Page 5 of 9

Re: Ch. 1 - Reason in Exile

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 2:16 pm
by Mr. P
Quote:It's a fairly common rhetorical device among atheists attempting to discredit religious belief -- reducing it to its most ridiculous terms, that is. The easiest way to discredit the idea of God, in some people's eyes, is to pretend that all conceptions of God are essentially analagous to Superman or the Great and Powerful Oz.It is not hard to get to those ridiculous terms IMO. But this is how the majority of people look at god, judging from the three most prevalent faiths. How SHOULD we look at god then? Would these faiths be lacking if we re-defined god according to some other terms? I do not take the fringe faiths into account when I ridicule religion based on an imaginary being...just those that are making an impact on our daily lives. A negative impact IMO.I am not sure who you know or have met, but MY experience tells me that a majority of people do look at god as a superman. But I thought personal experience did'nt count. You confuse me sometimes Mad!Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.Once you perceive the irrevocable truth, you can no longer justify the irrational denial. - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 5/2/06 3:19 pm

discussing god

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 7:51 pm
by MadArchitect
Tobiahsgirl: But in my (and my husband's) experience of "ordinary" (as distinguished from a liberal minority) Christians, ranging from mainstream Methodists to True Believers in The Rapture, I would definitely describe their deity as a tribal god.Then this may all boil down to a difference in experience. Granted, I've seen a lot of images and quotes from hell and brimstone evangelicals, but they are, as I've said, more vocal than moderate Christians. Most of the Christians I've actually met, however, tend to be more moderate, regardless of how they'd describe themselves. And it may be that your experience is more comprehensive than mine. Then again, it may be that your experience is more specialized as well.There is a huge percentage of Americans who worship this vengeful, ugly deity (who worship evil, in the words of Bruce Bawer), and who are fighting the teaching of evolution, banning books in libraries, standing by the roadside with pictures of bloody fetuses, and joyfully awaiting the world blowing up.Again, this contradicts both my experience and my study. Anti-evolutionary activists, to take up one of the examples you've named, tend to be rather isolated people who go through a great deal of effort to stir up entire communities. In the case of Kanawha county West Virginia, for example, much of the protest, and later violence, was attributable mostly to a cultural and political divide that was agitated primarily by one disgruntled board of education member. Close scrutiny of the situation (and I'm drawing on the National Education Association's case study for my information here) really only points us to one or two people who can be described as proactive religious conservatives in this case, though their influence on the community makes it seem as though Kanawha must have been seething with Christian fundamentalist zealots.misterpessimistic: But this is how the majority of people look at god, judging from the three most prevalent faiths. How SHOULD we look at god then?I don't presume to tell you how you should look at the concept of God. I just don't like the turn that conversations take when certain people make assumptions about other people's conception of God without taking the time to learn the personal circumstances of their belief. And as I've said before, I think it's potentially fallicious to presume to know how the majority of people, even within such well known belief systems as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, perceive their respective deities.But I thought personal experience did'nt count. You confuse me sometimes Mad!I confuse a lot of people. Must be my haircut.I never said that personal experience didn't count. It just can't be taken as the sole criteria for determing the truth of the matter. At the same time, I'm critical of the easy acceptance of the way in which any belief system, religious or otherwise, is presented in the media, even when the believers themselves are making that presentation. Someone else make a comment that I think is relavant here: do you think most of the "send money" tele-evangalists are firm believers? How much of their fervor is an image produced in order to make a certain gain? So why should we take their presentation of their religion at face value? In that regard, personal experience is likely a more valid guide than media representation.

Re: discussing god

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:54 pm
by Chris OConnor
Now that I'm ready to post I am a bit overwhelmed with the size of some of these threads. I wonder if newcomers to BookTalk ever run into this problem. There are 86 posts in this thread alone, so maybe I'll first post some of my thoughts and then go back and read everyone elses comments over the next few days. I'd like to read each and every post, but it would take an hour tonight.

Re: discussing god

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 2:32 pm
by tarav
On p 39, Harris raises a legitimate concern about presidents being elected in the USA without having to, "know anything in particular before setting to work." I have often heard people complain that adults should have to apply for a license before having children. However, I have never, until Harris, heard the same sort of sentiment leveled at presidential candidates. In fact, most often I have heard people favorably talk about the fact that anyone can become president.

