Letters to the Editor
-
Jonathan -
Thanks for your kind response. Maybe there's hope for bridging the gap.
With you on utopia :-) However, if I don't set impossibly high goals, I may undershoot the best *possible* scenario because I didn't think it was. (I think that made sense ;-)
Re: online misunderstandings. I think MIT did a study a year or so ago that showed 50% of emails were misunderstood, and usually misunderstood as being negative. This has really helped me step away from taking what I perceive as negative seriously, unless it's blatantly so.
The problem with defining Christianity is that the definition typically comes from a specific version of it, such as confirmation class. Like you, I grew up Christian (Roman Catholic) and stepped away from it mid-teens. But I came back to it because of a combination of being a physics major + personal experience. So I don't think of myself as naive, but perhaps I'm naive about that ;-)
The neuroscience thing I think you're referring to is the "God module," best described by V.S. Ramachandran (one of my heroes). He himself, however, points out that the existence of such a thing (and of things like temporal lobe epilepsy, in which seizures can feel like a state of grace) does not answer the question of whether God exists (though he thinks it tends to make it easier to see God as "protoplasmic"). But one can just as easily argue that we evolved and used a neural structure to communicate with whatever God is, as that God originates in our neural structure.
You might like this lecture from Ramachandran on mirror neurons and evolutional psych:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_index.html
I like your Heinlein quote.
-
Best line ever!
who cares why you think it's ethical to feed and clothe the poor so long as you do?
Neil, you rock!
-
You missed the point, Neil.
" ... or to put it another way: who cares why you think it's ethical to feed and clothe the poor so long as you do?"
I care. I frankly don't care if you care. I don't buy this silly "ends justifies the means" argument of yours. In any case, how naive of you to claim God as the "man behind the curtain" when believers act morally. If God were conclusively proven to not exist tomorrow, I would expect that disappointed former believers would continue to act morally, because, as I pointed out, morals do not come from god.
Neil, I was simply responding to an absurd post ascribing all moral human behavior to god. If someone's good works are self-ascribed to their belief in the flying spaghetti monster, I'm fine with that. But when the believer tells me that every single moral act over the course of human history comes from god, well that's just silly.
If true, by the way, then every single immoral act over the course of human history also comes from god. I don't see any of God's flock happily claiming that honor, however.
-
re: Militant Agnostic
Actually, I think it's a little more nuanced than all that. The whole point of Christianity is not that it explains natural phenomena (like creation) but that rather it is an ethical system. The point is that to follow the beatitudes (i.e. blessed are the meek etc etc) is extremely difficult, it's intrinsically against one's rational self-interest. That being said, I think it's a valid code of conduct and one I happily try to live by. If some need a carrot at the end of the stick to follow it, then that's okay too...sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.
If one comes to the same conclusion without the need of God, or Jesus or the prize at the end of the ride then bully for him...but why denigrate those for whom they may need that added incentive?
setting yourself up as morally superior helps exactly no one (except of course, yourself...which isn't very humble now is it? ;)
p.s. Alexa: awwwww shucks, thanks! :)
-
This "revelation", true or not, changes nothing
Is this woman a theologian? Her understanding of christianity is amatuerish at best..
If we are thinking species who can chose what we believe and if we try to control the influences in our lives, then somehow, somewhere we got a something like free will. Each of us try live as we chose on this planet. All of us are subject to winds of nature as well as those of governments, movements and other people. We negoitate our way through our lives the best we can.
Jesus lived the same way. He ate, trimmed his toenails, got thirsty, paid taxes, maybe he married and if he had, that wouldn't his teachings. In his life he had consequences for his teachings that authorities did not like. Whether those consequences directly resulted from a betrayal (as is the tradition) or from a conspiracy with Judas to expendiate the matter, it doesn't matter because the point was to complete the bigger parable.
Jesus spoke in parables because his life is a parable; Death and suffering is part of our lives as well as Jesus', but death and suffering has no meaning in the larger universe. Jesus suffered, died and was buried but rose again. Whether you accept, or not, that parable on faith, well, that is where your free will comes into play. Chose what you like.
So the establishment will protect its dogma, big deal. That's there problem. Christians can exist without christianity.
-
An interesting article.
I'm getting into the game late here.
I found the article to be quite interesting. Anything that leads more people to realize that Christianity is a man-made thing is okay in my book. Anything that reminds people that there was a general concensus hamemred out in the 4th century by a bunch of sweaty guys in wierd clothes is history that needs to be taught.
There is, of course, no God, no Devil, no Soul, no Afterlife. We made those up, too. It's high time we owned up to it all. It's past time that we owned up to the fact that we didn't evolve from apes, as much as we ARE evolved apes.
I find Ms. Pagels views to be very interesting, and her scholarship to be intriguing. I also can't help noting that the more she seems to learn about the history of her branch of the sand cult, the more the holy book becomes "metaphor".
Don't get me wrong, the sand cults have thier roots in a very human need to explain away a big fearful world. But as the world has become smaller and less fearful, religion has gotten more into the business of producing fear so they can, in turn, drive it away.