The God Squad- Religion obsessives and philosophical types unite!

[Anaesthesine]

In one way I sometimes respect people that are against gay marriage here more then people that are for it because today here a lot of people don’t really think about it seriously, they just go along with everyone else and think it’s ok because it’s political correct to think so, but here if someone is against gay-marriage today that’s really, really controversial and that person will really have to think their opinion through both once and twice and constantly defend their opinion. But then at least they have thought it through closely.

You just wrote several posts in which you bend over backwards to defend a deconstructionist, postmodern view of the world that states that morality is relative, everyone's opinion has equal weight, prevailing cultural norms make it impossible for us to define objective truths, and no one can effectively argue about anything because words are so difficult to define. This is the ultimate form of political correctness. You then go on to defend people who oppose gay marriage as being somehow brave in the face of overwhelming political correctness. You are either arguing against yourself, or you are misusing the term. When an entire group of people experiences discrimination, their disenfranchisement is not hypothetical, and their grievances are unambiguous.

Some cultural norms are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Where I come from, most folks still oppose gay marriage (although that number is steadily falling). Same-sex marriage foes give it a lot of thought alright, and their arguments are either ignorant, paranoid nonsense (gay marriage will somehow make straight marriage meaningless), or (overwhelmingly) Bible-based hysteria (condoning homosexuality will somehow bring down god's wrath and destroy civilization).

Not all "rebels" are fighting for a just cause.

 

[Worm]

You are either arguing against yourself, or you are misusing the term.

Or he/she is accurately parroting pure ideology, in which case such contradictions remain fully functional and indeed constitutive. Only Simon Cowell knows.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Or he/she is accurately parroting pure ideology, in which case such contradictions remain fully functional and indeed constitutive. Only Simon Cowell knows.

Q: How many Postmodernists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: You can't essentially change a light bulb; you can switch one lightbulb for another lightbulb, but the condition of actually being a lightbulb remains unchanged. Of course, lightbulbs themselves are simply a conglomeration of constituent parts, therefore they are not so much coherent lightbulbs as collections of wire, glass, metal and a vacuum (or gas) all working together to produce light. Therefore, you can no more change a lightbulb than you can change any thing that is a sum of its individual parts unless you change those parts. You can change the nature of any given lightbulb (functioning/nonfunctioning), but the lightbulb itself will remain essentially unchanged.

 

[Worm]

Q: How many Postmodernists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: You can't essentially change a light bulb; you can switch one lightbulb for another lightbulb, but the condition of actually being a lightbulb remains unchanged. Of course, lightbulbs themselves are simply a conglomeration of constituent parts, therefore they are not so much coherent lightbulbs as collections of wire, glass, metal and a vacuum (or gas) all working together to produce light. Therefore, you can no more change a lightbulb than you can change any thing that is a sum of its individual parts unless you change those parts. You can change the nature of any given lightbulb (functioning/nonfunctioning), but the lightbulb itself will remain essentially unchanged.

*whimper*

I was going to use my "safe word" halfway through that.

 

[Anaesthesine]

*whimper*

I was going to use my "safe word" halfway through that.

It wouldn't have done you any good; once I get rolling, it's nearly impossible for me to stop...

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

so far in the scoring*

God Squad____@ 0 still
Anti-God Squad @ 2
& the rest of us @ 3

*=1 point is awarded per completed page of the thread

 

[Jackie London]

Non-academic, possibly. I could very well concede that. Otherwise, nonsense. This is absurd. One does not need a theology degree to use and understand the word 'religion.'

But it sure helps! If you were sick you probably would appreciate if the doctor had an academic education.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. This is a total impasse. I think this is so fundamentally wrong.

I am a sociologist of religion; I am convinced everything is a social construction. But we could possibly agree that we disagree.

