--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a > 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in > any particular religion. The argument for believing > in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do > not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or > of any theism....One can neither prove nor disprove > the existence of God. But all scientific evidence > suggests the physical limitations of the human > consciousness separate us from the true nature of the > universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, > like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an > expression of the whole." > > So do you think Andrew is on the fence about the existence > of Zeus or is he pretty sure humans made up the whole idea?
Sullivan didn't write this. Try reading what I wrote, please. > What Andrew is doing is making the definition of God so vague and > lacking in distinctive qualities that he might as well say he believes > in blabidy blab. Defining God as the "true nature of the universe" > is great for evading being challenged on his specific beliefs, I mean > who could argue with that definition? This is a definition that no > Atheist should have a problem with. Atheists assert that there is > mystery in the world and neither myths nor science have cleared it up. > > Religion is not just pointing the the mystery, religion is claiming to > have explained it. Atheists are saying that religions have added > little to our insight into the "true nature of the universe." They > have offered interesting myths that have other values. > > The problem comes when Andrew uses specific myth books like the Bible > as his method of glimpsing a part of that true nature. It comes when > he asserts that the historical person Jesus is fundamentally different > from you and I and has died for our "sins". As a Catholic he believes > that the Pope has special powers of insight into the true nature of > the universe. He is hiding his beliefs in a specific teleology and > that his provincial version of religion knows what that purpose is. > These are the beliefs that Atheist's challenge because that is where > the problem with religious beliefs begin. > > So is he doubting his doubt about the actual historical existence of > all myths, or just the one he grew up with? > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I mean, if God is true, anything can be true, right? If we > > > don't know EVERYTHING, we can be wrong about anything, right? > > <snip> > > > But if we don't > > > allow God to have that freedom, to be that deeply dramatic > > > over the lifetimes of billions of souls, then we don't really > > > want a redoubtable God and instead are hoping for a doubtable > > > God. It's about faith, not certainty, right? > > > > Came across two pieces of material this morning that > > tie into the issue of doubt more or less directly. > > > > The first was an email to Andrew Sullivan concerning > > his debate with Sam Harris about faith vs. science, > > which Andrew posted on his blog: > > > > "Moderation vs. Fundamentalism. How much doubt is too > > much? Why not doubt the whole shebang? > > > > "The answer: because doubting the whole shebang is a > > 'certainty' that could be as mistaken as believing in > > any particular religion. The argument for believing > > in a 'tolerant' religious framework is because we do > > not, and cannot, know the truth of either atheism or > > of any theism....One can neither prove nor disprove > > the existence of God. But all scientific evidence > > suggests the physical limitations of the human > > consciousness separate us from the true nature of the > > universe. God is merely that true nature; religion, > > like science, a path to glimpse a part of it, not an > > expression of the whole." > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2r8hyt > > > > In other words: Doubt the doubt. > > > > Then I was curious about when David Orme-Johnson had > > been kicked off the MUM faculty and went to his > > TruthAboutTM Web site to find out (2004). I nosed > > around the site a bit and found this: > > > > "Issue: Is the Transcendental Meditation organization a cult? > > > > "The Evidence: > > > > "The Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult > > and 'thought reform' is not used in the Transcendental Meditation > > program. > > > > "Background: > > > > "Research on the Transcendental Meditation program shows that the > > effects it produces are the opposite to those found in people who > > allegedly get involved in cults. For example, a doctoral dissertation > > conducted at York University found that high school students became > > more autonomous, independent, and innovative through the > > Transcendental Meditation program, with increased ability to deal > > with abstract and complex situations. They also showed increases on > > creativity, general intelligence and self-esteem. Similarly, a > > doctoral dissertation at Harvard found that the Transcendental > > Meditation program increased autonomous thought in prisoners, and > > increased moral reasoning to levels that displays mature, independent > > judgement based on principles. This is highly significant, because > > cult following is allegedly based on the oppositeblind faith and > > rigid adherence to arbitrary rules and authority, which are > > characteristic of a lower level of moral reasoning measured by the > > psychological tests used in the study. > > > > "A wide variety of other research also demonstrates the growth of > > independent thinking in those who practice the Transcendental > > Meditation program. For example, well controlled studies have found > > that the Transcendental Meditation program increases field > > independence. Research has shown that field independent individuals > > are more independent in their thinking and are more resistant to peer > > pressure to do anything that they feel is not right. > > > > "An essential feature of a cult is that it is a closed system of > > thought that does not submit itself to outside validation. The > > Transcendental Meditation organization is the opposite because it > > submits its theories to the rigors of scientific testing, encourages > > research by independent universities and research organizations (to > > date, 209 universities have conducted research on the Transcendental > > Meditation program), publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and > > participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide." > > > > http://tinyurl.com/2shu7w > > > > This really got me chuckling. Obviously the last > > paragraph is ironic considering what the TMO has > > become; but what really struck me--and others have > > made pretty much the same point, but this highlights > > it so clearly--is the inherent contradiction in > > trying to run a coherent movement deeply committed > > to the universal practice of a technique that fosters > > autonomy and independent thinking (and hence > > encourages doubt). > > > > Such a movement willy-nilly carries the seeds of its > > own destruction. > > >
