I find Jed's method of argumentation interesting, even effective, but in many cases inherently contradictory. Consider his opening sentence: " I know nothing about religion...." Later he repeats himself: " I know nothing about religion."
By that I mean I have only read a few books about it, and I am not prepared to defend or explicate my views in detail. Obviously, anyone with 16 years of education who reads the newspapers and has studied anthropology will know *something* about religion. Also, I probably know a great deal more about South Pacific, Japanese and Chinese religion than most people do, because I spent two years studying them.
His next statement, however, pretends that he knows something more than nothing: "It seems synonymous with superstition, as far as I can make out."
That is obviously an opinion or impression.
He continues, saying that what religious people believe in are "nightmares, even as myths."
Again, I clearly stated that is *my opinion*. I find the notion of a virgin giving birth horrifying, and utterly unbelievable, whereas some Christians including the Pope believe in it, and they find it inspiring. To me it is about as inspiring as the birth defects and conjoined twins shown in the Mutter medical museum:
http://www.collphyphil.org/virt_tour/museum_8.htm
I also find many aspects of Japanese and Chinese religious distasteful, or horrifying, and I expect Robertson would, too. And of course, much about Christianity is inspiring.
Even if he does not understand the intellect of those "taken in" by his caricature of religion . . .
Of course it is a caricature. I can hardly do the subject justice in a single message.
Whereas he "knows nothing of religion," by his own admission, he claims to know a lot about the islanders and the pre-modern Japanese: "I sympathize with them. I admire them, and their culture, arts, and languages." Are we religious people so stupid that what we believe has no inherent worth -- unlike the culture, art and sexual mores of the pre-modern Japanese?
Oh come now. I never said anyone is "stupid," merely wrong. It is like Ptolemaic astronomy: it was brilliant, very useful for some purposes, but fundamentally incorrect. I clearly and repeatedly stated that I have as much respect for Western religion as for the Japanese. But they are equally distant from me. They are 400 years in my past. They are like sustenance farming by hand -- an ancient, honorable, and fascinating way of life that I much admire, but I could not return to it even if I wanted to.
Robertson is putting words in my mouth. He should debate with what I actually said, not with what he thinks I think.
Jed represents himself over again as someone who knows nothing about religion, but at the same time represents himself as someone who knows enough about religion to imply that people are silly who find their religious beliefs sacred, valuable, even practical in every day life -- holding beliefs that are beneath contempt;
Many things are valuable and practical, but wrong. Ptolemaic astronomy is a perfect example. Many folk beliefs, folk cures, and architectural rules of thumb used by peasants are wrong but they work well enough.
I never said "silly." "Sacred" is a state mind I cannot comment on, except to say the Shamans I have encountered seemed as honest and sacred in their own minds as any Christian, but I expect Robertson would find them kind of creepy, and even blasphemous. Actually, I am probably more open and accepting of the wide variety beliefs than the average Christian or Shaman is. I can report that most Japanese Shamans and other religious people find Christian beliefs outlandish and grotesque. They see absolutely nothing sacred about virgin births or the symbolic cannibalism in the Catholic mass. I have studied genuine (non-symbolic) religious cannibalism -- that is, eating your dead relatives as a sign of respect and love. It does not seem any better or worse than the Catholic variety to me. Both are moving and profound ceremonies once you get used to the idea. I would see nothing wrong with the genuine version except, unfortunately, it spreads Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
While Jed claims to know nothing about religion, he claims to know a lot about AIDS. One wonders. While it is true that there may be more than the Ugandan mantra "ABC" (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms if sexually active) that prompted a dramatic downturn in Ugandan AIDS, it is also true that something dramatic has happened to the minds of large numbers of Ugandans.
Yes, I realize that condoms are part of the treatment in Uganda, and I fully support that. I also know that societies change in response to epidemic disease and other disasters. I was talking about the policies of the Catholic church only, and their opposition to condoms.
The Ugandan data give the lie to Jed's statement, "mumbo-jumbo about changing behavior will accomplish nothing. People never behaved differently than they do now."
That was an overstatement on my part. Fundamental behavior does not change much, but of course people do respond to an epidemic. Then they go back to their previous behavior.
Jed says that "religion offers certainty without proof, just the opposite of science." I have been a linguist a long time -- long enough to know that the "scientific study of language" has produced beliefs with no substance.
I have studied linguistics for 45 years and I agree that in some areas, there is not much science to it, and not much progress. I never claimed that every branch of every science is successful. I said only that science has accomplished more in 400 years than the competing supernatural beliefs achieved in 40,000 years. It is comparatively effective. Not perfect.
Make no mistake: these beliefs or world-views are competing. Science does include a set of values. As I said, that is why most scientists are atheists. It is very difficult for a biologist to believe in a virgin birth or Noah's Ark, and even more difficult for him to believe in creationism, since he must confront massive evidence every working day that it is preposterous. I imagine it must feel like being an engineer or physicist who clings to the belief that Newton's law are wrong. People can persuade themselves to believe just about anything, but I expect this kind of irrationality causes a great deal of mental strain and cognitive dissonance.
The strength of science and religion is ambiguity and uncertainty, given the interface of our humble neocortex with the vast reality of the universe of which we are part.
I disagree. Ambiguity and uncertainty are fine in religion, art or love, but in science they indicate failure. When something is still ambiguous or uncertain it is not scientific yet. More work must be done, or a fresh approach is called for. A great deal of linguistics falls in this category, along with just about everything we think we know about mental health -- I suspect.
Unfortunately, Jed at his hyperbolic best caricatures not only religion but science as well when he says, for example, that science offers certainty with proof.
I meant just the opposite: science offers proof (strong evidence) without certainty. You can never be sure of anything in science, but some things are far more likely than others. Even Newton's laws are open to doubt.
- Jed
