Comments by maryhelena
1. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!
Comment #28116 by maryhelena on March 28, 2007 at 4:18 am
A belated Happy Birthday Richard - I hope your day was filled with many joys and pleasures.
I wish you well in the years ahead - and if the past years are anything to go by - the future for Richard Dawkins - and I will add for all of us who value your special gifts as a great intellect - will be years filled with a certain kind of contentment. Contentment not the result of a predisposed disposition - but a contentment born from a lifetime of striving for answers to life's complexities. Great minds, methinks, are great not because of their intellectual potential to deliver ideas and theories - they are great because they feed the soul, they feed the spirit within - they feed our sense of life and make us stand proud for being truly human. It is perhaps this - that you have not just provided intellectual stimulation through your work - but now, with The God Delusion, you have touched something more powerful than 'just another god damn idea' could possibly do - you have impacted, you have touched upon your readers sense of life - that sense of life that each of us need to nourish if we are to function with dignity for ourselves and respect for others. That is one great achievement!!
2. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'
Comment #22464 by maryhelena on February 19, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hi, gimlibengloin
The very fact that the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus are about to be put to the test, as a "testable hypothesis" according to the website, is a very big step forward. No longer is biblical scholarship going to content itself with questions about the character of their claimed historical Jesus. No longer is 'Who was Jesus' a sufficient avenue of biblical research. The question now being asked is a very different one - the question being asked is "If", "What if the most influential man in human history never lived". Not who was Jesus but did Jesus actually live, was he an historical person.
Obviously, many scholars and academics have vested interests in how they might proceed to deal with the project. Book sales and job security will possibly lead to some of those involved wanting to seek a positive outcome. Perhaps the best possible outcome would be a result that shows a high level of probability that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. Given the research over the last number of years in this subject - the next few years could well see some sort of consensus on this issue among serious biblical historians.
Better minds than mine have dealt with the 'evidence' that you mention - so I will not enter that debate here. For those unfamiliar with the debate a good starting place would be Freke And Gandy's 'The Jesus Mysteries' - or Earl Doherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle'.
Tantalizing question - What IF Jesus never lived…………..What's needed now is perhaps a book with the eye catching title 'The Jesus Delusion'….maybe Sam Harris has the wherewithal to run with this one…..
3. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'
Comment #22439 by maryhelena on February 17, 2007 at 10:07 am
Hi, scottishgeologist
Yes, I'm aware of the Jesus Seminar. However, I think the new project might just bring the subject of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth into the more mainstream academic circles - and indeed about time that this subject was established as a serious academic endeavor. For too long those who reject a historical Jesus have been on the sidelines of biblical studies.
This new project is actually big news - and exciting news for those with an interest in the debate! I've been reading a related email list for a few years - and there is certainly enough information out there that this project could just take off……
Hot on the tails of TGD - The Jesus Project might just have hit the right moment in time to stir up what could well be a hornets nest of issues for christianity….It is the claimed historicity of Jesus that is christianity's Achillis heel - not its ideas of theism. Time will tell of course - but I'll certainly be keeping a watch….
4. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'
Comment #22418 by maryhelena on February 17, 2007 at 2:44 am
For anyone interested in developments within Biblical scholarship the following may be of interest. A new project is currently on the cards - the claimed existence of Jesus of Nazareth is about to be put to the test by a group of biblical scholars. This weekend is the launch of the project. The website is
http://www.cfiwest.org/calendar/JesusProject.htm
In the secular battle with religious fundamentalists, the importance of this project should not be underestimated. Maybe this longstanding debate will finally go mainstream.....
From The Jesus Project website:
"The Center for Inquiry Transnational, in conjunction with its Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) announces the creation of the Jesus Project. The Jesus Project will enlist the talents of scholars from many disciplines to try to determine the likelihood of Jesus of Nazareth having ever existed."
"Spearheading this important undertaking is the Chairman of CSER, R. Joseph Hoffmann. The goal of the project, according to Hoffmann, is not to "prove" the non-existence of Jesus, but to take the theory as a "testable hypothesis" and use the best methods of critical inquiry to reach a probable conclusion."
Comment #17350 by maryhelena on January 13, 2007 at 2:21 am
I'll admit to being moved by this interview with Dawkins. In particular, the very last sentence summed up my own take on Dawkins and TGD:
Laurie Taylor wrote: "I had not thanked him for his courage".
Individually, we might all have our own disagreements with what is written in TGD - and disagreements even over the tone in which some of it is written. But beyond all of that, Dawkins can indeed stand proud of his accomplishment. I am thinking not simply of how the book has enabled more atheists to come out of the closet. I am thinking of TGD as a testimony to the courage of the man who wrote it, Richard Dawkins. He didn't have to do it. I am sure most people who have heard of Richard Dawkins know full well his views on god and religion. Even if the idea of god bugs him - that would not, in and off itself, be a strong enough motivator to write TGD. Writing TGD required conviction not irritation. And it is for being a man of conviction that I applaud him.
It is conviction that drives TGD - and conviction can of course, so easily, be read as dogmatism - but there is a very real difference. A difference that this interview, with Laurie Taylor, captures so well. For instance, Dawkins' reply that he had not thought of the social/political context where religion can provide a motivation for resistance or of affirming values. "That's not what my book is about" he answered, "but perhaps it should be". These are not the words, the stance, of a dogmatists but the words and stance of a man of conviction.
Convictions, however deeply they are felt, (yes felt, convictions are not purely intellectual positions, they are not simply the result of a logical assessment) they can be wrong. Not necessarily wholly and completely wrong - just not 100 percent correct. However, if an idea does have some merit, some saving grace so to speak, it needs a man or woman of conviction to take it forward, to give it a jump start. It also needs time on it's side.
The fact that TGD has generated much in the way of negative critiques does not detract from it's overall benefits. That said, one should not simply refuse to acknowledge genuine disagreements when they are voiced. Taking stock of the criticisms is in no way to seek to belittle or to disparage Richard Dawkins. He is not perfect - nor is TGD. We should uphold Richard Dawkins as a man of great courage, as a man of great conviction - applauding his achievements while seeking refinements to his ideas where we deem them to be relevant.
Ayn Rand, (been there done that and moved on…)wrote in regard to Victor Hugo - a man whose philosophy of life was in stark contrast to her own:
"The emphasis he projects is not: 'What great values men are fighting for!' but: 'What greatness men are capable of, when they fight for their values!".
So, Thank You Richard Dawkins - your courage in writing TGD is indeed testimony to the greatness of your humanity. Your conviction, regarding the non-existence of a theistic god, has publicly reopened a very old debate - and will, perhaps, be the wedge that will keep the door to the debate wide open. TGD has made god an issue of public – political - importance. The barricades are going up - and TGD has an important role to play.
Comment #11661 by maryhelena on December 6, 2006 at 11:42 am
Hi, Gary
I'm certainly in agreement with the sense of your article - like you I also have:
" a doubt about what I take to be new in the new atheism: that is, the conviction that we are morally obligated to try to destroy religion."
I just don't get this at all. I don't get the idea that atheism requires that one take upon oneself any sort of moral obligation to destroy religion. I have made the point in many posts to this website that I think TGD has crossed a line - a line that I label as being one of dignity - that we need always to seek, in our dealings with others, to accord them the dignity of their humanity.
That requires, surely, that we do not seek to cause unnecessary pain to another because of the content of their belief, because of the content of their minds. Obviously, when theology seeks a political expression we should be mounting the barricades...Apart from that circumstance, in the area of private belief and practice, we should not seek to cross a line whereby we fail to respect the fundamental dignity of others. An atheist crusade against religion is not just nonsense - it is also to bring scorn upon atheism itself. I have been completely stunned by some of the comments on this site - it's like being in some sort of atheist kindergarten...
7. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager
Comment #10954 by maryhelena on December 1, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Hi, Tom
I'm having trouble registering for the forum. After doing the 'paperwork' and clicking send - I got an error message. I then redid the whole thing - and this time I get a message telling me that my username and email have already been taken. I then try to log in at the forum - but my username/email not registered there! So - will try again later....
Interesting post of yours on the forum - and thanks for the link to edge.org - I'll read this article later - and maybe by then I'll be able to log on - and find something to add to the conversation ...
268. Comment #10885 by Tom Mitchell on December 1, 2006 at 4:14 am
Maryhelena and Derwent,
If you're still interested, I've posted a couple of pieces on the general forum thread discussing TGD. Hope to see you there.
Tom
8. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager
Comment #10847 by maryhelena on November 29, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Hi, Tom
I'll keep a lookout for a thread on the forum - although posting to a forum is not really my cup of tea - but neither was posting to a webpage either! I much prefer the mailing list format for discussions - but I don't think there is one dealing with Dawkins/atheism and his new book.
Regards
maryhelena
9. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager
Comment #10532 by maryhelena on November 28, 2006 at 10:20 am
Hi, Tom
Well said - and necessary. My thanks.
Atheists, being like cats, are, as Dawkins has said, difficult to organize, to herd. It's going to be difficult to ever get an agenda to which all will subscribe...It's not an easy task before atheists - they do need to enlist the help of others if the danger within fundamentalism is to be curtailed.
