America's Religous Tolerance
A new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life debunks the classic meme of intolerant religious believers.
For example, 70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics.
The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said.
“It’s not that Americans don’t believe in anything,” said Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University. “It’s that we believe in everything. We aren’t religious purists or dogmatists.”
I know I tread lightly out here in the blogosphere whenever I raise the issue of spirituality. However, I am convinced that part of the great transformation that must take place in American society–away from a wasteful marketing driven consumption machine that seeks to fill your emptiness at the mall, towards a notion of stewardship of our precious planet–has a spiritual component to it. You don’t have to worship at a church to believe that there is a higher purpose to our life than just “dying with the most toys.” The Pew findings report that people who call themselves spiritual, by large majorities favor government help for the poor, stricter environmental laws and use of diplomacy rather than military strength as a way to ensure peace.
Between 2010 and 2020 America will have a chance to reinvent herself. I believe there are only two possible routes out of our current political impasse I call The Interregnum. One I call Fortress America and the other I call The New Federalism. Fortress America is a centralized, top down, security conscious country-fearful of terrorists, immigrants and the poor. It is a country of gated communities and private security guards, where the gulf between rich and poor enter the level of Rio or Mumbai. The New Federalism is a bottom-up re-imagination of Thomas Jefferson’s earliest notions of America’s unique destiny-where transparency and distributed power (political and electrical) transform our environment, our schools and our approach to the rest of the world. The opportunity to create a world of peace, freedom and sustainability is offered up to us. The tools and technologies are already invented. It will take a certain measure of faith to get there.
I saw a story on this poll earlier today, and I thought it might turn up here.
I don’t necessarily see a linkage between members of a faith thinking that their faith is not the only path to salvation, and members of that faith being tolerant of some, most or all other faiths. That was my thought when I read the article.
The Jews of the Roman period mostly just wanted to be left alone. They were dead sure that anyone who worshipped anything other than Jehovah were in for a hot time in the afterlife. The Romans were open to all kinds of faiths and cults, but they put their foot down when it came to worshipping the Roman emperor. You were free to believe that Jehovah was the only path to salvation, but you had to put a pinch of incense on Augustus’ altar. Or else.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a nuisance when they’re ringing my doorbell but they don’t call up the image of a group that wants to enforce its religion on me.
However I’m in agreement with your larger point: we all better work together, and today’s religious attitudes don’t stand in the way of that.
I saw a story on this poll earlier today, and I thought it might turn up here.
I don’t necessarily see a linkage between members of a faith thinking that their faith is not the only path to salvation, and members of that faith being tolerant of some, most or all other faiths. That was my thought when I read the article.
The Jews of the Roman period mostly just wanted to be left alone. They were dead sure that anyone who worshipped anything other than Jehovah were in for a hot time in the afterlife. The Romans were open to all kinds of faiths and cults, but they put their foot down when it came to worshipping the Roman emperor. You were free to believe that Jehovah was the only path to salvation, but you had to put a pinch of incense on Augustus’ altar. Or else.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are a nuisance when they’re ringing my doorbell but they don’t call up the image of a group that wants to enforce its religion on me.
However I’m in agreement with your larger point: we all better work together, and today’s religious attitudes don’t stand in the way of that.
Re: “dying with the most toys”
I think any religion that shuns indulgence or teaches any virtue in austerity is a sham. Such is at odds with most religious texts and instead has its basis in other “opiate of the masses”: Marxism.
The Hebrew texts are filled with accounts of the wealth and “toys” of its most blessed saints, with lengthy lists of their livestock and how many wives and concubines they claimed. So, too, are other texts in other religious traditions replete with accounts of possessions and blessings. The irony is those with ascetic tendencies who deplore of fundamentalism or even a mall/”big box store” mentality share the same tendency to think others must follow their own austere path for salvation, whether it’s individual or corporate salvation (e.g., saving the planet). Same coin, different sides.
Freedom isn’t tied to dogma or ideology, both of which are used to enslave rather than liberate others. Freedom is the state of mind in which one is fully able to enjoy oneself even though others enjoy themselves. Dogma and ideology only stand in the way of liberty.
In calling for a “re-imagined” Federalism, are you really for Jefferson’s ideals of Liberty or do you seek instead to project your world view and values (environmentalism plus or minus any religious impetus for it) upon others and thereby enslave them to your will under a veneer of false pretenses of what Jefferson really believed? Who are you to judge others living out “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — which is very Jeffersonian by way of Locke! — whether it’s congruent with their own values or entirely at odds with yours?
Re: “dying with the most toys”
I think any religion that shuns indulgence or teaches any virtue in austerity is a sham. Such is at odds with most religious texts and instead has its basis in other “opiate of the masses”: Marxism.
The Hebrew texts are filled with accounts of the wealth and “toys” of its most blessed saints, with lengthy lists of their livestock and how many wives and concubines they claimed. So, too, are other texts in other religious traditions replete with accounts of possessions and blessings. The irony is those with ascetic tendencies who deplore of fundamentalism or even a mall/”big box store” mentality share the same tendency to think others must follow their own austere path for salvation, whether it’s individual or corporate salvation (e.g., saving the planet). Same coin, different sides.
Freedom isn’t tied to dogma or ideology, both of which are used to enslave rather than liberate others. Freedom is the state of mind in which one is fully able to enjoy oneself even though others enjoy themselves. Dogma and ideology only stand in the way of liberty.
In calling for a “re-imagined” Federalism, are you really for Jefferson’s ideals of Liberty or do you seek instead to project your world view and values (environmentalism plus or minus any religious impetus for it) upon others and thereby enslave them to your will under a veneer of false pretenses of what Jefferson really believed? Who are you to judge others living out “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — which is very Jeffersonian by way of Locke! — whether it’s congruent with their own values or entirely at odds with yours?
heh…I saw this poll as well. I thought it was funny that there are only (something like) 70% of atheists that DO NOT believe in a god. And there was a weird number for agnostics.
So even our atheists believe in god. And I am not really sure how the agnostics could come up with a one word answer.
heh…I saw this poll as well. I thought it was funny that there are only (something like) 70% of atheists that DO NOT believe in a god. And there was a weird number for agnostics.
So even our atheists believe in god. And I am not really sure how the agnostics could come up with a one word answer.
I wonder how the Muslims would rank on that chart.
Also, I think Pew recently found that Hindus were the least likely to leave the religion after being raised in it. I wonder if there is any correlation? It is certainly ironic,
I wonder how the Muslims would rank on that chart.