What essential facts did I leave out? What part of what I said was untrue?
Let's recap;

I said that religion is both fundamentally illogical, AND antithetical to rational thought. That's absolutely true. Religion involves holding beliefs and believing them fervently without any evidence, whatsoever. Were I to meet Jesus Christ in person, and receive scientifically unassailible proof that he is the one true god, and that everything in the Bible is completely accurate, which I would accept, this would not make me a Christian. What makes it 'faith' is that it's not grounded in evidence. Absolute certainty in the face of zero proof IS illogical. I also argue that illogical thought is generally bad, and should not be encouraged, which I don't think is controversial.

I also said that religion, as a rule, is inherently bigoted. This is also true. According to the official doctrine of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, heresy is an unpardonable sin. For example, it is made abundantly clear in the Bible that anyone who is not a Christian (Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/etc.) is going to burn in hell forever, and the implication is that this is justifiable. One does not need to do a penetrating analysis to see the worlds' religions, as a rule, are almost entirely incompatible. Moreover, many religions, especially the three Abrahamic faiths, which represent most of the people of faith on earth, also have very clear policies about homosexuals, about a woman's place, etc. Most of these perscriptions are very explicit. Also, most of the time these books not only say certain people are inherently inferior, or what have you, but actually suggests, or even commands believers to do harm to those deemed unfit, or unworthy, or what-have-you.

Which brings me to my next point, that there is no separating religion from violence. The books contain numerous, explicit exhortations to violence, and glorification of violence. I could fill up pages of quotes. This is underlined by the fact that perpetrating said violence was official policy, and continues to be in various religious groups. Not only was it condoned by the Bible, or by the institution of the church, there was a long pattern of behavior for hundreds of years of the most sadistic and wanton violence, from the crusades, to the modern abortion-clinic bombers. The history of religion is soaked in blood.

Lastly, I said that religion really only has academic value, to those who study art, history, literature, etc. None of the positive attributes; humility, charity, honesty, etc., that are claimed to be instilled by religion actually necessitate religious belief. While those who perpetrate religious violence are absolutely motivated by their beliefs, because they're taking it right out of the books. Again, I don't dispute that politics and economics are contributing factors, but to say that the guy who shouts Allahu Akbar!" before igniting the dynamite strapped to his chest, or the people who carry the banners reading; "God Hates Fags!" aren't motivated by their religion is simply preposterous. There's no reason to believe that if religion disappeared overnight that charity, or honesty, etc., would disappear, however I garuntee we'd see a lot less of the aforementioned behavior.

Depends on what you accept as proof. We can’t know anything about the objective reality since the moment you become aware about it it’s no longer the objective reality, it’s your own subjective interpretation of the so-called reality.
“There is no separating religion from violence.” Seriously? I can’t even respond to that, it’s an offence against everyone’s intelligence.

It's not just a matter of simply disliking it, I think Postmodernism for the most part includes a lot of bad ideas. However, that is really broad and, frankly, off-topic.

Well-founded or not is the question.

Yes, it does. Just as the US government, or Chevron, etc. It's a large institution with a central charter, an organized hierarchy and leadership, etc.

An institution of people that is nothing in itself without people. A social construction. A construction that can't in any way excist without people.

I believe that right and wrong are not merely arbitrary constructions. I believe in morality and ethics, and that they are real, and grounded in the real world.

If everything just is a pure coincidence then what do this moral and ethics come from? If everything is nothing but an accident/coincidence why would I have any obligation to anything or anyone?

Again, this is a complete impasse. This idea that morality is just some arbitrary, artificial fabrication is absolutely wrong to me. I've never found this idea pursuasive.

Then you are religious in a functionalistic definition of religion.

 

[Jackie London]

You just wrote several posts in which you bend over backwards to defend a deconstructionist, postmodern view of the world that states that morality is relative, everyone's opinion has equal weight, prevailing cultural norms make it impossible for us to define objective truths, and no one can effectively argue about anything because words are so difficult to define. This is the ultimate form of political correctness. You then go on to defend people who oppose gay marriage as being somehow brave in the face of overwhelming political correctness. You are either arguing against yourself, or you are misusing the term. When an entire group of people experiences discrimination, their disenfranchisement is not hypothetical, and their grievances are unambiguous.

