|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 08:48:44 [Permalink]
|
I will agree with all of that. Public mention of religion is not an indicator that someone actually lives in a supernatural haze. I suspect that most educated, mature people don't really think that gods do much of anything. Were they allowed by society to look at their ideas and to say out loud that they reject the ideas of god(s), I think most would.
That reminds me, I started to read someone's blog about Mitt not being acceptable just because he's Mormon, but because he believes his underwear has special powers. Anyone know anything about that? I meant to look into that more and didn't.
(edited later to say I wonder if this is just b.s. cooked up by other xtians who wish to make Mormons look stupid. Seems most Mormons don't think their underwear has special powers, they just tend to wear certain kinds for modesty reasons, and they often have symbols on them to remind them of certain spiritual goals - someone correct me if that's all hogwash too) |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/15/2007 08:56:32 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 08:49:15 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote" quote:
I always find it interesting that people who support the hatred of reality, think that people who want to stop self-hatred, and the hatred of reality to be the ones that are hateful. Much like the Rabbi who asked why atheists are angry. Why would you be so angry at reality to create a separate one that doesn't do anyone any good?
Well, Gorgo, thanks for that complete over generalization of every kind of religious belief - they simply hate reality. Got it. But reading this post of yours, I can't help be reminded of the Henry L. Mencken quote that Kil keeps on his profile: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong."
My problem with Harris is that I think he pushes logical fallacies and misinformation about many religious folks and encourages religious bigotry.
Sam Harris wrote: quote:
The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva.
Is this a classic slippery slope fallacy or what? If there are meaningful differences between these different kinds of Christians – which there are or else Sam Harris wouldn't be able to refer to them each uniquely – then his whole claim here falls apart. He's calling guilt by association. In reality, fundamentalists who do not vote and who want church-state separation (and there are plenty of such fundamentalists in this nation, for example, the South Baptists initially supported Roe v Wade for just that reason!) are not supporting Dominionists. They are not supporting them exactly because of these differences of political opinion and theological interpretation.
quote:
Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society.
Harris never says how these Christian liberals deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. This stinks of the same kind of logic that gay marriage will damage hetero marriage. I guess all the churches who participated in Darwin Sunday this year and last, and all the clergy who participated in a letter writing campaigns that supported teaching evolution in schools are part of this denying a proper collision with scientific rationality? Not to mention the overwhelming majority in this country which is perfectly well able to separate personal religious beliefs from politics.
Hell, by the same logic that Harris uses above, someone could argue the exact opposite of Harris's argument. Instead of saying religious belief is the continuum, let's say that rationalism is the continuum. In that scenario, only hard-core blind-faith fundamentalists would be outside of the continuum (in the same way that atheists are outside of the faith continuum). So then ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by refusing to support the Dominionists, support moderate and liberal Christians through their doubt. Christian libe |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 08:58:32 [Permalink]
|
My irrelevant two cents:
I don't personally get what's the relevance, either - in our primarily Catholic country, we've had at least two atheist presidents (including the current one). One recanted and said he wasn't an atheist, but he was talking to, guess what, a religious interviewer. That was P.R. Both were elected twice. It's no big deal.
But it is a big deal in a country that (seems) to be moved by religious beliefs more and more. So I get your point of view, even if over here it would be a non-issue. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 03/15/2007 09:09:58 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:04:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Gorgo wrote" quote:
I always find it interesting that people who support the hatred of reality, think that people who want to stop self-hatred, and the hatred of reality to be the ones that are hateful. Much like the Rabbi who asked why atheists are angry. Why would you be so angry at reality to create a separate one that doesn't do anyone any good?
Well, Gorgo, thanks for that complete over generalization of every kind of religious belief - they simply hate reality.
re·li·gion (r#301;-l#301;j'#601;n) n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The people you are talking about seem to be those who do not believe in a supernatural governor of the universe, so therefore, they are not the people I'm talking about. They are the people who seem to be atheists, but have some problem with admitting it. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:29:15 [Permalink]
|
Siberia wrote: quote:
My irrelevant two cents:
Your two cents is never irrelevant. I appreciate your unique point of view, not being from the USA. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:34:15 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
The people you are talking about seem to be those who do not believe in a supernatural governor of the universe, so therefore, they are not the people I'm talking about. They are the people who seem to be atheists, but have some problem with admitting it.
I agree that they are probably not the people you are talking about (although Harris is certainly talking about them), but I disagree that they are atheists who have a problem with admitting it. Perhaps some liberal believers fit in that category, but after having delved deeply into conversations with such liberal believers, and reading books and articles written by liberal theologians and clergy, I don't think they fit into either of the two categories you've mentioned. They are not atheists in any classical sense for they are not hard core Rationalists. But they also do not have blind faith. Their beliefs live in a more ambiguous realm of thought. It may all be a mental trick for avoiding these questions entirely. Or maybe a choice to cultivate a mindset that finds beauty and acceptance in the great unknowns. Either way I think it is irrelevant to politics. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:40:05 [Permalink]
|
It is not that I think any and all religious beliefs should not be up for criticism. They absolute should be! But criticism should be done in proper context. I don't think the political arena is an appropriate context for such criticism, because the nature of politics is to water down once sophisticated arguments into rhetoric that can be twisted by the dumb masses and used to fuel bigotry and hatred of whole groups of people who fall under certain religious labels.
The proper context for criticism of religious beliefs is in civil conversations with interested individuals, books on the subject, philosophy clubs, and that sort. Most people never bother thinking deeply about these issues, and many are not even capable of understanding all the fine nuances at this level of philosophical debate. Including them is dangerous because, as Bertrand Russell put it: quote:
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/15/2007 09:41:50 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:48:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think the political arena is an appropriate context for such criticism, because the nature of politics is to water down once sophisticated arguments into rhetoric that can be twisted by the dumb masses and used to fuel bigotry and hatred of whole groups of people who fall under certain religious labels.
