" for "honest".

1-the real heart of religion is compassion for everyone.

That might be the better side of religion, but religion is way too diverse to have any one "real heart". This sort of thing comes up so often it has become common in R/T to simply say "NTS", rather than pointing out once again how the "No True Scotsman" gambit is being invoked.

Compassion is its own thing, which religion may or may not inspire. Harsh and unforgiving aspects of religion are every bit as real as gentle and forgiving aspects.

Those whose vocation is simply to bash religion and never argue for solid compassionate social values are not in my orbit whether they are atheists of polytheists.

I doubt there's a single atheist here who's "vocation is simply to bash religion". Even a favorite atheist boogeyman like Richard Dawkins spends some of his time "argu(ing) for solid compassionate social values".

Do you expect the Religion/Theology Forum, which is not called the "Place Where We List All of the Compassionate Social Values We Stand For Forum", to be a place where atheists soften every disagreement that they have with religion with unrelated calls to end the death penalty or to give time and money to food banks, just so people like you won't be confused into believing they are nothing but anti-religious bullies?

You are employing a common dishonest rhetorical tactic: When you don't like what people have to say, or don't like question that they ask, ask them why they aren't using every bit of their time to feed the poor and heal the sick instead of being meanies who are upsetting you.

3-Neither historic facts or legends, but ways in which the early church tried to tell stories of important realities that are always true but never purely historic.

What good is it to be well versed in the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus when the end result is epistemological mush like this?

4-The Mormon stories are their stories, and they are welcome to them. They are not my stories, and I'm not a judge. The question I ask has to do with actions. "By their fruits(not their doctrines) you will know them."

How is that anything but an evasion? You might feel that it's more noble to focus on whether or not people do good deeds, but your redirected focus doesn't make historical questions irrelevant, it doesn't make the questions go away. If I believe in invisible pink unicorns (and I'm sure you'll kindly grant me "welcome" to believe in them if I so wish), whether I go on to solve world hunger from there or to unleash a devastating plague has no bearing on the reality of invisible pink unicorns.

If I were to ask you about IPUs and you were to respond, "They are not my stories, and I'm not a judge.", as if you actually had no opinion, as if you truly considered yourself unqualified to render an opinion on the subject, I simply wouldn't believe you. It would be far, far more likely that you had instantly rendered an opinion such as "What kind of crazy BS is this?", but that you were trying to be diplomatic by keeping that opinion quietly to yourself.

Perhaps there's also an element here that by declining to (openly as least) judge the craziest ideas of others that you hope to earn equal restraint from others in regards to your own otherwise questionable beliefs.

[Thats my opinion]

67. While we may honestly disagree

I respect the way you handle these disagreements. You have never really attacked my rationality while your critique has often been fierce. I can handle that. But there are a half dozen old hands here with a very different agenda. They do not want religion discussed at all, except to condemn it. Their vocation is to bash religion. When a poster reported that a religion man showed up to protest an execution, the response was that this sort of thing had no place on r/t and the poster should go elsewhere,.

This is why r/t is held in such low regard by most DUers who won't even bother to post or respond here. I decided to do what I could to alter that approach, and I have the scars to prove it.

To your answer. I listen to it realizing that it is a rational response. Of course I come at things very differently as my answers to your questions suggest.

The main critique is that I employ the NTS fallacy. The implication is that I speak for all religious thought and that those who do not agree with my thesis are therefor not real Christians--only those who believe as I do. Carried to this conclusion would mean that here can be no internal debate in anything where anybody held that their view was authentic, assuming others were not. Thus the end of any dialogic process of firmly held propositions. I am in no position to judge whether someone else is or is not not a Christian, or a historian, or a scientist or an politician. I hold what I do about the heart of Christianity as compassion for all. This is common proposition of liberal scholars and religious historians throughout the world. I am a member of the Jesus Seminar, and that is what Marcus Borg proposed in his book, "The Heart of Christianity." You NTS comment strikes me as a debater's rhetorical ploy that is intended to sidetrack what I really have to say.

I just flatly disagree that my 3 is epistemological mush. It is a deeply thought out perspective on Biblical literature that has been solid for a long long time.

[Silent3]

68. You might be trying to steer clear of judging other Christians...

...but you have made a declaration about "true" Christianity. A consequence of this declaration, even if you avoid saying it explicitly, is an inescapable implicit declaration of what isn't true Christianity.

