| BookTalk.org News |
| • Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
realiz 
Intern
Usergroups: None
Joined: 22 Oct 2008
Posts: 194
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 7 in 7 Posts
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: Step in
|
 |
|
Interbane
| Quote: |
| At what point on the pyramid would you actively step in and say, "enough is enough! |
I am not sure if you mean me personally stepping in or society as a group stepping in, or what you mean by stepping in. If you mean voice my opinion, I've never been good at keeping my opinions to my self, but I do not regularly voice it in a public way because my opinions would never stand up because of lack of knowledge and articulation and my tendency to see things in shades of grey and/or jumping from one side of the fence to another.
Maybe because I have never been personally exposed to the extremes I have a hard time understanding it. Dan Barker grew up in one extreme and then reacted by totally rejecting everything. Isn't he making the same mistake once again? Being too sure and seeing things too much as black and white, right and wrong, and being convinced that he has to 'prove' his rightness? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7364
Thanks
Given: 62
Received: 20 in 16 Posts
Gender: 
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| The only thing Dan Barker can be accused of being sure of is that there is no evidence or logical reason to believe in a deity. Dan is not "sure that God doesn't exist." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Interbane
Stupendously Brilliant
Gold Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 755
Thanks
Given: 16
Received: 30 in 26 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
realiz: "Isn't he making the same mistake once again? Being too sure and seeing things too much as black and white, right and wrong, and being convinced that he has to 'prove' his rightness?"
Being too sure is something I have a problem with. Unfortunately I don't yet have the book so can't comment on his stance. Regarding firmness of belief, they position affects how it should be seen. Positive claims should have far less certainty than disbelief. That this works in practice is evidenced by science. Science works by disproving propositions, by disproving hypothesis'. The longer a hypothesis survives atttempts to disprove, the more it's truthfulness is trusted, but never fully.
You could make the argument that science and belief systems shouldn't be compared in this way, but you'd soon see that they do. We can start another thread on that, I think it'd be interesting.
Anyway, with regards to Barker's firmness in disbelief, I think it is far more warranted than his previous firmness in belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris OConnor
Rhodes Scholar
BookTalk.org Owner
Usergroups: None
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 7364
Thanks
Given: 62
Received: 20 in 16 Posts
Gender:
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Dan is an agnostic atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DWill
Stupendously Brilliant
Usergroups: None
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 720
Thanks
Given: 1
Received: 11 in 11 Posts
Gender:
Location: Berryville, Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Interbane wrote: |
Is DWill in the house? I think he'd have a problem with what I'm saying also. Although I think his point was that liberals temper actions rather than perception. |
As far as the pyramid itself is concerned, I liked it because it seemed to give us a means of talking about theists less generally, not as "theists are this" and "theists are that" and "well, you know how theists think." Sociological accuracy was the benefit I saw. I'm not so happy with the actual geometirc shape he chose, after I thought about it, but that's a side issue.
But I don't think the pyramid is real in any sense; it only gives us a way of conceptualizing the variety. What I mean is that people who belong to a religious body don't see themselves as being in relation to a spectrum of other religious believers. They just do what they do. There seems to be an expectation that moderates should do something about the right-wingers; not speaking out forcefully against them is I suppose what Sam Harris faults moderates for, and it is the reason he tags them as being part of the problem. But I don't know, moderate religion is just not a political action committee (as opposed to right-wing religion, which often is). The moderates do exert an influence, though, just by being moderates. It is like politics: the more moderates there are, the less room is left for extremists on either end.
Sam Harris says that after 9/11, prominent Muslims who claim to be moderate did not forcefully condemn the attacks and therefore allied themselves in a way with the terrorists. In this instance, my sense is that he's correct. I can't agree him with that moderates in all cases can be faulted for not doing more.