Also, I think Pew recently found that Hindus were the least likely to leave the religion after being raised in it. I wonder if there is any correlation? It is certainly ironic,
I can totally see why you would say that you need to tread lightly when discussing spirituality.
I think the reason is that most people who believe in a god of any sort or are religious usually make the same mistake you did – equating religion and spirituality.
Or at the very least, find the boundaries between the two blurred.
I am an atheist myself, hence my answer to such a poll would be that NO religion can lead to eternal life (for the simple reason that I don’t think such a feat is possible at all).
However I’m also an artist and as such find great need and comfort in soul-searching and matters of the spirit. I would humbly submit that I am a very spiritual person myself. Though such a poll and your interpretation of it would decree otherwise.
I do find that this poll points to a high level of religious tolerance, which is a good thing.
But alas, I cannot say that it speaks to spirituality in any meaningful sense.
This poll would fail to recognize any spirituality or religious tolerance on my part. I can only guess that it would also generate a fair amount of false-positives among the religiously-inclined.
The poll is religion-centered by definition and as such only does more to confound religion and spirituality. In my experience those two can be mutually exclusive.
I can totally see why you would say that you need to tread lightly when discussing spirituality.
I think the reason is that most people who believe in a god of any sort or are religious usually make the same mistake you did – equating religion and spirituality.
Or at the very least, find the boundaries between the two blurred.
I am an atheist myself, hence my answer to such a poll would be that NO religion can lead to eternal life (for the simple reason that I don’t think such a feat is possible at all).
However I’m also an artist and as such find great need and comfort in soul-searching and matters of the spirit. I would humbly submit that I am a very spiritual person myself. Though such a poll and your interpretation of it would decree otherwise.
I do find that this poll points to a high level of religious tolerance, which is a good thing.
But alas, I cannot say that it speaks to spirituality in any meaningful sense.
This poll would fail to recognize any spirituality or religious tolerance on my part. I can only guess that it would also generate a fair amount of false-positives among the religiously-inclined.
The poll is religion-centered by definition and as such only does more to confound religion and spirituality. In my experience those two can be mutually exclusive.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this list reads, more or less, from oldest to youngest.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this list reads, more or less, from oldest to youngest.
http://hummingbunny.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/
The New Federalism is a new spin with limits where as Fortress America is an old idea that’s been trotted out many times before. Keeping certain groups, certain nationalities, certain religions out of America has been a constant noise since the first settlers drove out the first Natives. America has always been more about preserving social mores and appearances than about tolerance and respect. We all live a standard of living that is much higher than our ancestors but for many, the realization that having a lot ‘toys’ doesn’t make you happier is causing anger at those in charge. We don’t have a right to consume anymore than we have a right to have eternal life.
Which is where tolerance comes into play. This particular survey does seem to show that the more strict the faith, the more the participants believe theirs is the ‘correct’ faith to follow. The idea of service to mankind and the world doesn’t make much sense if you believe you are a member of the very few that will be rewarded with eternal life. Why bother with others when they’re beneath contempt? Perhaps a better question would be ‘Do you believe your faith gives you a better understanding about people who are different?’
From my own experience dealing with people, I’ve found that the more ‘religious’ the person claims to be, the more intolerant they are in terms of gays, the homeless and sex. I’ve always found it interesting that America loudly proclaims to be a Christian country for Christians yet we have more child abuse, more without health insurance, less time off from work and more people in prison than any other country. Jesus did not teach that.
Spirituality is not the same thing as religious, but being spiritual doesn’t mean you’re a better steward. Certainly we consume too much. Certainly the gap between wealth and poverty has stayed the same throughout history. Certainly there is much we all can do together to transform our current way of governance.
I’m in favor of religion if – and that’s a big if – it can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Religion and government are two completely different structures serving two completely different needs. If America is so religious, then why so much pollution? If America is so democratic then why such inequity? If we truly believe that we will have eternal life then why do so many hate those that are different?
Dobson: Obama distorts the Bible, has ‘fruitcake’ view of Constitution.
http://hummingbunny.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/
The New Federalism is a new spin with limits where as Fortress America is an old idea that’s been trotted out many times before. Keeping certain groups, certain nationalities, certain religions out of America has been a constant noise since the first settlers drove out the first Natives. America has always been more about preserving social mores and appearances than about tolerance and respect. We all live a standard of living that is much higher than our ancestors but for many, the realization that having a lot ‘toys’ doesn’t make you happier is causing anger at those in charge. We don’t have a right to consume anymore than we have a right to have eternal life.
Which is where tolerance comes into play. This particular survey does seem to show that the more strict the faith, the more the participants believe theirs is the ‘correct’ faith to follow. The idea of service to mankind and the world doesn’t make much sense if you believe you are a member of the very few that will be rewarded with eternal life. Why bother with others when they’re beneath contempt? Perhaps a better question would be ‘Do you believe your faith gives you a better understanding about people who are different?’
From my own experience dealing with people, I’ve found that the more ‘religious’ the person claims to be, the more intolerant they are in terms of gays, the homeless and sex. I’ve always found it interesting that America loudly proclaims to be a Christian country for Christians yet we have more child abuse, more without health insurance, less time off from work and more people in prison than any other country. Jesus did not teach that.
Spirituality is not the same thing as religious, but being spiritual doesn’t mean you’re a better steward. Certainly we consume too much. Certainly the gap between wealth and poverty has stayed the same throughout history. Certainly there is much we all can do together to transform our current way of governance.
I’m in favor of religion if – and that’s a big if – it can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Religion and government are two completely different structures serving two completely different needs. If America is so religious, then why so much pollution? If America is so democratic then why such inequity? If we truly believe that we will have eternal life then why do so many hate those that are different?
Dobson: Obama distorts the Bible, has ‘fruitcake’ view of Constitution.
Answered my own question – Muslims are at 56%, below Protestants, above Mormons. At least it’s a majority…
Answered my own question – Muslims are at 56%, below Protestants, above Mormons. At least it’s a majority…
I have to agree with Armand and Brian on the subject of spirituality (with respect to it being equivalent to religiousity).
I liken the use of the word spirituality by agnostics and atheists to the use of “soul” by some cognitive scientists. They, for the most part, don’t believe that there is a cause for consciousness other than the brain. The word soul, however, is a convenient way of describing the effect.
As for the topic of blog post, it would be great if we could start emphasizing the similarities of religions, but I don’t think it can really go much farther than the question posed in the poll.
When you start examining many religions in detail, there are rules and dogmas about salvation, which are mutually exclusive. So even if there is tolerance, there is always an “Us and Them” mentality.