I have used, in an earlier post, the analogy of 'elephants' to describe religionists - an analogy that does put the atheists cats, on their own, at a considerable disadvantage...
(As an aside, since religionists can be herded, how about 'like elephants' for the religionists? Thick skinned they are - even have their own 'language', low frequency infrasound. Generally peaceful but prone to attacks of madness now and again - the male musth/madness period of sexual or dominance activity. The occasional rogue male. And of course, not to be forgotten, elephants never forget - an old adage which science has now backed up. Quite an interesting perspective from which to view atheists and religionists! Clearly one in which it becomes obvious that, because of the size difference between cats and elephants, - the idea of a battle, let alone a winnable battle, is nonsense. If atheists 'cats' want to stop any rogue religious 'elephants' from their destructive path - then they simply have to enlist the help of some game rangers to work on their behalf - caterwauling from the rooftops just won't do the job).
10. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #10176 by maryhelena on November 27, 2006 at 10:05 am
John
Most certainly, when theists engage in negative behavior towards one because one is an atheist - then one must be prepared to give as good as one gets - if not more so.... That said, I don't think going out of ones way to pick a fight with theists - when all they are trying to do is to live a good and moral life - that does not cut it with me. We just can't set ourselves up as some sort of Thought Police...There must be a place for tolerance!
Of course, when theists are endeavoring to enter the political arena - then atheists do need to mount the barricades...and give their tolerance the day off...
11. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager
Comment #9767 by maryhelena on November 25, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Yorker
"Why do atheists feel the need to endlessly debate theists..."
That's one question I'd really like to get to the bottom of!!
I have been any atheist for well over 20 years - and never, not once, have I felt the need to debate with theists. I just don't get this missionary zeal among atheists...or should I say the New Atheists...
12. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9522 by maryhelena on November 25, 2006 at 2:11 am
asdf
"If we had a complete understanding of why people turn to religion, we would be able to a huge amount to prevent it by using rational arguments in addition to **empathy and compassion**
"I stress empathy and compassion as I don't believe that rational arguments alone would work because virtually all the reasons why people turn to religion are emotion based, apart from indoctrination as a child."
So now it's emotions that are getting short changed ;-) Rand tried that as well! No place in Rand' world view for 'men of the heart'. Man's emotional mechanism, she wrote, "is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program….". This is indeed shaky ground - not only are the Thought Police in view - now we have the Heart Police as well!
It truly beats me, in all of this, why it is that we would want to change people to our liking, to our own 'standard' of what being human means. Variety, they say, is the spice of life. Why not celebrate our diversity instead of bemoaning its existence?
13. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9521 by maryhelena on November 25, 2006 at 2:09 am
Neil
Atheism has been around a long time now. There are children who have been brought up by atheist parents who have turned to religion, in some form or another. I have mentioned, in previous posts, the noted cosmologist George Ellis - both his parents are/were atheists. So, the least one can say is that even if children are not indoctrinated into some specific form of religion - that such children, as adults can, and do, choose some form of religion. The question of religion is just not that simple. People do change their ideas. People do become atheists regardless of childhood indoctrination with some specific theological ideas. Its pretty normal for teenagers to go through a rebellious stage - rejecting all that their parents stand for, lifestyle, politics, religion - that's part of growing up. If the childhood indoctrination was of such a great danger to future intellectual growth, as Dawkins would like us to believe - then we would not see the growing numbers of atheists that exist today. You and I, and Dawkins himself, are evidence that childhood indoctrination with religious or theological ideas does not give a child long-term immunity from rational thought.
14. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9520 by maryhelena on November 25, 2006 at 2:07 am
John
"If those with the god delusion simply kept it on a personal private level there would be no problem however many held it but unfortunately they insist on imposing it on others. Either through a belief they are saving the non believers or those with the wrong belief or by imposing their moral standards on others, often through governmental influence."
The problem is exactly where you pinpoint it - "imposing their moral standard on others, often through governmental influence". That's the problem - fundamentalists with a political/governmental agenda. All the rest, the theistic god and fundamentalists out to save souls - that should not be the main focus of dealing with the present social problem. It is only when fundamentalists seek political influence that it is morally imperative to make a stand against them. For the rest, we need to uphold their freedom of speech - and thought - and emotion.
No, we don't have to respect any idea that we believe to be in error. There is the world of difference, however, in letting our lack of respect for an idea become a lack of respect for the one holding the idea. And no, I don't think respect, in this context, has to be earned - as though there was ever an occasion that one could justify treating a fellow human being disrespectfully. One condemns the deed, never the man. And why should we do that? Because, ultimately, it is to safeguard our own humanity, it is to keep our own concept, our own estimation of human nature, elevated. We see enough of man's inhumanity to man - its only by choosing to acknowledge basic ground 'rules' that we demonstrate that we place the highest value upon our humanity. If we fail in this regard, if we fail to acknowledge the dignity of another human being, a dignity that is his by virtue of his existence - then it is human nature that we disrespect.
(as far as human achievements go - yes, respect is due, is earned, for any great accomplishment a man or woman might achieve - this earned respect relates to accomplishment only. In other areas of life such an individual's actions might not be deserving of respect. Earned respect, while welcome, is a bonus in life - it can never take the place of the respect we all need to have for one another - that respect is a respect for human life itself.)
15. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9310 by maryhelena on November 24, 2006 at 11:39 am
asdf
"This issue cannot be confused with racism and aparheid at all. People cannot change the colour of their skin but that can change their dangerous beliefs."
And how should that be done i.e. getting people to change their 'dangerous beliefs'. A mind, to quote Rand, cannot be forced. And, when you have used all the argumentation in your intellectual armory - and the religionist still does not 'see' your atheist world picture - what then? Send for the Thought Police and have them committed to some psychiatric 'homeland' for the mentally unstable? Or you could try Rand's solution in Atlas Shrugged: leave the unwashed to reap the fruits of their sickness - and let the pure of thought hightail it to the seclusion of a secret hideaway - where the 'men of the mind' contemplate the wonders of their intellect...
16. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9300 by maryhelena on November 24, 2006 at 11:08 am
Hugh
I'm not making any point about whether or not bad/evil religion is such because of what it "feeds us" or that it "promotes awful deeds". I'm making a comparison between 'good' Einsteinian religion and 'bad/evil' supernaturalist religion. An inference which Dawkins makes on page 19 of TGD - i.e. Einsteinian religion is acceptable religion, Dawkins himself saying that in regard to Einsteinian religion that he, himself, is also religious. That's the 'good', the acceptable religion. The 'bad/evil' religion is the religion that holds to the idea of a theistic god, supernaturalist religion. Dawkins, maintaining, in the book's Preface, that "religion is not the root of all evil" - i.e. that some 'evil' stems from religion.
Hugh, I'm not buying into the idea that everyone that does not agree with one is delusional. Once you buy into that idea - then roll on the '1984' with its 'thoughtcrime' and Thought Police….To even think that most of the world's population are suffering from a psychiatric disorder - and that you, yourself, are somehow exempt - where does that lead one? Delusions of grandeur methinks!!
I do have sympathy for Richard Dawkins. I can feel his frustration with religion. Actually, he puts me in mind of some else, someone who also thought they 'saw' what was wrong with the world - and it must have driven her to despair that she could not instill this insight, this passion, this urgency, to the world at large. I'm thinking of Ayn Rand (whose book I mentioned in my earlier post). For such people, life must at times be like living in a nightmare - everything just out of reach yet the nightmare vivid enough to haunt their waking moments. That's possibly always been the situation with those who can 'see' while other's are in the dark. However, it's no reason to think, as history clearly demonstrates, that the 'light' that such people hold is able to reach every nook and cranny. Rand, sadly, throw the baby out with the bathwater - and, likewise, Dawkins, with his narrow view on religion, seems intent on doing likewise.
17. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists
Comment #9298 by maryhelena on November 24, 2006 at 11:06 am
sorry about the that, post no.14 - it's posted to the wrong thread..........
18. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists
Comment #9295 by maryhelena on November 24, 2006 at 11:04 am
Hugh
I'm not making any point about whether or not bad/evil religion is such because of what it "feeds us" or that it "promotes awful deeds". I'm making a comparison between 'good' Einsteinian religion and 'bad/evil' supernaturalist religion. An inference which Dawkins makes on page 19 of TGD - i.e. Einsteinian religion is acceptable religion, Dawkins himself saying that in regard to Einsteinian religion that he, himself, is also religious. That's the 'good', the acceptable religion. The 'bad/evil' religion is the religion that holds to the idea of a theistic god, supernaturalist religion. Dawkins, maintaining, in the book's Preface, that "religion is not the root of all evil" - i.e. that some 'evil' stems from religion.
Hugh, I'm not buying into the idea that everyone that does not agree with one is delusional. Once you buy into that idea - then roll on the '1984' with its 'thoughtcrime' and Thought Police….To even think that most of the world's population are suffering from a psychiatric disorder - and that you, yourself, are somehow exempt - where does that lead one? Delusions of grandeur methinks!!