Some cultural norms are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Where I come from, most folks still oppose gay marriage (although that number is steadily falling). Same-sex marriage foes give it a lot of thought alright, and their arguments are either ignorant, paranoid nonsense (gay marriage will somehow make straight marriage meaningless), or (overwhelmingly) Bible-based hysteria (condoning homosexuality will somehow bring down god's wrath and destroy civilization).

Not all "rebels" are fighting for a just cause.

I said that I (personally, subjectively) respect it.

Q: How many Postmodernists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Me & Mr. Zizek!

 

[Jackie London]

What the queer-theology person told you is a social construct. This active-passive construct is interestingly often used by gay and lesbian activists. Where they have this from, I do not know. There is no evidence that women are or ever really were as passive as is constructed. You also seem to confuse gender with sex.

The Bible says that Abel had sex with his wife. It does not say that Abel had sex with Eva and it does not say that he had sex with his mother. My Luther Bible has the added explanation that Adam can also mean what I think would be "mankind" in English.

I know the difference between sex and gender, it doesn’t have to have anything to do with each other but has been linked in the history and it keeps being linked in some aspects today. I said I don’t think that it’s a perfect interpretation, but I think it’s interesting. I think there are problems with a lot of interpretations within, what some may refer to as the postmodern schools of interpretation within theology, i.e. queer-theology, liberation theology etc. since hermeneutics generally is about reading a text and try to not read it "with your own glasses".

 

[goinghome]

Regarding going on hunches and blind faith, the history of science is strewn with breakthroughs so generated.

When I was in Israel, a mature erudite resident who'd turned agnostic told us, at the Tower of religious Babel that is Jerusalem where Christians, Muslims and a huge variety of strands of Jewish practitioners congregate noisily, that fundamentally underneath all the dogmatic justifications, people are laying their little claims to some productive land to live on with access to water and without interference. Even if not the whole truth, this seemed to me one of the wisest insights I've yet heard. Brass tacks.

Jurgen Habermas is recognised as one of the most diverse and practical philosophers in his reflections on the concerns of modern times. Aged 80 now, he was interviewed recently by The Irish Times and he did make a pronouncement on the place of religion in today's world:

...PG: In your recent writings you argue that wesern societies are living in a post-secular age because of the revival of religious sentiment. What do you mean by this term?

JH: Ireland and Poland long remained the exception to the rapid advance of secularisation among the European countries. But that seems to be changing, at least if one can believe the most recent statistics. Presumably these two countries will also follow the example of Spain which, in the wake of [the dictator Francisco] Franco’s death [in 1975], was immediately gripped by a secularising trend.

PG: I actually used the expression “post-secular” to describe a shift in public consciousness in such predominantly secular countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or western Europe. Here the resurgence of religion that we are observing in other global regions has unsettled a dominant but unspoken presumption. In these countries it is no longer a cultural commonplace that religion is outdated, that it is destined to disappear with the advance of modernisation. All are now coming to the realisation that religious communities are destined to remain with us, even as the surrounding environment becomes increasingly secular.

JH: I associate this sociological observation with a diagnosis of a more philosophical kind. Secularly minded people should recognise religion as a contemporary intellectual formation. Over the past two millennia, western philosophy has repeatedly borrowed images, meanings and concepts from the Judaeo-Christian tradition and has translated them into its own secular language. We cannot tell whether this process of appropriation has run its course or whether, on the contrary, other semantic potentials remain untapped. Of course, such a receptive and dialogical relation is only possible towards non-fundamentalist traditions that do not close themselves off from the modern world...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0612/1224272354438.html

and http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/

The implications for our debate are that the thread promises eternal life - it could go on forever!!

"I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave it up - they have no holidays!" - Henny Youngman

 

[Jackie London]

Regarding going on hunches and blind faith, the history of science is strewn with breakthroughs so generated.

When I was in Israel, a mature erudite resident who'd turned agnostic told us, at the Tower of religious Babel that is Jerusalem where Christians, Muslims and a huge variety of strands of Jewish practitioners congregate noisily, that fundamentally underneath all the dogmatic justifications, people are laying their little claims to some productive land to live on with access to water and without interference. Even if not the whole truth, this seemed to me one of the wisest insights I've yet heard. Brass tacks.