I have to agree with Armand and Brian on the subject of spirituality (with respect to it being equivalent to religiousity).
I liken the use of the word spirituality by agnostics and atheists to the use of “soul” by some cognitive scientists. They, for the most part, don’t believe that there is a cause for consciousness other than the brain. The word soul, however, is a convenient way of describing the effect.
As for the topic of blog post, it would be great if we could start emphasizing the similarities of religions, but I don’t think it can really go much farther than the question posed in the poll.
When you start examining many religions in detail, there are rules and dogmas about salvation, which are mutually exclusive. So even if there is tolerance, there is always an “Us and Them” mentality.
Brian:
I can relate to this:
To me a “secular” society is simply one in which the golden rule (which is a rough equivalent of tolerance) trumps all other moral or ethical standards. Many religious standards (eg objections to homosexuality) are thereby limited or canceled out. The more one’s identity is defined by ‘being religious’, the more uncomfortable this erasure of lower priority rules becomes. Having invested a lot of time in learning arcane rules, how unfair that you come back out into the public square and nobody takes any notice of them!
Incidentally, my reading of the gospels is that Jesus put the golden rule at the top. So “Christianity” which finds secular society threatening is a bit of an oxymoron. Very common in practice, of course, but theologically incoherent.
Brian:
I can relate to this:
To me a “secular” society is simply one in which the golden rule (which is a rough equivalent of tolerance) trumps all other moral or ethical standards. Many religious standards (eg objections to homosexuality) are thereby limited or canceled out. The more one’s identity is defined by ‘being religious’, the more uncomfortable this erasure of lower priority rules becomes. Having invested a lot of time in learning arcane rules, how unfair that you come back out into the public square and nobody takes any notice of them!
Incidentally, my reading of the gospels is that Jesus put the golden rule at the top. So “Christianity” which finds secular society threatening is a bit of an oxymoron. Very common in practice, of course, but theologically incoherent.
Another Jon,
You could leave room for atheists who don’t believe in God themselves, but who choose to leave room for others to believe in a God.
Another Jon,
You could leave room for atheists who don’t believe in God themselves, but who choose to leave room for others to believe in a God.
STS- Your reply was just what I was ggoing to say to Azmanon. Someone who lives by the golden rule is spiritual.
STS- Your reply was just what I was ggoing to say to Azmanon. Someone who lives by the golden rule is spiritual.
“You don’t have to worship at a church to believe that there is a higher purpose to our life than just “dying with the most toys.””
As an aside, I don’t know if you’ve seen the work of the Church of Stop Shopping — http://www.revbilly.com
They spring up on the news around the holidays in an effort to encourage people to buy less crap.
The documentary “What Would Jesus Buy?” covers their holiday adventures in 2006 (I think)
“You don’t have to worship at a church to believe that there is a higher purpose to our life than just “dying with the most toys.””
As an aside, I don’t know if you’ve seen the work of the Church of Stop Shopping — http://www.revbilly.com
They spring up on the news around the holidays in an effort to encourage people to buy less crap.
The documentary “What Would Jesus Buy?” covers their holiday adventures in 2006 (I think)
zak,
huh?
I am not really sure what you are saying. But an Atheist who believes in God is like a Jew that believes in the Holy Trinity.
I was just trying to point out that it is difficult to know what to believe in a survey when results like this pop up. Results whose only conclusion can be that 30% of those surveyed are stupid. Or at the very least, 30% of American atheists, and some percentage of agnostics, are stupid. I tend to go with the law of averages.
I do not like red kool-aid, but I sure do like that tasty water with the cherry flavored sugar powder in it. I am spiritual that way.
zak,
huh?
I am not really sure what you are saying. But an Atheist who believes in God is like a Jew that believes in the Holy Trinity.
I was just trying to point out that it is difficult to know what to believe in a survey when results like this pop up. Results whose only conclusion can be that 30% of those surveyed are stupid. Or at the very least, 30% of American atheists, and some percentage of agnostics, are stupid. I tend to go with the law of averages.
I do not like red kool-aid, but I sure do like that tasty water with the cherry flavored sugar powder in it. I am spiritual that way.
Lucky- I’m for the original Jeffersonian view of liberty. He was totally self-sufficient, grew his own food, made his own furniture. He wouldn’t have recognized the Big Box America you are celebrating.
Couple of other thoughts. I’m not sure what ancient Hebrew text you were reading in which the Hebrew prophets had lots of wives and concubines?As to other religions, I understand Buddha and Jesus were not very materialistic.I don’t think your definition of ‘consumer” Freedom is exactly what they had in mind. Secondly, If you want to drive a Hummer and live in a 20,000 sqare foot mansion, that’s your karma not mine.
Finally as to enslavement–I think the last indentured servitude left is being really late paying off your credit cards.
Lucky- I’m for the original Jeffersonian view of liberty. He was totally self-sufficient, grew his own food, made his own furniture. He wouldn’t have recognized the Big Box America you are celebrating.
Couple of other thoughts. I’m not sure what ancient Hebrew text you were reading in which the Hebrew prophets had lots of wives and concubines?As to other religions, I understand Buddha and Jesus were not very materialistic.I don’t think your definition of ‘consumer” Freedom is exactly what they had in mind. Secondly, If you want to drive a Hummer and live in a 20,000 sqare foot mansion, that’s your karma not mine.
Finally as to enslavement–I think the last indentured servitude left is being really late paying off your credit cards.
I think a person’s spirituality should be an inward journey. Like IN his house, IN his temple, and OUT of my face.
I think a person’s spirituality should be an inward journey. Like IN his house, IN his temple, and OUT of my face.
The United States is an odd duck. She refuses to secularize, despite her increasingly complex post-industrial economy. This fact confounds scholars of the scientific study of religion. On paper, we should be Sweden. On the ground we’re more like India. Yes, India.
One of the things distorted by Pew’s intriguing graph is that we’re mostly talking about Protestant attitudes. (And the technical term “affiliated” tells here, but enough Sociologese.) The poll basically means that American Protestants are more tolerant folk than one might suspect from looking at outliers on the Telly. That’s good news.
But it still ain’t news. Protestants are protesters, to the bone, and they just happen to have a grudging affinity for the next protester. If the swami two doors over thinks that the way to Nirvana needn’t take one through Seattle, then so what. See you there.
But although this does appear to signify a kind of religious, or at least doctrinal, lackadaisicalness, comme si comme ca, it actually represents deep, and sad, and moving roots that have always nourished this country since the French Protestants first turned up in Florida and the French Catholics in Quebec and the British Non-Conformists more or less in between. So what may seem a mere flag of truce, really is a right hoary ensign.
