She was in a convent, left, discovered she has a seizure disorder, got her PHD, and taught
- all while rethinkingand expanding her own religious beliefs. I like the clarity of her
thought - and the feeling that she does not have an obviouis agenda. She just states
thiings so simply and makes her insights seem obvious. I think she could actually change
and expand the thinking of mainstream people, if they end up exposed to her.
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Great article! I didn't finish her book on the History of God, but I
> learned a lot from what I read. I was interested to hear how her
> position on scripture changed after the TV frenzy died down. She is
> thinking about religion in an original, thought-provoking, way.
>
> I disagreed with a few points she made about secularists.
>
> I thought her dismissal of Dawkins as being "consumed by hatred" of
> religion was too superficial. His position doesn't have to be reduced
> to an emotion any more than her rejection of fundamentalist religious
> people can be reduced to her "hating" those people. Dawkins has his
> own reasoned opinions, and I felt she didn't give him enough credit
> for being as thoughtful as she is.
>
> Sam Harris's rejection of religion is very thoughtful. In fact his
> embracing of Buddhist meditation at the same time he rejects other
> aspects of religion makes him just as careful as she is in what he
> accepts and rejects from religious understanding. Her point about his
> selecting Koran phrases out of the context of the conclusion is moot
> because the fact is many people are reading it exactly as Sam states
> it. This is causing a lot of trouble in the world. She may have a
> higher, more correct point of view on these passages, but her opinion
> is not shared by the people strapping on the bombs. She has missed
> Sam's point that it is the moderates of religion who perpetuate and
> protect the beliefs that extremists use to justify killing.
>
> In my own life I understand the importance of not renouncing religious
> people just because I do not believe in religious answers to my life's
> questions. It is more similar than different to religious people of
> one religion not being an A-hole to other religious people.
> Respecting other people is an ideal for both secular and religious
> people in my opinion. It is a hard line to walk when you are
> expressing a disagreement over specific religious or secular beliefs.
>
> Her point about seeking meaning also interests me.
>
> "As for scientists, they can explain a tremendous amount. But they
> can't talk about meaning so much. If your child dies, or you witness a
> terrible natural catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina, you want to
> have a scientific explanation of it. But that's not all human beings
> need. We are beings who fall very easily into despair because we're
> meaning-seeking creatures. And if things don't add up in some way, we
> can become crippled by our despondency."
>
> At least this one human does not need more than science to give me
> understanding in disaster. A religious explanation does me no good.
> For an example, a Hindu explanation might involve a discussion of
> Karma. For me this explanation that the drowned child somehow had it
> coming for past actions doesn't make me feel any better. My secular
> understanding comfort comes from believing that it was a random event
> and that the child was in the wrong place at the wrong time just as a
> roll of the dice. It could have been me. No explanation of a creator
> who could help, but does not for some philosophical reason, gives me
> comfort. I don't see how a belief in God makes anything "add up" for
> the meaning-seeking creature, man. If anything, it adds more
> questions. Like: why did he let it happen? A religious person may
> find comfort in saying "it is God's will". That doesn't give any
> better answer to "why?", than a secular person saying "sometimes bad
> things happen and it makes me sad." Either way we are both gunna cry
> over the child. It is the emotional _expression_ of people you love that
> gives people comfort, not some abstract belief that "things happen for
> a reason". I'll take a hug over any understanding when the S hits the
> fan in life. If the person hugging me believes in God that is fine
> with me.
>
> There may not be any meaning to these events. Linguistic philosophers
> would claim that it is a misuse of language to apply the word
> "meaning" to such events in life. Just because we can string the
> words together does not give it a reality or value.
>
> That said, I also recognize that for many people religious beliefs do
> help them live. Like John Lennon said "Whatever gets you through the
> night, its alright, its alright!" I am not in a position to criticize
> how other people get through their night. I just know what works for me.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > Excerpts from a fascinating interview with Karen Armstrong,
> > author of "A History of God," on Salon.com (if you don't
> > have a subscription to Salon, you'll have to watch a brief
> > advertisement to read the interview):
> >
> >
> > [Scientists] can explain a tremendous amount. But they can't talk
> > about meaning so much. If your child dies, or you witness a terrible
> > natural catastrophe such as Hurricane Katrina, you want to have a
> > scientific explanation of it. But that's not all human beings need.
> > We are beings who fall very easily into despair because we're meaning-
> > seeking creatures. And if things don't add up in some way, we can
> > become crippled by our despondency.
> >
> > ...In the pre-modern world, there were two ways of arriving at truth.
> > Plato, for example, called them mythos and logos. Myth and reason or
> > science. We've always needed both of them. It was very important in
> > the pre-modern world to realize these two things, myth and science,
> > were complementary. One didn't cancel the other out....
> >
> > [Hating religion] is not what the Buddha would call skillful. If
> > you're consumed by hatred -- Freud was rather the same -- then this
> > is souring your personality and clouding your vision. What you need
> > to do is to look appraisingly and calmly on other traditions. Because
> > when you hate religion, it's also very easy to hate the people who
> > practice it....
> >
> > ...This kind of chauvinism that says secularism is right, religion is
> > all bunk -- this is one-sided and I think basically egotistic. People
> > are saying my opinion is right and everybody else's is wrong. It gets
> > you riled up. It gives you a sense of holy righteousness, where you
> > feel frightfully pleased with yourself when you're sounding off, and
> > you get a glorious buzz about it. But I don't see this as helpful to
> > humanity. And when you suppress religion and try and get rid of it,
> > then it's likely to take unhealthy forms....
> >
> > ...Fundamentalism has developed in every single one of the major
> > traditions as a response to secularism that has been dismissive or
> > even cruel, and has attempted to wipe out religion. And if you try to
> > repress it -- as happened in the Soviet Union -- there's now a huge
> > religious revival in the Soviet Union, and some of it's not very
> > healthy. It's like the suppression of the sexual instinct. If you
> > repress the sexual instinct and try to tamp it down, it's likely to
> > develop all kinds of perverse and twisted forms. And religion's the
> > same....
> >
> > Religion is hard work. It's an art form. It's a way of finding
> > meaning, like art, like painting, like poetry, in a world that is
> > violent and cruel and often seems meaningless. And art is hard work.
> > You don't just dash off a painting. It takes years of study. I think
> > we expect religious knowledge to be instant. But religious knowledge
> > comes incrementally and slowly. And religion is like any other
> > activity. It's like cooking or sex or science. You have good art, sex
> > and science, and bad art, sex and science. It's not easy to do it
> > well.
> >
> > ...Sacred texts have traditionally been a bridge to the divine.
> > They're all difficult. They're not a simple manual -- a how-to book
> > that will tell you how to gain enlightenment by next week, like how
> > to lose weight on the Atkins Diet. This is a slow process. I think
> > the best image for reading scripture occurs in the story of Jacob,
> > who wrestles with a stranger all night long. And in the morning, the
> > stranger seems to have been his God. That's when Jacob is given the
> > name Israel -- "one who fights with God." And he goes away limping as
> > he walks into the sunrise. Scriptures are a struggle.
> >
> > ...Faith is not a matter of believing things. That's again a modern
> > Western notion. It's only been current since the 18th century.
> > Believing things is neither here nor there, despite what some
> > religious people say and what some secularists say. That is a very
> > eccentric religious position, current really only in the Western
> > Christian world....
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/
> >
>
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Religion and spirituality | Maharishi mahesh yogi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
