Love, Faith and GUI's

[same_difference]

Right today is the day after the all important meeting to do with the project I've been doing vague preparatory work on. I was supposed to be starting things properly today. So what do I find? My supervisor is not around. His coat is definitely on the back of his chair, but that chair has stayed decidedly empty all morning. I still have things to get on with but not the big kick off I expected. Also my code is borked for reasons that completely lose me. It’s a spreadsheet type of thing. The worst problem being that the data structure contains the data correctly, the text value for the entry widgets matches and is in the correct position, what actually appears on screen doesn't match. It makes no sense.

Anyway moving on. A couple of nights ago I had a long talk about faith and things with my Dad, very similar in style to the one I had with my sister over Christmas (but forgot to mention here). Personally I believe in God, I've been raised a christian, whether or not I still count as one I'm not sure. I don't and will not associate myself with any of the christian denominations. I can't join up to any of their takes on christianity knowing I don't fully agree with them and accept the beliefs I'm supposed to. Its great what a (compulsory) GCSE in Religious Education does for ones take on religion.

For me there’s a very big distinction between faith and religion. Faith is personal, and as long as you get what you need from it and it causes no harm to anyone else I don't care what you believe. It’s your faith and not my place to decide. As far as I'm concerned proper atheism is a faith. The absolute belief without supporting evidence that there’s nothing else in this universe apart from what you can see and feel, that when you die - that’s it, is an act of faith. Religions, as far as I'm concerned, are a bad thing. I can understand why they exist, why the concept came about and developed, but the bad they do far, far out ways the good. I can appreciate that a lot of religious leaders, etc, are very intelligent, very well read, very wise to put it simply, but I just don't agree with the idea that some else you should tell you how to believe and what to believe. That’s the short version of my view. If you want to talk about it I'd gladly discuss it with you, but generally it’s a topic I stay out of as most people have very strong and very inflexible views on it.

What was discussed with my Dad was the point behind religions, what they do and eventually, after I stated the above opinion though in a little more detail, we moved on to the concept of atheism. He can't understand it, and I'd love to hear a debate between him and someone who claimed he was an atheist. My Dad is not even vaguely an extreme christian, you would get a perfectly reasonable and intelligent debate about it, and I know he believes that his argument is such that at the very least you would go away thinking about it, and maybe he's right. I really enjoyed talking about, its one of those subjects that its nice to have a reasoned discussion about as its very rare it doesn't become an argument between two people with rigid and inflexible view points. Not to miss represent his argument I'll give the simplest summary:

'If atheists are correct and we are nothing more than a blob of chemicals that eventually ends and is gone forever, why do anything?'

I look forward to the comments.

Lastly I’m just saying this more so that I’ve written it down than anything else. I’m in love with P, I know it, I’ve stated it openly, it’s a certainty that feels engraved on my soul. Now one of the key things about me is that I work best with someone to bounce off. I’m at my most creative, and understand things best when I have somebody to just talk at about it. This is one of the main reasons that I’m so lucky to have P that I can talk to her about anything. This is the first time, either of us has been in love, and we’re still learning about what that means. Because I can talk to her about anything, I can mention any doubts or fears and by doing so I’m able to understand exactly what I’m thinking and feeling, why I’m thinking these things and what it is they actually mean. By talking it through with her not only do I understand, but she realises and understands her feelings and thoughts as well. We have had a few of these conversations and each time it seems to bring us closer together. For all the certainty about what we feel these this tiny bit of us that has to keep ‘checking’ and by talking it through we learning why and what it is part of us feels it need to check. I’m not sure if this is normal but I think it’s the best way. With all these new and strong feeling there’s a lot of confusion and even fear at times, and because we both terrified of losing each other, ever slight thing gets flagged up to be checked, packaged in a worry that we might be wrong about out feelings. Then by simply talking about we can see what it was that caused the worry, understand what happened and understand our feelings for each other so much more. I love her, and I’m learning what that means and it’s better than anything I could have imagined.

Comments

[elmyra.livejournal.com]

I am an atheist. I fully agree with you that this is a faith. I will quite happily comment on why I still live and meander through the universe and do things and how I give meaning to my life (and even quite happily discuss it with your dad :-) when I have more time (feel free to remind me).

Mili (in between meetings)

Two things

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

"I can appreciate that a lot of religious leaders, etc, are very intelligent, very well read, very wise to put it simply, but I just don't agree with the idea that some else you should tell you how to believe and what to believe."

This is a slightly silly argument, don't you think? Or rather, an extremist one. Arguing that organised religion is bad because they tell you what to believe, is analogous to arguing that pubs are bad because they tell you what to drink. They don't, they just provide the drink: you chose what to drink and how much.

(It's also worth pointing out that no religion has ever lead to people killing each other. Men acting in the name of a religion do that. You're effectively protesting humanity's lamentable propensity to follow "evil" leaders, which has nothing to do with religion, organised or individual.)

'If atheists are correct and we are nothing more than a blob of chemicals that eventually ends and is gone forever, why do anything?'

Ah, a trick question begging a trick answer: "Because the collection of chemicals that we are makes us do things!"