If someone follows a form of Christianity that doesn't match your definition of true Christianity, how can that person be a true Christian? You may diplomatically avoid voicing such formulations, you may attempt to humbly excuse yourself as not worthy to judge, nevertheless, the very act of defining a "true" form of Christianity establishes that there will be true Christians and false Christians. "NTS" wouldn't apply if the only false Christians were Hindu and Muslim, etc., people who wouldn't call themselves Christian anyway, but the resulting category of false Christians which follows from your "true Christianity" is going to end up containing a large number of people who call themselves Christian, but who don't fit your definition of Christian.

Since you declare compassion specifically as the hallmark of "true" Christianity, you are implicitly disavowing people who call themselves Christian who do not act compassionately. Given that, I stand by my call of NTS.

I just flatly disagree that my 3 is epistemological mush. It is a deeply thought out perspective on Biblical literature that has been solid for a long long time.

Suppose I borrowed $100 from you yesterday, saying I'd pay you back today. You ask me about the money today and I tell you I have no idea what you're talking about.

There would be a number of different explanations for this you might consider, but these would be the top three:

(1) I somehow forgot.
(2) You are misremembering what happened.
(3) I'm trying to cheat you.

Unless you're loopier than I imagine, you aren't going to spend a lot of time conceiving of ways that we both have different "personal truths" regarding this matter. You aren't going to give me a break for having a "story" that "my people tell" that somehow changes the truth of whether I borrowed that money from you or not. Even if you're being generous and decide to let the matter slide, it's not going to be because you think we're both living in divergent realities with different actual histories of events.

There either was or was not an historic Jesus of Nazareth born roughly 2000 years ago. He either was or was not born via supernatural means of a virgin mother, he either did or did not rise from the dead after death by crucifixion. The existence of this man and these events would have far greater significance in the scheme of the world than a mere $100. In what kind of surreal reality would the trivial monetary matter be anchored firmly in an objective reality while the story of Jesus inhabits a far fuzzier epistemological space where whether or not you live a virtuous life because of the story or derive a sense of cultural identity from the story has any bearing on the truth of the story?

I don't see any reasonable way that a phrase like "always true but never purely historic" belongs in any solid, defensible epistemology. I can certainly see how it can serve as a diplomatic way of navigating religious and cultural differences, I can even see how, allowing for a bit of poetic license in the use of language, a thing might be considered "true" (scare quotes required) but not historical.

Solid epistemology, however, is not a place for diplomacy or poetic license.

[Thats my opinion]

69. In any culture

the mythological stories, which tell the essence of the culture are not photographic records of history but the way the stories tell what is at the heart and core of the events. For instance:There was no Adam and Eve historically and no Garden of Eden or the Noah's flood or ark. But those stories tell much about the human predicament, the loss of innocence, the plight of living, the inevitability of struggle and death. So these stories were told generation after generation, until they were written down, not as historic accounts but about how the way the human situation is to be understood. At every family reunion someone will tell stories about great-grandfather, which really tell about him but not in terms of what actually happened. Every nation has stories its history, which may not be historically accurate, but important in understanding the nation. Almost all literature, poetry, art, history is steeped in this notion.

In history, literature, philosophy and religion---among other things--no one who has thought about it--except the fundamentalists in every field, know that there are things which are not historic but are always true. I bet there are things like that in your life. I know there are in mine. If you read very much about the philosophy of history you will encounter this notion almost on page one. This is nothing I or theologians have invented.

[Silent3]

70. Ask most Christian Americans about the historicity of Jesus...

...and even many non-Fundamentalist Christians will tell you that they believe the basics of the Jesus story as historical fact -- not just a story that indirectly relates truths about the human condition, but "photographic records", so to speak, real history.

While Fundamentalists go the extra mile of believing in Noah's Ark and a 6000-year-old Earth, most American Christians I've known aren't eager to dismiss the basic supernatural details of the Jesus story (virgin birth, resurrection, ascension) as mere allegory or poetic truth. Many may believe in the literal truth of miracles attributed to Jesus as well, such as turning water into wine and raising Lazarus from the dead.

Some Bible stories, by the way, even taken as allegory, not fact, are somewhat questionable in their moral truth. In such cases, what truth remains but the truth that at sometime, somewhere, someone or some group of people thought it was moral to, say, feed children to bears for making fun of a bald guy, or perhaps, at least, scare children with stories of a God that does such things to make them behave?

