Letters to the Editor
-
The complicated art of not knowing
King says "Yes, in my book I say that's a question I will not take up. I think my stance is rather beautiful because it's about "agnosis"; that means not knowing."
I am consumed with the notion of whether there is a God or whether there is not. I tend to the atheistic position, but really, agnosis may be the only rational way to view the matter with the beauty of wonderment and inquiry intact.
I read Dawkins and found some of his absolutes as dogmatic as those of Fundamentalist Christians (who scare me). "Not knowing" is the only answer with intellectual integrity. One may choose to examine or to make decisions based on faith, one way or the other. I just can't do that.
A theory that makes sense to me is one that says religion and deity is something our human minds have conjured, not from superstition or fear, but that religion is a product of the human ego designed to give us hope. We are so infatuated with our being that we cannot fathom the idea that we exist here only for a short time, regardless of the good we might do. We give ourselves a need to do right or even to simply go on because there is something out there for us that transcends our human frailty. I am nearly convinced this is true.
King is the most rational clear voice I have heard in a long time. I am thrilled she has something to say, and I will be reading it by the end of the day.
-
Spirituality is not the same as religion
Hang on a minute. We know there are things we don't know (thank you Rummy), and we guess there are things we'll never know or understand about what's 'out there'. And maybe the higher apes understand this as well. Some people call this 'spirituality'.
But it does not follow that this is 'religious'. Because there are things we don't know does not predicate the existence of a God; to say that we don't know what happens when we die does not imply there is an afterlife.
To wonder on the mysteries of life and the universe is not a 'religious' experience: anybody can do it, even atheists. Even Richard Dawkins does it. Scientists and atheists can have as much wonder in their lives as true believers.
-
More questions to ask
I think the questioning in the article could have veered into more promising areas. I would have asked some of the following questions.
If we follow up on your definition of religion, which is “personal relationships with the supernatural and compassionate action”, what does that imply? How does the idea of the supernatural evolve? Does this mean that a being experiences actions that it realizes it can not comprehend? If that is so, isn’t that a major episode in the development of consciousness? Is it perhaps just a defense mechanism, allowing one to move on from an unsolvable problem?
Why does one develop a compassionate action? Is it an action that doesn't benefit the actor but another? How did this action move from within a direct familial group into the broader social environment? Why?
And then for some fun questions, let’s look at the concept of the soul, which may have been out of bounds in this article, but nonetheless.
Assume that the ancients were religious. Assume that people in the current world have a soul. Did the ancients have a soul? If they did, what happened to their soul after death? Did the soul go to a heavenly realm or to a hell? If they did not have a soul, when did the human race start possessing a soul? And how and why did this happen?
-
Oh, how unusual: Controversy in a Salon front-pager
I first noticed the obnxoxious argument culture crap after the Karen Armstrong piece. The letters section overflowed with True Believers from one side or another.
I am pleased to see, however, that the current click-on-this marketing mentality of Salon is just as likely to milk its angriest readers of screeds by publishing critiques of macaroni-and-cheese or the nostalgic ramblings of an Old White Guy as it is by casting out bait like this one. Isn't it wonderful when you don't have to offend to get rage-aholics to act offended? You can give 'em God or mashed potatoes, they'll still blow a blood vessel or two as they scream at their monitors.
Tapping into the rage of the nation did Rush Limbaugh's bank account a mountain of good. Nice business model, Salon.
-
The slippery slope
A good article if only on the basis that it clearly brings out the views of the person being interviewed. And isn't that the main puropse of an interview?
It does seem to me that King is using the meaning of words to lead us down a slippery slope. Awe at a waterfall and social empathy become transformed into a belief in spirituality, which becomes a belief in the afterlife, and then this implies a transcendent reality. Amd then King chickens out and refuses to state the obvious next step which is a belief in god. And then Salon readers helpfully provide the next step that a belief in god gives validity to the 10 commandments.
Of course it may also be that King starts with the premise that god exists and then goes looking for the evidence to back up her view subtly changing the conotation of the word religion to make it all work.
-
Wow some of you are hidebound retards, or just poor readers or have ADD
Here is a quote lifted from the article:
"I'm not talking about a set of beliefs. When I think about religion, what comes to mind are personal relationships with the supernatural, with God or with spirits, and compassionate action. Not necessarily books or texts that you read, but some sort of action in the world. "
So it's not about whether you personally like or dislike the idea of a 'God'. It's about what drives one to have faith in something larger, about where the act of faith come from and why it is important.
If you want to use that as a launchpad for telling me you think I'm crazy for believing in X instead of Y then it's you who's the one who's being dull. Maybe that's too subtle for you. I don't know, or care. Which is kind of the point.