1. Comment #430646 by BanJoIvie on November 9, 2009 at 8:00 pm

A very clear and succinct response to the 'problem of morality' argument, which many faithheads seem to find convincing. Interestingly, I have long thought that this response is exactly the same as Richard's 'skyhook response' to the assertion that existence itself demands a creator..."this assertion creates an infinite regress, and does no explanatory work."

Positing a creator is no explanation at all to the question of existence. In exactly the same way, positing a lawgiver is no explanation at all to the complicated questions of morality and ethics.

Other Comments by BanJoIvie

2. Comment #430647 by Jos Gibbons on November 9, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Does God make the rules (thus making them as indefensible as if we made them), or are they out there anyway, thus making God an unnecessary but (allegedly) reliable route to them? As much as this may surprise many apologists for religion today, faitheists included, the latter option was actually favoured by Thomas Aquinas. (Or was it Augustine? For some reason I occasionally mix them up. One of them at least. Maybe Cartomancer can help me.) This illustrates how little progress there really is on the God debate on the pro-religious side.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

3. Comment #430651 by stevenLagnew on November 9, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Great article! Someday the whole world will have an upbringing as secular as his (fingers crossed).

It also highlights the one good thing about the Berlin wall. It kept the Christian fundamentalists out.

Other Comments by stevenLagnew

4. Comment #430654 by andersemil on November 9, 2009 at 8:44 pm

As if they had been brought up reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, East Germans do indeed consider religious folks to be odd, bizarre, or even insane.

Ironic that East Germany, as many other communist societies, was very much like a religious cult. "Goodbye, Lenin!" underlines this very well. Don't throw stones when you live in a house of glass? :)

Other Comments by andersemil

5. Comment #430657 by Lucas on November 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm

I liked this piece quite a lot. If this is representative of the rest of the book, then it has even greater value than I supposed. I took a very one-sided "Religion and Science" graduate class at Columbia University (via Union Theological Seminary) about two years ago, and every single theological argument we covered in a semester is succinctly rebutted by Mr. Dahl above. Seriously, this article could have saved three months of pointless argument. David Hume's very slim An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding itself pretty much does the trick, as Dahl alludes to briefly. If you can stomach a bunch of pointlessly elaborate philosophy-speak, I highly recommend it.

...We have never been raised to be hostile toward religion. Actually, it was much worse: we have grown up to be totally and utterly indifferent toward religion.

Ah, well, let's be clear; we should be indifferent to religion only as long as it remains in it's proper place (the believers' minds, homes, or places of worship), we should be hostile to religion whenever it attempts to control that which is not in it's domain (common law, public education, government, or the minds, homes, and public spaces of nonbelievers), and we should be interested in religion simply as a neurological, sociological, and historical phenomenon. How interested you are is determined in part, I think, by the need to check religion when it steps out of its proper place. Even when it poses no threat to the secular world, self-delusion is itself a fascinating subject to many.

BanJoIvie - You know Richard got the skyhook analogy from Dan Dennett, right?

Other Comments by Lucas

6. Comment #430671 by glenister_m on November 9, 2009 at 10:02 pm

"It must have been around that time when I first saw Roman Polanski’s movie Rosemary’s Baby on TV (on a West German channel, of course). Later I learned that the movie was not depicting Christians, but Satanists. Yet at that time, I could not see any difference. For me, both were weird people, believing in weird beings, and doing weird things."

Excellent article. Loved this section in particular. LOL

Other Comments by glenister_m

7. Comment #430672 by Mr DArcy on November 9, 2009 at 10:08 pm

One of the posters on the site, John Smith from America said this:

"It is the goal of every writer to carry out the work of the government and screw up peoples minds... Edgar Dahl, you should be ashamed of yourself for feeding such garbage and untrue facts to people - poisoning peoples minds for no good reason."