At what point does the "truth" of religion become so abstracted, so generously interpreted, that there's little difference between religion and atheism with poetry?

What purpose does it serve to talk about these different kinds of "truth", without clearly labeling them as different kinds truth, other than perhaps to smooth tensions along the spectrum from literal believers and very abstracted philosophers, quietly leaving each to take "truth" in their own way without ruffling feathers?

[Thats my opinion]

72. Good discussion.

There are lots of OT stories like the one in the Elisha cycle you mentioned. So maybe someone was attacked by a bear. Here comes the imagination of somebody in a very superstitious era. The story itself has no following, but is abruptly dismissed as anti-religion. It doesn't make it because nobody sees in it any important moral--except, don't screw with a prophet. It comes from very early in the primitive world which was filled with such stuff. The fact that a lot of Christian fundamentalists and others believe in the literalism of these tales is part of the real problem scholars, theologians and preachers have to face. Our task is to get people out of it. I once taught preaching in a major seminary, and when a student preacher came in on Monday and said, "I think I'm preaching over their heads," I replied, "your job is to get them to raise their heads." And it happens far more than one might realize. But as you point out, it is a hard job.

But when people see what these stories are, for them they are not just abstractions, but powerful entrees into the meaning of life, purpose, love, service and meaning. So for many people, including a large number of r/ters there are blackberries to be picked, and that's OK.. But there are a minority of people who take off their shoes. If for you they are just abstractions, give those who see into them something else the credit and the right to find life's deeper meaning where they have, even if you don't find it there. I suppose that is really what it means to be a liberal..

I might say I have enjoyed this conversation with you, even if we basically disagree... I have decided no longer to respond to a few others on this forum. It serves no purpose. It just gives them something to attack. So I have hit the little red man in one instance and may be about to again..

[Silent3]

74. I can't, and have no desire to, take away anyone's "right to find...

...life's deeper meaning" in any material in which they can find such meaning. If I dispute what a person claims to have found, however, or dispute the clarity of the way they describe what they've found, that is not an infringement on that person's rights.

Lessons about the human condition can be learned reading Shakespeare. Revelations about the meaning of life can be found watching Star Trek. While some fans of both might take their devotion to these subjects to religious extremes, these subjects are not, however, considered to be actual religions. These things are understood to be fiction, regardless of any broader truths or insights found therein.

Fiction does not cease to be fiction because it contains some truths. Fiction does not cease to be fiction when it inspires compassion and tolerance and understanding. Fiction does not cease to be fiction because people's lives are enriched by it.

I think you want to convince us that religion (Christianity in particular, perhaps) is something grander and deeper and more ennobling than mere fiction, while still not accountable to the drab literalistic demands of scientific accountability or historical accuracy. Further, it appears you want to leave the door open for some people to take the stories of their religious faiths as historical fact because... well, I'm left grasping for a coherent rationale. The diplomatic value of doing this is clear, but is there more to it than that? I doubt you want to wander into the epistemological abyss where every person is entitled not only to their own opinions, but to their own historical facts.

If you want me to believe that religion is grander and deeper and more ennobling than mere fiction, that its truths belong to a special category of truth, I am obviously not convinced. While I do not doubt your sincerity or your good intentions, all I see so far is (probably unconsciously done) special pleading and obfuscation.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tama]

81. "Epistemological abyss"

Well said. Aristotle had many categories of truth, epistemological truth being one of them, more or less equivalent to scientific truth. Aristotle placed two other forms of truth above epistemology, namely philosophical/theoretical truth of "passive observance" and phronesis, which could be described as holistic non-judgemental and participatory situation awareness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis)

[trotsky]

77. I find it incredibly interesting...

that those you have "decided to no longer respond to" also asked you the toughest questions.

But then given the history of theology, particularly with regards to Christianity, this should really come as no surprise. We should be thankful, I suppose, that all you can do is ignore them now, as opposed to burning them at the stake like your theological predecessors did.

[skepticscott]

71. And which of those things

which are "not historic but always true" can be known only through religion? If the answer is "none", then of what use is religion? Why subject society to all of the negative effects of religion, when there is no benefit not obtainable without it?

[tama]

82. If

religions - not exclusively but among others - can help and guide people to find deeper truths than epistemological truths and dogmatic definitions, then they can serve such purpose.

And how can we liberate society from all negative effect of exclusive hierarchic institutions based on dogmatic definitions, not just religiouss forms of dogmatism but all included - e.g. current mainstream "economic science"?

