> <jstein@> wrote: snip >
> > Since I don't portray everyone who shares a specific > > religious heritage as bad guys it doesn't apply to me. > > But I can think that they are wrong about what they are > > asserting or that there is little evidence for fantastic > > claims. And that the people who make less fantastic > > claims are shielding the ones who do while still > > maintaining the absurd premise that they have a unique > > insight into the mind of the creator of the universe and > > his desires concerning this world. > > Yeah, that's the latest antireligion talking point, > that moderate religionists are equally as dangerous > as fundamentalists because by being moderate, they > "shield" the fundamentalists. I object to the use of the term talking point. I learned this concept from Sam Harris and agree with him. It is not a talking point and there is not organized group giving out talking points. This just spin to frame the idea in a diminished context. I'm sure you wouldn't like every idea you use from Maharishi ti be referred to this way as if some organization if feeding you ideas. > > I think that's a crock and a half. It sounds to me > as though the antireligionists are pissed off at the > moderate religionists because they aren't as easy to > mock and challenge. So the antis have dreamed a basis > for attacking moderates for being *more rational*. I think you are missing the point. The intellectual question is where do we draw our lines? Once you believe that a single book has been dictated by or accurately represents the mind of the creator you are over the line of want I find reasonable. And the phrase more rational is exactly the point. I agree that they are being more rational but they are not being rational enough if they still believe that they have an insight into ultimate reality because of their special book. Moderates have many irrational notions but because they don't hold some of the most offensive ones they are not challenged. But once you say the Bible is the word of God, even if you interpret it more liberally and less liberally you enable the person who says God hates gay people. The first epistemological step is the big one. > > I repeat, the militant antireligionists seem to me > just as fundamentalist and absolutist as the most > fundamentalist religionist. The antis simply don't > think anybody should be allowed to have any religious > beliefs whatsoever. "Allowed?" I have never seen anything like this in any promoter of non religious ideas myself. Intellectually challenging the basis for a person's assertions is a long way from asserting that you now the mind of God. Not all non religious people are anti religious. Religion covers a lot of ideas, some of which are part of our society and should be valued. It is the authority of their ideas, that they are somehow different from anyone's because they are sanctioned by God that should be challenged IMO. > > You said something revealing in a previous post, that > we have "erred on the side of" not suppressing religion > and of not being uncivil to religionists. > > I commented that I hoped "erred" was just a figure of > speech, but I'm not entirely sure it is. I think the > antis really do believe deep down that it's a mistake to > allow religion to exist and to treat religionists with > civility. I can't speak for other people. This is not my view on the surface or deep down. I have my own conviction and believe I am right. But I am not claiming that I am absolutely right or that I know the mind of God. > > It's particularly ironic on this forum, where a > defense of one's spiritual views is constantly attacked > as being intolerant of other spiritual views, but > intolerance of *all* religious views--even beliefs that > can't be shown to result in bad behavior--is considered > perfectly fine. Am I right in thinking this is addressed to someone else? > > I just don't think that's rational, and I think it's > potentially dangerous. There needs to be a middle ground. > (Fortunately there are far more religionists than antis > in this country, so we probably don't have to be > concerned about anything worse than incivility from the > antis.) I really don't consider you a "religionist." I agree that religious believer are in the majority. But often the version is so watered down it isn't more than a cluster of beliefs brought out during stressful times. As a person willing to let people know I am not a believer in some contexts I am surprised how many people will express their religious doubts to me like some sort of atheist confession. People are often not as deeply religious as they will posture in public. I consider that progress. > > > > > > > If a person today claims the holocaust never happened > > > > > > we challenge the idea with facts. If people claim > > > > > > Jesus rose from the dead we have a right to say "what > > > > > > is your proof?" > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any significant differences between > > > > > these two claims? > > > > > > > > Sure, among them that the claim that Jesus physically > > > > rose from the dead is among the protected ideas in our > > > > culture that is felt is beyond challenge despite it > > > > being asserted as a fact. > > > > > > Any other differences? > > > > This is annoying. There are many which one is important > > to you? The claims about both Jesus and the holocaust are > > based on historical evidence. One has good evidence and > > one has bad evidence. But they are both asserted as > > physical history about something that happened in this > > world, not the afterlife. the Bible uses accounts of > > people at the time as evidence for what they claim > > historically happened. > > That's usually the type of evidence given for historical > claims before the advent of photography and newspapers > and other more dependable methods of documentation. > There's a surfeit of reliable documentation of the > Holocaust. There are even survivors to testify to it. That is my point. The conflicting testimonies of people in Jesus' time should