I do have sympathy for Richard Dawkins. I can feel his frustration with religion. Actually, he puts me in mind of some else, someone who also thought they 'saw' what was wrong with the world - and it must have driven her to despair that she could not instill this insight, this passion, this urgency, to the world at large. I'm thinking of Ayn Rand (whose book I mentioned in my earlier post). For such people, life must at times be like living in a nightmare - everything just out of reach yet the nightmare vivid enough to haunt their waking moments. That's possibly always been the situation with those who can 'see' while other's are in the dark. However, it's no reason to think, as history clearly demonstrates, that the 'light' that such people hold is able to reach every nook and cranny. Rand, sadly, throw the baby out with the bathwater - and, likewise, Dawkins, with his narrow view on religion, seems intent on doing likewise.
19. Two who hopped off the faith train
Comment #9258 by maryhelena on November 24, 2006 at 9:20 am
"The God Delusion" is much more about deflating a hypothesis than crystallizing an enthralling viewpoint. It's not a paean to atheism; it's a diatribe against religion".
And that's the problem - TGD, despite Dawkins' attempt to separate Einsteinian religion from supernatural religion - is being viewed, by most reviewers, as a broadside against religion, as a diatribe against religion. Why? Are the people writing these negative reviews unable to make the distinction that Dawkins advocates. Or are they simply unwilling to make this distinction. Unwilling to make it not because of some deeply held conviction towards theism - but because they find the whole question of religion a very different question to the one that Dawkins maintains it is?
Dawkins' position, in TGD, is that there are two types of religion. Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion: "As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional".
By separating Einsteinian religion from supernaturalist religion, Dawkins has conceded the point that 'religion' is a broad term that can include two very different viewpoints. However, this is where Dawkins starts to lose the plot. For then he maintains that to continue to call Einsteinian religion 'religion' at all - is "misleading", "destructively misleading" - "because for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'. This of course, leads to the premise that there is 'good' religion and there is bad/evil religion. And, for the rest of the book, it is the 'bad' religion, supernaturalist religion, that Dawkins attacks.
Whatever is one's take on Dawkins verse theism and supernaturalist religion, in the full picture of things, its neither here nor there. The problem with TGD is that it falls into a trap, of it's own making, of doing an injustice, by being disrespectful, to those who don't go along with Dawkins' attempt to separate religion into good and bad religion, Einsteinian and supernaturalist religion. Religion is too big a phenomenon to be pigeonholed in the manner that Dawkins seeks to do.
And of course, Dawkins goes further. Charges of "intellectual high treason" to anyone seeking to retain the concept of 'god' in any manner whatsoever. To which the only logical retort, Dawkins' negative intent nothwithstanding, is - thanks for the compliment! The fundamental nature of the mind, it's inherent nature, is its ability to engage in 'treason', to engage in heresy. Without intellectual 'treason', intellectual heresy, the mind becomes stagnant - and that situation, intellectual abdication, would put a full stop to intellectual evolution. Charging those who do not agree with one's point of view with 'treason' is ridiculous.
It is becoming more and more clear to me, from reading the many negative reviews of TGD, that the book is nothing less than a diatribe against religion. My very first comments to this site (in relation to the Cambridge book reading – my copy not having arrived from amazon) related to Dawkins' view narrow view religion. Now, having read the book, and considered Dawkins' four consciousness reasons for writing the book - the raising of consciousness in that being an atheists is a realistic possibility; that there is power in natural selection; that children should not be saddled with a religious label; and atheist pride - it seems, to me, that a book on these issues could well have been written without indulging in a diatribe against religion. One does not have to blacken the 'opposition' in order to demonstrate how shinny white ones own position is. One does not support ones own 'truth' by ridiculing the opposition.
The book's title, The God Delusion, is unfortunate. It might be good as a marketing ploy - but to infer that millions of people are delusional is somehow to cross some line or other. Mistaken they may be - but a charge of delusional takes one into psychological territory - and leads to the whole thrust of TGD becoming a personal slight on millions of sincere religious people. That Dawkins can do all of this - even quoting the Microsoft Word dictionary definition of delusion, "a symptom of psychiatric disorder" - is to take a position that is the height of insensitivity. Religion is a delusion and those who hold this delusion are suffering from a psychiatric disorder - this sort of in-your-face 'argumentation' exposes not simply a desire for consciousness raising - but, seemingly, a deeply felt personal phobia about religion that is being exorcised by writing a diatribe against religion.
At the root of all the criticism of TGD is the notion, the sense, the feeling, that some line has been crossed. Nobody is going to take Dawkins to task for speaking his mind on ideas. Religion, however, is not just about ideas. It deals with: " a believing view of life, approach to life, way of life, and therefore a fundamental pattern embracing the individual and society, man and the world, through which a person …sees and experiences, thinks and feels, acts and suffers, everything. It is a transcendentally grounded and immanently operative system of coordinates, by which man orients himself intellectually, emotionally, and existentially". (Hans Kung: Christianity and the World Religions). There is nothing delusional about such a definition of religion - it seeks to accommodate all aspects of the human experience of life.
The line that has been crossed, in TGD, is one of dignity. Its failure is that it has not deemed it necessary, to accord the millions of non-atheists in the world, not even the slightest smidgen of human dignity. It's only a very small step from looking upon religious people as suffering some sort of psychiatric disorder - to labeling them sub-human, not worthy of being accorded human dignity at all. (here I'm thinking of Atlas Shrugged and its diatribe against altruism).
As a flesh and blood issue, apartheid was a disaster. As an exercise in secular humanism, intellectual apartheid - the judging of people by the content of their minds, is, likewise, doomed to failure. There will be those, like Mandela, who will not allow their dignity to be so maligned. Reviewers, after reviewers, are, in one sense or another, telling Richard Dawkins that a line has been crossed with The God Delusion.
20. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred
Comment #8953 by maryhelena on November 23, 2006 at 1:38 am
johnc
OK - I'll apply your scenario to the present situation. The 'real' issue, the 'common cause' is to prevent religious fundamentalists from hijacking or influencing political power. There can be no sell out here. There is no room here for denouncing moderates or complaining about alienating potential supporters. It truly is an either or situation. You are either with us or against us. No compromise is possible. Dawkins has it right here
The current situation is not like a political sideshow where politicians, or political ideologues, dance around various technical points of their particular political theory - and sing the 'I'm a true believer' hymn when any fellow traveller shows any tendency towards party heresy. While the moderates cheerfully sing the 'the brotherhood of man' pop song - to the irritation of their party hard-liners….This is standard political infighting - it is not a scenario that has, or should have, any bearing upon the current 'war' against religious fundamentalists and their political agenda.
Where the Dawkins' approach is wrong is that he has taken the 'either or' position of the core issue, the real issue, the common cause - and used this same approach as a methodology of 'war' against the side issues. In other words, what will work as a strategy in the real war against religious fundamentalists and their political agenda - will not work when used as a methodology of dealing with issue of a secondary nature i.e. will not work when dealing with theology or religion. As in political theory - so in theology - there is room for shades of colour - as in any, purely, intellectually based exercise. It is only when ideas are being transformed into concrete realities, concrete political frameworks - that the either or situation arises.
Dawkins needs to restrict the 'either or' of his battle plan to issues relating to the fundamentalists attempts at a political agenda. He needs to change his battle plan in regard to religion and theology. He needs to stop singing the 'I'm a true believer' hymn within a religion/theological context and get to learn to sing in tune with 'the brotherhood of man' song of popular culture. Indeed both songs have their place - but within their very specific contexts. They are only acceptable songs when sung in two separate situations - they are not interchangeable, they are not complimentary songs to sing at the same party.
Granted the 'I'm a true believer' hymn has very often been seen as part and parcel of religion and theology. But that fact does not make it a core aspect of either religion or theology. Both songs, the true believer hymn and the pop song of the brotherhood of man, have a long history alongside religion and theology. However, the modern world demonstrates that the true believer hymn has to go, has to be removed from it's association with religion and theology. Much work is being done in this regard. More and more religious people are realizing that their homegrown religion is only part of the greater whole. And, as Hans Kung wrote in his book, Global Responsibility, In Search of a New World Ethic, there will be "No world peace without peace between the religions". The 'I'm a true believer' premise - and all the nonsense that goes with it, has no place in the future of peaceful co-existence between religions.
Thus, Dawkins' attempt, in TGD to re-instate the 'I'm a true believe' mentality in dealing with religion and theology just won't achieve anything - apart from tarring him with the fundamentalist brush. Dogmatism, in dealing with religion and theology, is out of date - religion and theology, minus the fundamentalists, have moved on…
To summarize: Dawkins can sing the 'either or' hymn, the 'I'm a true believer' hymn, when waging 'war' against religious fundamentalists in the political arena. This hymn is necessary in order to uphold the separation of religion and state - the *real* issue we face.
Dawkins cannot sing the 'either or' hymn of true believers when involving himself with the side issues, with skirmishes with religion or theology. Apart from the fact that such an approach is like taking coals to Newcastle, it, in these days of modern technology/theology, is going to look rather old-fashioned, rather amateurish.
