Letters to the Editor
ELYDOG
Published Letters: 498 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Calling a frog a god
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At least we have a few 'religious' philosophers who are willing to stand up to their conservative bretheran. However, in the process, Haught changes the terms to try to win his more long-term argument with those devilish scientists.
First he claims three fellows he has no claim on. Camus was an existentialist who believed that man made his own meaning. Sartre agreed, and went further and became a Marxist. Nietzsche was an atheist of an earlier brand, inspiring both existentialism and fascism. Their answer to 'nihilism' was man, not religion or God. Nihilism is not the result of not believing in God - "man" is or can be. Haught borrows these people to try to get credibility, but the effort fails.
Hawkins, Harris and Hitchens are more narrowly concerned with the 'religion' debate than any of these 3 forerunning atheists, who were writers and full fledged philosophers as well. Comparing them is like comparing grapes to raisins.
Haught goes on to change the definition of religion. Now it deals with 1.) 'ultimate' concerns, which many atheists, writers or philosophers are concerned with too. This is not specifically religious. Since we do not know what the answer is to every question, the world is of course filled with 2.) 'mystery', which is not, again, specific to religion.
His third definition of religion is that it is with a 'personal' god. In trying to explain this, he shows how his meaning for the 'resurrection' is that 'everything ends up for the best" - not that anyone was actually revived from the dead, etc. That means that God answers our prayers, but perhaps not in a 'literal' way. To me, this sounds like Hallmark or Disney wrote the resurrection story, and prayers are no more than good horoscopes. "Hope" again, as an emotion, is not specifically religious, but is a product of the natural human life force. He dresses this up in religious clothes, but putting a cassock on a beautiful woman does not make her a nun.
Neuro-science is revealing more and more the biological basis of thoughts and feelings, and the unknown area of 'spirit' like the area for ultimate 'causes' is getting smaller and smaller. The debate on whether science can answer 'all' questions is not really made by atheists - it is another straw man. If the claim for God is on natural territory, than science does have a role to play. If the claim for God is in an area untestable by science, than it cannot determine an outlook. How things works can be more complicated than we can understand at the present. Other methods might have to be used, like political intuition or even, gasp, common sense.
Haught's religion is really watered-down secular humanism. I am quite astounded at how weak the arguments of this sophisticated philosopher of religion are.
-
Obama, another Kennedy?
[Read the article: America's next top Democrat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton is pretty obvious what she is about. Edwards is also clear what he is about. It is actually rare for a mainstream Democrat to take such a populist position.
It is Obama that is the odd one out, as the article noticed. I see what he is trying to do as the new hopeful "Kennedy", giving people something positive to do, not something negative to hate. However, I don't think 'bringing America" together is actually possible.
-
Catholic Church and Fundamentalism (and Islam?)
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kaffir,
No proof yet that 'god' wrote any books, but if you find some, let us know. Repeating it will not make it so.
I'd like to address the people who smugly condemn some atheists for being 'angry.' This is what people say when they cannot make a sensible intervention, so they say you are 'upset' or 'disturbed' and try to psychologize. Preacher kicks us in the teeth and we're supposed to just sit there like dogs. Can't take the heat, folks? Don't get in the ring.
Atheists are upset because of the very real consequences of religion in the modern day. And really, let's not forget this guy is a Catholic theologian. Perhaps we should have a discussion about the role of the Catholic church in the modern world, folks? His interviewer Paulson looks like a paid member of a think tank specializing in promoting religious dialog, as another poster notes. They are just outriggers for the same reactionary religious movement, helping the fundies pummel the atheists. Remember, folks, atheists are even less liked than black men and gay men! They must be giving high fives for planting this interview in Salon. They give religion intellectual cover, while trying to gain credibility by attacking it's 'excesses'.
The problem is Haught shares the same intellectual and organizational roots as the fundamentalists. The Catholic Church in fact made a block with the Southern Baptists and Pentacostalists to oppose abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. years ago. Why is Mr. Haught still a Catholic theologian? Why hasn't he been ex-communicated? That is the only Catholic theologian I respect.