raise the red flag about its reliability. It certainly shouldn't be considered to be such solid evidence that you should base you life on it. At least to me! Usually people refer to internal states which are poorly understood as the proof of Jesus. I believe that once we understand these internal state better we will not be so caught up in the religious interpretation of what they mean. > > If Jesus had actually risen from the dead, what other > kinds of evidence *would* there be but accounts of > people at the time? > > You're demanding something you know is impossible on > its face and then waving the victory flag when it > isn't forthcoming as if *you* had proved something. Not really. We make this historical judgment call all the time with the evidence we have. Society does a shitty job evaluating religious history which should be properly classified as historical novels. > > And BTW, that the Holocaust occurred is certainly > among the most "protected" ideas in Western culture > in terms of the social consequences of challenging > it. I agree. I am against the German governments penalties for Holocaust deniers. > > <snip> > > > > > You sound as religious here about your perspective > > > > > as the most fundamentalist Christian, Curtis. > > > > > > > > That claim is bogus. I am doing the exact opposite of > > > > a person who uses scriptural authority. I am saying > > > > that every claim religious or not is up for discussion. > > > > This is not my perspective, it is the basis for Western > > > > civilization. > > > > > > And therefore not up for discussion, right? > > > > We are discussing it. > > What's not up for discussion is the assertion "Every > claim is up for discussion because that's the basis for > Western civilization." It is a value I hold. You are free to share it or not. But in our intellectually free society it believe it is important enough to be one of our explicit rights. Most Western countries value it. I'm not sure what you are objecting to? e > > > Are there topics that should not be discussed? > > Not as far as I'm concerned. Then we agree. > > <snip> > > > > > To me, it's not a matter of whether religious belief > > > > > is exempt from challenge; it's a matter of whether > > > > > indulging in such challenge is a distraction from > > > > > focusing on the *behavior*. I really don't care > > > > > whether someone believes Jesus rose from the dead > > > > > as long as they behave humanely. I don't even > > > > > especially care whether someone who holds this belief > > > > > thinks of themselves as better than me as long as > > > > > they don't allow that belief to affect their behavior > > > > > toward me (or anyone else). > > > > > > > > You are taking a wack-a-mole approach. I am addressing > > > > the root of the problem. Expecting people not to have > > > > their religious convictions effect their behavior seems > > > > unlikely. > > > > > > For good or ill. But I think the root of the problem is > > > failure of compassion, which hijacks religious beliefs > > > as justification. > > > > Our application of compassion is often shaped by our > > religious beliefs. I remember Diane Sawyer interviewing > > a man who had murdered his sister who had sex to regain > > the honor of their family. For him it was an act of > > compassion for the girl and he felt nothing but pride in > > restoring his family's honor. Compassion is not a > > universal quality especially in how it is applied. > > Removing it from the context of protected religious > > absolutes allows us the freedom to say "this is bullshit > > man you just killed your sister" instead of "atta boy > > son you are doing the work of God on earth." > > You make my argument for me. Go after the *behavior*. The motive for the behavior was the belief that it was God's will and therefore above human laws against murder. We don't have that same problem in some other religions, why is that? There is a flaw in the idea. We have to get comfortable saying this idea is wrong, not just the action. > > Do you think there might be devout Muslim men who would > decline to murder their sisters to regain the honor of > their families? Yes. But that is a personal refusal to abide by the will of God if they are a part of this strict version of religion. It goes against what is believed as the will of God which makes it a dangerous belief. > > <snip> > > > > So is it Ok to believe > > > > that Lincoln was not assassinated? Which historical > > > > assertions are exempt from normal questioning? > > > > > > Huh?? Is the belief that Lincoln was not assassinated > > > a religious one that can't be either proved or > > > disproved but is held on the basis of scriptural > > > authority? What bad behavior does it generate? > > > > It is an historical event and Jesus's resurrection is > > presented as an historical fact. It is not exempt from > > the kind of research we do to try to find what happened > > in the past. > > What would you expect to find as a result of such research > if Jesus had actually risen from the dead? That is up to the people asserting the idea that he did. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me. It is a baseless assertion and our society should not elevate that style of thinking as one of societies most revered ways to think. It should be considered ignorant to believe such a fantasy rather than see its value as a myth just as we do other myths. > > > > And please stop attributing to me the view that beliefs > > > are somehow inherently "exempt" from questioning. Again, > > > you're putting words in my mouth. > > > > You accused me of unsavory things like being a bigot for > > questioning the basic precepts of religious beliefs. > > I did no such thing. What I said was that making the > problem of oppression all about religious beliefs was a > *recipe for bigotry*--in other words, it has that > potential. OK > > > That is the shield I am talking about. Claiming that > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate. > > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of > opposing bad behavior. OK > > Curtis, you aren't reading what I write. > > <snip> > > > > But one uniting belief for most Christian groups is the > > > > physical resurrection of Jesus and the authority of the > > > > Bible as an accurate statement of how the world works. > > > > > > I'm not sure it's "most Christian groups," Curtis. There's > > > quite a bit of variation, particularly with regard to the > > > "accuracy" of the Bible. > > > > Sure there is a continuum of beliefs ending in Unitarian > > probably. But the majority do believe that Jesus's death > > and resurrection has an effect on how they will spend > > their afterlife. You can only drift so far from that > > claim and still be a Christian. > > Right. But that claim in and of itself doesn't automatically > translate into bad behavior. As PaliGap pointed out with > regard to karma (to no response from you), you have to add > other claims to it before you get bad behavior--i.e., > because I believe Jesus died for my sins and was resurrected, > I am "saved," and therefore I am entitled to...(insert list > of bad behaviors). But the part after "therefore" isn't > in the Bible or even in doctrine; and people who have a need > to engage in bad behavior will find an excuse to feel > entitled to do so *whether they're religious or not*. Agreed > > PaliGap added at the end of his post: > > "(And perhaps the real villain is not 'fatalism', but > something that lies behind that: religious hubris, the > idea we can know the intentions of God. But personally > I wouldn't think we moderns should get too smug about > that, as hubris seems to be the sin of our age too!)" > > Hubris is not by any means peculiar to religionists. > > <snip> > > > By all means go after their oppressive behavior. By > > > all means challenge their false statements with regard > > > to facts (e.g., that gay men are pedophiles). > > > > > > But I'd leave it to clergypersons to challenge the > > > belief that Sodom got zapped because its men were > > > homosexual; or that St. Paul was condemning > > > homosexual orientation rather than pagan practices. > > > > Why? I think it can be a team effort. The Bible does > > condone things including slavery that we reject. > > Picking and choosing while still viewing it as a special > > book with an insight into God's mind and intention is > > missing the root of the problem that derails this > > discussion. > > If that's the premise you're insisting on, promoting it > wouldn't exactly be a "team effort" with clergy, now > would it? > > > How can you argue with a person who claims that their > > view is God's view? > > How can such a person argue with someone who claims > the person's view *isn't* God's view? By using the evidence and rational thought we use in every other discussion other than religious ones. > > > > (Nothing wrong with an intellectual discussion among > > > laypeople about biblical hermeneutics, but again, that's > > > not the first order of business for them, IMHO.) > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by the first order of business > > for laypeople. In my life determining my views about > > religion pretty much trumped everything else for a large > > part of my life. > > No, I'm talking about the order of business for people > who are motivated to do something about the suffering > and oppression in the world. The first order of business > for them, as I keep saying--where they should put the > bulk of their time and energy, IMHO--is in challenging > the behavior that causes suffering and oppression, not > arguing with the perps about their belief systems and > the correct way to interpret scripture. I believe in arguing against the whole concept of "scriptures." As we have already done with most historical literature. > > > > > > It strikes me that the objection to *ideas* simply > > > > > because you find them "superstitious," rather than > > > > > evaluating people in terms of their *behavior*, is > > > > > akin to condemning gay people for what they do in > > > > > their bedrooms instead of evaluating how they behave > > > > > in society. > > > > > > > > You are confusing your own point here. The parallel > > > > would be if gay people asserted that they had to be > > > > gay because their gay Bible told them to be that way. > > > > > > Different parallel drawn on a different basis. I'm not > > > even sure what yours has to do with anything. I thought > > > the relevance of mine was pretty clear; I don't know why > > > you have a problem with it. > > > > Because it is a non sequitur. > > It was an observation. It didn't necessarily follow > anything except the general arc of the discussion. > > We are looking at different > > logical levels. I am interested in one you are interested > > in another as a priority. Gay sex in private does not > > effect me. Believing that God is against abortions so > > poor people in my state should have limited access does. > > Here's my parallel: > > Gay sex in private = private religious belief > What gays do in society = what people who hold certain > religious beliefs do in society, i.e., behavior > > It's entirely possible to believe that God is against > abortion without trying to limit access to it for poor > women. But that isn't happening now is it. > > <snip> > > I have stated why I put my attention where I do. I > > majored in philosophy and spent years reading scriptures. > > Of course this is going to interest me and I will see > > behavior as stemming from beliefs. Ordinary schmoes can > > refute the absurd claims of religion too. We each choose > > our battles and go with our interests and strengths. I am > > not judging you negatively for your choices. I don't > > believe my choice is better in general. It is just > > better for me. > > Sure. For one thing, it's a whole lot easier. The > question is whether it's as effective against suffering > and oppression. > > I mean, is it all about what's better for you, or is it > about what's better for those you want to help? Both. I don't find those concepts to be at odds in my life. >