[skepticscott]

83. Not remotely an answer to what I asked

But feel free to try again. You simply assumed that religion could accomplish such things, but provided no specific examples of what they might be. Just like everyone else here who touts the "other ways of knowing" that religion is supposed to so gloriously provide.

[tama]

84. OK

perhaps it was not an answer to your question, just a related point of view. :)

If we take religion in the widest meaning of the word, ie. "spiritual practices" or something like that, do you see any good reasons to doubt the POSSIBILITY that also religion (besides psychadelic drugs, walk in the woods etc. etc.) can provide "spiritual" (in search of a better word) experiences and learning, growth in wisdom and compassion? Or is this for you a matter of active disbelief?

[skepticscott]

87. CAN religion provide "spiritual" experiences?

Of course it can. I didn't deny it above, nor ever. And in any case, "spiritual" is such a fuzzy and subjective concept, that it would be impossible for any individual to say that another individual COULDN'T get what was (to them) a "spiritual" experience from just about anything. If you say that passing gas is a spiritual experience for you, who am I to deny it?

But, once again, none of this was what I asked. Read my post #71 again if you need to refresh.

[tama]

93. OK

read again 71.

Again, IMHO it's too much to ask that religion in general or this or that specific religion should have a monopoly, patent right and intellectual property copyright on any experience, and not only too much to ask but that's where the problems really begin, when somebody starts to claim that "my way or no way".

And as for passing gas, having attended some Ayahuasca symposia as well as tried Kambo and another vomitivo, I can tell you that vomiting and shitting can indeed be very "spiritual" experiences. And let's not go into some left-hand path practices that even the Jackass dudes were genuinely horrified by... :)

[skepticscott]

94. Another non-answer

So I won't waste any more of my time trying to get a straight, honest response from you.

[cleanhippie]

99. Do you remember the scene in Mel Brooks' History of the World part I where...

Mel and his sidekick are trying to get their unemployment money from the lady who played "Maude", and she asked "occupation?"

Mel replies "Standup Philosopher!"

And she replies after looking him over with "Oh, a bullshit artist."


That's what comes to my mind when I read these "philosophical" answers from your interloper.

[skepticscott]

102. I'm just waiting

for the acid trip to end and reality to resurface. If it ever will.

[tama]

80. Church hierarchies

have been and often still are very interested in definitions and dogma. And we all know where dogmatic definitions and disagreements about them can lead, in religion and in politics and everywhere. Critiques of Christianity and other traditions can of course hold to their expectations of definitionism, but is it really rational and wise to claim that there is nothing else to Christianity or other traditions except dogmatic definitions?

"Credo quid absurdum est" is an old slogan, and brings to my mind now quantum wierdness and Feynman's slogan "shut up and calculate", because it's impossible to understand.

[tama]

79. Is debate

more rational than dialogue? Are rationalism and intellectual debate skills not antithetical to wisdom, can they be important part of wisdom?

Is fear of losing face in a debate more important than learning wisdom? What is the wisdom of debates constantly degenarating into flame wars and generating lot of negative feelings?

I have some experience of talking circles with talking stick, where the wisdom is in supportive listening. It is a form of non-violent communication, and that is how I understand all forms of dialogue.

I know from experience that dialogue is possible also over the Internet, though I must also admit that often cases trolling, debatism etc. can create lot of energy that moves the discussion forward and also to new avenues.

[Yo_Mama]

86. The rules of behavior and the reasons for them are very important to me

The "customs", which I separate from ethical rules, are not.

As a Judeo-Christian monotheist, my first reaction to your question was that I feel far more kinship with atheists (I was once an agnostic) than I do with polytheists or pagans. However I also don't believe that most people can understand other people's belief systems, so my other first reaction to the question would prove false if I bothered to ask other persons about their belief systems and study them. My guess is that if I spent a decade doing this, I would find my actual sense of "kinship" to be correlated not with nominal religions but with ethical approaches.

I am not willing to take the Mormon's belief in golden plates as historical fact, just as I preserve the ability to doubt many stories about things that were supposed to have happened according to my own faith tradition. But why should I care or why a Mormon should care about my opinion? I'm puzzled by the question.

I don't understand your questions about "flexibility".

