The Word(s) of God

robindch

...spnning this off from the devil and hell thread...

Religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words. Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy). Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

There are so many examples of this glossing of woolly concepts, under-specified ideas and undefined mysteries that it frequently seems to me that no coherent picture of what any particular religion actually requires its adherents to believe could ever emerge from this semantic gloom. As Excelsior pointed out, there are as many versions of christianity as there are christians and so when things like the belief-o-matic turn up, few enough people actually believe what they're supposed to believe, and we end up with comments like ferdi's priceless one that trying to quantify a belief was bollocks (er, why?)

Anybody else find religious terminology impenetrable, where it's not either daft or stating the bleedin' obvious? And what are your favourite examples, if any?

Sapien

robindch wrote:

...spnning this off from the devil and hell thread...

Religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words. Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy). Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

There are so many examples of this glossing of woolly concepts, under-specified ideas and undefined mysteries that it frequently seems to me that no coherent picture of what any particular religion actually requires its adherents to believe could ever emerge from this semantic gloom. As Excelsior pointed out, there are as many versions of christianity as there are christians and so when things like the belief-o-matic turn up, few enough people actually believe what they're supposed to believe, and we end up with comments like ferdi's priceless one that trying to quantify a belief was bollocks (er, why?)

Anybody else find religious terminology impenetrable, where it's not either daft or stating the bleedin' obvious? And what are your favourite examples, if any?

It is spin, of the most ancient, practised and insidious kind. Religiosity has spanned all of our lives with a margin of millennia, and has long ago made language its bitch. It is a powerful weapon, and one which easily overwhelms weaker minds, but it is not insuperable. To the insightful observer religious buzz words can become a point on which to lampoon viciously and undermine arguments by exposing them as sonorous pastiche and cliched demagoguery.

bus77

Sapien wrote:

It is spin, of the most ancient, practised and insidious kind. Religiosity has spanned all of our lives with a margin of millennia, and has long ago made language its bitch. It is a powerful weapon, and one which easily overwhelms weaker minds, but it is not insuperable. To the insightful observer religious buzz words can become a point on which to lampoon viciously and undermine arguments by exposing them as sonorous pastiche and cliched demagoguery.

Political propaganda comes from people first. It is based on concepts, desires, needs, certain views. Not words. Insightfull subjectivists can spot it, and are immune to it. A powerfull, natural, weapon. An individual who does'nt know or care where he lies on the political fence, dos'nt know or care where his masters, his "educators" lie. Is nothing more than a machine. Given a name, given a history, given a platform, givin a purpose. Congratulations.

robindch

> religious buzz words can become a point on which to
> lampoon viciously and undermine arguments by exposing
> them as sonorous pastiche

...something very much on my mind today as I read an article in today's Irish Times on the disgraceful episode in the Mater earlier this week, in which trials of a cancer drug were blocked, for the sole reason that an informational leaflet, given to patients as part of the prospective trial, recommended that female patients not get pregnant during the trial (the drug may harm the unborn). This advice in favour of birth control runs counter to the "catholic ethos" which, it is said, pervades the place. :mad:

Anyhow, in the 1,500-word article (available here), 'ethos' appeared no less than 22 times, which, for me at least, marks it use safely as lampoon, whether intentional or not.

Excelsior

I think that there is certainly a strong vulnerability in religious language to malicious manipulation of people. I've spent the weekend with a firmly un-Christian friend who is a post-grad philosophy student and its been illuminating and refreshing to see him question me on the specific terms I use as a matter of course.

For me, as someone who is part of an evangelical church but who is less than comfortable with the evangelical label and the culture that pervades that strange sub-culture, my difficulty with terminology isn't the same as posters in this thread who fear that it pulls the wool over people's eyes by being superficially rewarding while meaning nothing at all. Rather, I fear that the "saved" jargon that I come up against day after day does the opposite- it makes the speakers unintelligable to the world at large. I suspect that while professing evangelical belief, many of these Holy Joes are happier having an introspective community that looks after its own instead of looking out to the town or area around it to make a difference. Slipping into religious language is an easy way to ensure that the community doesn't grow uncomfortably large.

bus77

robindch wrote:

...spnning this off from the devil and hell thread...

Religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words. Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy). Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

I suppose I've got to learn to be more constuctive.

I looked up Ethos. It's not just a word. It's the part of the bible you can't see well from your perspective. (your ofcourse free to lampoon it, if used too much )

From the Subjective............ to the Objective. Did you ever observe people watching tv or a film and the way they can be frightend by what happens to a character in a horror film. Or allternativly be lifted by the character surmounting imposible odds. Identifying with(and somtimes following or learning or remembering) the individuals, actions/words/encounters or example. Ethos. (technicaly, emphaty). And before you go away with a negative view, think about what effect It may(or may not) have had on overly cruel and unusual punishment's and slavery in continental europe.

bus77

Excelsior wrote:

I think that there is certainly a strong vulnerability in religious language to malicious manipulation of people. I've spent the weekend with a firmly un-Christian friend who is a post-grad philosophy student and its been illuminating and refreshing to see him question me on the specific terms I use as a matter of course.

For me, as someone who is part of an evangelical church but who is less than comfortable with the evangelical label and the culture that pervades that strange sub-culture, my difficulty with terminology isn't the same as posters in this thread who fear that it pulls the wool over people's eyes by being superficially rewarding while meaning nothing at all. Rather, I fear that the "saved" jargon that I come up against day after day does the opposite- it makes the speakers unintelligable to the world at large. I suspect that while professing evangelical belief, many of these Holy Joes are happier having an introspective community that looks after its own instead of looking out to the town or area around it to make a difference. Slipping into religious language is an easy way to ensure that the community doesn't grow uncomfortably large.

Excelsior, just a thought. Maybe you could try and show the transition from Brehon Law to Cannon Law in Ireland. Or maybe a comparison between the elements of early Jewish Law/History and Irish/Law History. Maybe it might 'broaden horizons' a bit.

Excelsior

Bus, you're gonna have to expand a little on that because I don't really understand your point. Sorry.

Cronus333

My school has an ethos. A lot of jargon about 'the pursuit of excellence'. so therefore its a fancy word for a belief system or an ideal.
God....

UU

Ethos is clearly defined as "a distinctive character, spirit etc. of people, culture, religion, etc.". So basically it is the whole identity of people of a particular religion - both physical and spiritual.
Examples are:
1. Jews waiting for the Messiah, not eating pork and males wearing yarmukles (i.e. skull caps).
2. Muslim worship of Allah and Muhammed and the women wearing headscarfs.
3. Catholic symbolism of portraits of Christ, Mary, etc., rosmary beads, etc. Oh, and the freaky Opus Dei who self-flog themselves with cilice (i.e. spiked belt) and the knotted rope.
4. Buddhist meditation practises, belief of reincarnation and enlightment.
5. And of course, Unitarian Universalist belief of people being able to think for themselves, diverse beliefs and denial of the Trinity.
As you can see the ethos of a religion is the whole appearance per se.

robindch

> [cronus333] ethos [...] its a fancy word for a belief system or an ideal.

Yes, though you're quite right in this instance, the issue I'm actually trying to get to the bottom of is why, when people start using words like "ethos" (grrr..), "teachings", "moral" etc, etc, that people appear to turn off their critical faculties and simply accept whatever it is without further question, and specifically, without seeming to think of the meaning of the sentence. A similar thing happens in the USA with words like "liberal", "patriot", "evolution" etc. The point being here that words like these have grown so emotively associated, that they succeed only in obscuring meaning, not conveying any.

An example: one friend of mine once explained to me that she leads a "much more moral life" than I do (without, I hasten to add knowing much about my personal life; but leaving that aside...). Anyhow, I asked her to rephrase her sentence without using the word "moral" or "ethical"; she paused, went puce when she realised what she'd said, then apologised.

> [excelsior] my difficulty with terminology isn't [...] that it pulls
> the wool over people's eyes [...] Rather [...] it makes the
> speakers unintelligable to the world [...] Slipping into religious
> language is an easy way to ensure that the community doesn't
> grow uncomfortably large.