Sorry I didn't answer your question, after all. Maybe later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1703
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 16 in 16 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| DWill: As far as the pyramid itself is concerned, I liked it because it seemed to give us a means of talking about theists less generally, not as "theists are this" and "theists are that" and "well, you know how theists think." Sociological accuracy was the benefit I saw. I'm not so happy with the actual geometirc shape he chose, after I thought about it, but that's a side issue. |
Sociological precision is more valuable than tribal allegiences: but even the precise sociologist belongs to someone and some larger body...a bigger Other that enforces their "must be precise!" ethos...some call it "God"...few, if any, really know what it is.
The pyramid is ironic: especially since a primal image for Christian and Jewish faith involves God's liberation of the Jews "out of Egypt" the Land of Pharaoh and those spectacular pyramids...thousands of years old, weathering some of the planet's most extreme violence...no where near underwater...
Actually, the Pyramid could serve as Crucifix for Jews...a visual reminder of imperial brutality and God's liberation: God liberates, empires obliterate...the Pyramid/Cross represent the terrible sacrifice that empires demand...an indescribable waste of human minds, bodies and communities (in both cases, largely Jewish communities)...
and, like the Pyramids, the Jews have survived: but they differ in important ways...the massive and monumental Pyramids do not live...they are not alive: wheras Jewish people are living everywhere, now more than ever.
Trinitarian theology must reject the Pyramid model for two reasons: 1. It neglects the relational community of father son and spirit, where God is a relationship, a community interaction...persons in communion, in communication; 2. The liberation trajectory of the Jews out of Egypt includes Jesus, for whom the new Pharaoh was Ceasar (which is the narrative of Dr. King and US Civil Rights mythology...for whom American Imperial Racism replaced Rome's Ceasar)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geo
Intern
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Thanks
Given: 8
Received: 14 in 11 Posts
Gender:
Location: Asheville, NC
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
[quote="Chris OConnor"]The following is from Chapter 2: The Fall on page 37.
| Quote: |
| ...every Christian has a particular hierarchy of doctrines and practices, and most Christians arrange their hierarchy in roughly the same manner. The existence of God is at the top, the deity of Jesus just below that, and so on down to the bottom of the list, where you find issues like whether women should wear jewelry or makeup in church. What distinguishes many brands of Christianity is where they draw the line between what is essential and what is not. Extreme fundamentalists draw the line way down at the bottom of the list, making all doctrines above it equally necessary. Moderates draw the line somewhere up in the middle of the list. Liberals draw the line way up at the top, not caring if the Bible is inerrant or if Jesus existed historically, but holding on to the existence of God, however he or she is defined, maintaining the general usefulness of religion, and valuing rituals to give structure or meaning to life. |
Hi guys, I had to fly out to the west coast for a couple of days and didn't have much in the way of internet access. The good news is all that airtime gave me an opportunity to read the first eight chapters of "Godless," and I'm just going to jump in with some comments. Sorry if I'm rehashing stuff that's already been said.
I don't think the pyramid works very well to conceptualize the range of Christian beliefs, which are probably not so much hierarchal as they are linear. But in the end, where the different "brands" of Christianity draw their various lines is probably not so important. After all, we're dealing with beliefs that are based on fiction. The lines of demarcation of various beliefs would be fairly arbitrary anyway. Fundamentalism would be easy to represent because it's a straightforward position—that the Bible is the absolute literal word of God. But as you move into the other denominations, I think you would quickly move into fuzzy, obfuscate territory, one particular tenet not meaningfully different from the next. How do you distinguish, say, between the various tenets of Protestantism and Catholicism? Is one more valid or believable than the other? No. They're uniformly absurd when examined through the lens of reason.
Another thing to consider is that even those who profess to believe in their religion's tenets don't. Not really. The Catholics supposedly believe in the concept of transubstantiation, which is conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration (of course while maintaining the appearances of bread and wine). Not even your most diehard Catholic really believes that the holy wafer turns into Christ's flesh. Other concepts are so convoluted as to be ridiculous. Probably no one on the planet can explain the Holy Trinity in an intellectually satisfying way (at least to me) and, yet, many people profess to believe in it. When it comes to their religion, people are unexacting, to say the least.
