Letters to the Editor
-
Et tu, Salone?
Can anyone recommend a news site that is more like Salon used to be? And where discussion forums are frequented by more well-read posters with less need to masturbate in the corner?
-
Ignorance and faith
John Haught's take on 'new atheists' to be poorly reasoned, not least because it holds a double-standard in terms of ignorance. On one hand, according to Haught, a person who finds religous belief implausible simply doesn't know enough about whatever belief Haught holds to be True. On the other, one of the hallmarks of piety is holding belief in the face of contrary evidence. While he might have a point buried somewhere in this interview, it isn't that nonbelievers have no right to doubt simply because they are ignorant. Ignorance of whatever facts exist SHOULD engender doubt, not faith.
In fact, semantically speaking, the nature of the term 'faith' in a religious context is 'holding to an idea while lacking objective evidence, i.e., ignorance.'
Theologians should always be careful when the bandy about the term 'ignorance.'
-
Make your Meaning
The meaning of our entire existence is a mental construct. The idea of God is a mental construct. A dream can have life-changing meaning for us, even as it exists only in our mind. So can the idea of God. Those who find themselves constructing the meaning of their lives to include a diety, heaven, hell, commandments,liturgies, etc, are free to do that, and free to seek out others who have similar beliefs. The meaning is in the actual acting-out of one's mental constructs. What makes a mature personality is that the belief system is benevolent, and the believer accepts responsibility for the implications of their thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
John Haught is rattling around in a 19th century mental state that assumes the inner world is somehow a disciple of the outer world. It's the other way around. Each person's personal views give the world of nature its meaning in his/her own idiosyncratic way. Taken all together, a numberless series of personal beliefs delivers up to humanity our various religion systems which must, if one is intellectually honest, include the religion of "no-religion", i.e. atheism.
That's all there is to it.
-
The top stone is the least important.
"It's like the top stone of a pyramid that conditions everything else in the pyramid. In our own lives, we all have something like a top stone. If it were suddenly removed, it would cause our lives to fall apart."
I find this statement to be manifestly untrue. The shape and structure of the top stone of a pyramid is entirely defined by the shape and structure of the others. If the top stone is removed, the pyramid is no less robust; If any other stone but the one precisely defined by the angles of the faces is placed there the worst that happens is that it looks ugly.
It's the same with one's beliefs. A lifetime of thought and experience builds the foundation and lays down the faces of the pyramid. Those are the structurally meaningful components - I argue that the atheism of the capstone is the inescapable conclusion of this life's work.
It illuminates a fundamental difference in perspective - Should the things we hold true be the result of a single (possibly deeply flawed) capstone assumption? Should the stones we encounter that don't fit the lines of the dictated order be cut and smoothed (or discarded) if they don't agree? And what if there accumulates such a mass of them that the shape defined by the capstone assumption simply won't work? Should a new capstone be decided on and the entire pyramid be rebuilt?
Perhaps instead the capstone assumption should be determined by the shape and order of the things we've already found to be true?
-
Why is Salon so fascinated by this subject?
There are plenty of conservative sites spreading the "atheism = bad" idea. It'd be nice if the people on my side politically could refrain from doing the same.
-
Oh LET IT GO ALREADY!
I choose to believe...you choose NOT to. Ok. I tell of my religion and how it affects me, you tell how we all evolved and we shouldn't worry about it.
If you choose not to believe, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. Conversely, you will NOT shake my faith in my religion. So why not just let each other be?
If teaching creationism in schools is offensive to you, then don't teach that OR evolution. If you teach one, teach the other...and everything is fair.
To this day, I do NOT see what the problem is here. Each is a theory to the other so either teach them both as theories or don't teach either of them.
Seems pretty simple to me.
-
One religion, one evolution
More apologetics from a theologian attempting to reconcile the imponderable with the concrete. While scientists agree on what science is, what do theologians agree on? How many different theological viewpoints are there from the thousands of religions in this world? How would Hindu, Buddhist or Manichean theology differ from your interpretation?
You say that "theology has always looked to secular concepts to express, for its particular age, what the meaning of God is." But you only use examples of how Christianity has done this. Why not use anthropology to help us put together a concensus about what humans collectively believe about god, and vote on the best answer. We can all agree on what god is and no more problems. Just like science has come to a concensus about what evolution is.
I maintain that all attempts to employ reason in theology in any merely speculative manner are altogether fruitless.
Immanuel Kant
-
Here is an example of the problem.
"If teaching creationism in schools is offensive to you, then don't teach that OR evolution. If you teach one, teach the other...and everything is fair.
To this day, I do NOT see what the problem is here. Each is a theory to the other so either teach them both as theories or don't teach either of them."
The two are not equivalent. One is supported by an overwhelming set of facts. The other is one member of an infinite set of possible beliefs with no factual support. Understanding the difference is fundamental.