In dealing with the side issues that involve religion, in and of itself, Dawkins needs to learn to sing the song of pop culture, 'the brotherhood of man'. He needs to learn to sing in tune with the likes of Kauffman and other 'moderates' out there who are not blindsided by the fundamentalist agenda and understand the need for spiritual renewal instead of religious denial.
Dawkins needs to get to the position where he can concentrate on the real issue and say with regards to theology: "Quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".
21. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred
Comment #8739 by maryhelena on November 22, 2006 at 6:19 am
johnc
"Dawkins' personal views on the Kauffman approach (and vice versa) are actually irrelevant as to whether they are objectively complementary in the struggle for sanity."
Dawkins is, of course, entitled to his view that keeping the god concept in some special metaphorical sense is an "act of intellectual high treason". In the broader context, in the 'struggle for sanity', do such words as 'high treason' have validity, have a role to play? And if not, is not the use of such words an indication that the two approaches, Dawkins and Kauffman, are not complimentary but at loggerheads? Looks to me that the victors in the battle with fundamentalism could well end up fighting over the spoils….Dawkins clamoring for religious refugees and Kauffman seeking their spiritual renewal….I really can't see Dawkins being prepared to back-step a little - but who knows, perhaps once the theistic god is out of the way that he might be prepared to take another look at the god question….
OK - I'm with you in that 'war' - the one "with the reactionary advocates of theocracy" who seek to implement their plan via the political arena. That is indeed a very big battle and requires that we truly know our enemy - which is not religion, in and of itself. To my way of thinking, far too much emphasis is being put upon the content, the intricacies, of religion and theology. All well and good - and fascinating for those with the time to indulge in philosophical debates. But, ultimately, it does not matter what sort of god one supports - the issue is political. No god, whether the theist god or the deist god, the triune god or the god of the gaps - whatever - should be allowed a role in the political environment. The 'war' is about keeping religion and the state separated. Engaging in some side skirmishes with the finer points of theology is to direct attention away from the main battle.
Yes, I agree, there needs to be some mobilizing in response to those who seek political power for theological ends. I just don't see that this mobilizing requires that one ridicule, criticize, knock down, someone's theology. If, as Dawkins maintains, theology is a non-subject - then why attempt any sort of intellectual debate with it? If one wants to debate theology then one needs to immerse oneself with the whole story, so to speak. If one does not want to engage with theology on a theological platform - then don't engage it at all. Simple refuse to take it seriously, as not worthy of any debate. One does not need a degree in theology to stand up and say to the fundamentalists - that's it, so far and no more, in regard to it's political aspirations. The whole issue with TGD is that the focus has turned on god instead of on creating, and maintaining, political structures able to uphold the separation of religion and the state.
"The role of a clear voice in raising the alarm and denouncing religion as RD and Sam Harris are doing can be debated but in my view it is proportional to the degree of complacency that exists to the real and present dangers".
For every fundamentalist that flies planes into skyscrapers there are millions of religious people who do no harm at all. Tarring everyone with the same brush is not a very scientific way to go about things. Isolate the problem, identify the cause - fundamentalism - and deal with that instead. Deal with the rogue elephant, and leave the rest of the herd to find it's way to a more healthy terrain. Allowing space for self-renewal instead of advocating self-denial. It is not religious refugees that we want to see but religious/spiritual renewal. Or as Kauffman says " let us recreate spiritual community and membership. Let us go forth. Civilization needs to be changed". Indeed, "Reinventing The Sacred" is where hope for the future lies.
"We, at least, should not fall into the trap of believing there is only one truth and one way." I'm sold on that - but I'm not so sure about Dawkins.
22. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred
Comment #8666 by maryhelena on November 21, 2006 at 11:57 pm
johnc
From TGD
'Nevertheless, I wish that physicists would refrain from using the word God in their special metaphorical sense……….the metaphorical or pantheistic God….is light years away from….the God of the Bible……Deliberately to confuse the two, is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason".
I don't think, from considering this quote, that I could possible put Dawkins approach as complimentary to that of Kauffman i.e. complementary in connection with reaching theists. That there is a place for Dawkins style is very possible, particularly in regard to closet atheists - and maybe even to a much smaller extent as a public awareness demonstration of the atheist position. However, in this case it's not without it's problems - atheists are not being shown in a favorable light and some atheists have voiced their concern. Dawkins, in his recent article on this site, displayed his frustration with the "I'm an atheist But" position. His take-no-prisoners style is coming across as dogmatic - hence the dreaded word 'fundamentalist' is often being thrown his way.
Dawkins need to realize that people are not in their religions 'for the money', they are not there for facts. They are there because religion is offering something that money, that scientific facts, cannot buy or provide. It offers them a 'home', a spiritual home, a place to feel secure, comfortable and connected to their fellow travellers. Atheism, in and of itself, offers nothing at all. Knocking 'faith heads' for wanting a 'soft place to fall' is not only potentially disrespectful - it is also ourselves that we shortchange. It's a fundamental part of human nature to want to be 'seen' by others, to be acknowledged, to be accepted, to be heard. 'A soft place to fall' is what we all would like - a little back up now and again, a hand to hold and a dream to share. This is not some hangover from childhood. It is instead a mature awareness of our humanity, an awareness that is the cornerstone of our adulthood. 'Home' - even ET wanted to go 'home'….
Perhaps if Dawkins were to look upon religion as being the spiritual home of people, rather than a set of theological window dressing, he might just be able to show some degree of respect for that home. Home, for many people, is sacred ground - and not just the spiritual/religious home. 'Home' in it's ethnicity and it's racial connotations is a very deeply felt part of the human experience. 'Home' is where we have come from - it has, so to speak, become us. It's part of who we are, our identity.
As regards the Theos survey. It was not 'religion as smallpox' that was the question, but faith that was compared to smallpox. And, yes, indeed, the response was 42%. Yet, with the following question: "On balance, religion is a force for good in society", the result was 53%. Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. Were people being asked if they viewed religion minus faith a force for good - and, with the first question, asked to view faith as something separate from religion. It all sounds rather double talk to me…
Perhaps where I differ from a lot, perhaps most, of the posters to this site is that I don't accept the approach that " We are after all in a kind of war". But we are not in a war. The existence of god cannot be proven or disproved. It's fundamentalism that wants it's war cry, not reason. Dawkins could perhaps take heed of that NT character, John the Baptist, the voice in the wilderness. As the story goes, John the Baptist prepared the way, admonishing repentance because the new dispensation, the kingdom of god, was near. It was left to another, Jesus, to demonstrate the framework, for want of a better word, that this new dispensation would inaugurate. John, as the story goes, lost his head, and it was left to Jesus, with his self-sacrifice on the cross and by his 'resurrection, to lay the foundation of the new world view.
So, perhaps in this type of analogy, Dawkins does have a role, a limited role - not a complimentary role in the task of reaching theist, but a role, as he says of consciousness raising in regard to atheist pride. Perhaps Dawkins could be viewed as a forerunner. A forerunner not able to participate in the holistic enterprise that is needed to build a 21 century all encompassing world view. Dawkins great mind is one-dimensional. Great for the task he has set himself of demonstrating, scientifically, the improbability of a theistic god - but nevertheless a mind unable to comprehend the role god, and religion, have played, and will continue to play, in the history of the human species.
What is needed now is not more people like Dawkins - it's more people like Kauffman that we need. More people who are willing to take on board the whole bang shoot of our human nature and, instead of decrying it's illogical tendencies, find, for everyone, a measure of respect and dignity.
23. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: Reinventing The Sacred
Comment #8424 by maryhelena on November 21, 2006 at 7:27 am
Well now, what do we have here if not a new version of god. Well done to Stuart Kauffman! In some earlier post of mine I made some comment to the effect that 'once again, god is on the move….'. Little did I know that my suspicion would so quickly be verified ;-) I'll admit to being dumb regarding the intricacies of science - but Kauffman', as a scientist, presents a view of god that speaks volumes about his commitment not just to science but to the very heart of human spirituality.
"Thus, beyond the new science that glimmers a new world view, we have a new view of God, not as transcendent, not as an agent, but as the very creativity of the universe itself. This God brings with it a sense of oneness, unity, with all of life, and our planet — it expands our consciousness and naturally seems to lead to an enhanced potential global ethic of wonder, awe, responsibility within the bounded limits of our capacity, for all of life and its home, the Earth, and beyond as we explore the Solar System. I want God to mean the vast ceaseless creativity of the only universe we know of, ours".
God, says Kauffman, " is the most powerful symbol we have created". This being so, then I doubt very much if any marketing manager would be so quick to dump such a crowd pleasing symbol. God sells, draws the crowds - why would anyone think they can out smart such a proven symbol of human spirituality? Indeed, the theistic god can lead to delusions - but god as a symbol - different ball game here.
Kauffman says "If we can transfer that awe and reverence, not to the transcendental Abrahamic God of my Israelite tribe long ago, but to the stunning reality that confronts us, we will grant permission for a renewed spirituality, and awe, reverence and responsibility for all that lives, for the planet".