What did Dahl say that was untrue? It seemed a very reasoned and articulate article to me. Like me, Dahl was lucky enough to have been brought up without mystical input. Like him, I'm fascinated how people can still believe this stuff.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

8. Comment #430673 by BanJoIvie on November 9, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Lucas - Ah yes, now that you mention it, I did know that Richard was quoting Dennett when I first heard him discuss the skyhook. Thanks for the reminder!

Other Comments by BanJoIvie

9. Comment #430675 by Sally Luxmoore on November 9, 2009 at 10:25 pm

Excellent article. Good book.
That reminds me, I must read more from it; I have only read a few of the articles so far.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

10. Comment #430678 by BanJoIvie on November 9, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Comment #430672 by Mr DArcy - quoting John Smith from America

...feeding such garbage and untrue facts...

I was not under the impression that there was any such thing as an "untrue fact". This little grammatical slip is very revealing. Some people use a bizarre definition of the word "true" which does not presuppose "factual" as a necessary element. This is a foundational problem which illustrates the gulf between faith-based and reason-based thinking.

Other Comments by BanJoIvie

11. Comment #430679 by God fearing Atheist on November 9, 2009 at 10:42 pm

10. Comment #430678 by BanJoIvie

I spotted the delightfull Mr Smith, and launched a salvo in his direction on the linked article site. The more the merrier! (for the lurkers, not Smith, who might be beyond the reach of reason already)

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

12. Comment #430684 by zeerust2000 on November 9, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Great article. I'm looking forward to getting the book. Hey....if Banana Man Ray Comfort can hand out bastardised versions of 'On the Origin of Species' at university campuses, maybe someone can organise free copies of this book to 'faith' schools, as a community service.

Other Comments by zeerust2000

13. Comment #430687 by Moq on November 9, 2009 at 11:30 pm

One of the best and most succinct articles I've had the pleasure of reading lately. Normally, I wouldn't consider a book like "50 Voices of Disbelief" amongst the most pressing of purchases, but I'm intrigued after reading this and being familiar with some of the other authors.

Other Comments by Moq

14. Comment #430697 by Alternative Carpark on November 10, 2009 at 12:21 am

“Nope, I'm perfectly normal.”

Though I am pretty sure I have answered the question "do you believe in god?" in a similar fashion on a few occasions in the past, I will make a point of answering as above in future.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

15. Comment #430701 by robotaholic on November 10, 2009 at 12:29 am

Now I know how I'm gonna spend my Barnes & Noble gift card.

Other Comments by robotaholic

16. Comment #430703 by mira on November 10, 2009 at 12:36 am

Coming from a similar background I feel pretty much the same way as the author and the crucifix gives me creeps as well.
I've never understood the undisputed respect thing for church and more precisely faith. It is none of my business what other people choose to think or believe in the privacy of their minds for their own amusement. But when they choose to engage with others it is only natural that they should be able to provide some more tangible facts or reasons for their motives. How else are others supposed to know for sure? It's basic good manners.

Sam Harris said it well that faith or religious belief isn't a neurological disorder but social and conversational disorder on Real Time with Bill Maher at 8-21-09.

Other Comments by mira

17. Comment #430708 by The Truth, the light on November 10, 2009 at 1:00 am

I love the response

“Nope, I’m perfectly normal.”

I also note that Mr Smith got well and truly caught out telling lies when the video he linked to turned out to be an old rehashed urban legend listed on snopes.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

18. Comment #430718 by Jeremy Collins on November 10, 2009 at 2:31 am

"One of the most dreadful documentaries I have ever seen was a natural history program by David Attenborough. The film shows the circular migration of more than one million animals within the Serengeti. In order to reach the southern plains, these animals have to pass the Mara River that is full of crocodiles."

Presumably 'dreadful' is a semantic mishap, if the writer is a native German speaker?

Other Comments by Jeremy Collins

19. Comment #430720 by Lucas on November 10, 2009 at 3:00 am

Jeremy - Yeah, I thought that was a little weird too, but I think he meant "dreadful" in the sense that he was filled with dread when watching animals cross the Mara River, not that the documentary itself was bad. Of course not, it's Attenborough. Personally, I thought the photo of the croc about to chomp on the zebra was beautiful, not dreadful. But some people think its horrible that animals kill and each other all the time. Weirdos.