Also, AmProts are themselves quintessentially transient. Sociologists go mad trying to map their religious migrations.
Jon’s right on the money, for my money, in alluding to Mr. Jefferson, because this busy blooming garden of psychedelic religious colors—starting with the Protestant Perennials—is just what the Framers ordered. Or disordered. Or half-ordered, or something.
As for Fortress America versus Jon’s new rebirth of freedom, it’s an unpleasant muddle, my saying so, but we can have both. And in a way this work by the Pew Trusts does hint of it.
Consider California circa 1966. “The American Gibraltar”, as one historian has called it. Six or seven diverse regions, topographies—economies, even—formed into a wonderfully unlikely whole over a war, and the need to pay for that war. And ever afterward, war upon war, both foreign and domestic (water, oil—the usual) until Californians became experts—world leaders!—in “fortressing”. The starry dynamos of war above at night, the lethal silos below by day; and to every neighborhood its own airframe plant or avionics factory or particle-beam or jet-propulsion laboratory or testing ground.
And yet what was ALSO happening in California in 1966? Everything. Everything. Shit that just could not possibly have happened anywhere else on the Planet at that time. Top-to-bottom reinvention of our social institutions, our cultural forms, our very consciousness (or excuse me, my fellow Georgians; that means our ways of apprehending stuff.)
So, you’ve got a lot of Proddies in America who are game if somebody’s got a different magic carpet, and you’ve got a Fortress America whether you like it or not, and you’ve got some very enlightened folk calling you to make the best of it.
I say we make the best of it.
The United States is an odd duck. She refuses to secularize, despite her increasingly complex post-industrial economy. This fact confounds scholars of the scientific study of religion. On paper, we should be Sweden. On the ground we’re more like India. Yes, India.
One of the things distorted by Pew’s intriguing graph is that we’re mostly talking about Protestant attitudes. (And the technical term “affiliated” tells here, but enough Sociologese.) The poll basically means that American Protestants are more tolerant folk than one might suspect from looking at outliers on the Telly. That’s good news.
But it still ain’t news. Protestants are protesters, to the bone, and they just happen to have a grudging affinity for the next protester. If the swami two doors over thinks that the way to Nirvana needn’t take one through Seattle, then so what. See you there.
But although this does appear to signify a kind of religious, or at least doctrinal, lackadaisicalness, comme si comme ca, it actually represents deep, and sad, and moving roots that have always nourished this country since the French Protestants first turned up in Florida and the French Catholics in Quebec and the British Non-Conformists more or less in between. So what may seem a mere flag of truce, really is a right hoary ensign.
Also, AmProts are themselves quintessentially transient. Sociologists go mad trying to map their religious migrations.
Jon’s right on the money, for my money, in alluding to Mr. Jefferson, because this busy blooming garden of psychedelic religious colors—starting with the Protestant Perennials—is just what the Framers ordered. Or disordered. Or half-ordered, or something.
As for Fortress America versus Jon’s new rebirth of freedom, it’s an unpleasant muddle, my saying so, but we can have both. And in a way this work by the Pew Trusts does hint of it.
Consider California circa 1966. “The American Gibraltar”, as one historian has called it. Six or seven diverse regions, topographies—economies, even—formed into a wonderfully unlikely whole over a war, and the need to pay for that war. And ever afterward, war upon war, both foreign and domestic (water, oil—the usual) until Californians became experts—world leaders!—in “fortressing”. The starry dynamos of war above at night, the lethal silos below by day; and to every neighborhood its own airframe plant or avionics factory or particle-beam or jet-propulsion laboratory or testing ground.
And yet what was ALSO happening in California in 1966? Everything. Everything. Shit that just could not possibly have happened anywhere else on the Planet at that time. Top-to-bottom reinvention of our social institutions, our cultural forms, our very consciousness (or excuse me, my fellow Georgians; that means our ways of apprehending stuff.)
So, you’ve got a lot of Proddies in America who are game if somebody’s got a different magic carpet, and you’ve got a Fortress America whether you like it or not, and you’ve got some very enlightened folk calling you to make the best of it.
I say we make the best of it.
Mr Taplin, you engaged in the logical fallacy of the straw man. I didn’t say I celebrate Big Box America. Suffice to say, I tolerate it. Just as I tolerate anyone who chooses (choice is operative here) to make his own furniture, grow her own food, etc.
Freedom isn’t dictating what others should do, it’s letting them do it whether you like it or not. Is it still a foreign concept in academia and among the Left these days? Like I wrote earlier, different sides of the same coin. Neither Right nor Left is to be entrusted to safeguard liberty because both are driven by ideology and dogma: “Freedom is the state of mind in which one is fully able to enjoy oneself even though others enjoy themselves.” You sound no happier than James Dobson; you both seek to control me and limit my freedom.
As for lists of possessions, I won’t turn your blog into a Bible study. I certainly wouldn’t be qualified to lead it. You can use Google to find out how many wives and concubines David and Solomon and many others in the Bible had. Not to mention how many oxen and cattle various others had. They clearly weren’t ascetics. Nor did Jesus and Buddha command their followers to engage in austerity (why did Jesus’ apostles have a treasurer?).
Even though you ignored the last question I asked, you still gave me my answer.
Mr Taplin, you engaged in the logical fallacy of the straw man. I didn’t say I celebrate Big Box America. Suffice to say, I tolerate it. Just as I tolerate anyone who chooses (choice is operative here) to make his own furniture, grow her own food, etc.
Freedom isn’t dictating what others should do, it’s letting them do it whether you like it or not. Is it still a foreign concept in academia and among the Left these days? Like I wrote earlier, different sides of the same coin. Neither Right nor Left is to be entrusted to safeguard liberty because both are driven by ideology and dogma: “Freedom is the state of mind in which one is fully able to enjoy oneself even though others enjoy themselves.” You sound no happier than James Dobson; you both seek to control me and limit my freedom.
As for lists of possessions, I won’t turn your blog into a Bible study. I certainly wouldn’t be qualified to lead it. You can use Google to find out how many wives and concubines David and Solomon and many others in the Bible had. Not to mention how many oxen and cattle various others had. They clearly weren’t ascetics. Nor did Jesus and Buddha command their followers to engage in austerity (why did Jesus’ apostles have a treasurer?).
Even though you ignored the last question I asked, you still gave me my answer.
Hugo, that’s a really excellent post.
As for my own thoughts, I’m afraid STS already wrote that better than I could. Other than that I appreciate his use of “some” in relation to cognitive scientists. There are several I know who would be very very reluctant indeed to use the word soul in any context related to the mind, or brain.