Jurgen Habermas is recognised as one of the most diverse and practical philosophers in his reflections on the concerns of modern times. Aged 80 now, he was interviewed recently by The Irish Times and he did make a pronouncement on the place of religion in today's world:

...PG: In your recent writings you argue that wesern societies are living in a post-secular age because of the revival of religious sentiment. What do you mean by this term?

JH: Ireland and Poland long remained the exception to the rapid advance of secularisation among the European countries. But that seems to be changing, at least if one can believe the most recent statistics. Presumably these two countries will also follow the example of Spain which, in the wake of [the dictator Francisco] Franco’s death [in 1975], was immediately gripped by a secularising trend.

PG: I actually used the expression “post-secular” to describe a shift in public consciousness in such predominantly secular countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or western Europe. Here the resurgence of religion that we are observing in other global regions has unsettled a dominant but unspoken presumption. In these countries it is no longer a cultural commonplace that religion is outdated, that it is destined to disappear with the advance of modernisation. All are now coming to the realisation that religious communities are destined to remain with us, even as the surrounding environment becomes increasingly secular.

JH: I associate this sociological observation with a diagnosis of a more philosophical kind. Secularly minded people should recognise religion as a contemporary intellectual formation. Over the past two millennia, western philosophy has repeatedly borrowed images, meanings and concepts from the Judaeo-Christian tradition and has translated them into its own secular language. We cannot tell whether this process of appropriation has run its course or whether, on the contrary, other semantic potentials remain untapped. Of course, such a receptive and dialogical relation is only possible towards non-fundamentalist traditions that do not close themselves off from the modern world...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0612/1224272354438.html

and http://habermas-rawls.blogspot.com/

The implications for our debate are that the thread promises eternal life - it could go on forever!!

"I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave it up - they have no holidays!" - Henny Youngman

Another scholar whos name is worth mention on the subject is Peter Berger, he more or less founded the secularization theory as we know it today and then more or less dumped his own theory. I recently read "Religious America, Secular Europe?" and I was impressed.

Another thing that is interesting is that Rodney Stark argues that mormonism will be the new large world religion around 2080 and that the member figures then will be somewhere between 60 000 000 and 265 000 000 for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("The mormon church")

 

[goinghome]

Another scholar whos name is worth mention on the subject is Peter Berger, he more or less founded the secularization theory as we know it today and then more or less dumped his own theory. I recently read "Religious America, Secular Europe?" and I was impressed.

Another thing that is interesting is that Rodney Stark argues that mormonism will be the new large world religion around 2080 and that the member figures then will be somewhere between 60 000 000 and 265 000 000 for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("The mormon church")

Peter Berger does appear to have a good grasp on the whole kit and caboodle e.g. this interview - http://iasc-culture.org/HHR_Archives/AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf

This little bit reminded me of a Morrissey exchange -

PB:"...So here are two quite different interests, I pursued both of them, and it comes out in my publications. After all, some people are lechers and stamp collectors, but they manage to do these things at different times.

I:One hopes.

PB:Yes. You could have an orgy with stamp collectors, but that’s unlikely..."

 

[Jackie London]

Peter Berger does appear to have a good grasp on the whole kit and caboodle e.g. this interview - http://iasc-culture.org/HHR_Archives/AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf

This little bit reminded me of a Morrissey exchange -

PB:"...So here are two quite different interests, I pursued both of them, and it comes out in my publications. After all, some people are lechers and stamp collectors, but they manage to do these things at different times.

I:One hopes.

PB:Yes. You could have an orgy with stamp collectors, but that’s unlikely..."

I agree! One of my best friends is very impressed by Jose Casanova! He's writing his thesis on secularization and atheism and he told me once that of all the scholars that's writing about seculrazation he has always thought that Jose Casanova is the one that has got it right. To be honest I've not really read that much of his work but of what I've read I've got the impression that he has a good grasp!