Other Comments by Lucas

20. Comment #430723 by ronnycs on November 10, 2009 at 3:06 am

Cartomancer: You're welcome.

Other Comments by ronnycs

21. Comment #430731 by Rodger T on November 10, 2009 at 5:01 am

Yes ,just imagine,

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=622040

Other Comments by Rodger T

22. Comment #430743 by DNR on November 10, 2009 at 6:46 am

Someone should write a book called "50 voices of Belief", and then we'll have a book sell-off and see who's right.

Other Comments by DNR

23. Comment #430753 by Fouad Boussetta on November 10, 2009 at 7:41 am

I was born in the Soviet Union, so I was lucky to be spared any religious brainwashing during my childhood.
So yes, of course, I never took religion seriously.
It just thought it was stupid, a non-issue, an atavism.
I understand exactly what Mr.Dahl is saying!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

24. Comment #430756 by bluecastle on November 10, 2009 at 8:07 am

Therefore, moral theologians do not have a greater claim on moral truth than moral philosophers or any other person ...

But they do have less moral truth because they allow only a single source for their claims.

Other Comments by bluecastle

25. Comment #430757 by Stafford Gordon on November 10, 2009 at 8:14 am

I enjoyed reading that; mainly because it makes sense.

I'll print it and slap in on my study wall.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

26. Comment #430765 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 10:01 am

And imagine being a member of the most spied on people in Europe.

'His' freedom from religion, being brought up in the D.D.R., is that freedom?

That's one ideology replacing another.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating atheism with the D.D.R. or the Soviet bloc anymore then I would equate Fascism with Roman Catholicism (although in case of the latter there are parallels).

No, what was the price exacted for freedom from religion?

In a democratic society freedom of region is guaranteed. That might lead to its demise. More likely its influence withers with it size.

That’s the difference between the D.D.R. and liberal democracy. Religion would not die in either, in the latter it is persecuted and goes underground and in the former it withers to a minority without any help from persecution at all.

My cousins grew up in the D.D.R., we never saw them, they could not get out.

I am thankful for the freedom to be or not to be religious.

To Imagine no religion you have to Imagine a world without freedom and without personal choices.

Other Comments by flying goose

27. Comment #430776 by brainsys on November 10, 2009 at 11:48 am

The DDR was not a good thing. That's the view of most East Germans nostalgia notwithstanding. But even bad political systems produce some good things (secularism) just as some better political systems have serious downsides (religious pressure groups).

It helps to remind us of how a rational Martian would view the mostly unquestioned involvement of religious irrationality in civic affairs. A really great article I could really identify with.

BTW also enjoyed 'Goodbye to Lenin' on BBC4 the other night. Beautifully explored the chaos and dichotomies of reunification while being kind to everybody's past. Truly uplifting.

Other Comments by brainsys

28. Comment #430778 by mira on November 10, 2009 at 11:52 am

People need to relax and not get too distracted by words like "East" and "Germany". Nowhere in the article did I see the man praising communist ideology. He was only describing his experience of how religion (Christianity) looks like to an outsider. Atheist did not necessarily equal communist even in the Soviet bloc.

You may extend the topic to a discussion to what price that nearly total freedom from religion came or how it was achieved in that particular case but it is not what the article is about. The only way to try to dispute the article would be to question the author's outsider status by arguing that communist regime he was in was in fact itself pseudo-religious.

Other Comments by mira

29. Comment #430780 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Brainsys

It depends what you mean by secular. I would say that a secular society is one where religious freedom is guaranteed. Which means in place where the religious are a majority, or a substantial minority, they will have politcal clout. That democracy even a secualar democracy. Change is brought about by persuasion.

The DDR was not secular in that way at all. It was anti religious in totalitarian way.

If secularists really want that kind of secularism, I for one will oppose them. But I do not think that is what secularist organisation in democracies are trying to achieve.