Someone else wisely said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and politics is largely on the same level. We think we have a choice, and we do within certain boundaries, but largely, the present system is just another way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:58:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree that they are probably not the people you are talking about (although Harris is certainly talking about them),
I don't take what he says to be hateful. I take what he says to mean that they have largely rejected some medieval notions, but not completely, and because they make some medieval notions a good idea, that leads to the slippery slope, and the false dilemma of having to decide which medieval notions are not a good idea, and which are, when there is no good reason to say any of them are a good idea. Although, I do admit I find it hard sometimes to figure out what exactly Sam Harris is trying to say at any given moment, as I'm sure many people find it hard to figure out what I'm saying. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/15/2007 09:59:15 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 10:09:42 [Permalink]
|
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=6016#91595
I think this post said it better than I did. If you find someone that believes in the supernatural and ask them these kinds of questions, you'll usually come up with the same kinds of responses, or you'll find out that they really don't think there is a supernatural world. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 13:06:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
that leads to the slippery slope,
Which is a logical fallacy. You can't condemn a person's beliefs as harmful just because they fall on a continuum with beliefs which are known to be harmful.
quote:
and the false dilemma of having to decide which medieval notions are not a good idea, and which are, when there is no good reason to say any of them are a good idea.
I think that if an idea is not harmful, deciding whether it is a good idea for any individual becomes a very personal decision. Holding some vague belief in a supreme being or some vague belief in an afterlife, or any other vague belief in the supernatural (a term that itself is highly vague, and some here I'm sure would argue meaningless) is no more harmful it-of-itself than the awe and wonder I feel when I go to the U Penn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology to draw. And those vague beliefs might be just as personally beneficial to some people as that grand sense of awe I get when I look at those artifacts of by-gone cultures. I can't explain my awesome fascination with those artifacts any more than a liberal Christian can explain their faith, but it is a real experience, and that experience certainly feels wonderful and therefore improves the quality of life.
quote:
Although, I do admit I find it hard sometimes to figure out what exactly Sam Harris is trying to say at any given moment,
You are not alone. He often seems to contradict himself.
quote:
as I'm sure many people find it hard to figure out what I'm saying.
Ha! That's probably true of most people who think deep thoughts and try to express them to others with words. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 13:18:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Holding some vague belief in a supreme being or some vague belief in an afterlife, or any other vague belief in the supernatural (a term that itself is highly vague, and some here I'm sure would argue meaningless) is no more harmful it-of-itself than the awe and wonder I feel when I go to the U Penn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology to draw. And those vague beliefs might be just as personally beneficial to some people as that grand sense of awe I get when I look at those artifacts of by-gone cultures.
The "vagueness" of many theists' beliefs is precisely what makes them so unsound. It's fuzzy, muddled thinking. Try and get someone to explain what they even mean by "spirituality" and you often times get a shrug--"you know," they say.
No, I don't know, and apparently they don't either. Any belief that requires not clarifying or thinking very hard about it cannot be considered a positive, especially when the alternative is clearly superior. Far from making an idea better, vagueness only serves to disguise deficiencies.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/15/2007 13:24:02 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 15:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Who cares what the politicians believe about the meaning of life? Especially considering that they can lie easily enough about it. The only thing voters should care about is what a politician believes and will do about public policy.
In a perfect world, I agree with you entirely. However, the fact is, the non-political beliefs of politicians can and do have a significant impact. For those that are open about it, it can be debated in the appropriate political arena, or pointed out that it may not be appropriate.
The bigger threat is those with a significant religious agenda who are prepared to mask it in order to gain more political power before being open about their agendas. Here I'm thinking of movements as sponsored by the Discovery Institute and their ilk.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Frankly, I'm giving less and less of a flying fuck about this whole atheist Congressman thing because I find it repulsive when Christians made such a big deal out of a politician's personal religious beliefs, and so I cringe to think of atheists doing the same thing.
Again, in principle I agree with you, but in practice it can't work that way. There are religious beliefs which preclude the option of not making a big deal about it, so we have to be prepared to deal with that.
If someone makes their atheism a part of their platform, it doesn't offend me in any way. If it was their entire platform then it's a real problem, I certainly don't assume that an atheist will necessarily be a good politician.
Even if (a)theism shouldn't be a factor in politics, it can be another indicator of a candidates thought processes and skills, and in the never ending quest to pick the best rat from a bunch, I'll take as much information as I can get. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 15:05:19 [Permalink]
|
I'm all for forthright criticism of all religions, even those that are tolerant and peaceable. "Bullshit Lite" is still bullshit.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 18:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I think that if an idea is not harmful, deciding whether it is a good idea for any individual becomes a very personal decision. Holding some vague belief in a supreme being or some vague belief in an afterlife, or any other vague belief in the supernatural (a term that itself is highly vague, and some here I'm sure would argue meaningless) is no more harmful it-of-itself than the awe and wonder I feel when I go to the U Penn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology to draw. And those vague beliefs might be just as personally beneficial to some people as that grand sense of awe I get when I look at those artifacts of by-gone cultures. I can't explain my awesome fascination with those artifacts any more than a liberal Christian can explain their faith, but it is a real experience, and that experience certainly feels wonderful and therefore improves the quality of life.
Credo consolens - I believe because it is consoling.
As much as that appeals to me, it would be dishonest for me to just believe.
As long as theistic fundamentalism is being asserted, we need assertions of atheistic fundamentalism. To prevent those moderates along the religious continuum from drifting to the theistic extreme. After all, for the most part, we are a nation of believers. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Thank Stark