Yikes, I think you're way off the mark here!

Firstly, I've yet to come across a religion which does anything, subtle or otherwise, to stop itself from growing -- rather the exact opposite, whereby every single one, with the arguable exception of the quakers, is actively in the business of 'evangelism' to a greater or lesser degree, and through one means or another (some mechanisms are very clever).

Secondly, the use of obcurist terminology seems to be a requirement to maintain the cohesiveness of a religious group. If religions were more maieutic in their approach to truth, I believe that they'd fracture and collapse as entities within society, simply because people would notice that they couldn't apply the suddenly-firm and clear definitions delivered from the pulpit to their own nebulous personal beliefs. So, unintelligibility, or specialist but vague, terminology actually becomes a necessity.

But, then again, we'd expect that from some of the craftiest, and most persistent, memes around

bus77

Excelsior wrote:

Bus, you're gonna have to expand a little on that because I don't really understand your point. Sorry.

I don't blame you. Ahh I was just sort of thinking out loud.

It was more in refererance to the more cultish Evangelists you were talking about as well as the larger 'Creationism' issue, but those issues are far larger than my or our general mussings.

Sapien

bus77 wrote:

Political propaganda comes from people first. It is based on concepts, desires, needs, certain views. Not words. Insightfull subjectivists can spot it, and are immune to it. A powerfull, natural, weapon. An individual who does'nt know or care where he lies on the political fence, dos'nt know or care where his masters, his "educators" lie. Is nothing more than a machine. Given a name, given a history, given a platform, givin a purpose. Congratulations.

Ever heard of a Turing Machine, bus'?

bus77

Sapien wrote:

Ever heard of a Turing Machine, bus'?

Tis true. I'm far too abstract.

Tell me though, did you ever hear of Ayn Rand?

Sapien

bus77 wrote:

Tis true. I'm far too abstract.

Tell me though, did you ever hear of Ayn Rand?

Abstract/nonsensical. I say tomato...

Yes, and please, unless you have an intelligible point...

bus77

Sapien wrote:

Abstract/nonsensical. I say tomato...

Concrete/Arrogant.
Did you not meen to say "we say tomato?"

That's my point.

Dades

Oooh just found this.

robindch wrote:

Religious discussion continually indulges itself in pleasant-sounding, but meaningless, hooray-words. Can anybody tell me what an "ethos" is, and how it's different in anything but tone from a "characteristic manner" (in which case the phrase 'christian ethos' suddenly loses any positive meaning, though does gain a peculiar accuracy).

robindch, I don't understand your hang-up with the word "ethos". I guess it's possibly because you associate it with religious jargon, and we know your thoughts on that.

I like the word because for me it's not automatically linked to faith.
I particularly like the dictionary.com definition:

The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.

In fact in the absence of religion at least we can say we have a personal ethos, when accused of being an immoral infidels.

robindch wrote:

Or why it is that religious people are blessed enough to be able to provide "teachings", whereas everbody else is stuck with having to make "claims"?

Don't we have "teachings" from Plato, Aristotle, etc?

Every large organisation has it's jargon. Whether it's religious rhetoric, political psuedo-speak or corporate buzzword bingo.

robindch

> I like the word [ethos] because for me it's not
> automatically linked to faith.

It's only in recent years that I've noticed this word being (over-)used specifically in relation to religion. Don't seem to remember it being nearly so irksome five years ago.

> Every large organisation has it's jargon. Whether it's religious
> rhetoric, political psuedo-speak or corporate buzzword bingo.

...the point of jargon, of course, being concealment instead of enlightenment. George Orwell's short essay on Politics and the English Language remains as lucid and relevant now, as it was when written in 1946.

And while we're on jargon, what about jargon between initiates, the kind which isn't supposed to obscure, but instead amuse people? The only bit of faintly funny religious jargon I remember coming across is the phrase "the frozen chosen" which refers to several different groups of chilly believers, mostly presbyterians it seems, in alaska, minnesota and elsewhere. Is there much more out there? (funnier than "evilution", natch!)