What I would prefer to see is a religious voice in the public sqaure which is propotionate to its numbers in society. That the religious have such a huge voice in the US is not a 'downside' of democracy. It means that the non religious are not making their case strongly enough. Niether are they effective in banding together. Something Richard et al are trying to change.

Don't blame democracy.

Other Comments by flying goose

30. Comment #430783 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 12:13 pm

mira

The only way to try to dispute the article would be to question the author's outsider status by arguing that communist regime he was in was in fact itself pseudo-religious.

Thats the whole point, there is secularism which about freedom to be or not be religious. Then there is 'Secularism' which is both an ideology and political system which seeks to destroy the very freedom the other secularism seeks to maintain.

How much was his weltanschauung formed by the latter variety?

He was brought up surrounded by a very effective inquisition, it was called the Stasi.

Other Comments by flying goose

31. Comment #430784 by Steve Zara on November 10, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Comment #430780 by flying goose

What I would prefer to see is a religious voice in the public sqaure which is propotionate to its numbers in society.

It depends what you mean by "public square". Is it acceptable for there to be religious voices insisting on laws based on religion simply because those voices are numerous?

Democracy is not always about reflecting the views of the majority. It should also be about fairness and letting all (reasonable) voices be heard. Although religious people can certain be reasonable, religion is not reasonable in its foundations. There should be no place for it in certain public squares no matter how many people are believers.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #430787 by brainsys on November 10, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Flying Goose - you miss the point. Nowhere in the article does the author 'support' the DDR. He gives every indication of being detached from it. Indeed without the detached there would have been no need of a Stasi.

But he came from where he did. And that does give a different and arguably clearer perspective of our western democracies and religion. A valuable critic without suggesting or supporting any DDR type 'secular solutions'.

To suggest otherwise IMHO is disingenuous to the author and derails the thread in a pointless critique of a dead issue (the DDR communist model).

Other Comments by brainsys

33. Comment #430791 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 12:37 pm

Brainsys

The article begins 'Imagine no religion' he then goes on to describe a world without religion, the one he was brought up in. One in which it was difficult to be religious. All I am saying that that was only achievable by totalitarian means. So the context of his starting point is important IMO.

Put it another way, Imagine a world that was only Catholic, and you have to imagine medieval europe with a church which was supreme.

I agree that he gives an insight into a world with no religion. But just look at what it took to achieve that world.

Such a world is not possible where people are free.

The converse is true, real non belief is only possible in world where people are free.

Steve, you are right of course, I hate hanging and I am glad that the majority do not get their way on that.

The same is true of race and gender equality, and the fair treatment of people in same sex relationships.

But democracy is a struggle for a better world, it is not the imposition of it.

The DDR affected me personally so perhaps I cannot view it and its ideology as dispassionatly as others.

Other Comments by flying goose

34. Comment #430792 by dsainty on November 10, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Comment #430780 by flying goose

Don't blame democracy.

At any cost? :)

Religions with an unhealthy obsession with having large numbers of children can be expected to thrive like a disease in the presence of a political system that explicitly acts on the opinions of the largest group, regardless of merit.

Other Comments by dsainty

35. Comment #430795 by PERSON on November 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm

"Ironic that East Germany, as many other communist societies, was very much like a religious cult. "Goodbye, Lenin!" underlines this very well. Don't throw stones when you live in a house of glass? :) "
Oh I don't know. Isn't it rather like Christians rejecting horoscopes and new age woo woo, i.e. actually preferable to the alternative? There would seem to be a better basis for becoming more rational. I don't think the rank-and-file true-believing communist was much worse than the rank-and-file true-believing capitalist, e.g. a Wall Street runner, a share-holding Enron employee, etc, in terms of rationality.

Both believe(d) in things that demonstrably exist, they just attribute(d) unwarranted qualities to them.

This is not to understate the midnight door-pounding, brutal, mind-destroying awfulness of the DDR which FG points out, though.