There's also a great deal of cognitive dissonance when it comes to religion, probably due to the fact that the "beliefs" are highly improbable and deep down inside the believer knows that. One of the most basic Christian concepts is the idea that we go to heaven when we die. But does anyone really believe that? Does anyone really believe there's a hell? Dawkins points out in The God Delusion that if they did, there would be wild celebration at funerals. But, in fact, people grieve because heaven is such an unlikely place.
All things considering, I think it would be more meaningful to rate individuals psychologically in terms of the strength of their beliefs, from very strong (cult) on one end to not very strong, (agnostic) on the other. I think you would probably find that the strength of one's beliefs to be not consistent across various Christian denominations. In other words, Protestants aren't necessarily more devout than Catholics. Some Protestants are devout, some aren't; some Catholics are devout, some aren't, and so on. I don't think many people pay much attention to the actual theological aspects of their religion. They go to church for other (psychological) reasons. And Barker, so far in the book, hasn't covered those other reasons at all.
As a result of not probing into the psychological arena is perhaps why the first two chapters dealing with Barker's evangelical career seem somewhat superficial and boring to me. He goes through these twenty years with a very broad stroke. The younger Barker, who mindlessly preaches the Bible and even wins over many converts, seems at odds with the older Barker, who is so logical and so elegant in dealing with the deeper ontological questions. I don't think he adequately explains the transition into the person who later rejects Christianity. Later we'll find out that Barker's parents also come to reject Christianity and I find this transition baffling as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
realiz
Intern
Usergroups: None
Joined: 22 Oct 2008
Posts: 194
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 7 in 7 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
geo
| Quote: |
As a result of not probing into the psychological arena is perhaps why the first two chapters dealing with Barker's evangelical career seem somewhat superficial and boring to me. He goes through these twenty years with a very broad stroke. The younger Barker, who mindlessly preaches the Bible and even wins over many converts, seems at odds with the older Barker, who is so logical and so elegant in dealing with the deeper ontological questions. I don't think he adequately explains the transition into the person who later rejects Christianity. Later we'll find out that Barker's parents also come to reject Christianity and I find this transition baffling as well.
|
Well said. I felt this way as well. I keep wondering how the author Barker could have been this evangelical preacher who believed in the literal bible without question. I cannot admire this man very much for several reasons. His arguments and examination of faith seemed to be very limited, choosing the most ludicrous claims of the bible and then discussing for pages how they cannot be true and so there is not god. He uses a ridiculing tone in his book, especially in the chapter Dear Theologian. It is almost as if he is trying the same tactic as he would use to convert someone as an evangelist...just admit I'm right and follow me, don't look past this obvious evidence I am presenting because I am the smart one.
A couple comments he made about feminism sounded strange, but I don't have the book with me to quote them. He said something about believing in feminism and having a feminist wedding. It struck me as strange the way he worded it without reference to equality which is what feminism is all about. This is another area where he has done an about face where he went from being the 'man' of the family, the leader, the head, to walking away from his family and then going on to have a 'feminist' wedding (what is that?). He talks about the truth as though it gives him permission to hurt people, just as he may have used the bible as permission to discriminate and hurt others in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lawrence
Experienced
Gold Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 132
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 1 in 1 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| If a person accepts an absolute truth they limit their ability to think critically in the area to which the absolute truth applies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
The pyramid is ironic: especially since a primal image for Christian and Jewish faith involves God's liberation of the Jews "out of Egypt" the Land of Pharaoh and those spectacular pyramids...thousands of years old, weathering some of the planet's most extreme violence...no where near underwater...
Actually, the Pyramid could serve as Crucifix for Jews...a visual reminder of imperial brutality and God's liberation: God liberates, empires obliterate...the Pyramid/Cross represent the terrible sacrifice that empires demand...an indescribable waste of human minds, bodies and communities (in both cases, largely Jewish communities)... |
Another misnomer perpetrated by the church, a look at the historical record shows this to be false as well.