I think something worth considering in relation to this thread is the fact that – worldwide – people tend to follow the religion of their parents, if they follow any religion at all. Thus their ‘faith’ is as likely to flow from a certain set of beliefs that are as culturally determined as their speech, rather than out of any sense of the “rightness” of their religion. Thus religious tolerance is akin to many other forms of tolerance, like tolerance for color or language. People are tolerant to the extent that it’s of utility.
A friend lives in Amsterdam. From a distance, I had long thought of Amsterdam as an exceptionally tolerant place, but as he explained to me in a very broad generalisation, the natives are not actually tolerant, they’re utilitarian, and it makes more sense to let most things slide. That doesn’t mean they’re not racist or religiously bigoted as hell – just that they tend not, as a culture, to let their prejudices get in the way of sound policy. At least not as much as the rest of us.
Hugo, that’s a really excellent post.
As for my own thoughts, I’m afraid STS already wrote that better than I could. Other than that I appreciate his use of “some” in relation to cognitive scientists. There are several I know who would be very very reluctant indeed to use the word soul in any context related to the mind, or brain.
I think something worth considering in relation to this thread is the fact that – worldwide – people tend to follow the religion of their parents, if they follow any religion at all. Thus their ‘faith’ is as likely to flow from a certain set of beliefs that are as culturally determined as their speech, rather than out of any sense of the “rightness” of their religion. Thus religious tolerance is akin to many other forms of tolerance, like tolerance for color or language. People are tolerant to the extent that it’s of utility.
A friend lives in Amsterdam. From a distance, I had long thought of Amsterdam as an exceptionally tolerant place, but as he explained to me in a very broad generalisation, the natives are not actually tolerant, they’re utilitarian, and it makes more sense to let most things slide. That doesn’t mean they’re not racist or religiously bigoted as hell – just that they tend not, as a culture, to let their prejudices get in the way of sound policy. At least not as much as the rest of us.
“Tolerance” is a terribly off-putting word. It implies an underlying distaste for that which is being tolerated. It implies that one has to go out of the way to put up with something repugnant. I’d prefer simple acceptance which has an emotional neutrality to it.
There is less here than meets the eye. If you are a biblical literalist you should believe that other religions can have eternal life. For example, in the Koran, Jews and Christians are also people of the book, and likewise according to some very conservative Christians, Jews can go to heaven if they follow Jewish law strictly.
What’s odd is that Jews generally don’t believe in eternal life in the Christian sense, so it’s strange to see so many saying that other religions have a path to it.
Jon, much as we admire Jefferson, he used slaves to grow his food and was still deeply in debt and would have been unable to survive being self-sufficient. Living off the land and making everything you need is a noble idea, but extremely impractical for the majority of Americans.
As for religion, the rhetoric of the political campaign has shown the middle ground to be finally stirring. Blindly following a spiritual leader, any leader, is fraught with dangers. If the Jeffersonian model is one of self-discovery and careful reading of sacred texts, then that is a model worthy of review. Jesus admonished the Jews to pray in private and cease the demonstrative and ostentatious displays of piety. For those that follow the Gospels, then being humble and compassionate towards fellow Jews is what Jesus taught.
“Freedom isn’t dictating what others should do, it’s letting them do it whether you like it or not. Is it still a foreign concept in academia and among the Left these days?”
Do you ever ask questions that do not presuppose that the people you debate with are deceitful and evil?
Nizam, I had to chime in here with a very interesting insight I got from a religious studies class in college: Hinduism covers a very, very broad swath of belief. One can be a Hindu and be pretty much an atheist. One can be a Hindu and be a multi-diety worshipper. The range runs from one extreme to the other. Just FYI. I found that very surprising and quite intriguing. They also have two of the oldest books known to mankind: the Upanishads and the Vedas.
- Zhirem
Quite so, Dan. And Mitch, I appreciate the accuracy and relevance of your post, but must respectfully disagree with your analytical aside, that “There is less here than meets the eye.” The more I look at it, the more I come to think that there’s a big something here.
Were I still an editor ever on the lookout for an “angle”, I’d say that the story here is that the Protestants are growing up, in new and adaptive ways anchored in their stern past. It seems that they have, metaphorically, rediscovered the curious business of Rabbi Yeshua’s tarrying to the tomb of his best friend. That the American Proddies are effectively identifying with those who were confounded and angered and hurt by the Nazarene’s ostensible lack of respect for the eternal soul of Lazarus, until they were reminded that they are not the stewards of anyone’s soul, and not even of their own souls; but are, rather, lambs who haven’t a clue which way is Up.
It means, I think, that the Proddies are re-learning good old Christian humility. That’s just got to be a good thing, Mitch, for everybody.
A little late, but who’s to kvetch?
Is that laughter I hear? Did someone arrange the order of posts herein to have this follow the eulogy to Mr. Carlin. Serendipity, that’s the godlike force that makes us think there is any anything out there that we can corral by discussion or belief. Ever scratch a Southern Baptist on Sunday. Meanwhile, Zak and Hugo, yes, I do see that we perforce do have both the fortress and the freedom. Each man/woman/LGBT a fortress to their ownselves. And here in Cali, a Tortilla Curtain, too. I am with Bitter on this one though, the middle may be waking up and questioning the roses. And for that we have to thank the internet.
I fear we’re converging here, rhbee. Does that scare you, too? If so, come cower by me.
A Southern Baptist on Sunday is a very fine thing to scratch, by the way, and the Tortilla Curtain: tell us more, please. I never could find a line, the line. Even the Border itself is porous.
Say more.
Hugo,
Your second to last post in this thread was most excellent. Very well said. I think you are onto something in bringing up this debate about ‘Fortress America’ and ‘Jeffersonian America’ vis-a-vis this Protestant re-awakening.
But I will have to disagree that this poll is representative of any moment of clarity being had by any member of any religion. The newspaper editor in me is still hung up on these 30% of god-fearing atheists. What is the story there? To me, that 30% is the foil to yours and rhbee’s re-awakening of the progressively disenfranchised protestant class. This 30% represents the ignorant bliss associated with the purposefully oblivious nature of a uniquely American form of existentialism. The evolution of which has brought us from that eastern diamond back shouting to not be tread on, through our friend Emerson, to what it is now; some weird association of freedom with the ability for any individual to purchase whatever they want at any time. I think I know how we got here from there, but tracing its genealogy would take a while. What it comes down to is that this weird American existentialism has led people astray. Astray from reality. Where words can be re-defined to suit your own thinking, and arguments can be formed to rationalize actions that would otherwise be considered unethical in the context of whatever religious foundations you base your personal morality on. This is what that 30% represents to me. It has become a culture of convenience. Convenience is our god. And we will define him or her however we want….as long as our gas is less than $4/gal.