An irony is that the fondness the people of the ex-Communist countries developed for religion comes from exactly what Marx described in the quote Hitchens often supplies:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. "
A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the
farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did
no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain.
He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to
anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say solemnly,
pointing to the sky with his large beak -- "up there, just on the other
side of that dark cloud that you can see-there it lies, Sugarcandy
Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from
our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one of his higher
flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover and the linseed
cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the animals believed
him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and laborious; was it not
right and just that a better world should exist somewhere else? A thing
that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses.
They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain
were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working,
with an allowance of a gill of beer a day.

Animal Farm

And so, on it goes, under oligarchs and tyrants and far-right populist lunacy today. But I don't know the situation of every ex-Communist state, so I'd hope there are some successes.

"Religions with an unhealthy obsession with having large numbers of children can be expected to thrive like a disease in the presence of a political system that explicitly acts on the opinions of the largest group, regardless of merit. "
An old argument, and a wrong one. Having lots of children just makes your family poor and ill-educated. Being poor makes you vulnerable to exploitation, and prevents you from being involved in politics. Merely having the vote does not compensate for your inability to make choices that support your own interests or defend you from manipulation by those with the resources to do so. It decreases your ability to influence your children. And it makes your children wish for a smaller family. The only circumstance where it does not is when the children are dying so quickly they need to be replaced, and you are dependent on them in your old age as they know they will be in theirs. The circumstance is alleviated very effectively by the Socialist welfare state.

Off-topic (i.e. not talking about Socialism ;-) ) It's good to see Obama call a spade a spade w.r.t. the right-wing abortion amendment.

Other Comments by PERSON

36. Comment #430796 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm

dsainty

Although religious, I can imagine a world without much religion, one which has achieved that goal through persuasion and the benefit of education. Generally speaking the countries of scandanavia have achieved that, where religion exists it is generally liberal.

THE Kyrkomötet (General Synod) of the Church of Sweden approved a recommendation that the Swedish Church should conduct weddings in church for both heterosexual and same-sex couples last week. The marriage liturgy will be amended slightly to reflect this.

see http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=83989

We are asked by the article to imagine no religion, give me the scandinavian model anyday.

Other Comments by flying goose

37. Comment #430803 by brainsys on November 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm

Flying Goose - no one is justifying the DDR. Like evolution and government mistakes - my experience is the result of an awful bloody history. But that does not devalue my experience.

What of the experience of holocaust survivors? - who could have suffered more? - yet they give unique, invaluable insightful views of the human condition. Not one worth the cost in life and suffering, but not to be ignored, indeed treasured because of this cost.

This guy got brought up in a secular society which makes religion look quite odd and perverse. He didn't need the Stasi to tell him that.

I think you should also be careful of regarding the DDR and other Eastern block communist regimes as a type of religious cult. It just doesn't have the same belief system. When the states fell - not under attack from without but from dissolution within - nearly all the citizens 'converted' to western democracy faster and more completely than even the Vicar of Bray could conceive.

Imagine in contrast, for a minute, God appeared on a cloud over London and boomed "Sorry lads & lasses I screwed up. I resign. Move on please"

Would every church instantly empty? I doubt it. The reduction would be more than compensated by the opening of new theological colleges intent on 'rationalising' this new vision confirming the existance of God and his challenging new message. Religion is even more important than God. It would again re-create a new/enhanced God in man's own image ...

Other Comments by brainsys

38. Comment #430807 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Brainsys

Maybe you are right, I don't know.
My questions remain, 'How do we achieve a secular society?' and 'What form should it take?'

But perhaps those questions are not relevent to the thread.


However, and this an edit, imagine writing an article titled 'Imagine a religious society' written for readers in a secular democracy in which religion had ceased to exist. Written inorder to persude people of relifgions virtue, written in a book called '50 voices of belief'. Part of a wider campaign to bring religion to this society.

The writer had been brought up in country where nearly everyone was religious and those that were not were marginalised and persecuted minority seen as 'quite odd and perverse'.

That person might have a very positive view of religion, He was after all from a country where from his birth he was told how terrible secularism was.