It would be sad if atheists were to take flight at Kauffman' retention of the god symbol. Ultimately, it's not the symbol that is important but the reality behind it - in this case the "ceaseless creativity" of the known world. However, symbols do have merit; brand names are big business. In this case it's not economic reasons that we are considering - it's reasons of accommodation, of finding a meeting place where a framework, a world view, can begin to develop.
Yes, I also liked Kauffman' view that " To ever succeed, this new view needs to be soft spoken". However much Dawkins' in-your-face style might suit closet atheists, I just can't see it getting through to theists. And yet, he says of TGD "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". I fail to how one can, intellectually/theologically speaking, knock someone to the ground and then tell them to get up and rub ones back for one - or the equivalent. Some people might like the shock treatment - but I doubt it will appeal to the majority of theists. Actually, the choice presented to them - a choice between theism and atheism is not only unattractive - it is dangerously misleading. Kauffman hits the nail on the head here - what's needed is some way to "transfer that awe and reverence" to a new, a better, a more 21st century idea of god. Throughout history people have changed gods - but god, or gods, they will stick to like glue. Logically, then, gently, slowly, acclimatize people to the benefits of the new god.
Full marks to Stuart Kauffman for rising to the challenge. It is vision the world needs and he has provided a framework from within which a forward movement might begin.
Comment #8085 by maryhelena on November 20, 2006 at 11:32 am
Dear Maryhelena,
I noticed you mentioned monotheistic religions, other beliefs that do not believe in personal God for the sakes of this debate are not though of as religion. The problem of religion is the belief of the supernatural, or having a leader that talks and gets replies from God, the delusion that there is a God and that he is watching.
Hi, Davin
Yes, I know. Dawkins wants to separate Einsteinian religion from - from what - from religion! The good religion and the bad religion - with Dawkins as the judge!. I'm afraid that just does not make sense to me. Dawkins wants to narrow down religion to something that he thinks he can negate. Down goes the bad theistic god and good bye religion! Not only does Dawkins want to separate religion into good and bad religion - he goes further, on page 37 TGD: "And I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life". How convenient…..
Comment #8070 by maryhelena on November 20, 2006 at 10:47 am
maryhelena wrote:
"Well, I certainly think that religion is here to stay. I say this with no gleeful tone or even with a self-satisfied smirk. Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life. There is not the slightest evidence available upon which one could base the possibility that religion will disappear."
"I strongly disagree there. Look at Ireland; Church attendance is massively reduced, the archaic ban on divorce was removed, and the younger generation is beginning to seriously question the role of religion in society. The difference here is EDUCATION. "
Hi, Franchesca
Perhaps, if you consider the fact that religion is not just about attending church, my position might make some sense. A decline in church attendance says nothing about a decline in religion. For the sake of argument, people can pray in their backyard, in their bedroom - or out in the fresh air. People do not have to go to church to be religious. Being religious is more a sense of life, an approach to life, than sitting on a church bench on a Sunday.
"What about the vastly improved situation in Northern Ireland? Again, the trend for Athiesm and agnosticism among young people has clearly taken the sting out of the conflict (around 10% of the population have completely rejected religion). I don't believe it is a coincidence that 'secterianism' here is increasingly confinde to the more deprived areas, and less well educated of the population."
I know, it's often assumed that education is going to rid the world of religion - but religion is more about an attitude to life than about intellectual premises. So, methinks, while education might well remove the fantasy world of theology, it's not going to be able to remove our inherent disposition for matters of the spirit.
Another point that is perhaps well to keep in mind. Christianity is only a part of world religion. While Christianity, along with the other monotheistic religions, is troubled by it's fundamentalists - there are other forms of religion that are just carrying on….as religion has always just carried on….Indeed, it's good to know that many young people in Ireland are becoming agnostics and atheists - but I think you would find that there are others who give up Christianity only to find some spiritual value in Buddhism or other Eastern religions. Many people, so it seems, still find it attractive to travel to India for enlightenment….
What is good about education is that it allows people to view all religions, not just the one on the home front. Today, one can, as it were, shop around for a religion that suits ones particular taste - or choose the atheist path. That is as it should be. The problem, as I have posted a number of times, is not religion - the problem is social/political structures that seem unable to put up a suitable defense against the encroachment of religious fundamentalists i.e. fundamentalists who strive to make their theology into a political agenda.
Comment #8060 by maryhelena on November 20, 2006 at 10:09 am
Hi, Barry
I've just seen your post - and I'm pretty sure the comment you quote is not from me!
Perhaps you can give me the post number?
That said....I don't find anything in your post that I would find objectionable.....
If you have been able to read some of my posts to this site, you will find that my position is very similar to yours i.e. religion and science speak to two different aspects of our human nature - and therefore, we need to accomodate them in our world-view - I don't buy into the argument that one must choose between them.
Comment #7794 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 11:54 am
asdf
"I concur, but putting "anti-virus software" in place IS action, or doing something about it. It's absolutely necessary to combat the religious lobbyists if we wish to preserve a sane environment for our future generations. "
Indeed, go after the 'religious lobbyists' by all means - that's the thing to do - endeavour to keep theology out of the social/political arena. That's the sort of action that will, hopefully, get results.
Comment #7791 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 11:47 am
Solas
The definition of 'religion' that I quoted is not mine. It is taken from the Encyclopedia of Religion. Off course, you don't have to accept it as a valid definition of religion. Wikipedia says this about 'religion'.
"There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.
Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy."
Now, we can well debate what the correct definition of 'religion' might be - but I don't think we would find agreement. The definition is fluid - as befits something that is intrinsically bound up with both personal experience and cultural or social situations.
Striving for set definitions, for religion or for god, will get one nowhere. One would always be at the disadvantage of setting up straw men in order to knock them down. That fact is something that atheists have to come to grips with - and, as many of the reviews of TGD have shown, atheists are failing in this regard. One cannot prove that god exists and one cannot prove that god does not exist. That is the reality we face. My position is that this is no reason not to try and accommodate this fact in our view of the bigger picture i.e. the bigger picture being our social and political environment. Believers and non-believers have to find a way to live together without a constant state of battle readiness. War talk will not win in this encounter.
Regarding my comment re sacred ground. I made no contradiction. If you refer to my earlier post you will find that I have clearly stated that I differentiate between 'religion' and 'theology. Religion is sacred ground because it relates to an aspect of human nature that seeks expression in spiritual values. Theology is not sacred ground - it is an add on, it is an intellectual pastime that is as subject to intellectual progress and evolution as any other intellectual discipline. Re. The comment regarding 'coming to the table'. I was not referring to either a scientific or a political table - I was simply using 'table' more as a metaphor of existence, of allowing religion it's place as a fundamental aspect of the human experience.
Solas, thanks for the exchange. I don't think we can take this much further. We don't agree on allowing 'religion' a wide range of definitions, of understandings. Hence, we cannot proceed with an attempt at trying to seek an accommodation between religion and science. That is where my interest lies. And no, seperating religion into supernaturalist religion and Einsteinian religion, as Dawkins does, is not the answer. There is most certainly good and bad theology - but to postulate good and bad religion is nonsensical. Dawkins, of course, would rather not use the word 'religion' at all. Whether we like it or not, religion is a fact of life.
Comment #7761 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 9:55 am
asdf
Indeed, let people believe whatever takes their fancy - actually we can't do much about it anyway......what we can do is make sure that we put in place, in the social/political environment, some strong anti-virus 'software' .....
Comment #7750 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 9:24 am
AF_Comm_Guy
Excellent post - much to think about here for atheists. There is much more to religion than simply supernatural beliefs of one sort or another. There is this sense of community, of social connection - a sense of togetherness. Atheism can't offer that. Hence, for many individuals, leaving religion is not simply a matter of leaving behind a theistic delusion - it very often means leaving behind a life style. Out into the great unknown with nary a hand to hold. Taking that road requires much in the way of strength of character. I think that sometimes atheists forget that being a 'seeker', being one who wants to know, is not something that concerns many people. Lots of people just want to get on with their lives and have no need for answers to questions that they have never asked in the first place!
Comment #7691 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 4:07 am
Hi, Jonathan
Thanks for your post #7485 - clearly put! So it's the muslim lobby and the christian fundamentalists who are out of the present set up. In other words the UK government is being seen to being partial to certain faith schools and not to others. Silly position for the government to have got itself into in the first place….How about a referendum on the issue of faith schools - at least that would definitely put the matter in it's proper perspective i.e. how many people actually do want the government sponsored faith schools.
Comment #7690 by maryhelena on November 19, 2006 at 4:04 am
Hi, Solas
"...My point is that, as of now, we don't have any historical data of people without some form of religion - and no modern evidence that would indicate that religion will become obsolete."
"We do actually. Buddhism does not require any belief in a deity (nor does it exclude such belief) but millions of Buddhists practice their spirituality without needing to believe in a deity, and have done so for a very long time. And we do a have empirical data which points to declining religious belief and observance in Europe and elsewhere. As a general rule of thumb (there are always exceptions) societies become less religious as they become richer and more educated. "
Religion is about having spiritual values. The content of these spiritual values, for us individually, may include many notions of 'god'. I don't subscribe to the idea that the term 'god' can be narrowly defined - as Dawkins would like to do. The history of 'god' tells a different story. Gods come in all shapes and sizes, no one size fits all! I don't think this makes the idea, the concept, of 'god', meaningless. Quiet the contrary. 'God' is whatever. Whatever people find to be the supreme value in their lives, or values, as in the case of gods and goddesses. To seek to put god into a box is to make the concept meaningless. 'God' is a bit like a label, a label that, historically, has been used to differentiate spiritual values from material values.