DH, I know that you don't mean to be ignorant on these subjects and it is true that what you say above is widely believed, but at some point the truth should be explored.
Taking your history from the bible is always a bad idea... much of it has been falsified by actual historical evidence.
Following is a passage by a guy named John who actually researched the topic...
| Quote: |
Actually, if you study the actual documented history Egypt there is serious doubt that there were the massive flux of Hebrew slaves as depicted in the bible. Assuming that the enslavement and exodus occurred during the Middle Kingdom, as thought by certain biblical references including the building of two cities for Ramses, there is a plethora of information from that period. None of said information refers to massive amounts of Hebrew slaves or to a mass exodus. Certainly, there is no literature from that time that points to the plagues that supposedly rained down on Egypt that were described in the bible.
The Middle Kingdom of Egypt was a vibrant time in Egyptian culture with many foreign peoples populating the land. Egypt had just recently reclaimed its society from being controlled by foreigners and thus were suspicious. Therefore, they assessed many more taxes on foreigners than on native Egyptians. During this period many cultures relocated, peacefully and staggered. Not in the mass exodus described in the bible. Also, recent evidence suggests that the "slaves" who built the cities and temples were respected artisans and workers. Of course, there were slaves in Egypt, as in most cultures of the time, but not the massive numbers portrayed in the bible. And most certainly not all Hebrew.
It is surprising that an empire with such a rich and well documented history would be completely silent on such events as described in the bible. These chapters in the bible were written much later by Hebrew priests attempting to make a great and powerful history for their small nomadic tribe. This tale ended with the Hebrews conquering the land of Israel thus giving rise to the myth of a Jewish holy land. This is obviously a story meant to give hope and spirit to people, to show that though they were outnumbered their God would save them. Unfortunately, the tiny Judah nation found out that these stories were just parables when they were conquered by the Romans.
John
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080113054116AAy3qVf |
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1703
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 16 in 16 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
John: Also, recent evidence suggests that the "slaves" who built the cities and temples were respected artisans and workers. Of course, there were slaves in Egypt, as in most cultures of the time, but not the massive numbers portrayed in the bible. And most certainly not all Hebrew.
In those days people didn't mind that tens of thousands of hours of labor and human sweat and blood was spent on the deluded fantasies of a pharonic family: no, they thought it was a good idea to devote the best of their intellectual and physical input toward the building of collossal monuments where the fortunes of an empire were buried deep inside. along with the stuffed bodies of the pharaoh and his entourage...these artisans and workers wanted to devote a lifetime of labor and effort so that a tiny few royal bodies might rest surrounded by gold and wealth and grain and servants and livestock...people in those days liked to pile away thousands of pounds of precious jewels and fine art and fabulous clothing made from the finest fabric, furniture from the most precious and fine woods, and most expensive materials: and hide it away to allow this imperial family their fantasy of domination in the next world...no, no one rebelled against this notion...no one thought it absurd and criminal and unjust and terrible...no one thought that perhaps that wealth and manpower and material and intellectual genius might have been better spent on other matters- like the needs of the slaves or the workers themselves...but, of course, the workers were respected and the slaves, well, who really cares about slaves anyway....
And the later court historians would never hide these stories of rebellion...they would never erase the stories of rebellion and revolution...what motive would the court scribes and pharonic spokesmen have for leaving out of their court histories the stories of slaves who said "NO!"...No, the building of the Pyramids was a pleasant time...happy workers and well paid artisans and slaves who liked their servitude...and all wanted to share the load and do their part and sacrifice something for the greater cause of Pharaoh's Eternal Kingdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
And the later court historians would never hide these stories of rebellion...they would never erase the stories of rebellion and revolution...what motive would the court scribes and pharonic spokesmen have for leaving out of their court histories the stories of slaves who said "NO!"...No, the building of the Pyramids was a pleasant time...happy workers and well paid artisans and slaves who liked their servitude...and all wanted to share the load and do their part and sacrifice something for the greater cause of Pharaoh's Eternal Kingdom. |
So DH do you have any evidence to support your view of this grand conspiracy?