To me, religions and non-religious ethical creeds are about the self, the self's relation and duties toward other persons, and about the self's relationship to the external world. Because a person nominally espousing a particular religion or non-religion, whatever it may be, will have different ways of dealing with their own belief system (some will use their belief system, consciously or unconsciously, to seek personal advantage; some will use their own belief system to attempt imperfectly to behave in the "correct" way which involves restrictions on personal behavior), I don't find nominal religious beliefs to be an objective sort or categorization system. An objective sort that determines behavior will always involve not just what a person says he or she believes but how she or he tries to carry out those beliefs.

Therefore I am not internally flexible about the ethical rules of my religion (as I understand them). I believe that they are absolutes whenever they interact with external reality (other people, the natural world, following generations). However the reality that I must continually fail overshadows all else, so I have neither time nor the energy to worry about other people's approaches to these things. Also since one of my religious beliefs entails safeguarding not just the physical life of all persons but their mental life (i.e. the ability to think on their own, choose on their own and behave on their own as long as it doesn't directly impact the freedom of others - without this there can be no salvation in the Christian sense), I can't correlate "flexibility" with behavior toward others. That being so, the question confuses me in this context.

Yes I do believe in the literal crucifixion and resurrection (in some sense) of Jesus. But I cannot in any way see why that is an issue for those of other beliefs? There seems to me to be something a bit whacked about running around worrying about all the beliefs of other people. Like it or not, most human beings will face a number of ethical dilemmas in their own lives, and figuring out what I believe and how I will react to these dilemmas is more essential.

[Thats my opinion]

89. solid post

The very sort of conversation we are hoping to see more of in r/t instead of anti-religious rants and internet generated examples of bad religion.

[darkstar3]

90. Got a mouse in your pocket?

I think what a lot of people would appreciate is less complaining about the board and other DUers.

[skepticscott]

92. What about internet-generated examples

of "good" religion? Should we also hope to see less of those, from you and a few others?

[skepticscott]

91. The reason you should care

is that so many Christians are determined that their "opinions" should be the basis for all law and public policy. I wouldn't care one whit if ignorant fundamentalists want to believe that god created the world as it is 6000 years ago, as long as that delusion stayed in their minds and their churches. When they try to force it over and over and over into public school science classrooms, then I damn well DO care, as should any sane and rational person. Same for their attempt to deny equal rights under the law to homosexuals because of their religious beliefs. Or any of a slew of other things I could name.

Please tell us that you care about those things.

[Yo_Mama]

95. I thought it was clear

I do believe that safeguarding individuals' ability to choose is imperative for religious reasons.

The OP questions were about the readers' religious beliefs, but to be honest I believe that safeguarding indivduals' ability to choose their own life patterns is essential for democracy to function. Democracies are inherently pretty inefficient politically; their advantage lies in the experimental aspects involved in personal freedom, choices, their real world consequences and representative government. A democracy may take 100 wrong paths, but it has the ability to find better ways based on experience and real-world consequences.

I believe in evolution, because it seems amply demonstrated. (Although since I was a kid, it appears more and more likely that the pan-Spermian theory may be correct - life on this planet may have been jump-started from microbial life on others. When I was kid, that seemed like a really whacky theory which was presented to us only briefly in sort of a historical footnote, but since then, the dates of relatively complex life have been pushed back so far that now it is more mathematically plausible than the alternative, plus we seem to have strong hints that microbial life is found in asteroids.)

Therefore obviously I would not like evolution not to be taught. However because science itself works on public debate, I don't really have a problem with creationism being presented to public school students, or any students, as long as it is presented as a competing theory. If anything, I think the comparison between the evidence would lead anyone to a belief in evolution.

Science should not be taught or presented as a belief system - it destroys the underlying basic of science. At most, there are a very few axioms in scientific method, and those extremely basic, such as the idea that the natural world follows rules, that those rules can be derived from observation and experiment, the ability to form predictive hypotheses, etc. All the other things we know or think we know are derived from observations.

I am from Georgia. I certainly am exposed to a lot of fundamentalists and I do not seem to ever find the vast hordes of shrieking fundamentalists that so many describe.

I believe in equal civil rights for homosexuals and gender-blurred individuals.

[trotsky]

96. As an aside...

Panspermia theory isn't a competitor of evolution. Evolution starts with the first replicating cell on earth and goes from there. Whether that cell arose from abiogenesis or from outer space is irrelevant.

[Silent3]

98. Creationism is not "a competing theory"

There are plenty of creation myths from plenty of different religions and cultures. None of them are scientific theories. A scientific theory is a whole lot more than someone's wild guess about how things work.