Who is this 30%?
These are the same group of people that think 9/11 was perpetrated by Sadam Hussein.
These are the same group of people that think Barak Obama is a muslim.
These are the same group of people that think Croatia is ‘somewhere in Russia.’
These are the same group of people that think Walmart is bad, but have no idea why.
These are the same group of people that will buy the new Gillete ‘Mach 16’ razor when it comes out.
These are the same group of people at which the strategy of ‘swiftboating’ is aimed.
There is no racial, religious, gender, or class associations with this 30%. It is a pandemic.
But this is where the railing against our marketing/consumer/media culture comes into play. This monster was created, in no small part, by this machine. There was a perfect storm of cultural philosophy and opportunism. It cannot be reversed. But how do you market the idea of a ‘New Federalism’ to this 30%? How will Barak do it (McCain is in that 30% so we will leave him out of it)?
Is it even possible or worth it?
Another Jon & Hugo- This is really good stuff. I think the Protestants are changing. Frances Fitzgerald’s piece in The New Yorker this week, points to the new challenges among evangelicals to the right wing.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_fitzgerald
As to AJ’s 30%-I think that figure is way high.My research tells me that hard core Fundamentalists (the world was conceived 6000 years ago in 6 days) make up only 12.5% of the electorate.
Lucky- I want to welcome you to our discussion. Some of your points are well made. My general sense is that we are all going to have to embrace the “less is more” notion. Its not really a matter of liberty but rather, te strange dichtomy we live in–a world of limited physical resources (oil and water) and abundant digital resources (bandwidth and processing power). How we use technology to do more with less seems to be the question of the age. All I know is 20 years form now the U.S. will not be consuming 25% of the world’s fossil fuels with 4% of the world’s population.
@Jon: You wrote “Someone who lives by the golden rule is spiritual.”
I beg to differ. Someone who lives that way is *moral*. Spirituality has nothing to do with it. It is possible (and common) to study — and practice — ways of interacting w/ one another and deeply to ponder right and wrong, absent any spirituality whatsoever.
That said, I do agree that spirituality may be considered wholly distinct from religious belief. Many many scientists / secular humanists / atheists / agnostics / freethinkers (myself included) feel and describe a deep sense of awe and wonder at the beauty and richness of the physical universe, without attaching any religious beliefs whatsoever. I wonder if the word “spirituality” may be too laden to use even to describe that feeling/relationship to existence, given its close associations with “faith” and “god” and religious beliefs which are unsupported by evidence. The brilliant atheist Carl Sagan wrote of scientific inquiry as “informed worship” [of existence and the universe]… but I wish I had a better word for this rational, meaningful, moral, enriching and humane approach to conceiving our part in the universe.
In any case I highly recommend all people — whatever their beliefs — read Dawkins [The God Delusion in particular] the better to understand how morality and religion are totally unrelated concepts.
Finally, while generally speaking I am politically and intellectually closely aligned with your fine writings, I strongly disagree with your statement that we need more “faith” [defined as belief without evidence] to solve our common problems. On the contrary, I think we need greatly increased application of scientific principles and truly moral behavior on the part of our leaders, and to take an increasingly pragmatic, fact-based, evidence-supported approach to tackling [war, climate change, environment, energy, poverty, healthcare, etc].
Hugo the phrase isn’t original to me but comes from a novel by T. Coraghessan Boyle, The Tortilla Curtain, pub. in 1997, which you can find reviewed here along with an excellent interview with the author about the novel:
http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/tortilla_curtain.html
To my mind it is a perfect example of the value of fiction for finding a truth where the facts have kept it hidden.
Jon, I was wondering if anyone would mention the way the internet is and should in the future influence us more and more to travel less and use less fossil fuel as a result. It has long been my opinion that many Americans travel much more that they should out of a stubborn belief that it is their “right” to do so. In that sense, the current gas prices are sort of working like that club my uncle, the farmer, always said it took to influence a mule.
Chris-I don’t pretend to know what influences someone to live the golden rule, respect the planet, lift up the poor. In certain times and places, those qualities have been associated with notions of “spirit” or “soul”. Whatever it takes,its going to be a break from the last 30 years “I’m getting mine” philosophy.
rhbee-I saw Cisco’s Telepresence system a couple of months ago. High def, real time video conferencing on a whole new level. I could easily see this cutting the amount of business travel radically.
rhbee, thanks for the attribution, which however gets me down a bit as I once thought of myself as a kind of connoisseur of T.C. Boyle, but stuff happens, you know—marriages and divorces and changes of campus, &tc. Presumably you know California (or Arizona or Texas or New Mexico, but especially California) enough to know how many curtains are drawn, and frankly how culturally fascinating, and not just criminologically interesting, are those curtains. Our country is faced with challenges of considerable subtlety–no?–such that we could do with a leader equal to such subtleties.
Do you agree? In any event, this is my thinking of late.
Another Jon, “the newspaper editor in” you must be editing a splendidly thoughtful newspaper, because you’ve moved directly to the higher math, as goes religious studies. I appreciate your focus on the atheists’ opinions, but let me park those for a minute because the poll is a poll of the “affiliated”, so that this is one of those rare times when atheists don’t get to do their tiresome gate-crashing sophomoria. (I’m a fairly strident defender of American atheists, for what it’s worth; but this is simply not about them.)
You raise such a much more important question, the prospect of a Protestant free-float looking for a landing. Huge. Shrewd of you, too. My compliments. This immediately present Pew poll is some evidence of this Cosmic Undecided, and presumably you remember that other polls reported by Jon in these spaces have pointed pretty strongly toward the same thing: disaffected Protestants looking for their respective next homes of protest. (For the benefit of newcomers to the study of American culture, we’re not debating the guppy here, but the Whale.)
My own observations (too limited to amount to much) and my sense from word-of-mouth in one of America’s very, very unselfconsciously religious cities (Atlanta), is—and let me put this archly, but I hope the more so to the target—we see less and less point in learning Torah from someone with only a vague grasp upon Ancient Hebrew, and we see no point at all in listening to a teacher of Greek Scriptures which teacher doesn’t have even Koine Greek, and we see no point at all in continuing to support the various and sundry institutions which certify these presumed teachers as though they had something to teach.
An epic thread.
Add to it, please, JH.
