"In a very real way they're like fundamentalist Protestant Christians: culturally and historically retarded, by sheer will. In a word: closed- minded."


No offense intended, not at all my words, but I did indeed find myself laughing out loud while reading it...

ummmm sittin on the sidelines with popcorn ... this ought to be good ...

I suppose this is true in may ways. I, for one, really am close-minded. I simply can not hold to a theory that the writings of other humans, describing the magic of a master wizard as he mutates between three physically different forms, has created a universe, populated it with logical thoughtful beings only to threaten them with punishment if He is not worshiped.

On the other hand, I do feel open-minded enough to allow such belief to continue, without relegating those believers to the unfortunate status of the mentally handicapped.



SO THERE! (did I do good?)

I love you Di....

And you hold an 'educated' view...

I just thought it was funny... no one is perfect...

EDIT:

Oh... and you did better than I...

Hi, I would not be offended by your words Creative,

- I must have a weird sense of humor, because I can
laugh about things like that.

In some sense I can understand where you come from,
in UK I must have been in a pretty 'sheltered' world -
never had someone throw or push a religion onto me.


I hope you guys have a very Happy New Year.

The comment was made regarding the self-sealing arguments presented by fundies and the atheists whose only reason for not believing in a God is because they think Christianity is false without studying theology or the philosophy of religion(s)...

Both of which are done so within the parameters of their own accord... and will refuse to entertain the possibilty of any other notion having value... without honest consideration of the notion...

I am aware that Di is not either of these... I believe she knew this already...

Experience validates belief, or not, however should not close the mind to further experience, either way...

Q.What's the difference between a Fundy and a terrorist?

A. You can negotiate with terrorists. :)


-Kerry O.

Well, there are other concepts of spirituality. Just because one religion is wrong is no reason to become an atheist. At the very least a person should be agnostic. The only problem is that in the western cultures people often take agnostic to mean that you are sure that you don’t believe the biblical picture of god. So claiming to be atheist clears up that nonsense.

I’m truly agnostic, although those who know me claim that I’m spiritual. The only thing for certain is that I don’t buy into the biblical picture of god as you have also stated.



I’m not so generous. There are simply far too many problems with this picture that I have to seriously question anyone’s mental integrity who believes in these stories.

For example,…

IF there’s no such thing as evolution and God created all of the animals just as they are,…

AND if God is all-wise, all-powerful, and so perfect, loving and compassionate,….

THEN why did God create animals that eat each other?

He could have very easily made them all herbivores.

Clearly there’s something wrong with this picture.

The animals were all created before Eve and therefore the fall of man to sin could not have played a role in this. If a person buys into this picture then they have no choice but to believe that God created a dog-eat-dog world before sin even came onto the scene.

So much for an all-wise, all-compassionate, all-perfect God.

The story flies in its own face. The authors made far too many logical errors when they made this stuff up. They gave themselves away as being nothing more than folklore artists by creating stories about an imperfect God who’s supposed to be perfect. They would have been much better off if they would have claimed that God isn’t perfect. At least that way they could have covered their imperfect tracks.

I honestly don’t see how any intelligent person can believe this stuff of these stories, especially verbatim.

Here are two of my favorite quotes for you folks to chew on. Its from G-d in Search Of Man by A. J. Heschel.

“Only those will apprehend religion who can probe its depth, who can combine intuition and love with the rigor of method.”

"The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.”

See, this is a perfect example of a theologian being guilty of the old saw of "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Because worship is often integral to theological methodology, they cast science in the same mold when they wish to compete with it. They often use such pseudo-profundity to poison the well against scientists as well-meaning but unenlightened patsies to a false god. Patsies who couldn't even tie their own shoes without theologians to hold their hands for them while showing them the proper way to behold the mysteries of the Universe through mysticism.

Scientist and freethinkers don't _worship_ reason, it's a tool. The mental equivalent of an opposable thumb, it allows you to do grasp things not open to those who lack it and despise its cultivation.



-Kerry O.

KerryO,

A tool for what end? Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest. Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:

“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs.

The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.

To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery. Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.

In the words of a poet:

Whatever there is to know
That we shall know some day.

Religious knowledge is regarded as the lowest form of knowledge.

…In the place of G-d, humanity – the grand etre – becomes the supreme object of adoration. However, what is considered an achievement from the perspective of modern man may be judged a privation by the post-modern man. “In future generations, people will find difficulty in understanding how at one time generations existed who did not regard the idea of G-d as the highest concept of which man is capable, but who, on the contrary, were ashamed of it and considered the development of atheism a sign of progress in the emancipation of human thought” (Walter Schubart - 1950)

As opposed to a theologian who would have us on our knees worshipping his Boss? This whole line of 'reasoning' is just pure sophistry meant to indict those who won't be bound by supersition and ecumenical fiat.