Re: discussing god

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
by riverc0il
Quote:In fact, most often I have heard people favorably talk about the fact that anyone can become president.Any one with money and the backing of one of the two major parties, at least The legal requirements and reality are not exactly on the same page in this day and age.Quote:Now that I'm ready to post I am a bit overwhelmed with the size of some of these threads. I wonder if newcomers to BookTalk ever run into this problem.I wouldn't be surprised if thread length intimidates some new comers. What baffled me at first when I decided to join was post length, especially back and forth quoting and response. It is hard to maintain continuaty of discussion sometimes and that is challenging. You really need to read through all five pages to fully appreciate the discussion in many cases and this is unlike the current dimension of instant gratification, shortened l33t speak, and the general ideology of cramming as much information into a single page above the fold of the net. I appreciate the need to slow down and read everything here at BookTalk and attempt a well thought out post in response to someone else's views, opinions, thoughts, and arguements.Any ways... post away and read the threads when you get a chance. This is the only excessively long thread in the End of Faith forum currently, so fear not!

Re: discussing god

Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 6:24 pm
by MadArchitect
And really, so much of what goes on in this thread is tangental to the book itself, that it wouldn't really help to read through the entire thread before posting your thoughts about the book. The discussion may have taken Harris' arguments as a springboard, but they depart rather quickly from the book itself.

Re: discussing god

Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 5:36 pm
by MadArchitect
Tobiahsgirl: I think the best reliable evidence of individual religious belief is to look at the society we live in.Any interpretive view of society that ignores the methods by which is makes its decisions is bound to distort the view of the individual. In the case of referendums, for example, that there is a majority voting for one view or another may not serve as reliable evidence that the result of that vote actually reflects the beliefs or opinions of the majority of constituents. That's because voting is purely voluntary.Look at what I've suggested in previous posts. I'm saying that fundamentalists may seem more numerous than they actually are because they tend to be more vocal and active. That means, when there's voting referendum, you can expect most fervent fundamentalists to take part in that vote. Moderates, almost by definition, are less likely to vote. In part, this is due to the narrative of potential persecution that hardline conservative fundamentalists construct around themselves -- they tell themselves on a nearly daily basis that they're always on the precipice of being outnumbered and outgunned by homosexuals, militant minorities, depraved liberals and so forth, and the fear this generates motivates them to be more pro-active. As a result, they come out looking like a very numerous group, but that's mostly because the more moderate elements tend to be less visible unless you know them on a personal basis or make it a point to seek them out.It's necessary to draw a dinstinction between society as it is, and society as it presents itself. And the fact of our culture is that it has a nasty habit of only presenting the most extreme aspects of society. That's why hell-and-brimstone tele-evangelists are a more familiar trope than moderate clerics concentrating primarily on a congregation that they live among -- the extremes seek out their visibility. And it's easy to mistake that familiarity for evidence of an actual numerical proportion.All those individual beliefs add up to something; they do not exist on another plane or in a black hole.To really add up, there'd have to be anough identity between individual beliefs that we could treat them each as an easily consensibly unit. That's rarely possible with any sort of belief, be it religious or secular.We are the richest nation in the world; we have no national health care and we are dealing with disasters through charitable contributions. We don't have enough housing or provide many of our children with access to a good education. Many people in Maine are hungry some of the time. This is the best evidence to me of the nature of my fellow citizens' "religious" beliefs.Why would you pinpoint all of that as evidence as to the "religious" beliefs of the American population? That seems to me like a leap in logic. I'd say those things are evidence of our civic beliefs. Civic belief may be conditioned by religious belief, but to infer all of that from the statistics you've named is a huge step. More explanation would be necessary to satisfy me that the connection was as direct as all that.

Re: discussing god

Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 4:27 pm
by Tobiahsgirl
Gandhi said if you think religion has nothing to do with politics, you know nothing about either subject. Even the people I know and have known who appear to be "Sunday morning Christians" definitely infect their "civic" beliefs with their "religious" beliefs. They may live with the illusion that somehow they are separate, but they constantly reveal the god they believe in through their speech, their actions. I see the woman who repeats her secondhand religion ("I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for my salvation . . .") as being perfectly consistent in repeating her secondhand political opinions, which reflect her Calvinist, judgmental, self-righteous upbringing. ("People who are not like me, not good, church-going Christians, do not deserve health care.")Even in the censored (that is, the canonical) gospels, Jesus comes across pretty clearly as a lyrical radical. So what does the woman with the secondhand ideas believe in? Certainly not the historical Jesus, nor the Living Christ (see Thich Naht Hanh), but a figure calculated by Constantine to bring together diverse peoples and consolidate his power. Christianity, as soon as it became a state religion, was identical with political power.I still don't buy the idea that there aren't a lot of fundamentalists out there. And if you think it is only a handful of "extremists" who are interested in constitutional amendments outlawing abortion, enforcing school prayer, defining marriage, etc., you don't know how I wish I could agree with you.I just wanted to add that regarding the death with dignity referendum (put out for referendum by a state representative who is one of the most decent, humane politicians I've ever met), the opposition came from the Catholic church (French, and relatively benign), and Hospice (which however good a group it is, has an aggressive agenda) which persuaded clergy such as my "liberal" Episcopal priest to speak out against death with dignity. Neither of these groups could be remotely considered "fundamentalist," yet their religious agendas sought to impose their beliefs upon the public at large. Edited by: Tobiahsgirl at: 5/10/06 7:54 am