Hugo -
The point I was trying to make is that there was an implication in the coverage of this poll that the results somehow indicated that these people are tolerant and respectful of other religions. It seems to me that you are assuming as much in what you wrote as well (“growing up, etc”). However, one can’t really get at what people are thinking as they answer this poll, for the reasons I outlined. Some very intolerant people may have answered this question in the affirmative.
You’re quite right, Mitch, and I was admittedly working off of a hunch. These polls always beg more questions than they answer. Gallup’s been doing them since the Thirties—same laden flaws—and Rockefeller’s been funding similarly annoying ones since the big revival of the 1950s. You caught me out, man. I just decided on a lark to make the most of this one.
You’re quite right to place these dislocated data into a more sophisitcated, nuanced grid. I just thought that this wouldn’t be the place for that grid, and maybe in that way I was boorish and wrong.
There is indeed a strong hint of Chesterton’s famous admonition, that in the absence of a belief in God it does not naturally follow that people will believe nothing, but rather that they will believe anything.
Or, to put it another way, that the people polled are agreeable to any damned belief because, believing nothing in particular themselves, they really haven’t anything about which to disagree.
Yes, I know, Mitch. And that’s why I chose to paint a happy mustache on it.
@Hugo, “[atheists'] tiresome gate-crashing sophomoria”? Please, let’s not resort to name-calling in this respectful, high-brow discussion. I’m trying not to respond in kind here, but I’m disappointed if that is really how my comment was interpreted. I replied honestly and directly to Jon’s assertions [which based on his later response were unsurprisingly not quite as definitive of his opinion as I'd first interpreted them to be] that morality == spirituality, and that we need more faith to improve the sorry state of affairs we’re in. To me this was directly relevant and no kind of gate-crashing at all.
/end tangent
Leaving the meta-conversation aside, I agree w/ you and Hugo that the poll results are open to interpretation, and that it’s problematic to assume that a high response rate in the affirmative implies the kind of tolerance a progressive society would desire. The optimist in me interprets the results that way though. It does seem at least plausible that believing one does NOT have the “one true path” [to eternal life] might indicate a lessened propensity towards fundamentalism/dogmatism/antagonism towards other- and non-believers. In that sense I find it encouraging (and anecdotally consistent w/ my conversations w/ religious friends in New England).
That said, I’m surprised to see such a high % of Catholics and Protestants saying “yes” — this is in direct, unequivocal contradiction to the scriptures they claim to follow — and to see that 14% of Buddhists say “no”. I think it’s likely that most of that 14% come from a particularly (and atypically) dogmatic brand of “Buddhism” which label of course covers a very broad range of beliefs…
@Jon, thanks for replying (I agree w/ your clarified statement) and kudos (again) for the consistently high-quality writing. Keep it up!
Chris wait, wait! I’m getting to be such a slob these days. I didn’t mean to call YOU a sophomoric gate-crasher; just to point out that whenever believers are the topic of public discussion, atheists somehow figure that means them too—which is just plain obnoxious. I’m bullish on American atheists, really I am, but de good Lawd he do know dat dey bigfoot the Internet like they invented the thing. They didn’t.
I made much the same point as yours, by the way, in answer to your Carlin query. (As for Dawkins, he’s just not worth the trouble; another expert in one thing who’s for some reason run off his reservation.)
As I’ve said, I’d like to agree with you on the charitable interpretation of these figures from the Pews (as it were), but at the same time I suspect Mitch is right. Perhaps I should identify myself as an insufferable Kierkegaardian, if that’s of any help. That Dane had a special distaste for what he liked to call “statistical Christianity”.
A couple decades ago I attended a dinner reception for a distinguished (and rather dashing) French scholar my university had managed to pirate from Paris. The hostess has contrived, at table, that we would go around and each, by way of a toast, pose a witty question to this fellow; a kind of gentle hazing ritual. I’m not good at these things and so I squirmed until it came my turn, whereupon I said to the professor that I’d seen by the papers that the first thing the new, young Cardinal of Paris did upon taking office was to commission a poll of religious opinion, only to learn that whereas 78% of Parisians identified themselves as Catholic, fully 80% of Parisians disclaimed any belief in the existence of sin. “How is this possible, sir?” I asked.
“Mais non,” he said. “It is not possible. For in Paris sin is the only thing in which we do believe.”
I find this discussion interesting and thus at the risk of continuing to hijack Mr. Taplin’s excellent website with another semi-off-topic reply:
@Hugo
Haha, funny story, that, thanks for sharing.
I actually find that anecdote to be illuminating; it shows the inconsistency inherent in declared religious beliefs. One might claim to be of a certain creed, but when probed for one’s *true* feelings on specific matters, time and again they are not remotely tied to the stated dogma. This is part of my complaint and my non-neutral feelings towards organized religion: it seems to substitute for actually thinking. It’s only when (all too rarely) prodded to self-examination, that many believers recognize the inconsistency and break from received “wisdom”. This is the core of the anti-science, anti-progress, anti-human problem I believe organized religion poses, whatever the specific beliefs.
You wrote “Dawkins [is an] expert in one thing who’s for some reason run off his reservation.”
Could you clarify?
My take is, Dawkins is a scientist who has spent much of his life studying the nature of the universe. When religious believers make unsupported statements about the nature of the universe [creationism, evolution, hubble's constant, you name it] he is precisely in the center of his area of expertise to argue against such exquisite examples of non-experts “leaving the reservation” as you put it.
Is there a specific assertion Dawkins makes, which you disagree with (in ways other than “that’s not what I believe”)? To me it’s totally inadequate (and rhetorically evasive) to say that Dawkins is unqualified to discuss such matters! Who is qualified? What could even qualify one as an “expert” in religious matters? Spending years cloistered in a monastery would not confer an iota of legitimacy to the truth-value of one’s opinions, whereas spending years studying the observable world does lend considerable credence to statements about the nature of existence. I just don’t think it’s right to dismiss an author as a “non-expert” in an area which defies expertise by its very nature.
I’ll stop there, and if this is taking the discussion too far afoot, I’m happy to continue in a less public forum, you have my email.
Thanks again for your intelligence and civility!
Oh, well what I meant, Chris, is that Dr. Dawkins, like Mr. Hitchens, should not dabble professionally in metaphysics, religious philosophy or theology. Those are the “queens of the disciplines” and those from which all scientific disciplines sprang. I’m talking old, here. Old and exquisitely complex. In the 800-year history of academia there’s a long and fairly amusing legacy of scientists who mistook themselves for popes, and these recent pontifications from the cosmologists and the biologists ascendant fit squarely therein.
