On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:56:19 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> These days, I tend more towards agnosticism probably more than
>> anything. I'm not prepared to say there *definitely* is nothing more
>> than this existence, I think there is a lot about life we don't know. 
>> <shrug>  I'm also not particularly bothered by uncertainty, though, and
>> that's a hard thing for most people.  That's part of the reason some
>> (not all) who are religious/deeply devout/whatever grab onto a religion
>> - because it provides some certainty in an otherwise uncertain world.
>> 
> You might be surprised to know that most atheists I know are atheist to
> the "existing" definitions of gods, but fall all over the line with
> respect to how "likely" it is that there is more to the universe, and
> what that even "means".

I am surprised by that, actually.  I appreciate you sharing that idea 
with me.

>> I really wonder what you have been exposed to of people who are truly
>> spiritual.  I realise how that sounds, but it sounds to me like you've
>> had a slew of bad experiences and very few good ones.
>> 
> I Really wonder if you haven't just got "very" lucky. 

I would doubt that very much.  I live in Utah (a liberal part of Salt 
Lake County), but my office is in Utah County, which is one of the most 
politically conservative parts of the state.  While I work from home 
probably 9 days out of 10 on average, there was a time I made the 45 
minute drive into the office every day.

More to the point, though, I spent 18 months as a traveling instructor - 
in that time, I had a broad exposure to many different ways of thinking 
on both ends of the political spectrum.

I also have good friends (some devoutly religious, some not) in pretty 
much all parts of the world.  Professionally, I work with people in 
pretty much every country where technology has taken hold.  While I don't 
have this kind of conversation with all of the people I work with (some I 
work with as a business partner, and it would be inappropriate unless I 
had a personal friendship with them as well), I've kinda sought out those 
different experiences in order to broaden my own world view.

I've traveled not extensively, but to a fair number of places in the 
world where the perspective on life is very different.  The former USSR 
(Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad).  Mexico (and not just Mexico City, in fact I 
hardly spent any time there, and while I did go to Puerto Vallarta for a 
few days, most of where I went in Mexico was smaller non-tourist towns).  
England, Scotland, the Bahamas (where I did get to see the real living 
conditions and not just the casino in Nassau), Bermuda (again, going to 
different parts of the island away from the tourist places - I hate the 
touristy kind of places when I travel, because I hate crowds - and I have 
a dislike for what American tourists have done to tarnish the way 
Americans are perceived around the world).

I have had the opportunity to talk about religion with people in India 
(as my company has an office in Bangalore and rotates engineers in from 
that office to Utah, I've gotten to know quite a few).  One thing I 
learned from talking to someone in India was how really lucky we are in 
the US to be able to chose our employment.  One engineer I talked to 
expressed a very different world view to that based on his own 
experiences - he considers himself extremely lucky to have landed a well-
paying job, but software engineering isn't his passion - it's just what 
he happens to be good at and what he was able to study in order to be 
able to provide for his family.  It literally was either become a 
software engineer or live in poverty - and not the kind of poverty we 
have in the US; *real* poverty, like a house with no roof, no indoor 
plumbing, etc.  I probably have the chat session recording somewhere on 
my system (I keep them all) - it's been a few years and I forget exactly 
how he said it, but it was a real eye-opening conversation.

> radical types have never been exposed to alternate views, wouldn't let
> themselves, if they knew from day one what someone's position actually
> was, and are more than willing to, when confronted with a real person,
> stick them in the category, "Well, this guy isn't so bad, unlike all the
> other ones that believe that way."

Yep.  But that happens on both sides of the conversation, too.  I've 
heard rationalists say the same sorts of things - and some pre-judge 
religious people before getting to know them.  It's a shame when that 
happens, because there's a lot both sides could learn from the other side.

> True radicals would never allow this, since "most" people have a problem
> "not" questioning some of the things they assume about other
> groups/ideas, when dealing with real people that hold them. 

Indeed this is true.  Part of the reason people have a problem not 
questioning things they assume about others is because of the 
differences.  In general, asking the questions isn't a problem, it's HOW 
you ask the questions.

> It depends
> on how good their mental blinders are. Most, just never allow themselves
> to have to make such self examinations. 

I don't think it's a question of allowing themselves to, I think it's 
more a question of never considering that they should.  Sometimes that's 
indoctrinated as part of the religious studies (we tend to associate that 
with cults, but it happens in mainstream religions as well), but 
sometimes it just never honestly occurs to them that they should because 
they are happy and contented with where they are.

For some people, life isn't a journey of discovery (self-discovery or 
other), but rather a chance to have some fun.  It's like a guy in another 
department where I work who doesn't care if he has this job or not.  The 
job is for him to have toy money so he can play; he and his wife operate 
an outsourcing business that brings in the real income and will for the 
next 20 years plus because of the contracts they've negotiated.  From 
talking with people who know him, he's here to have a good time.  There's 
really nothing wrong with that.

> But, the problem isn't really
> the number of people that "can" do that. Its the fact that those same
> people will, all too often, send money to, or indirectly support, those
> that deny even the "possibility" of such mutual respect.

Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly) the 
bad part, but supporting the good part.  I have a friend who, in her 
first marriage, was in an LDS marriage, full temple ceremony, "bonded for 
life" etc.  The relationship was abusive (not physically, but emotionally 
and mentally) and she got out after 10+ years of this.  Her father is an 
LDS bishop.  She renounced her membership in the church (had to threaten 
legal action to have them remove her name from the rolls) because she 
wanted to have nothing to do with them.  But at the same time, she still 
supports those who go on what are called "service missions" because they 
DO good works around the world, helping the poor and needy build a better 
life.  Projects like that *should* be supported and it doesn't matter 
what organization is doing it.  The world needs more people doing for 
others, regardless of religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message