Interbane:

What arguments, and what other side?

The extreme religious right: Example, if we allow ourselves to turn on one light on the sabbath, before you know it we'll be working all day long treating this day just like any other one.

If we accept any belief whatsoever in God, then we are sanctioning all interpretations of religious life.

realiz: "If we accept any belief whatsoever in God, then we are sanctioning all interpretations of religious life."

Is that against what you believe? Would you rather restrict the way people interpret the bible? Do you claim the archimedian point? For each perspective, there is a tolerance they logically have for those a bit higher and a bit lower on the pyramid. This extends through the variance of monotheistic belief until you reach extremism on one end, and liberalists on the other. Even for those far different in belief, they share the common thread of monotheism which is a belief system that naturally manifests 'in-group' behavior.

The legal system, and in some cases, shame, are two large limiting factors for what doctrines aren't allowed. Witch hunts no longer end up with people burning at the stake. The matter of what is 'allowed to slide' depends on who and how many are willing to jump on the bandwagon, as long as they aren't limited legally. When was the last time you scorned someone into not drawing their line a touch lower on the pyramid, especially when they firmly believed in it?

The population is lopsided from fringe to fringe, with extremists representing the minority. Pure assumption, but it makes sense that there would be more liberals now than in centuries past. That shift is a good thing. Extremism will remain as long as there are monotheisms based on bibles.

Extremism will remain as long as there are monotheisms based on bibles.

Extremism does not result from bible. Extremism exists in every group, every society, whether or not religion is involved at all. Look at communism. Extremism is a manifestation of human behavior that causes groups of people to follow leaders until things get so far to one extreme that a new generation begins to see the folly for what it is. But, then gradually the extremism will begin to build in another direction and cause a whole new set of problems.

realiz: "If we accept any belief whatsoever in God, then we are sanctioning all interpretations of religious life."

Interbane

Is that against what you believe? Would you rather restrict the way people interpret the bible?

Is that against what I believe? Yes, it is. Would I rather restrict the way people interpret the bible? No, absolutely not, though their activities do need to be restricted if they are breaking the law.

DB: Beliefs that used to be so precious were melting away, one by one. It was like peeling back the layers of an onion, eliminating the nonessential doctrines to see what was at the core, and I just kept peeling and peeling until there was nothing left.

Perhaps this is because at core what is at stake is not an essential doctrine, but something else. That particular something else is notoriously difficult to pin down and slippery to grab hold of. "God" is one of the best words we have for it, and it barely scratches the surface of what it attempts to describes. And what a word we have in God! Few others elicit more fear, admiration, terror, hope, confusion, illumination, rage, peace, befuddlement, insight, delusion and delight. What is the "something else" that is not reduced to doctrine, dogma, logic or empirical data, nor safely contained by any name or word...but manages to inspire and enflame like nothing else can?

realiz: "Extremism does not result from bible."

Not to cherry pick an argument, but religious extremism results from how those people interpret the bible. Extremism in general exists with regards to any belief. When it is an exclusive belief, like racism, religion, or nationalism, then we have a problem.

realiz: "Is that against what I believe? Yes, it is. Would I rather restrict the way people interpret the bible? No, absolutely not, though their activities do need to be restricted if they are breaking the law."

What would you do about an incident halfway between where you draw the line and where religious extremists at the bottom draw the line? At what point on the pyramid would you actively step in and say, "enough is enough!" Would you wait until their religious beliefs are a reasonable distance removed from your own? Would you not step in at all, even in the case of the WBC showing up at funerals of dead soldiers from Iraq?

realiz: "But, then gradually the extremism will begin to build in another direction and cause a whole new set of problems."

As long as we have a reason to exclude people, extremism will bring out the worst in people. Gradually shifting away from the three monotheisms and working toward a world government will go a long way. That's another thread, within the context of the pyramid or Barker's line drawing we were talking about religious extremism. I'm not sure if there will ever be a way to eliminate racism... perhaps when we're all a shade of grey in 1,000 years.

Interbane

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?

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."

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.

Dan is an agnostic atheist.

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.