As regards Buddhism not requiring a deity - I take it you mean a supreme deity. Yes, on this idea of a supreme deity, Buddhism is agnostic. However, as regards gods, the Buddhist position seems to be: "The Buddha considered the gods (devas) real, although subject to birth and rebirth. But since they have a form of existence far above man, it is completely consistent for Buddha to obtain the help of the gods for worldly matters not related to salvation (such as prayers for rain or children). The gods, too, come and go, depending on their respective karma. And according to many passages in the Pali canon, they should be venerated. From this angle we encounter within the domain of Buddhism something that is quite opposite of atheism: polytheism, often imbued with magical practices. (Hans Kung: Christinaity and the World Religions).
(as an aside, Christianity can quite easily become non-theist. I've even heard talk about Christian atheists! Lloyd Geering wrote a paper, for the Jesus Seminar on 'Christianity Minus Theism' - later to become part of his book, Christianity without God).
Perhaps, in the future, we might find more people becoming atheists. Yet, all that term means is simply a denial of theism. It certainty is not a denial of spiritual values, in and of themselves. God, gods and goddess, in whatever form the human imagination can devise them to be - will continue to populate the spiritual world of many people. And, Dawkins notwithstanding, there is nothing that can be done about it. A purely naturalistic philosophy will just not appeal to some people - and no, I don't think they are necessarily stupid. The human mind is quite capable of compartmentalizing two different world-views. (I'm not a subscriber to the NOMA idea of separate mageisterium. Let science knock theology on it's head by all means - let science leave no rock for theology to hid under. But science steps on sacred ground when it seeks to deny individuals the right to hold and to express spiritual values, when it seeks to deny religion a place at the table).
Maryhelena: "….then why the fuss over state sponsored faith schools in the UK? If there is no need, no request, for such schools then why is the UK government wanting to spend money on them?
"The problem is that there is not enough fuss. There is no need for them but there is a demand for them by a small minority of religious believers. Frankly I have no objection to religious believers setting up their own schools provided they pay the salaries of the teachers and all other expenses involved. The problem is that British taxpayers are being forced to pick up the tab and your Prime Minister ( I'm assuming you're British) is supporting them. If a Satanic cult set up a school would you, as a British taxpayer, be happy to support them?"
Agreed, let religious believers set up and pay for their own faith schools. The government has no business in this at all. (I've got a British passport, plus an Irish one ;-) mother from the south and father from the north - perhaps that's why I don't go for this either or with science and religion….a foot in both camps so to speak. Oh, dear, before that gets misunderstood - I am an atheist - been one for 20+ years. I live in SA not the UK).
Maryhelena: "I think perhaps you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that theology is the source, the standard, of what is good or evil. I'm saying that theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil. Theology can be an intellectual endeavor that provides, for some people, some good, some value in their lives. On the other hand, theology, when it attempts to operate outside of a purely theological context, when it strives for a social/political expression, can be a source of evil, a source of social/political conflict."
"So, "theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil." You still don't explain why this statement has any meaning. Theology is allegedly an academic discipline. You might as well say that economics has, within itself, the potential for good and evil (which would actually make more sense).
OK, let me try again. I don't think theology is just the study of religion. It does set itself up to interpret scripture; it's not simple a study of historical facts about religion. Interpretation leads to development, to further advances in theological thought and meaning. Theology evolves. Theology is not just about understanding the god that religion/spirituality has devised. Theology sets itself the question is there a god at all. For instance, Hans Kung's Does God Exist? Theology seeks to interpret the spiritual/religious experience - while adding it's own twists and turns….Theology contains the potential for good and evil - as does any branch of philosophical thought. Ideas, in and of themselves, are harmless enough - ideas put into practice can become problematic. Think, for instance, of the chosen people concept, both in the old and the new testament. As an exercise in wishful thinking it is questionable but not particularly dangerous. As a social/political agenda it is most certainly dangerous.
Maryhelena: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values. Theology is man's attempt, a very often inadequate attempt, to give some sort of definition and meaning to our spiritual values.
"I take it that you are defining theology as the study of religion, a study which a priori accepts the basic postulates of religious belief, i.e. does not question the existence of a deity/deities? I have no problem with that definition. But I do take issue with your definition of religion: "Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values."
See the above on this point. Theology certainly does question the existence of god - especially the theistic god. Some theologians side with god other's are willing to see christianity without theism
"In its fundamental form religion is about belief that one or more gods exist and have superhuman powers. There is no rational reason to accept this belief. Do you agree?
That definition of religion is perhaps a bit outdated. My current favorite definition is this one:
"The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."
(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693 - taken from Wikipedia).
'..the depth dimensions of experience' - that's a great definition of religion! While the history of religion can be beneficial, while the speculations of theology might be interesting - at the end of the day it is how we, in the 21st century, with all the advances in science and psychology, are able to understand, and articulate, the never ending story of our religious/spiritual search for meaning, for contentment and for reverence.
Comment #7471 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Hi, Solas
Maryhelena said:
"Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life."
"Well it depends on the timescale to some extent, doesn't it, Maryhelena. There are lots of things which were facts of life to our ancestors. The idea that the earth was flat was a 'fact of life'. "
Indeed, many ideas about human life have changed. My point is that, as of now, we don't have any historical data of people without some form of religion - and no modern evidence that would indicate that religion will become obsolete.
"Religion has already disappeared as a significant factor in the lives of most people in quite a number of European societies and in Japan, among others. A recent post on this site (I think based on a Daily Telegraph poll but I can't recall the details) shows a long term decline in religious belief and practice in Britain."
If that is so then why the fuss over state sponsored faith schools in the UK? If there is no need, no request, for such schools then why is the UK government wanting to spend money on them? Perhaps it's all about votes - perhaps the 'religious' vote is such a significant factor that the government, or any political party, needs to play along? Looks like political democracy is hoist upon it's own petard...
Maryhelena "It is within these theological structures that lies the potential for good or evil. The evil potential is realized when theology seeks to operate as something other than theology - when it seeks to operate either as morality or as political ideology."
"This makes no sense at all. The human conceptualisation of 'good'and 'evil' arose long before theology was ever thought of; they are abstract categories which our ancestors invented to distinguish behaviours which benefitted survival and social bonding from behaviours which were inimical to same."
I think perhaps you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that theology is the source, the standard, of what is good or evil. I'm saying that theology contains, within itself, a potential for good and evil. Theology can be an intellectual endeavor that provides, for some people, some good, some value in their lives. On the other hand, theology, when it attempts to operate outside of a purely theological context, when it strives for a social/political expression, can be a source of evil, a source of social/political conflict.
Maryhelena: "On the other hand, I do have respect for religion, respect for its insistence that spiritual value, as opposed to purely material values, are what enable us to reach the heights of our humanity."
"I think religion gets in the way of such a spiritual sense. I am aware that I am made of stardust, one of the astonishingly tiny number of organized groups of molecules in the universe which is self-conscious and is aware of its own existence. I can therefore 'commune' with the entire universe and feel a part of it. That to me is what 'spiritual' means: "
Well put - I would just change the word 'religion' to 'theology. It is theology that can get in the way of spirituality, not religion. I don't think religion and theology are synonymous terms - and I don't use them in an interchangeable manner. (Religion in the Einsteinian sense).
"Religion actually contaminates that real spiritual sense by infantilising it; by reducing it to the notion that some magical being created all of this, thus choking off our need to explore, to wonder without fantasising; to understand without fear."
That's theology not religion. Religion, in it's fundamental form, is simply our capacity for, and our ability, to seek spiritual values. Theology is man's attempt, a very often inadequate attempt, to give some sort of definition and meaning to our spiritual values.
Comment #7381 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Hi, Jonathan
"… I think it's much too early to say that a stable, generally non-religious society, in which a materialist/naturalistic outlook is transmitted from one generation to the next in the same way, will never be able to emerge. The scientific understandings that underpin an intellectually rigorous atheism simply haven't been around long enough for such a massive intellectual sea-change (much more fundamental than acceptance of anti-racist and anti-sexist norms, for instance) to have filtered through yet."
The eternal optimist? Perhaps your right - I've just got no such optimism myself that religion will someday disappear. I do think that theology will, of necessity, undergo some sort of evolutionary/revolutionary change. For christian theology this is already happening. God is now so out of reach that, in actuality, christianity can survive without theism. Getting rid of 'god' though is quite a different matter. Since it can't be proven, scientifically, that he/she/it exists - there is always going to be some sort of theological speculation. That some people find value in such speculation is just, methinks, one of those facts of human nature that we have to face.