> Don't we have "teachings" from Plato, Aristotle, etc?

A finger-in-the-wind search on google for 'plato's teachings' produces 565 hits, just pipped by Aristotle with 760, while 'jesus' teachings' and 'jesus's teachings' is way, way out in front with around 180,000 hits, from which we can reliably conclude that the Greeks just don't cut it when it comes to producing 'teachings'

Asiaprod

Just out of curiosity, my finger-in-the-wind search on google for 'Buddha's teachings' produces a whopping 392,000 hits, which just about blew away Aristotle, Plato and Jesus's teachings. Does this mean that we can reliably conclude that the Buddha does cut it when it comes to producing 'teachings.'

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Yikes, I think you're way off the mark here!

I'm gonna have to pull my expertise card here then and say that years of experience have shown me that there is an introspective Christian sub-culture more concerned with protecting the cosy and "righteous" huddle they have created than reaching out to others.

robindch wrote:

Firstly, I've yet to come across a religion which does anything, subtle or otherwise, to stop itself from growing

Sometimes your arch-cynicism sends you down the wrong direction. I wish all the Christian churches were intent on growing since I think Christianity is the Good News but it simply isn't the case. Meaningless emotive words are one of the major walls erected to keep unsavoury, not-Holy-enough types out.

robindch wrote:

Secondly, the use of obcurist terminology seems to be a requirement to maintain the cohesiveness of a religious group.

I think you are being unfair here. Any group of people is likely to develop a vocabulary unique to their requirements if they share a common purpose. Anyone who has ever worked in the likes of Intel or HP or some other multi-national tech firm will realise that it is not exclusive to religions.

As a team of engineers develops useful short-hand technical terms, a religion will develop short-hand philosophical and theological terms. Thus, election means something at a student Christian conference in Kilkenny that it doesn't mean at the local GAA in the same city on the same day. That is not anymore obscure or unusual than the truly bizaare vernacular utilised by a hurling team.

I think there are more than enough solid points from which you can attack organised religion and indeed, Christianity in Ireland without taking risky half-shots Robin.

My initial point was that obscure terminology can go beyond simply a group with a shared purpose communicating about niche issues and turn into meaningless buzzwords with a sub-conscious intent to keep people out. That is very different from your claim of cohesiveness and farther away from my counter-claim that terminology exists in all groups just the same as it does in a religion.

Robindch wrote:

But, then again, we'd expect that from some of the craftiest, and most persistent, memes around

I can't understand why a skeptic continues to use such meaningless, scientrific jargon.

robindch

> As a team of engineers develops useful short-hand
> technical terms, a religion will develop short-hand
> philosophical and theological terms.

Yes, that's the point I was referring to. From my own experience, quite a lot of internal jargon can be quite funny, especially in engineering, my own area. But I've never noticed this tendency to a humorous internal jargon in religion, where humor in general seems to be in frightfully short supply!

> I think there are more than enough solid points from which
> you can attack organised religion and indeed, Christianity
> in Ireland without taking risky half-shots.

So, am I right in assuming from this that that you believe that the religions are not only well-specified and clearly understood at the 'supplier' end (priests et al), but also at the 'consumer' end (the punter at the back of the church), and that no confusion exists about what one is supposed to believe?

And if you do think this, then why do things like the belief-o-matic show that the opposite is frequently the case?

> I can't understand why a skeptic continues to use
> such meaningless, scientrific jargon.

Well, I've used the word and defined it a few times on the board before, so I'm assuing that most readers are familar with it. But I stand accused of being obscurist myself (awww ), so to get a taste of what I'm talking about, try the following short description:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/memetics.html

This one is a bit longer, but a bit more specific too:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/meme.html

...and let me know what you think. (BTW, I did read Alistair McGrath's comments upon the meaninglessness of the concept of memes. I'll be quite happy to reply briefly to his lenghthy comments, as they show quite clearly that he doesn't understand what the concept refers to, and so that his dismissal of the whole thing is faintly inappropriate )

Excelsior

Indeed, on humour, x3church.com are the only guys I can think of who really embrace it. Sadly.

