Letters to the Editor
-
Axial Age
PS, the human experience in "history" has no axis; only the narrative conventions of historical writing insist on this sort of device.
-
so... everyone worships a version of <i>your</i> God?
In any case, "God" is simply the very essence that embodies us and the whole universe and ties us all together. "It" is what gives us life and breath, and you can call "it" whatever you want to call "it." You can call "it" a hockey puck, if you want, if that makes you feel a little better (don't worry, you won't go to hell if you do because there is no hell, which you must secretively believe in, or else you wouldn't pummel us with such vitrol over a simple word).
Zippy, there's a problem with the common (to the point of cliche) argument you make. You attempt to assimilate opposition into your own faith system. Theists constantly use this reasoning in argument; they claim that what I call "morality" is God, that what I call "compassion" is God, that what others call "humanity" is God. This transposition absents opposing views, making dissent impossible. Essentially, it's an act of rhetorical totalitarianism -- what post-structuralists would call the "logic of supplementation" -- that vastly limits religious debate.
You ask for open hearts; evaluate your own.
-
Why the atheist backlash?
I don't believe in God myself, but I'm astounded by the atheist backlash against this interview. One letter-writer said:
I have been fortunate enough to miss a lot of religious bullshit over the years since I embraced my fundamental disbelief in a daddy figure in the clouds.
Talk about infantile ideas of God...Karen Armstrong's whole point is that there's a lot more to religion than a belief in "a daddy figure in the clouds". The kind of comment quoted above is probably what she was referring to when she talked about certain outspoken atheists having a bigoted view of religion. The way people here are responding to her criticism of Richard Dawkins, you'd think someone had just denied the divinity of Jesus in a room full of Christians. Atheists need to question their sacred texts too.
-
Insulting
Did Ban Johnson intend to insult atheists?
"Recognize that much valuable human knowledge and practice lies outside of what can be proven by math and the five senses, in the same way that much of what you value in YOUR OWN LIVES transcends what can be proven or controlled."
Such as? Like what? Speak for yourself!
If anyone would like to snipe at us, remember that we can play the game too.
-
Daddy in the Sky
It's the Bible and not the atheists who invented the 'heavenly father' terminology- which in plain-speak translates to 'daddy in the sky'.
It's practically impossible to determine exactly what Armstrong believes- at least from this interview. I assume though that most Christians believe the Bible more than Armstrong's very philosophical and nebulous writings.
And yes, it does grate to hear her so readily dismiss Dawkins, who as I pointed out before, is completely honest about his belief system and has written profoundly and thoughtfully on religion for many years.
-
Well, yeah, but...
Modernity wrote:
Zippy, there's a problem with the common (to the point of cliche) argument you make. You attempt to assimilate opposition into your own faith system. Theists constantly use this reasoning in argument; they claim that what I call "morality" is God, that what I call "compassion" is God, that what others call "humanity" is God. This transposition absents opposing views, making dissent impossible. Essentially, it's an act of rhetorical totalitarianism -- what post-structuralists would call the "logic of supplementation" -- that vastly limits religious debate.
Fair enough: but what atheists do when the explain away religion as simply a system of superstition existing within the human world, which is a subset of the material world (which they claim is all that exists) they are pulling the exact same move of subsuming their opponents' position within their own.
-
I agree
that Richard Dawkins is unscientifically dogmatic, religious without the religion. And I think the accusation that Karen Armstrong's belief in God was softballed, where an atheist's beliefs wouldn't be, is given the lie by Salon's own interview with Dawkins:
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html
which wasn't unquestioningly fawning, but certainly didn't ridicule him at all.
(More)
-
(More, and forgive a rather long email)
I discussed Dawkins' assertion that agnosticism is too weak, and that a scientist must conclude for atheism, that God must not exist, in another forum. About 7 billion people wittily chimed in, "why, believing in God is just like believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster in Space/Invisible Pink Unicorn in Space/Purple Golf Balls orbiting Jupiter in Space/(several other items, all in space for some reason, and all in colors that for some reason were judged the ridiculous colors)," just as Dawkins mentions his Teapot Orbiting Mars (sadly, uncolored, and therefore less convincing, I guess).
I said, if an unseen, unproven thing is compared to something ridiculous, that illustrates very well that God may not exist; however, it proves not at all that God must not exist. Otherwise, all I would need to do to prove God's existence would be to compare God to something unproven but plausible (like a 17th-century man positing the idea of powered flight--he'd have little experimental evidence, but he'd be right). To that, the most thoughtful atheist in attendance replied to the effect that if Socrates told Plato that there were dinosaur bones buried under the earth, Plato would properly tell him "nonsense," because Socrates had no method of knowing that. This made good sense to me, but leaves out the fact that Socrates would indeed be right. Many scientists are such visionaries.
The simple idea that I have of God is of an all-encompassing consciousness, either not tied to a corporeal body, or for all we know, indeed using all our bodies as Its own body, to house Its consciousness. This vision of God, as I think most visions of God advanced by major religions, depends on the validity of telepathy. If telepathy cannot exist, religious mysticism cannot exist, and hence, neither Old Testament prophecy and revelation, nor New Testament prophecy and revelation, nor Quranic revelation, nor my irreligious view of God in the preceding paragraph. If the physical properties of consciousness can indeed not survive bodily death intact, then why not, when emails can be sent by wireless transmission?
Many thoughtful replies were given to me on the online forum, many to the effect that "I can find such ideas plausible, but without evidence, I cannot accept this on faith." That strikes me as a very proper scientific attitude, but one that Dawkins doesn't evidence. There is such a thing as dogmatic atheist. To disprove religious beliefs, you must mount a disproof of telepathy. That will disprove every basic claim of prophecy and revelation in all the Abrahamic religions. This is a job tailor-made for a scientist, whose work is interfered with daily on religious grounds. Scientists do mount disproofs, do they not? And usually of less important questions.