Comment #7376 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Hi, Loren
I didn't find the radio interview at the site. I'll take your word for it that Jane Fonda is now a 'seeker'…..However, I think that her statement in her biography would still stand: "I am only at the start of my soul journey, but with my discovery of the early Christian interpretations and having found a community of feminist Christians, reverence is humming back to me". She does mention that the 'patriarchal, hierarchical structures' of christianity were not to her liking and that she was inspired more by the Gospel of Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark. In other words it's the more gnostic side of christianity that is appealing to her - experiencing the 'divine' than mere belief in the 'divine'.
Oh, I think I read, somewhere on this site, that Jane Fonda attended one of Richard Dawkins lectures/book readings? Anyone able to remember if this is so?
Comment #7356 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 10:26 am
Hi, Yorker
MaryHelena wrote,
"Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static."
"I agree, and therein is the seed of its demise. The fact that the tales of religion are static (and cannot be updated for obvious reasons) is a fatal weakness, which I think, will result in its natural death sometime in the future."
But theology is not static - and therein lies it's potential for change. Or, re-interpretation if you like. One can, as it were, chop down the theological tree but it's religious root is able to sprout afresh. That's been the case throughout history - and I see no evidence that it will ever be any different.
"However, as I've said before on this website, this is a dynamic evolving planet, upon which change is inevitable, that which is static and unable to change eventually dies."
We can change our diet - but food we must eat. However much we change there is always an element of our nature that remains permanent, static. It can't be otherwise. Indeed the only sure thing in life is change - but life itself remains the constant element.
"So, I've never had a god and never felt the need for one. If this situation was the case for all children, religion – far from being a fixture – would be gone in a few generations.".
I don't know so much about that…..I have read about people brought up atheist who do 'turn' to religion. George Ellis, the famous cosmologist, was brought up by two atheist parents - and yet became a christian. I've just read Jane Fonda's biography - and, again, an atheist childhood but she has became a christian. So I suppose the best one can say is that it takes all sorts…..
"We need to do two things: prevent the religious indoctrination of children and raise public consciousness with regard to the virtues of science."
As long as free speech is upheld as a political right - I don't see how the indoctrination of children can be prevented. We surely can't go the route of political legislation? Even if political legislation was passed you can bet your bottom dollar that many a parent would not comply
37. My God Problem
Comment #7349 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 9:41 am
Hi, Jared
comment #66
"Political democracy cannot exist as an ideology without christian theology."
"I very much fail to see how this is the case, considering that the ideas of democracy were invented in Greece when people still thought about Zeus and Apollo."
The point here is that Greek democracy was not equalitarian. Modern-day political democracy is equalitarian. And for that shift to have occurred it required a theological input. Democracy's 'resurrection' was enabled by christian theology, albeit indirectly. (the concept of democracy seems a bit like the concept of 'god' - open to interpretation…..)
(from Wikipedia: In theory, all the Athenian citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state, but neither political rights, nor citizenship, were granted to women, slaves, or metics. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens).
"It's fundamental premise of equality (a premise that seeks to challenge reality) can only be made sustainable by a policy of sacrifice."
"There seems to be a bit of an assumption here. I think trying to MAKE everyone equal is a bit of a Communist idea, not democratic. That is unnatural. The democratic idea is that everyone has a voice and a vote, not that everyone is equal."
Having a 'voice' is our inherent right. Having a vote within a democratic system is an acquired right, not a natural, an inherent right. One-man-one-vote might well sound fine in theory - in practice it can produce political problems. For instance, it could produce a political theocracy. Once numbers become the basis for a political system then, logically, morality has been relegated to the sidelines. No, we cannot make people equal - but political democracy strives to create the illusion of political equality - and it is that illusion that ties political democracy to theology. On the other hand of course, government by numbers is a sad reflection on the childlike state of political ideology. There is no morality in government by numbers - as there is no artistry in painting by numbers
"Sacrifice, it goes without saying, is primarily a theological idea, particularly a christian idea."
"That certainly does NOT go without saying! I don't believe that sacrifice, even were it relevant to democracy, needs to have anything to do with theology OR Christianity. Amongst nearly ALL animals, parents sacrifice an amount of nourishment in order to raise their children. They sacrifice an amount of safety in order to go out and hunt, and more energy to do so beyound their own means to hunt for the family group. Elephants sacrifice their safety by positioning themselves on the outside to protect the young, weak, or elderly elephants from attack. "
The paragraph to which you refer does go on to say. "Sacrifice, as the face of supreme moral value is primarily a Christian phenomenon.". It is in this connection that the sacrifice quote you refer to relates. Sacrifice as a moral virtue, as a supreme moral virtue, is a concept that is primarily a christian concept. The man on a cross, if nothing else, is a symbol of the supreme value christianity places upon sacrifice. This is not simply altruism as a purely natural phenomena of caring about others. It is instead a case of theology going one step further - and endeavoring, by granting it a theological sanction, to turn altruism into the primary focus of social morality, the ultimate moral code. Rather than allow space for the selfish gene - the theological code of altruism/sacrifice seeks to impose it's own superiority. It's not simply a case of rebelling against the 'tyranny' of the selfish gene - it's a case of rebelling against the selfish gene. It's a case of denying reality, denying the reality the selfish gene has played in human evolution. Of course it's not an either or situation - but for theology as a social/political code - it is. It cannot give any quarter to reality.
Indeed, nothing wrong with altruism - but altruism as a theologically sanctioned code of social interaction - that altruism is potentially, politically, problematic. Basically, it's problematic because sacrifice requires a beneficiary. When retained as a purely theological idea - the rewards of sacrifice are either achieving brownie points with 'god' or life in the hereafter. When theological sacrifice functions as a code of social/political morality, as it does in political democracy's striving for equalitarianism, then it creates an environment of looters and losers. An environment where the altruistic/sacrificial 'buck' is passed back and forth, until, hopefully, someone will capitulate to the waiting human vultures. In other words, what can function within a purely intellectual/theological framework, cannot function in a social/political context without experiencing abnormalities, dysfunction. The equalitarian illusion of political democracy cannot be sustained without constant political sacrifice.
"Sacrifice, as the face of supreme moral value is primarily a Christian phenomenon."
"Again, I fail to see how this is relevant to democracy. I don't think a single politician would say "Sacrifice is the supreme moral value." The "fact" that Jesus sacrificed himself is at the root of Christianity, yes. But as we've already shown, sacrifice is involved in a number of other areas as well and none of those necessarily has to do with democracy, equality, or theology"
Political democracy cannot function without creating an illusion of equality. It is helped in this connection with it's one-man-one-vote - which, to put it mildly, is the most effective political and intellectual straightjacket the world has ever known! The 'divine right' of kings or the military might of a tin pot dictator cannot be compared to the awesome power of a governmental system that is 'freely' chosen. One-man-one-vote is the abracadabra, the magic wand, that upholds the democratic political illusion of equality. On their own, one-man-one-vote and illusions of equality, don't have the inherent potential for longevity. Add a dash of theology, in the form of christian self-sacrifice, and there is a very powerful mix created.
As to politicians and sacrifice - maybe they feel shy about using the term - but they sure have another one that does the same job - redistribution. The Robin Hood approach to social wellbeing…;-)
Philosophy and theology have a long history. It should surely not be a surprise to realize just how far theology has infiltrated political philosophy. Secular intellectuals have been unable to escape the very long arm of theology..-..resulting in the bizarre situation that to question political philosophy is to have to deal with questions of theology!
Jared, thanks for the response. Perhaps all this is a bit off topic - it's just that I don't see any other way, besides a political attack, that will remove the problem of fundamentalist theology from the social/political environment. Knocking theology, on it's own, seems, to me, to be a bit like sidetracking from the main problem - which I do maintain is a political as opposed to a purely theological problem.
Comment #7282 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 4:26 am
Richard Dawkins wrote:
" 1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. "
Well, I certainly think that religion is here to stay. I say this with no gleeful tone or even with a self-satisfied smirk. Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life. There is not the slightest evidence available upon which one could base the possibility that religion will disappear.
Where there is possibility for change is within theology. Theology does change as time moves on, as history clearly testifies. Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static. Religion is the foundation, theology the superstructure. The change, the mutations, occur in man's theological/intellectual structures. It is within these theological structures that lies the potential for good or evil. The evil potential is realized when theology seeks to operate as something other than theology - when it seeks to operate either as morality or as political ideology.
So yes indeed, I have great concern for any society that allows theological ideas to dangerously infiltrate the fabric of the social/political environment. On the other hand, I do have respect for religion, respect for it's insistence that spiritual value, as opposed to purely material values, are what enable us to reach the heights of our humanity.
Knock theological ideas by all means - in whatever language suits. Theological ideas are fair game, they come and they go, in fashion out of fashion - kick one to the sidelines, another will pop up. That's the nature of theology, never a one size fits all. Religion, from it's history back to whenever, is indeed a one size fits all. All known people having some sort of religious expression/experience. Hence, knocking religion is a waste of time - it's inbuilt immune system is able to ward off any attack.
Attack theology, get specific - specific not about some invisible skygod or another - but about the real reality of theology seeking political expression in the here and now….