We might want to apply a hermenuetic of suspicion to what he had written.

Such a country does exist of course, the USA.

Someone who had travelled widely once told me no two countries were so similar as the USA and the DDR. Why? I asked , Because no other countries were so in the control of a governing ideology as those two.

The only difference is that the religious right still exists. Maybe thats where the battle is today.

Other Comments by flying goose

39. Comment #430814 by mira on November 10, 2009 at 2:53 pm

brainsys
I agree with you on most things but I'm not that so positive and idealistic about the situation in the area affected by communism. I mean there's still Belarus and Moldova and there are nostalgic people in other places. It's that the system just utterly collapsed in the most parts. It was not so clean communism either it was mixed with russian supremacy.
To me it was not a cult but still a pseudo-religion. The system was full of absurd things I can assure you that.

Other Comments by mira

40. Comment #430815 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 3:01 pm

But pseudo religions are every where, What is it they say in America at the beginning of school,

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

Now that is creepy, getting seven years to recite that.

And of there is Rememberance Sunday, nothing wrong with honouring the dead.

but to quote Wilfred Owen

'The scribes on all the people shove
And bawl allegiance to the state,
But they who love the greater love
Lay down their life; they do not hate.'

Psuedo Reilgion is everywhere, some ok some very bad.

Other Comments by flying goose

41. Comment #430819 by mira on November 10, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Flying Goose
"In contrast to what a lot of Americans seem to think, we have never been raised to be hostile toward religion. Actually, it was much worse: we have grown up to be totally and utterly indifferent toward religion." And when he suddenly saw religion he was shocked and so was I. The sacrament and crucifix are quite eerie...

Sorry to hear that you were personally affected by DDR I was born in USSR but gladly it did not last too long after. The only way I can see is democracy and free speech that exceeds over religious dogma.

Other Comments by mira

42. Comment #430822 by Edgar.Dahl on November 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Hello. This is Edgar Dahl. I am very happy to see that my article has been well received.

I would quite like to make some comments on what it was like to grow up in East Germany.

But let me start by saying that "Goodbye Lenin" is an uplifting, but misleading movie. If you wish to see a more realistic picture of the former German Democratic Republic, please watch "The Lives of Others".

Why do I feel the need to say this? Well, because I hardly ever met a real communist. Apart from some "apparatchniks", most people in East Germany thought about communism as they thought about religion - it is bullshit!

I have always considered myself as a liberal in the vein of Wilhelm von Humboldt, John Stuart Mill or Karl R. Popper.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. It is a pleasure "talking" to you (although I am not a native speaker. Which reminds to say: yes, when referring to the "Year of the Gnu" I was not referring to David Attenboroughs documentary as "dreadful" but to the scenes depicting the killing by the crocodiles.)

Other Comments by Edgar.Dahl

43. Comment #430826 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Edgar

Thank you for posting, I will watch the film you suggest. Can I ask you how you see religious people you meet today. Your article suggests that they were somewhat alien in you youth. Presumably today they are not as alien or oppressed as they might have been in the old east. Are they different?


Mira
Well we were divided by the wall, all of us, well my mother's family were from east prussia, some fled right to the west, others we stranded in the east.

So my view of the east was of a country that denied basic freedoms such as those of movement to it people.

I do own the fact that that history affects my thinking.

Which is the cause of my question on this thread, namely how far political system shape the way we think?

Other Comments by flying goose

44. Comment #430839 by Edgar.Dahl on November 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Yes, I see Christians differently today. In fact, my in-laws, my wife and my daughter are Christians; so are two of my best friends.

One of the reasons we are getting along is that they are liberal Christians. They are not trying to impose their views on me and I am not trying to impose my views on them.

I have to add something, though. Personally, I favour liberal Chrstians to orthodox Christians. Philosophically, however, I choose orthodox Christians over liberal Christians. While orthodox Christians are at least holding consistent views, liberal Christians usually hold inconsistent views - views so vague that they are virtually compatible with everything, as in "God is Love" and so on and so forth.

