Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thanks for the link, I did not know of an oral Torah, keep in mind, I can coming from the perspective of the Bible, but since it is saying that
"The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition."
Therefor I have to study it some before I can really expand on that argument.
cheers
The Catholics sound like they come off the least crazy in this film, and as a Catholic I enjoy being considered the least crazy everyonce in a while.
Of Course, this film is meant as comedy, and at best a Burlesque of social criticism. I don't think Marher has either the knowledge base or the intelectual honesty to really approach the deeper issues of Religion. Or maybe he does and the film just wouldn't be as funny that way.
To answer what fascinates Bill the most, yes the Catholic Hierarchy is well aware that the Bible is filled with Myths, legends and allegorical stories. What Bill misses however is that much of the Catholic Proletariate are also well aware of this. I can't speak for all religions but religions with a strong history of scholoarship usually do have a welcoming intelectual discussion on the myths, legends, and allegorical stories in their sacred texts, as well as a more mythological interpretation for those not looking for a deep discussion.
If you believe in God, and Mr. Maher is quite clear that he does not take an atheistic stance, then it is something that humans desire to communicate with this thing called God.
The Mistake that Bill makes, and some religous people make, is they think that religion is the tool God uses to communicate with man. Quite to the contrary religion is the tool man uses to communicate with God. As such, the stories and myths are not so much the basis as the focus for the belife.
While it's true many people will believe a historical myth despite the lack of evidence (how many myths do you believe about the founding fathers for example) and if you are never confronted with evidence contrary to argument, why shouldn't you. The story of Noah is not in and of itself based on a surface reading of the stroy not so impossible to someone with a limited understanding of the evidence against it. Likewise, if you are not zooologyst or geologist how much does it matter to you what may or may not have happend 6,000 or 100,000 years ago?
It matters about as much as Washington's cherry tree, and if there is something you carry away from the story that helps you through your day, what does it hurt?
And I'm sure Mr. Maher would bring up that because of people's religion they are currently making war with us, and themselves throughout the world. To that, I just shake my head. Anyone who thinks that a mass conversion to episcapalianism would solve the problems of the middle east is just foolish.
People make war in the name of religion because it's a useful thing to make war in the name of. If that is not an option they make war for any other ideology they can think of, including freedom, democracy, and keeping Afgahnistan Communist, and preventing a domino effect that will destroy our glorious workers paradise.
Suni and Shia don't hate one another because they are suni and shia, they hate one another because one group of people ruled over the other with an iron fist for a few decades.
These so called "Religious" wars are ussually the byproduct of European Colonialism, and picking local governers, who in turn appointed their tribes men to positions of power and denied said power to those outside their tribe.
Man doesn't need God to do evil, evil is the gift man gives himself, even if he does give thanks to god for it afterwards.
"Therefore I have to study it some before I can really expand on that argument."
My work here is done (:=).
Just remember, Torah was not written in Greek.
Seriously, Torah invites intense scrutiny of the kind of questions you bring up, jamiso. You'd make a fine Jew, if you're not already!
It's an interesting truth that we could choose to do all the good religion has done over the last 100K years of human history... and religion was not required to do it. Rational goodness is every bit as effective as goodness practiced out of religion..and you don't get all the bad shit, like clogging the Seine with bodies of Huguenots because the Queen of France said it might be a good idea at the time...to pick one more-or-less random example out of history.
I don't doubt for one second that way back in pre-history there were humans who thought to themselves "all this jabber about the gods in the trees and sky and earth...it's all just shit." But cultural norms would have been so strong, you'd be killed for saying such a thing..and in some places, you still can be.
The notion that religion motivates us to do good in combat against our evil nature is crap for simpletons. We have a human nature dictated by our genetic evolution and our cultural norms..our rational minds should be able commit good acts instead of evil acts without requiring a flying-spaghetti-monster to Make us do it.
Fighting emotional urges to evil acts is no easy matter..but the notion that religion justifies itself by making that fight easier has always struck me as a cop-out, an unacceptable way to justify all the unjustifiable evil the genetic bias toward religion has caused in human existence.
The only way to fight a genetic bias is with our rational minds..otherwise, we're no better than non-sentient animals.
And, of course, religion or not, an argument could be made that, in fact, we are no better than those animals...far worse, perhaps. Depends on how you define "better."
First, there is no real requirement for for Maher to address the "intellectual" religious community. Borg, Tillich, or whomever else. This is because the VAST majority of Americans in this country have zero interaction with these thinkers. They have read nothing by them and their religious leaders certainly aren't having lectures about the issues they discuss on Sunday morning. Theologians are not influential to the practice of modern religion in America. The most intellectual discussion of religion most believers ever face is what they get in their philosophy 101 class in college. You'd be very surprised how many could not even explain the difference between an Agnostic and Atheist, or give any definition at all of a "nihilist" except that all three are "bad". I highly doubt Maher would have much of an issue with religion if individuals had a wide knowledge of world religions, genuinely questioned their faith, and inevitably admitted that a literal interpretation of scripture is false. Of course, if that actually ever occurred we would have a lot fewer religious people.
Second, I think that Maher and most commenters' point about religion being the cause of wars is that 1) religion leads to non-critical thinking and cultish behavior which encourages war and 2) empirical evidence shows that religion is at least a contributing factor to most wars and human behavior within war environments. The truth is that wars are complex, difficult to define or explain social phenomenon and that any war is the result of myriad factors. One of those factors is almost always religion, as can be seen by the fact that in most wars, the two sides fighting are often from different religious backgrounds and often use markers of religious belief to identify enemies. "moral outrage" at the other side's belief systems is almost always used as a way to justify inhuman treatment of your enemy. That's an empirically verifiable fact.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