religion and politics

Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 1:20 pm
by MadArchitect
Tobiahsgirl: Gandhi said if you think religion has nothing to do with politics, you know nothing about either subject.I haven't said that they have nothing to do with one another. What I've said is that it's not always clear precisely what they have to do with one another. People vote in contradiction to their religious beliefs on a regular basis. It isn't always clear what relationship a person's religion has to their political views, and attempts to draw a direct correlation are often fallacies waiting to happen.They may live with the illusion that somehow they are separate, but they constantly reveal the god they believe in through their speech, their actions.And I don't see why they shouldn't, really. If your religious beliefs are holistic -- that is, if you think they have some bearing on the whole of life -- then why would you draw a hard and fast distinction between your political beliefs and your religious beliefs.The question of primacy also arises. I have no doubt that the decision to align one's self with one religious group rather than another is influenced by one's political and civic view of the world. To broaden the applicability of Ghandi's quote, if you think that politics has nothing to do about religion...So what does the woman with the secondhand ideas believe in?I think it's funny how you seem to want to imply some sort of perjorative with the phrase "secondhand ideas". As far as I can tell, about a dozen "firsthand ideas" appear every decade, and usually as the result of a lifelong devotion to a particular question. Even those people aren't drawing their ideas up out of the ether; they're buiding on ideas and views of the world that they've received from the cultures and communities into which they've been born. Everyone is dealing with variations on ideas that they've gotten secondhand. Damn one such person and you damn us all.Certainly not the historical Jesus, nor the Living Christ (see Thich Naht Hanh), but a figure calculated by Constantine to bring together diverse peoples and consolidate his power.Constantine was no singlehandedly responsible for the consolidation of the church, nor did he produce the impulse to do so by some miraculous act of parthogenesis. The early church was in an almost constant state of persecution, and solidarity was the key to the survival of both the institution and its members. To that end, there were efforts to consolidate the church for a period of centuries. The view that the Church took the form it did as a matter of conspiratorial caluculation is a conspiracy theorist's simplification of the actual historical process. Recognizing that it took its ultimate form as a matter of organic development (occasioned by deliberate attempts to influence that development) doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, of course, but don't satisfy yourself with the distortion.Christianity, as soon as it became a state religion, was identical with political power.To some degree, yes. Christianity wouldn't really become the nexus of political power until around the 8th or 9th century, and again, this was not the result of a decree but rather of an organic development and the attempt to hold together a society in crisis. I've discussed that development elsewhere in these threads, though, so I won't go into it here.I still don't buy the idea that there aren't a lot of fundamentalists out there.There are probably a great many of them, yes. I'm just skeptical of the idea that they form any thing close to a majority -- neither a majority of American citizens, nor a majority of practicing Protestants. If they really were a majority, then they probably wouldn't need to be so forceful, so vocal. They could whisper, and know that the majority would agree with whatever it was they had whispered.Neither of these groups could be remotely considered "fundamentalist," yet their religious agendas sought to impose their beliefs upon the public at large.I do see that as a problem, at least to whatever degree we hope to maintain our secular guarantee of tolerance. And I think that a large part of the problem is the absence of any recognition of a third answer. Religious institutions have made a major mistake by attempting to identify their own authority over their voluntary constituents with the compulsory authority of the government. The result has been a weaking of religious authority even within it's own proper sphere. More and more, they religious institution has been compelled to identify its own agendas with political agendas, else its own consituency senses a moral disparity. The only real answer I can think of is to begin the slow process of drawing reasonable distinctions between law and morality, and between the rightful spheres of religious authority and civic authority.Anyway, that's a damn big subject, and I won't drag on about it.

Re: religion and politics

Posted: Thu May 11, 2006 7:30 am
by Tobiahsgirl
Alan Jones, Journey Into Christ:One of our problems is that very few of us have developed any distinctive personal life. Everything about us seems secondhand, even our emotions. In many cases we have to rely on secondhand information in order to function. I accept the word of a physician, a scientist, a farmer on trust [my note: skepticism is not amiss in these cases, either]. I do not like to do this. I have to because they possess vital knowledge of living of which I am ignorant. Secondhand information concerning the state of my kidneys, the effects of cholesterol, and the raising of chickens, I can live with. But when it comes to questions of meaning, purpose, and death, secondhand information will not do. I cannot survive on a secondhand faith in a secondhand God. There has to be a personal word, a unique confrontation, if I am to come alive.There is a huge difference [me now] between unique ideas and actually experiencing life for yourself, thinking things out for yourself, instead of just swallowing propaganda, including religious propaganda. I must constantly remember on this forum that apparently other people have not had religious experiences, so "No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists" (William James).