Other Comments by Edgar.Dahl

45. Comment #430850 by flying goose on November 10, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Edgar

That's very interesting, I would however like to defend us liberals though. I don't see it as inconsistancy, rather orthodox/dogmatic christianity is unable to change precisely because of the dogma that it must by nature assert. This prevents it being self- critical. It also makes it attack modernity.

‘The attack by Christian apologetic upon the adulthood of the world I consider to be in the first place pointless, in the second ignoble, and in the third unchristian. Pointless, because it looks to me like an attempt to put a grown-up man back into adolescence. Ignoble, because it amounts to an effort to exploit of man’s weakness for purposes that are alien to him and to which he has not freely assented. Unchristian, because it confuses Christ himself with one particular stage in man’s religiousness, i.e. with a human law [.i.e Religious dogmas about him.]’

Liberal religion on the otherhand attempts to be consistant with the world as it is, without giving up a critical if friendly relationship with it. It also attempts to be consistant with the world of scholarship which itself is constantly on the move.

Apologies if this is derailing, sorry.

Other Comments by flying goose

46. Comment #430851 by kaiserkriss on November 10, 2009 at 4:38 pm

That was a great article! Thanks Edgar.

I agree with you, the movie " The Life of Others" is a fantastic movie depicting life in the DDR.

I would hope that while Europe and especially Germany and Berlin is celebrating their 09-11, the mental walls created by religion will be broken down sooner, rather than later. I was disappointed to see that among all the celebrations, there were still several State sanctioned "Gottesdienst" activities.

That being said, if it were not for the Church in the DDR, the wall would still probably be up dividing Europe, Germany and Berlin despite the best efforts of Gorbachev.

I now know what I'll be reading over the Christmas break. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

47. Comment #430864 by Edgar.Dahl on November 10, 2009 at 5:29 pm

While studying theology in East Germany, I had the dubious pleasure of reading liberal theologians like Rudolf Bultmann, Dorothee Sölle, Hans Küng, Uta Ranke-Heinemann and Eugen Drewermann. Their idea of God is so obscure, so vague and so empty that it can be filled with any content whatsoever. If "God is Love" as Küng claims, or if "God is the power that carries a butterfly over the oceans", as Drewermann claims, then I wonder what happened to the good old God that has created the world, sacrificed his own son and will determine our destiny on judgement day?

I will never forget how one of my professors was making fun of the idea of transsubstantiation, calling the Eucharist "magic fast food" and calling the oblate the "baked saviour"; an hour later, however, he was standing in the church saying his prayers.

If these theologians don't believe in a personal God anymore, then why don't they say so? Why not admitting that going to the church, saying prayers, celebrating Easter and hoping for an afterlife is totally and utterly pointless?

In my mind, decency requires honesty. It is dishonest to hide behind the traditional God and invoking a hereafter and heaven and hell, if you are you have given up on "the father our in heaven".

Other Comments by Edgar.Dahl

48. Comment #430873 by Edgar.Dahl on November 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm

@ kaiserkriss:

"I was disappointed to see that among all the celebrations, there were still several State sanctioned 'Gottesdienst' activities."

In contrast to the US, Germany still does not have a strict separation of church and state. There are clerics everywhere - in the national bioethics council, in the philosophy departments, on the board of our broadcasting services...

Does Richard Dawkins actually know that he has recently been attacked by Cardinal Meisner, the archbishop of Cologne?

Other Comments by Edgar.Dahl

49. Comment #430874 by Sally Luxmoore on November 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm

Does Richard Dawkins actually know that he has recently been attacked by Cardinal Meisner, the archbishop of Cologne?

I would think it within the realms of possibility that he casts an eye over his own website now and then...
By the sound of this cardinal, it seems to be a badge of honour to have been attacked by him.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

50. Comment #430876 by mira on November 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Great to see you here Edgar Dahl! Thanks for the film tipp it will be good for my german skills. Interestingly I too considered philosophy and even theology studies but then I chose something else.

Other Comments by mira