If you pick out Christian creationism, even the carefully denatured "Intelligent Design" form of creationism, from among all of these other alternatives, and put it head-to-head with evolution in the classroom, the very act of doing so gives creationism way, way more credence than it deserves, making it appear to be a worthy scientific alternative, particularly equally deserving in consideration and study.

Do that, and you've given the religious zealots half of what they want. "Teach the controversy" is a favorite Fundamentalist get-a-shoe-in-the-door tactic.

[skepticscott]

101. So you've answered your own question about

why you should care what other people's religious "opinions" are. Why exactly were you puzzled about the question in the first place?

[Silent3]

97. Many of the rules of behavior for many religions...

like, oh, don't kill, don't steal, etc., aren't particular details of particular religions, they're fairly universal among human beings, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

To me, religions and non-religious ethical creeds are about the self, the self's relation and duties toward other persons, and about the self's relationship to the external world.

What you say here makes particular religions seem rather beside the point, which is my point.

Perhaps you feel that each person needs their own personalized mythology or magic formula to be a better self, to have moral and ethical relationship with the rest of the world, and since that's an important end result, you don't want to quibble with the means each person gets there. If so, however, that attitude (which I'm not necessarily saying is your own attitude, just an attitude that what you're saying brings to mind) reduces religion to a personalized mental game, and again puts the particular details of various religions into question, which is again my point.

I have neither time nor the energy to worry... But I cannot in any way see why that is an issue for those of other beliefs... running around worrying about all the beliefs...

Ah, the "why do you care?/why worry?/why bother?" gambit. This is worthy of a whole new thread. In short, I'll just ask these questions: Exactly how much "worry" and bother does it take to hear a claim and think it preposterous? How many non-religious subjects are there where people differ in opinion that, in the end, probably have no great importance to your life, but you happily discuss these things and voice your own opinions anyway?

[Yo_Mama]

100. Your point betrays a lack of knowledge of at least my religion

What you say here makes particular religions seem rather beside the point, which is my point.

The fact that most societies have realized that we will create a hellish mutual life if we cheat, beat, lie and steal doesn't help us stop cheating, lying, beating and stealing, if you look at history. And then there's the mass murder. Human beings generally appear to have a much stronger ability to perceive reality than act on it, and we are not too great at perceiving reality when it conflicts with our self-interests either.

I consider Christianity to be a sect of Judaism, but it has a particular set of beliefs which describe a way that people can access strength they do not have in order to be better than they can be if they don't pursue that way. Therefore, knowing about and following those practices is highly relevant to conforming to what, in honesty, I believe every normal adult human being should be able to perceive as valid ethical standards on their own.

So it's relevant to me. But I am not sure it is relevant to many "nominal" Christians. It's hard to even understand even a few other human beings well, so I am not sure.

I also note that it is very obviously similar among a number of different Christian divisions, and although I don't understand Buddhism, for example, it seems to me that in many ways they are following a similar set of practices that are aimed at the same end. In particular, when talking to several people who seemed, as far as I could tell, to be serious and knowledgeable Buddhists they seemed to be describing the exact same series of mental steps that Christians are taught in order to access "grace". Except the Buddhists seem to be all complicated about it. Christianity is pretty much the special ed class of Judaism. It's not complex. You can make it complex, but it isn't. It's a dumbed-down, very accessible religion that works quite efficiently for people who aren't going to spend their lives studying ethics but will follow a few pretty simple guidelines (which prove very personally painful), and I think that's one of its virtues.

Anyway, I am not deploying a "gambit" when I say I don't know why anyone would care. What possible difference can it make to me whether or not somebody got golden books from someone? I fail even to be interested in or care about the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth because I can't see what difference it makes in practice.

All I care about is the interactions with the other person. It would entirely impossible for the average person even to learn the basics of more than one of the complicated religions in one lifetime, so I don't care on grounds of impossibility. If I were a professor of religion I would care, I suppose.

Perhaps to some extent this is personal idiosyncrasy. But I suspect it is more middle-aged syndrome. Life fills up and you have to pick and choose what you will do and what problems you will take on, and the space to worry about stuff that seems less applicable just vanishes from your life as you get older. Maybe if I had more time I would care. But then you inevitably get involved with caring for other people, so when spare time opens up it gets filled pretty quickly.

Maybe I'm naturally just not a contemplative type of person, and you are!