 

[Worm]

Peter Berger does appear to have a good grasp on the whole kit and caboodle e.g. this interview - http://iasc-culture.org/HHR_Archives/AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf

This little bit reminded me of a Morrissey exchange -

PB:"...So here are two quite different interests, I pursued both of them, and it comes out in my publications. After all, some people are lechers and stamp collectors, but they manage to do these things at different times.

I:One hopes.

PB:Yes. You could have an orgy with stamp collectors, but that’s unlikely..."

"God is a shout in the street".

Happy Bloomsday!

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

But it sure helps! If you were sick you probably would appreciate if the doctor had an academic education.

Absolutely. However, this project at hand does not require a PHD. I'm merely critically evaluating a public institution.

Depends on what you accept as proof. We can’t know anything about the objective reality since the moment you become aware about it it’s no longer the objective reality, it’s your own subjective interpretation of the so-called reality.

This is really masturbatory nonsense. I'm perfectly aware of the limitations of human knowledge, but I'm pretty sure we exist and are having this conversation, clearly so do you, so this assertion doesn't reveal anything, or serve any legitimate purpose in this discussion.

“There is no separating religion from violence.” Seriously? I can’t even respond to that, it’s an offence against everyone’s intelligence.

I'd say it's an indisputable fact. Religion has been, for all of recorded history, one of the leading instigators of violence, oppression, murder, and war.
Add in capitalism, and nationalism and that's about the whole pie. Personally, I think we should do away with all three.

If everything just is a pure coincidence then what do this moral and ethics come from? If everything is nothing but an accident/coincidence why would I have any obligation to anything or anyone?

For several reasons. First, because morality makes sense. Imagine a society where everyone lied all of the time, nothing would get accomplished, civilization would break down. Second, from a Darwinian perspective, vicious and atavistic behavior is counterproductive. Most species, even carnivores, generally don't go out of their way to attack their own kind except in very particular circumstances, say, fighting for a mate. Third, I believe that sympathy and empathy are essential componants of human nature, like curiosity, for example.

Then you are religious in a functionalistic definition of religion.

Not really. Again, I base my ideas on observations and facts, concrete, observable things,. I also change my ideas occasionally with time. Religion means total certitude based on zero evidence, and it's almost entirely static.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Q: How many Postmodernists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: You can't essentially change a light bulb; you can switch one lightbulb for another lightbulb, but the condition of actually being a lightbulb remains unchanged. Of course, lightbulbs themselves are simply a conglomeration of constituent parts, therefore they are not so much coherent lightbulbs as collections of wire, glass, metal and a vacuum (or gas) all working together to produce light. Therefore, you can no more change a lightbulb than you can change any thing that is a sum of its individual parts unless you change those parts. You can change the nature of any given lightbulb (functioning/nonfunctioning), but the lightbulb itself will remain essentially unchanged.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I tip my hat to you, sir.

I appreciate the sentiment Nogods, but I am now and have always been female. Since we've never been formally introduced, may I direct you to my profile picture - that's me.

The bold sentence is an important one.

It is important to follow the evolution of ideas, I agree. The sentence needs a follow-up:

"Over the past two millennia, western philosophy has repeatedly borrowed images, meanings and concepts from the Judaeo-Christian tradition and has translated them into its own secular language."

Of course, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has borrowed heavily (to put it nicely) from earlier Pagan traditions. In essence, one could say that Western secular philosophy has incorporated some Abrahamic texts and concepts that have been appropriated from the heathens.

 

[Worm]

Of course, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has borrowed heavily (to put it nicely) from earlier Pagan traditions. In essence, one could say that Western secular philosophy has incorporated some Abrahamic texts and concepts that have been appropriated from the heathens.

