Letters to the Editor
-
The most insufferable type of religious person is the recent convert
The most insufferable type of religious person is the recent convert. This is especially true when that convert is the sort of person that you’d least expect to find Jesus. They think that if they could just explain their new beliefs to you, you’d understand their conversion and maybe become a convert yourself. The problem is that they are just trying to rationalize their conversion as something other than an abrupt and illogical abandonment of their previous set of values. The attitude of the recently converted is that you “just don’t understand” and that you’ve never considered their arguments. As a result, talking with them about their conversion (and every conversation comes back to that topic) is just disappointing and depressing. I can’t imagine subjecting myself to 304 pages of that.
Also, this essay is full of stereotypes and condescension. The jabs at Buddhism are particularly irritating. The authors view of the poor and their attitudes towards religion border on racist.
-
To Those Who Criticize Angry Atheists
Much seems to be made of atheists' intolerance and anger when they talk about Christians and Christianity. Critics of these Atheists imply that they are just as intolerant as the Religious Right. However, I would suggest that there is an important difference: Angry atheists want a reasoned discussion based on rational thinking, Christians want their non-rational beliefs to trump rational thinking. Atheists, of course, have a very reasonable right for being pissed off. Christians won't keep their personal beliefs to themselves, at least on a national, political level. Therefore, they had better expect continued blow back from right-thinking atheists.
-
i'm back! (had to sleep it off)
what a WONDERFUL way to spend a saturday night - get a 4 dollar pint and scream at strangers! infantile, true, but engrossing.
"Alex": you've written yourself out of the equation, fine, that's your right. and since you don't wish to have children, no harm done to the tribe. here's a throwaway line, "what's the world's shortest IQ test?". "do you believe in god?"
"DZ": truly feel bad about your experiences with the draft. i lived at the same time but fortunately, unlike you, i am not principled - i got out any way i could. had to forego a career, but that was small change with not having to kill asians and returning cursed with "lack of affect".
"LeCastor": why tribal? jews are point two percent of the world and dwindling fast! here, it seems like half marry unrepentent irish. why remain jewish? it's so easy and if you don't believe (and fully half *say* they don't), why keep it? it's like filling a backpack with rocks. why? it's a Culture of Defiance. now to get personal. you were hurt. just because your mother's mother wasn't - you aren't. UNFORTUNATELY, the most rigid get to set the rules. works in christianity and islam, why not judaism? so the aaronid calf worshippers get to set the standard. they get to say who's jewish. so what do you have to do? you have to go to the bother of *becoming* jewish. orthodox conversion. i can fully understand that you wouldn't want to. the one thing that mitigates the frustration is that you don't have to *beleive*, you just have to *say* you believe. then you become one of the tribe - which is what you really want. why fight it? you are a jew. you feel it. you are it. my wife converted. orthodox. because she believes? of course not, Rachel didn't either. because she loves me, like Ruth. it's a WHOLE lot better. i've instilled a healthy sense of paranoia in my children - yes, it's a detriment in normal times, but it's a lifesaver in others. and eventually, yes even in america, clever jews will be found intolerable.
-
What is god?
Hidden in this debate is the fact that god means so many different things to different people who say they believe in god. Like a mathmatical variable, you can say god=just-about-anything (hope, mystery, the unknown, that-which-is-better-than-ourselves, etc.). Once you're beyond god=old-man-with-beard-in-sky, you're in the relm of the empy signifier that you can fill with whatever you want. For example, if you believe that god=the mystery of the universe, when it is shown that there is some mystery in the universe, that is your proof of god. Logically, it's not much more than saying, "let god=tacos; there are tacos, therefore god exists." That being said, I do understand the position that rationality alone cannot be our sole guide through life. From "should I have two cups of coffee or one?" to "should I leave my partner?" we operate from a deficit of sound data with which to make decisions. We are often having to supplement data-based decision-making with something else, something less rational and more intuitive. I think the problem we have as a culture is a lack of agreement on what questions can be answered rationally based on data, and which can't. It was news in the paper this morning that an increasing number of Americans don't believe in evolution. That's an example of a question for which we DO have enough data to make a rational decision (YES, virginia, there is evolution). On the other hand, I might not have any good data that I should be good to my children, but I have decided to be. I have filled a gap in data with an intuitive belief in goodness. I choose not to call that god, but maybe someone else would.
-
true observation, "Mike_in_NM"
"The most insufferable type of religious person is the recent convert." reminds me of an expression of my youth (had the "misfarchun a' bein' reezed in an Eyerish nayborhood"), the new convert is "more Catholic than the Pope"
-
Religion is Not Rational
Religion is not rational. Religion is not the product of, nor does it require, critical thinking.
We may indeed known rational people, capable of critical thinking, who are also religious. They may even apply some of their reason and critical faculties to their faith. Their individual faith may even be rational.
But religion itself is not a rational force, nor is it a mode of critical thought. All religions demand obeisance to dogma, a key component to religion (without dogma, how do the religious know what to believe?).
This is not to say that religion is unnecessary, or that there is no need for irrational belief systems.
But believers and their apologists cannot have it both ways. They cannot lay claim to the argument that their beliefs are a "matter of faith" and therefore not subject to scientific observation and analysis, and then demand that religion be accorded the respect of reason.
The belief that aliens visit your bedroom and dispense wisdom is not rational; neither is its religious corollary (angels). This fact does not make religion inferior or superior to reason: they are two different modes of engaging with the world. They are not mutually exclusive, no matter how much their valiant faithful followers may have us believe.