Rhetorical nonsense. The best scientists know what they _don't_ know, and appreciate mystery as a hungry man salivates over a big steak. One can appreciate the dilemma mysticism and those that practice it have-- unable to prove much of what they say, they then say it's because we're basically stupid and should just accept that. A presciption, IMHO, which serves to keep people ignorant and pliable.

{quote



Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.

{/quote]

And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here." Those not so bound become, in the theologian's mind and those of his followers, one of The Arrogant Heavy who will bring about the denouement of mankind that most theologians predict is perpetually imminent. As they have for about the last 2000 years.

-Kerry O.

Precious and KerryO

Enjoyed the rhetoric very much. Both points of view prove the point that Creative was making. It's simply the perspective drawn from experineces that make for the differences between us.

HAPPY NEW YEAR - ONE AND ALL!

This is actually the religious view. It is the view of religions that the universe was indeed created as a play pen for man. In the religious view man is the reason for creation. The pinnacle of creation. To now turn around and accuse this of intellectual thinkers is quite hypocritical.

Moreover, it is a grave mistake to think that technology represents science. Science is the investigation into the workings of the universe. Technology is what common men have done with scientific knowledge. It is totally incorrect to blame the greedy tactics of commercial enterprises on science. In fact in most cases commercial enterprises are actually run by entrepreneurs and C.E.O.s who are indeed religious men (certainly not scientists). To blame the greed of modern commercialized technology on science is indeed a farce.

On the contrary that greedy behavioral pattern stems directly from religious moral upbringings. If mankind is behaving in a greedy self-serving fashion overall, we can blame no one but our religious mentors for not instilling a good sense of morality. To try to pass the failings of religion onto science via mankind’s abuse of technology is absurd and quite blind.



There may have been some truth to these near the end of the Newtonian Age, and many layman still think like this today. But this is certainly not the mindset of modern science. Modern science does not abhor the idea of mystery. However, they are curious of how any mystery might be explained. In fact, to suggest that mankind should not be curious about mystery is to suggest that we remain in the Dark Ages forever. It wasn’t all that long ago that men thought that gods caused the wind to blow, lightening to strike, and all manner of natural disasters. Even disease and plagues were believed to be caused by divine (or evil) intervention.

Does anyone seriously want to suggest that we go back to living in a state of complete superstition because this is precisely what is being suggested here.



There is no such thing as religious knowledge all religion is based on unsubstantiated folklore and myths. To even suggest that it is knowledge is a misrepresentation of truth.



This is the biggest crock of all. It is religion of the Bible that causes humanity to become the object of adoration. The sole focus of the religion is to focus on being individually “saved”. The only reason people believe in it is because of the threat of eternal punishment if they don’t, and/or because of the carrot of an eternal heaven if they do. It’s entirely egocentric in it’s nature.

Does anyone in their right mind believe any human being is going to worship a God if there is nothing it in for them????

Let’s be realistic about it!

Why would anyone worship a God that has nothing to offer them????

Would you worship a demon just because it’s a bigger more powerful entity than you?

The whole idea of worshiping a God is an entirely egocentric idea. People who talk about it being a concept of humility or being selfless and humble are only kidding themselves. They are in it for the prize of eternal life or to avoid damnation. And the proof of this is crystal clear in the abhorrence of the idea of atheism. The idea that there is no prize in the Cracker Jack box.

What if God were to come to you today and said, “Sorry, heaven’s all filled up. When you die you’re just going to have to cease to exist. But I’d still like you to worship me and do my will”

How many people do you think would worship a God who didn’t offer them eternal life?

In fact, I see Christians state all the time that if Jesus was just a man they would denounce him in a split second because everything he had to promise them would have been a lie. In other words, they couldn’t care less about Jesus, all they want is the things that he’s offering them!!!

Show me a man who will accept Jesus Christ as his brother without any expectations of any gifts and I’ll show you a truly divine man. And that man would probably be an atheist.

Atheists are capable of loving without any promises made to them.

Religion is a farce. It’s all about demanding promises from God. Even if it’s true it only goes to show that even God must use a carrot to get people’s attention. It’s entirely an ego trip. There’s nothing humble about it at all.

Abra stated:

"Moreover, it is a grave mistake to think that technology represents science. Science is the investigation into the workings of the universe. Technology is what common men have done with scientific knowledge."





Here here Abra!!

“Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to comptemplate questions like these.

…Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth?”