What's your point? (he said, nervously fingering the handle of his pearl-handled Colt. )

What you've said is tantamount to saying Einstein incorporated some of the principles of cavemen who scratched in the dirt. It's true in the larger sense, but just because we can place them on one spectrum of development doesn't mean Einstein doesn't represent a major step forward. Any way you slice it, and however you choose to root it in previously-existing cultures and traditions, Christianity was a gigantic step forward for our civilization (he said, nervously fingering the handle of his pearl-handled Colt. )

I think you just like using the word heathen. It is a fun word to use in conversation.

 

[Anaesthesine]

What's your point? (he said, nervously fingering the handle of his pearl-handled Colt. )

What you've said is tantamount to saying Einstein incorporated some of the principles of cavemen who scratched in the dirt. It's true in the larger sense, but just because we can place them on one spectrum of development doesn't mean Einstein doesn't represent a major step forward. Any way you slice it, and however you choose to root it in previously-existing cultures and traditions, Christianity was a gigantic step forward for our civilization (he said, nervously fingering the handle of his pearl-handled Colt. )

I think you just like using the word heathen. It is a fun word to use in conversation.

I DO like using the word heathen, it's true. I slip it in whenever I can.

If I hadn't had only a few fitful hours of sleep and a long, hard work day already behind me, I would offer you a carefully-worded rant about how Christianity is a gigantic step sideways for our civilization. As it is I'm a bit fuzzy and I will be slow on the draw - keep that Colt handy, though.

If I may condense thousands of years of Western civilization in a nutshell: what drives me mad about our civilization's obsession with the Abrahamic myths is:

1) the notion that our morality derives from god.

2) The notion that man is somehow above or separate or a thing apart from the rest of nature.

and

3) That this world is illusory and just a way station before we reach our real lives in His heavenly arms.

These ideas are poison, and underlie much that is detrimental to human progress. The point of my post about heathen ideas being appropriated by the monotheistic cults is simply that while it is true that the Abrahamic faiths gave us a framework in which we may ponder the the big questions, and a common lens through which we may contemplate the terrors, trials, and glories of our civilization, they are not the wellspring of human knowledge, faith or spirituality. Not everything derives from contemplation of the One True God, and returning to a monotheistic view of the world is not going back to our roots. I found that whole conversation to be more than a little smug, quite frankly.

By the way, that was a rousing Nausicaa on NPR yesterday.

 

[Worm]

1) the notion that our morality derives from god.

2) The notion that man is somehow above or separate or a thing apart from the rest of nature.

and

3) That this world is illusory and just a way station before we reach our real lives in His heavenly arms.

1) Where is morality to come from, if not God? Isn't our "natural morality" an echo of religious moralism?

2 & 3) Both the Protestant and Catholic (esp. Thomist) traditions firmly root us in our flesh and in the world, and could be read as deriving their power from this.

2A & 3A) Christianity as practiced in today's America bears scant relation to the above.

These ideas are poison, and underlie much that is detrimental to human progress. The point of my post about heathen ideas being appropriated by the monotheistic cults is simply that while it is true that the Abrahamic faiths gave us a framework in which we may ponder the the big questions, and a common lens through which we may contemplate the terrors, trials, and glories of our civilization, they are not the wellspring of human knowledge, faith or spirituality. Not everything derives from contemplation of the One True God, and returning to a monotheistic view of the world is not going back to our roots. I found that whole conversation to be more than a little smug, quite frankly.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but historically the Abrahamic religions have been extremely beneficial to humanity. I don't think you, or I, would enjoy the epistemological framework to shrug off monotheistic religions unless we were born into a civilization largely built on the foundation of monotheistic religions. Which introduces a wrinkle, does it not? A tiny pause? A twinge of doubt...?

No? Just me?

Question: can we ever know empirical reality directly, without mediation of any kind? If we have to allow mediation, can we be sure that such mediation doesn't (a) actively require the assistance of religion or (b) doesn't passively and indirectly gain its functionality from religion anyway?

Or: do human beings have an ontological blind spot, and if so, can we be sure the blind spot doesn't conceal God?

By the way, that was a rousing Nausicaa on NPR yesterday.

Can anything on NPR be called "rousing"?

The greatest public performance/reading of Joyce will always be Rodney Dangerfield in "Back To School".