Letters to the Editor
-
Wahh, It's All Religion's Fault
How is it that so many religious people are evil?
Um, because they're people, and some people just aren't very nice? I can't think of a religion that claims to make people better just because they adopt it as their own. Christianity pretty explicitly presupposes that everyone is evil and wretched. We're all sinners by our very nature. Neat trick, eh?
Monotheism is a means by which central governments can exercise maximum control over the greatest number of people.
Apples are just a means for the Swiss to fabricate legends about William Tell in order to further their own nationalist agenda.
Congratulations! You can reduce a very complex issue to a single element and use it to make absurd essentialist claims!
-
For Alex O'Neal
If you don't want to be disparaged as believing in "magikal sky faeries" then QUIT BELIEVING IN MAGIKAL SKY FAERIES, YOU MORON.
Your whole god and Jebus thing is stupid lies for morons. Grow up and get over it.
-
re: saintzak and ben
So just because you cannot verify the origins of the document you should dismiss it out of hand? I guess "if it ain't real it must be wrong"?
even fairy tales have lessons in them.
-
Ben -
If you don't want to be disparaged as believing in "magikal sky faeries" then QUIT BELIEVING IN MAGIKAL SKY FAERIES, YOU MORON.
Your whole god and Jebus thing is stupid lies for morons. Grow up and get over it.
-- ben
Thank you for making my point :-)
-
The New Jehovah
Camille Paglia ("take Your Thinking Elsewhere") here dissed "theory" wonks in academia as having lost their connection to tradition and, adrift in a sea of longing, have an epiphany moment with Derrida or Foucault to the detriment of a generation of scholarship:
"...Secular humanists, who have drifted from their religious and ethnic roots, have created a new Jehovah out of string and wax…"
Elaine Pagel's New Jehovah is Gnosticism, resurrected from the scrap heap of history and transfigured into an alternative account of Jesus.
Gnosticism: life is an illusion - its not what you do that counts, but what you "know"; nevermind love thy neighbour - it counts for nothing becuase life is not real. No wonder gnosticism failed to grow-who can have courage and conviction if you beleive that life has no meaning?
-
aww!
Apples are just a means for the Swiss to fabricate legends about William Tell in order to further their own nationalist agenda.
Aww, now I'm so disillusioned!
-
Alex O'Neal
Hope the below helps clarify things, at least regarding my perspective :-)
(admitting my Christianity to a radical atheist IT manager, who said it showed such a lack of intelligence it made them question my ability to do my job) alike.
Good for you for sticking up for your beliefs, whatever they may be.
In my field of study (neuroscience) and work, however, there tend to be more atheists than theists, ats least that will speak openly about their beliefs.
I live in a semi rural area in the deep south, atheists are few and far between here and we tend to keep a low profile.
I barely graduated from high school but I've been a lifelong autodidact and voracious reader. Like most autodidacts I have large holes in my education but I also have a wide range of knowledge.
The question between a theist and atheist, however, is not between Christianity and no god but God and no god. I am claiming to believe in God. I worship in a Christian manner because of the culture I grew up in, but make no claims to superiority over other religions.
My mistake, you self identified as a Christian and from what I was taught in Confirmation classes, the definition of a Christian is what I stated.
Thanks for asking these questions. Funny how one can write something and think it's perfectly clear, and discover it's still so easily misunderstood. Part of the problem in this debate, I guess. We're all using the same words, but in different vocabularies :-)
I understand the problem, that's why I try to make as few assumptions as possible. I've been online since the days of Atari computers and 300 baud acoustic modems and I've learned how hard it is to make oneself throughly understood.
Dawkins seems to think that theists are like children who believe in Santa Claus. The idea that someone can believe in God but not magic is not one he thinks possible, or at least not that he will admit to.
From the perspective of one who deconverted at about age sixteen, I have to say that it seems as if God is the fairy story in which people just keep on believing after childhood. I don't say this to be insulting but rather to be honest.
Isaac Newton was a theist so I can't say that theism is necessarily linked to a lack of intelligence. Again, trying to be honest, it seems to me more a question of naivete than lack of intelligence.
She felt this was a serious threat to my belief system, not understanding that this is the kind of question asked by someone who doesn't understand the metaphorical nature of religious language. Elaine Pagels understands it.
I was raised high church Episcopalian, so I have no problem with religious language as metaphor. Your friend seems to be a trifle naive to me.
The urge to persuade is a human characteristic. We gain self-validation from shared belief; we are even, perhaps, adaptively designed to do this.
I've been interested in the evolutionary psychology of altruism, which I think you are referring to here. From the evo psych perspective, altruism is an evolutionary advantage in that it helps maintain the genetic line in small close knit family groups like those we spent most of prehistory in.
I will point out though that there are religions such as Judaism which do not have the urge to persuade, in other words they are not proselytizing.
As well, even if persuasion is built in to Christianity as you suggest, that's vastly different from imposing my way of life on the next person. What I dream of is a place where people are all assumed to be doing their best to understand their world, and given freedom to do so without condescension or intolerance from differing views.
I assume that you know that "utopia" means nowhere. :)
No, I think some atheists are acting just as some theists do, and should acknowledge that rather than claim superiority.
I see it as atheists being human beings, just as theists are. Neither side is particularly good at admitting error.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend." -Heinlein
That's what I usually try to do.
The god of intelligent design is a straw man, used by theists to hide from the fact there is no "knowing" the answer to this question, and used by atheists to distract from the same question by showing the flaws of I.D. theists.
But it was theists who really pushed the idea of ID, atheists are merely trying to show that it is a flawed concept. I don't think you will find many atheists open to the idea of teaching ID in public schools.
But when someone has a religious experience, it is intensely personal. They may find a need to justify it using intelligent design, scripture, etc., but I think the difference is clear. Here I agree with Dr. Pagels that the God Dawkins and others are debunking "is not one that most of the people I study would recognize."
So you do not believe that God created the universe and everything in it?
If you are in neuroscience then you certainly know more about this than I, but hasn't there been some research that shows a certain area of the brain that is connected with the religious experience?
Thanks for asking these questions; they showed me that even when I think I'm being perfectly clear, I may be easily misunderstood. Part of the problem in this debate, I guess. We're all using the same words, but different vocabularies :-)
It's like the old joke about Britain and America being two countries separated by a common language. :)
I enjoyed our chat, take care.