39. My God Problem
Comment #7270 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 2:29 am
Yann Obergfell wrote:
"I think that the religion problem entails an other problem that is very often overlooked: religion is a threat to the good practice of democracy."
I don't agree with the idea that religion is a threat to anything. Religion, as I pointed out in another post on this site, comment #1730, is not synonymous with theology. Theology becomes a problem, becomes evil, when it endeavors to become a code of social/political interaction.
So, yes indeed, any debate about theology that fails to take into account it's political role in society will leave itself shortchanged. I'm not just talking about that rogue elephant out there (fundamentalist theology) but, about theology in general (and here I agree with Dawkins but for a different reason). Dawkins comes down on 'religious moderates' because of their failure to route out the fundamentalists. I come down on theology, particularly christian theology, when it seeks to integrate itself into political ideology. The basic problem is not that christian theology is a threat to democracy - the basic problem is that the premises of christian theology have become the premises of political democracy. So much so that for all intents and purposes, in the social/political environment, christian theology *is* political democracy. It is simply christian theology wearing fancy dress, wearing it's coat of many colors.
Political democracy cannot exist as an ideology without christian theology. It's fundamental premise of equality (a premise that seeks to challenge reality) can only be made sustainable by a policy of sacrifice. Sacrifice, it goes without saying, is primarily a theological idea, particularly a christian idea. Sacrifice, as the face of supreme moral value is primarily a Christian phenomenon.
A theology that glorifies human, physical, sacrifice, is a theology that requires the sacrifice of man's intellectual credibility; it is intellectual abdication. The danger in such a theology is that it allows the equality premise a façade of respectability - it is a theology that gives the passive equality idea of Eastern mysticism a militant, political, christian triumphalism.
("Christianity has further elevated the equality doctrine by incorporating it into its concept of a triune equalitarian supreme god.")
So - if fundamentalism is to be neutered , if the potential within theology for evil is to be negated, it is to political democracy that an attack must be directed. As a premise of economic reality, democracy has much to offer - as a premise of political reality it suffers from an inherent flaw - a theological flaw. A flaw that will, sooner or later, expose political democracy as an 'emperor without any 'moral' clothes'.
It's ironic really - so much debate over the dangers of muslim theocracies - and nothing at all about theology's greatest achievement, it's masquerade as political democracy. It makes me think about a scenario faced throughout history - the reputation of a conquering army that psychologically disarmed the local population - victory achieved without opposition. No wonder that Orwell could see no way out of '1984'.
40. Hatred (of Gays) Unites Jerusalem's Feuding Faiths
Comment #6423 by maryhelena on November 14, 2006 at 6:55 am
Thanks everyone for a fascinating exchange - and a rational one to boot - something of a change for this site!
My position on all of this is pretty simple. Whatever civil/political rights that we may have it is up to us whether or not we choose to exercise those rights. To exercise our rights may not always be to our best interests - wearing a bikini on a beach is one thing, wearing it walking down the high street is something else. The bikini would be considered inappropriate dress. Social norms, good manners, consideration for other people, all indicate that we live in a community where our relationship to others does have a bearing on our actions. Conflicts of interests do arise; hence we have to weight up the pros and cons of our actions. By all means stand up for one's rights when your rights are being questioned or denied - but proceed with a measure of circumspection when the situation is otherwise. Exercising one's rights is one's right - but the reserving of one's rights might well be, in some situations, the best option.
So often, on this site, the right to challenge intellectual ideas, specifically theological ideas, is highlighted as some sort of superior endeavor. Little consideration is given to those who hold the ideas that we challenge. Having no respect for certain ideas is one thing - but failing to show respect to those who hold ideas that we reject is something else entirely. However irrational are someone's ideas - that person might well find value in them. Hence, we need to consider the whole person - and, as far as we are able to, follow this advise: "Thou shalt not inflict unnecessary pain". (The Magus, John Fowles).
Or to quote W.B.Yates:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."
An 'in your face', 'it's my right' approach to life might well succeed in jungle warfare - it has little of value to offer a species that cherishes it's ability to "rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators". (Richard Dawkins).
41. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #5966 by maryhelena on November 12, 2006 at 3:44 am
Hi, Hugh (comment 86)
"From these posts even the Atheists seem to be acknowledging Jesus' existence. What evidence exists that supports that claim?"
Well, I'm one atheist who does not believe that 'Jesus' was a historical person - I'm well and truly in the mythological camp on that one!
One book, for those interested, is The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. There are others of course but this one should be on the shelves of most bookstores.
Methinks that if one wants to knock Christianity on the head, so to speak, then an 'attack' upon 'Jesus' claimed historical authenticity could provide a bit of ground shifting for the whole christian edifice. Christianity can easily survive the demise of it's theist god - but it will have to work a whole lot harder in the theological department to the loss of a human 'Jesus'. (see Lloyd Geering's book, Christianity without God - I've not read it but I've read his article Christianity Minus Theism, on which it's partly based).
Sorry about this being a bit off topic - and, no, I've no interest in debating the issue on this site. Just letting you know where I stand…:-)
42. The Dawkins Delusion (Different Article, Same Stupid Title)
Comment #5781 by maryhelena on November 11, 2006 at 3:44 am
Aussie wrote:
However, I soon realised that to some extent this website is performing the function of a group therapy session where people who have been psychologically damaged by their previous exposure to religion can undergo a catharsis in an attempt to liberate themselves from the worst of its consequences. As a result some of the comment seen here will have the appearance of the irrationality one would expect from a damaged mind attempting to "cast out the demons".
All very well - although I would much prefer if this sort of thing was done behind closed doors. Airing ones dirty washing, so to speak, is not the best advertisement for advancing the secular/humanist/atheist agenda.
Have a notice board of sorts - somewhere for the visiting theists to post any irrationality they feel the need for . But surely not, not a very public forum where visiting theists are able to raise the feathers of some of the newer atheists. If TGD is going to be bringing more atheists out of the closet, and bringing them to this site, then the very last thing this site needs is to become a sort of atheist kindergarten - somewhere that allows for games of the I am better than you sort of thing. Dawkins himself has said, somewhere, that he does not wish to debate creationists on public platforms - why then does he allow less mature atheists, less seasoned atheists, a public platform, on his website, for some sort of cat fight with theists?
Comment #4655 by maryhelena on November 5, 2006 at 6:59 am
Paul wrote:
“I'm puzzled by maryhelena's comment. One certainly has been short-changed, quite literally, if one has given one's time and money to a religion. Certainly people need to exercise personal responsibility about what they believe, but even outside of the religious questions, we recognize that people may fall victim to con-men, and that such people have every right to be angry when they realize they've been had. Some people are vulnerable. Children in particular have are very prone to believing what their parents tell them.”
But we are not talking about people being conned. We are talking about people who have either grown up in a religion, or people who have chosen one to their liking. And, as you say, we all need to exercise personal responsibility. It is very often a two-way street. What is on offer may be just what we need or seek at a particular time in our lives.
What we do not want to do is to allow our anger to trap us. We need to, as it were, to redirect the energy. When anger is directed against a fellow human the destructive energy this emotion contains cannot accomplish anything. The destructive energy is not neutralized by hitting an impenetrable brick wall. Instead it becomes distorted and, like a rubber ball, comes straight back to strike its sender right off his or her feet.
As to blaming people for their wrong acts. Indeed I do. In my post I was talking about blame in the context of ideas. Ideas just are. One can not blame ideas for anything. It is how people use their ideas that can become a problem.
“Any decision to leave your religion is not merely an abstract philosophical change, it is a question of identity and emotion as well. It's naive to expect people who come out of a religion not to react with some emotion.”
Of course there will be plenty of emotion - the issue is not the emotions but the manner in which they are dealt with.
Regarding my point re Achilles heel. Anger can certainly push us in the wrong direction - fighting emotion with more emotion leads nowhere. It just becomes a cul-de-sac of our own making.
“, but I can't help feeling we need some anger if we want to change the world, because that's not entirely down to an academic debate. It is possible to go too far, but it seems to me the right amount of anger for ex-Christians (say) is not "none at all".
Be angry by all means - but do not act in an angry manner. Much better to let our anger be a motivating force for change - not use it as an instrument, or a weapon, of change.
Comment #4654 by maryhelena on November 5, 2006 at 6:47 am
Brian wrote:
“Maryhelena, you are quite right that I am angry, and it is Dawkins bemused response to that in others, that flags up his detachment for me. You could see the gears grinding during that post, and you can see him orienting his comments in later interviews. He is learning, and getting better at exposing the lie every day.”
Perhaps Dawkins needs more than just a few lessons in modern theology - he needs also a crash course in psychology! That exchange, with the angry women, reveals just how far away he is from the reality of what he is attempting to deal with. He seems to have dismissed the emotional connection to religion far to lightly - and hence the emotional upheaval that accompanies withdrawing from it.
“I am disoriented, it's like a divorce, or the death of a close relative or friend. How could it not be?”
Your right, that is part of the reality. It can be an extremely emotional time. Personally, I did not invest as much emotional energy as many do. Somehow or another I was always able to keep my focus on ideas. So, when crunch time came, I was able to walk away without any