The collections of chemicals that permitted themselves to sit down and do nothing aren't here any more! (Interestingly, contrast a recent report suggesting that suicide is linked to high intelligence or self-awareness - blobs of chemicals that became too aware of their own nature?)

Re: Two things

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

I won't respond to (ii) its not my argument to make.

With regards to (i) you misunderstand me a little, but that has a lot to do with what I use the word religion to mean. There are people with the christian faith and people who subscribe to a christian religion and they not always the same thing. A religion is the organisations, the rules and the rituals designed and created to bring about social control. As history is shown social control isn't always used for good either. The problem is religions dilute faith, they take it and clarify it as it suits them, and what is remembered is the clarification not the situation that the clarification involved in. In the same way they those that make up the heads of the religion use it to enforce certain, often necessary, rules and ideals but those very ideas become part of the religion and why they were introduced is forgotten. Take kosha (sp?) the Jewish religion insists that you may only eat certain things, 5000 years ago it made sense some things were not safe to eat (pork couldn't be kept in any way), nowadays theres no reason for it, but its part of the religion so people do it.

My personality is such can not feel comfortable joining a religion unless I agree with everything it stands for.

To take the pub analogy, if you choose a pub, you can drink however much or little you want of what they provide , only when they are open . The pub of course isn't a great anology and I see the point you were trying to make. I just tried to clarify what I mean when I say religion.

Re: Two things

[(Anonymous)]

How do you tell the difference between "men acting in the the name of a religion" and the "religion"s that you claim haven't lead to massive war?
If it walks like a Pope and quacks like a Pope, holds the keys of Saint Peter like a Pope, then surely it's a Pope?

If we're a bag of chemicals then why not do anything? That my life has no devinely mandated purpose does not detract from the fact that I am great. Obviously not as good as say, rock dwelling bacteria for most life-related purposes, but still pretty good.

In fact how would a devinely mandated purpose help give life meaning? you just pushed the problem of purpose into someone elses lap; you've added another layer of complexity to the problem without actully addressing the issue.

Paul

Re: Two things

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

"How do you tell the difference between "men acting in the the name of a religion" and the "religion"s that you claim haven't lead to massive war?"

More trick questions, right?

You've said it yourself - the men are acting in the name of the religion. It's not the religion that's causing deaths.

By contrast, democracy (taking the place of "religion" conceptually here) is not killing people. But there is a man acting in the name of democracy that is. This is entirely that man's fault. Democracy didn't make him to do it.

[kipperfish.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna comment on the love thing coz that's what I feel most qualified to talk about given that I probably have exactly the same view on faith as you, but can't/don't want to talk about it much. So, as for the love thing, the fear of losing each other, it's all perfectly normal, at least, I hope it is because I went through the exact same things. I don't know what I did wrong first time round, apart from allow her out of range of comforting for an extended duration and somebody else took over my role. Other than that, I don't know. With Morwenna, I think I pushed to hard to get to the situation I was in before, and she quite frankly didn't want to get that far, that quick, and maybe not at all. With indigogecko, I think I'm getting it right. I'm being authoritative without being pushy, allowing enough space, but not enough to let someone else in, and above all, making sure that I'm thinking about both of us, rather than just me, or just her. It's unhealthy to think of just her all the time!! :-)

Thanks

[same-difference.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comments is nice to have someone elses perspective on things. I think we're doing well.

On the religion thing I can understand your not wanting to comment, and to be honest it would be better to explain my view to almosthonest in person rather than in this medium. If this leads to an interesting debate all the better, and beyond a little clarification I have no intention of using this medium to defend my views, or argue my position. I merely felt like stating my views because it felt worth saying, and I'll happily dicuss them with anyone though preferably in person.

[ruthste.livejournal.com]

I had to comment on the 'allow her out of range of comforting for an extended duration' part of kipperfish's post. If you get to a point in any relationship were you believe that you have a right to allow or not allow your partner to do anything then things are going very badly indeed. You can't say that that was a mistake as you could not have changed things. By necessity of my course I am having to spend seven months in France. fourmyle had no choice whether to 'allow' me to do this or not. I make my own decisions. The only way that we could have avoided being separated for this length of time would have been if he had come to live here to. If he had we would have had to find somewhere to live as he wouldn't have been allowed in the school's accomodation. Then he would have had to find a job in a country whose language he barely speaks. So, we have to be apart. But our relationship is in no danger. If a relationship is ended due to distance then there must have been something wrong with it in the first place (no offence meant to anyone there).

[almosthonest.livejournal.com]

I can agree with your point on "allowing" never being part of a relationship, though (if I may speak on another's part) this is also more bad expression on kipperfish's side. I'd wager that the sentence "wasn't able to comfort her for an extended time" is a more accurate summation of the situation and why it was a problem.

[kipperfish.livejournal.com]

:-) I love my ability to not use the correct words every now and again. There was no actual physical "allowing" anywhere in reality. I meant more of what almosthonest wrote, but I guess I expressed it very badly. I think I used the word "allowed" more in a derogatory fashion towards myself for not e-mailing her more, not writing to her more, not visiting her more, not phoning her more, basically, not being their for her more. I allowed myself to let those things slip, which I probably shouldn't have done, and that would probably constitute a mistake.