My best friend, a husband and father of three, is at long last completing his own terminal degree in Religious Philosophy. Toward that end it was necessary for him to earn the proper disciplinary major as an undergraduate, two masters degrees, and mastery of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, German and French.
Professor Dawkins should stick to his last.
Daniel Dennett has a useful point to make regarding this type of poll result — and especially the witty Parisian professor’s rejoinder to the paradox Hugo accosted him with:
Many people don’t so much believe in God, as they believe in belief. It’s generally thought that religious faith is “good for you”. So all those Americans who happily classify themselves as “Protestant” or whatever when polled, or even those who slap Jesus “fish” magnets on their SUVs, don’t necessarily mean to sign up for the last syllable of some zealous credo. I suspect many are asserting first and foremost the wholesomeness of faith and expressing their aspiration toward the exalted condition of The Saved.
It’s a bit like buying the exercise machine that will give you washboard abs in only 10 minutes a day — then leaving it to collect dust in the spare room.
@Hugo, this is the last post I will write on this topic because I don’t think we’ll come closer to agreement… but I can’t let your last post go. Your argument that it takes a PhD and mastery of 8 languages in order to qualify one to debate the likelihood of the bible being literally true, is staggeringly wrong. If it were true, then you’d be admitting that you (and the overwhelming majority of believers) have no basis for your faith, since it takes such expertise to justify it. No, the use of reason and evidence to weigh the truth-value of various descriptions of the universe is all one needs. Dawkins is eminently qualified to opine on the validity of superstitious belief. Your friend’s studies are woefully inadequate to the end of defining the style of the emperor’s robes, he could spend 10 lifetimes studying obscure texts in dead languages delving into any given detail of the description of heaven’s suburbs, without being one iota closer to truth.
Further, your contention that the age of the beliefs lends them *more* credence is plain silly. Our understanding of the universe has been increasing leaps and bounds since the dark ages, yet you blithely declare that medieval interpretations of the stories of desert wanderers 20 centuries ago contain more truth about the way the world actually is than a rational, evidence-based (and continually refined) understanding, and that this alternate truth — despite all evidence to the contrary (and none for) — is somehow more credible simply because it is older? If that’s the case then you might want to switch to paganism, buddhism, or sun-worship. Please.
As far as scientists mistaking themselves for popes, no, they don’t claim anything like that ignominy. It’s quite the opposite, where popes and their followers assert unjustifiable claims about the unknowable and ignorant, incorrect claims about what we do in fact know about (e.g. heliocentric world view, evolution, age of the universe, etc.) thus directly competing w/ scientists when they are grossly unqualified to to so. Unfortunately, when religious leaders insist — as they continue to — on pontificating on subjects they do not and cannot understand or justify, it is not merely “amusing”, it leads to genocide, oppression, holy war, and the biggest obstacle to peace and genuine understanding that mankind faces.
I asked if you’d read Dawkins and your silence indicates you did not, you seem to prefer ad hominem attacks on his credentials rather than finding a single fault with any of his arguments. Another vererable source (Socrates) had quite a bit to say about the merits of this kind of argument.
Finally, note that you are yourself an atheist about all gods that have ever been described, but you do not feel the need to master Norse in order to justify your disbelief in Odin. Think about that, and if you’re honest w/ yourself you’ll realize the burden does not rest with Reason to “disprove” religious claims, but rather with proponents of *any* particular belief (scientific or otherwise) to justify it based on evidence.
I don’t expect to reply here again as I feel we’ve reached an impasse. Good luck.
Quickly, then, Chris. You’d enjoy both Bad’s blog and Ed Darrell’s. You moved the ball on me here, as no one was debating either Biblical inerrancy or the “nature of existence”. Dr. Dawkins is not, as you suggest, a qualified cosmologist; he is, rather, an exhalted evolutuionary biologist and ethologist (a favorite field of mine). Evidently you disapprove — and, Darwin knows, Dawkins does too — of religious dabling in those fields, and so I was simply pointing out that the same should go for Dawkins and his ilk. I find Dawkins, in his writings, frequently overreaching and prone to crossing the line in metaphysics, a sophisticated field in which I believe that he, as a scientist, lacks any standing whatsoever. You call me an atheist for not believing in every god and goddess known to cultural anthropologists. In fact I am a theist, and one cannot be theist and atheist both.
The battleground between Dawkins et al and the theists is the same old one: they differ on whether God — the benign, purposeful and active Creator of the Abrahamic traditions — exists or whether God is a figment or fairytale. Dawkins, a scientific naturalist and atheist, takes the latter view. To the battle he brings the tools of the day, the tools of materialist atheism: your “burden of proof” and rules of “evidence”, of observability and testability. That, scientific materialism (esp. of the sort which banishes a Creator), is in itself, you see, a highly particularistic metaphysical speculation. And yet all else is disallowed. Only that metaphysic will do. My friend David could illuminate this quite a bit more vividly, as he, unlike Dr. Dawkins, is a trained metaphysician and systematic theologian.
If you don’t think that this has a great deal to do with the 12th Century founding of the University, and of the subsequent evolution (as it were) of academia from a theological to a wholly positivistic enterprise in which only one worldview is permissible, then we truly are at impasse.
Catholics and Muslims must turn from worshipping idols. Catholics have lead the way in idol worship. 1st they worship a man—the pope. Peter never allowed people to worship him. Peter as a Jew, knew that faith in Christ alone was the only way to salvation—as did Mary. These Jews who received Christ properly would sit in condemnation of modern Catholics who resemble the power hungry, and material driven Pharisees of Christ’s day. I ask that lay people become familiar with the word, and not just what the Catholic Church teaches, but the whole bible without the Church as the mediator. Christ is our savior, mediator. We do not require a fallible man or church to bring us into relationship. God’s word, and sacrifice is all we need to establish faith, and repentance. Salvation can never come from works of a law. It is free gift from god, so that no man may boast.
It is interesting to stand by and watch rationalization take the place of inspiration; to watch people struggle with such fundamental questions; to watch them use their basic agency to be selfish then wonder why their decisions impact others. To see conclusions drawn that have no basis in the religious text they cite. To develop complex methods of study that allow any rationale to be constructed rather than following the simple method prescribed since the beginning.
It s no wonder…
And Mike, you know, it passes interesting to watch you make these judgments yourself, so quintessentially, whilst you charge others from your Solomonic remove.
Your display is, for me at least, something like a once-in-a-lifetime treat. Something by no means to be hoarded, but rather a rarity warranting the widest possible sharing.