Letters to the Editor
deluxe
Published Letters: 90 Editor's Choice: 4
-
It would be easier to disprove logic itself
[Read the article: Going beyond God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anon2: "I didn't mean to imply that the proof of telepathy, for example, would confirm the Abrahamic religions, only that the _disproof_ of it would conclusively _disprove_ Mohammed's channeling of Gabriel, and therefore the entire basis for the Islamic faith."
Unfortunately, the fundamentalist mind does not work that way. You would have to disprove ALL telepathy, if there turns out to be different kinds. And even then, someone who still believes the vagueness of the texts will only counter your proof with yet another evidence-free explanation. "Well, Mohammed channeled the angels using DOUBLE SECRET TELEPATHY!" In other words, it's turtles all the way down, Mr. Smartypants.
The impossible task at hand, unfortunately, is to disprove all of superstition. A pretty big challenge when the adversary is holding the rhetorical magic wand.
-
Something that would be extremely helpful for these discussions
[Read the article: Going beyond God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One approach to religion that would help believers and non-belivers alike find some common ground would be to separate the sacred texts into the following areas of discussion:
1) Historical - identify those passages that describe the historical events of the time. Try to keep it objective, and acknowledge the usual caveats of verifying historical claims.
2) Logical - any serious work needs to be logically consistent. An flaws should be exposed, discussed, and weighed according to their impact on the rest of the narrative.
3) Philosophical - parts of the text or story that deal with human-based philosophy. This could be discussed with the same level-headedness of any other philosophical work.
4) Spiritual - those aspects of the message that touch on 'inner-human' subjects but not reliant on deities or magic for their legitimacy.
5) Supernatural - the claims made in the text that involve deities or other activities not explained by the previous four areas.
Rather than take an all-or-nothing approach to discussing 'religion', all parties should be willing to hear those parts that fall into one of the above categories on its own merits and in the appropriate context. I haven't seen this done elsewhere (but I'm not a religious scholar), and it is certainly a daunting task given the sheer volume of writings and the associated translations that can lead to disagreement. If this is already being done please fill me in, but as it is now people overreach with their arguments whereas certain points of contention could be mutually settled beforehand and removed from the dispute.
I suspect even atheists might be willing to discuss the first four areas above if the fifth is removed from the equation.
-
Pent-up anger
[Read the article: Going beyond God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anon (and others): "The acrimony here constantly astounds me."
Speaking for myself, I'm angry with organized religion because it imposes its views on my life. Set aside all the political ties to Christianity for a moment (In god we trust, under god, etc.), we in the U.S. are seeing the pendulum swing too far towards religious fanaticism, and it scares us. My 'live and let live' lifestyle is met with an asymmetric pressure from religious fundamentalists who want me to conform to their set of (often hypocritical)rules. Beyond the U.S., I'm seeing islamic fanatics indiscriminately kill in the name of Allah and yet they are celebrated in their communities for such heinous acts. I genuinely fear for the future of humanity. Do you?
Go read Leviticus or sections of the Koran that address infidels and treatment thereof, and then see where the acrimony originates. I'm certainly not writing or supporting books advocating the harming or oppression of others, yet I'm part of a marginalized minority in this country. Should I remain silent?
PS: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/29/195855/959