Or are you just basing the whole above piece off of your personal view of the world?
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip
Masters
Usergroups: None
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 451
Thanks
Given: 17
Received: 6 in 5 Posts
Gender:
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Frank, have you heard of Winston Churchill's comment that history is written by the victors? The Jesus story is so wildly improbable and subversive that today it would be dismissed out of hand. Paul addressed your question in 1 Corinthians 1:20-28
| Quote: |
| 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are |
This argument was deeply infuriating to pagan intellectuals, and I can well imagine that in their position of power they would contemptuously despise and censor everything to do with Christianity in its early days. It inverted the idea of Messiah as king with Isaiah's prophetic idea of the suffering servant, attacking the conscience of the sensuous pagan world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seespotrun2008
Eligible to vote!
Usergroups: None
Joined: 30 Nov 2008
Posts: 24
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 3 in 2 Posts
Gender: 
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| After all, we're dealing with beliefs that are based on fiction. |
This in itself is actually a belief.
| Quote: |
| Fundamentalism would be easy to represent because it's a straightforward position—that the Bible is the absolute literal word of God. |
Not true. Interpretation is dependent upon the group doing the interpreting. The Baptists may say they take scriptures literally and the Seventh Day Adventists say they take scripture literally but one group worships on Sunday and one on Saturday. The definition of "literal" is based upon the groups' perspective.
| Quote: |
| But as you move into the other denominations, I think you would quickly move into fuzzy, obfuscate territory, one particular tenet not meaningfully different from the next. How do you distinguish, say, between the various tenets of Protestantism and Catholicism? Is one more valid or believable than the other? No. They're uniformly absurd when examined through the lens of reason. |
Which type of Protestantism? I think that to say that something that is very important to many people is "absurd" is insulting. The "lens of reason" is based on perspective and also based on what you believe. Is science your religion? And if so, what does that mean to you? I think that a discipline that requires proof and concensus amongst others is a good thing but it is not foolproof. Perspective and politics always enter into a scientific interpretation no matter how hard people try to be "objective". "Reason" is a personal perspective on what you decide is reasonable. Barker says:
| Quote: |
"Opening my eyes to the real world, stripped of dogma, faith and loyalty to tradition, I could finally see clearly that there was no evidence for a god, no good argument for the existance of a god, no agreement among believers as to the nature or moral principles of "God", and no good answers to the to the positive arguments against the existence of a god, such as the problem of evil. And beyond all that, there is no need for a god. Millions of good people live happy, productive, moral lives without believing in a god".
|
What proves God? And what is wrong with faith or believing in a divine being? "Millions of good people live happy, productive, moral lives" with God as well. Barker seems condescending. I imagine that this is probably the way that he was when he was a fundamentalist christian as well. He is looking for "truth" and when he believes that he finds the truth everyone else is an idiot not to see his way. He talks about an interaction with his uncle:
| Quote: |
| "One day as we were driving back to southern California from a computer show in Las Vegas, he (Uncle Keith) pointed to a huge rock formation in the landscape and said, "Isn't that beautiful?" I looked at it for a moment and said, "Yes, it is beautiful. You can see how the multicolored ancient sedimentary sea beds were thrust upward after millions of years of tectonic pressure and are now tilted at an improbable angle." He turned to me and snapped, "Do you have to ruin everything?" |
This interaction seemed to me to be a power struggle between two people who have two different sets of beliefs. Barker knew what his uncle believed about the creation of the earth. Yet, he said what he said regardless. And his Uncle became annoyed and disrespected Barker's point of view. Both people were wrong and could have attempted to be respectful of the other's position. Instead they both decided that the other must believe the same as they believed. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