KerryO,

You bring up a number of great points. It is incredible what mankind has accomplished using reason and logic. Reason and logic are great gifts and must be used to examine the how of all the things. Mankind has done a phenomenal job of it and today we sit in 2008 with technology and medicine that elevates our standard of life. Bravo!

You are also correct that most religions believe that Man was given dominion over the earth to do just that – increase our ability to survive.

I am not opposed to any of it nor did I mean to take away its important and significance. As you write that by conquering earth we are able to sit and contemplate questions like these.

But that is in fact the point. It is not enough to conquer the world for a better life. We also then must take it to the next level and understand the WHY of things. Why are we here? What is our ultimate purpose?

Without conquering the world (technology, moving beyond survival mode) we could not have the frame of mind necessary to really delve into the next crucial mission of life – the WHY part. So the HOW part is crucial, but only as a first step to getting to the WHY part.

Rav Heschel’s point was that if you stop at the HOW part and say that reason and logic is all that there is, then we are just “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.”

Now lets get to the WHY part.

You wrote:

“And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.”

…And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here.”

Ahaaa… Once again you make a very good argument. If I say that we must use our intuition, instinct, and all our inner senses as well as reason to understand the WHY part, then you have dismissed me because you want me to exclusively use my reason and logic because intuition and instinct can not be explained logically.

Well let’s see if I can break it down and show that there is knowledge and understanding outside of logic and reason.

Logic and reason has left the scientific world with the notion that there is no knowable reason WHY we are here. Based on logic alone we apparently are here as random accidents in a cosmic collision. Yet most people can sense, intuitively and instinctually, that it is not so. The sheer number of random happenings for survivability to happen doesn’t “feel” like an accident. We also can sense something greater at work here. Many define that in different ways, but nonetheless they can sense something very awesome in the world.

I saw somewhere (What the bleep do we know) that we are only aware of 2000 bits of information out of the 400 billion bits of information we are processing per second. That would partially explain our intuitive process. More importantly it’s a great example of the concept of knowing but not really knowing. We can comprehend that our mind has many capabilities, yet we don’t understand the extent of its powers.

It very much reminds me of playing Poker. The greatest poker players are not the mathematicians who can calculate the best possible odds. Poker requires knowledge of the odds, combined with a keen sense of intuition, ability to control one’s emotions and pick up all the human cues and clues that you opponent inadvertently leaves.

Poker has taught me that we pick up far more information than we can rationally explain. I happen to be very good at poker and just by watching how a player touches his chips or cards, by his expressions and words, by his or her choice of dollar amount; I can “feel” what cards s/he has. Yes, a lot can be rationally explained, but a lot more info is gathered by my mind then I can rationally point to, that goes into my intuitive process.

Religion is the same. A dry rationalist will be missing half or three quarters of the necessary information to see the whole picture. That is not to say that reason and logic don’t play a crucial part, they do, but they are only one part of the necessary tools that humans have to comprehend the WHY of the world.

Believing in G-d or doing good deeds as a quid pro qou is a very childish approach to religion and G-d. It is what we teach children because it is the level of their comprehension. As we mature (unfortunately many of us never mature) we grow out of this childish approach to religion and we begin to comprehend the awesomeness, the kindness, the ultimate love of our Creator.

I love G-d not because He can beat me up if I don’t. I love G-d because I have come to realize that He is the ultimate being of Love in the universe. I love G-d because I am in awe of his kindness in giving me life and an opportunity to grow, find joy, and embark on my road of personal development. I love G-d because He has power and capabilities far beyond my comprehension and yet He still cares about little old me.

Once I am aware of G-d and His capabilities, His wisdom, and His being the Creator of all, then it makes logical sense to listen to His words and instructions.

It sounds like a lot of people have encountered religion as a fear based entity that is here to control you rather then allow you to soar and grow. I am very sorry if that has been your experience. There is a lot there if one is open to exploring.

Prescious:

Ah... don't even get on the notion of maturity!!!

(sharing your laughter, Creative)!

Prescious - why TEACH a child about the wonders and marvels of the world around them by feeding them promise or punishment?

Why not advance their own abilty to find the answers that suit them indivudually? Give them food that will stimulate their desire to learn and grow. Allow all that childish wonder to persist by supporting creativity of thought, and by constantly feeding the curiosity with expereinces rather than with 'beliefs' of the father.

If you really believe all the stuff say about the 'internal' senses, then feed them, don't shut them down by giving only two choices - primise or punishment!

Sounds like the question en comment following is a little closed minded en a bit presumptous. I can say there are many premisses for believing however one believes. En "retarded"? What? Are you like in 8th grade or something?