If confusion over what to believe exists, it is mostly positive debate about whether what we believe is right.

Very few people on the Belief-o-matic thread were committed Christians, however you want to define that. Also, the confusion there could stem from the inevitable biases of the test authors.

I'd love to hear what you think of McGrath's argument. It has convinced me utterly. But then again, I've worked for Intel so my susceptability to being lured in by jargon (technical or religious) is very high. They wore down my immune system.

JustHalf

Excelsior wrote:

Indeed, on humour, x3church.com are the only guys I can think of who really embrace it. Sadly.

I really should get that Prod or Not site up...

robindch

> If confusion over what to believe exists, it is mostly
> positive debate about whether what we believe is right.

Yes, there's certainly debate in that way, but there's also the confusion that people rightly have when somebody with the authority of Ratzinger delivers yet another homophobic, or "We're all doomed (unless you agree with me)!", rant and people begin to wonder whether or not he's really in touch with the reality that I can see out from my office window (third floor, so there's a good view). Again, it's the same rather dishonest mismatching of public religious expression and private belief.

I'll have to get back to you later about the McGrath, because (a) I'm now heading out for a multiplicity of beers (b) he deserves a respectable reply and (c) I've yet to finish reading the second half of his lecture, as I stopped when he declared that memes didn't exist because there was no evidence for them (huh #1? apart from the obvious examples, even by simple definition alone, they exist; and huh #2: the rich irony of a religious person dumping on somebody else for holding beliefs which they claim are unsupported by evidence ).

The text that I've ploughed through is this one:

http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/lecture.html

btw, on the topic of humor, while it's not exactly what I was mumbling about above, there is of course, the excellent http://www.shipoffools.com...

Playboy

Can Dawkins show us empirical proof of the existence of memes? I just picked up Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life by McGrath so I'm not familiar with his argument yet. But really this all comes down to philosophy again. If you are an external realist and believe in an "objective" reality and truth then of course Dawkins and the rest of the scientific community are going to be your cup of tea. If you are a pragmatic realist like Putnam and you can find truth depending on the different conceptual frameworks you are operating in then there is no reason why you cant find truth in Dawkins and Christianity. Christianity isnt science and science isnt christianity so there there is no point trying to figure one from the opposing point of view. Its going to get you nowhere.

bus77

Playboy wrote:

Can Dawkins show us empirical proof of the existence of memes? I just picked up Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life by McGrath so I'm not familiar with his argument yet. But really this all comes down to philosophy again. If you are an external realist and believe in an "objective" reality and truth then of course Dawkins and the rest of the scientific community are going to be your cup of tea. If you are a pragmatic realist like Putnam and you can find truth depending on the different conceptual frameworks you are operating in then there is no reason why you cant find truth in Dawkins and Christianity. Christianity isnt science and science isnt christianity so there there is no point trying to figure one from the opposing point of view. Its going to get you nowhere.

I could'nt agree more. That's actually what happend to me. I actualy allowed myself to drift away thinking about all sorts of things like this while alone, and on the net, worried about war, the future, when realy I worried about was myself. ''Enemy's" and ''problems'' both worldwide and local became bigger than they really were. I lost my pragmatism because of that. If there is a hell, that's it. And at the end of the day I just found out I was lonely, looking for honest people with a similar outlook to myself, and a maybe a pint. That's life

Excelsior

Let's all go for a pint. Simple step towards a solution.

The strength of McGrath's argument on memes (and wider in his fascinating Science of God) is the clarity with which he espouses critical realism.

And Robindch, if McGrath speaks as a Professor of Theology at a conference on a Monday and then speaks as a Doctor of Biology at a different conference on a Tuesday, the demands and criteria of "proof" would not be the same. Its really about as ironic as an Alanis song.

Ship Of Fools is good. The Lark sometimes hits the nail on the head too. But the parodies of religion are still much better, like the Landover Baptist Church. Hi-larity!

bus77

Excelsior wrote:

Let's all go for a pint. Simple step towards a solution.

I'm up for that. I'm not as schollarly as you lot though, but it would be nice to see you's and meet the people behind the name's.