--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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.
BTW, not only did you get the author of the quote wrong, you went on to thoroughly misrepresent Sullivan's beliefs, including his views on the pope. So much for the superior clarity of the "scientific" perspective on religion and religionists. > > 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. > > > > > >
