Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...

[Windwalker]

.
Edit: if you aren't after a straw man, why are you so keen to find a cookie-cutter set of beliefs to apply to a large number of people?

Say, that's my complaint against Dawkins speaking against religion! You can't steal it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Say, that's my complaint against Dawkins speaking against religion! You can't steal it.

But here's the problem: in many religious contexts, it's valid to link one person's "moderate" religion to those of more extreme elements of their faith.

For instance, a liberal Catholic who is personally in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion but tithes at Mass every Sunday is helping to fund campaigns against those issues he says he supports.

 

[Windwalker]

The religious homophobia we see on this forum and elsewhere undermines the idea that religions are able or willing to self-moderate their own fundamentalists. Not to mention the violence carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

I think this notion that the church is able to stop fundamentalists from existing is kind of like asking that the Spanish Inquisition be brought back in. It's somewhat ridiculous to say the religion is responsible for the existence (or annihilation) of fundamentalists. Fundis exist in all sorts of organizations and belief systems, from ecology groups, to atheist groups. Fundamentalism is simply an intolerant, black and white mentality.

One thing to bear in mind regarding that fact, is that it's not the religion or the belief (such as atheism) that creates these sorts of thinkers. But the nature of the group itself that attracts them. The more vitriolic and self-righteous the group, the more fundis are attracted to it like a dust ball under your bed attracts more lint. So, I have in my personal experience dealt with just as rabid black and white intolerant fundamentalist atheists as I have with fundi Christians. They are the same people, just different hats they put on their heads, that's all.

So what's wrong with atheism that they can't keep their torch and pitchfork zealots off their evangelical crusade against religion? Is this a valid argument to make?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think this notion that the church is able to stop fundamentalists from existing is kind of like asking that the Spanish Inquisition be brought back in.

I agree, but this idea was suggested earlier in the thread, hence my response.

 

[Windwalker]

But here's the problem: in many religious contexts, it's valid to link one person's "moderate" religion to those of more extreme elements of their faith.

Why? Why and or how is this valid? I would love an explanation of this. Sam Harris who first said this, was nuts at the time. He has 'mellowed' a little since then. I've never gotten the logic of that.

For instance, a liberal Catholic who is personally in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion but tithes at Mass every Sunday is helping to fund campaigns against those issues he says he supports.

That's how? You believe that they are supporting fundamentalism through this? First of all, those technically aren't "fundamentalist" issues, as much as they represent conservative values. That is not technically the same thing. Secondly, if someone is part of an organization, any organization, that is using their money to fund things they personally are against, they should considering finding an organization consistent with their values. People change churches all the time. And thirdly, my opinion is that any religious organization using it's resources to wage political wars in society is not a religious organization at all, but an arm of political activists usurping religion for their own ends. This is NOT what I consider "moderate," let alone "liberal" religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's how? You believe that they are supporting fundamentalism through this?

I believe they're supporting negative actions of their church, yes. As I mentioned before, I don't really care what you call it - I don't want to get pulled off into a semantic debate about what is and isn't "fundamentalism".

First of all, those technically aren't "fundamentalist" issues, as much as they represent conservative values. That is not technically the same thing. Secondly, if someone is part of an organization, any organization, that is using their money to fund things they personally are against, they should considering finding an organization consistent with their values.

I agree. And until they do, I have no problem pointing out that they share responsibility for the activities that they fund.

People change churches all the time. And thirdly, my opinion is that any religious organization using it's resources to wage political wars in society is not a religious organization at all, but an arm of political activists usurping religion for their own ends. This is NOT what I consider "moderate," let alone "liberal" religion.

So you don't consider the Catholic Church to be a religious organization? That's a new one. If you redefine terms however you want, it's no wonder that you can think religion is positive.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe they're supporting negative actions of their church, yes. As I mentioned before, I don't really care what you call it - I don't want to get pulled off into a semantic debate about what is and isn't "fundamentalism".

Why wouldn't we want to be clear we're either talking about the same thing, or talking across each other to no end? If you say the church supports fundamentalists, I'm thinking very specific things, not just blanket calling everyone who has conservative values as fundamentalist. If you are speaking about conservatives in general, and just using the term fundamentalist to mean that, then you have to say for instance that the entire Republican party are fundamentalists. are you willing to use the word like this? Personally, I think that's extremely confusing. Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist, but I don't think we could say John Boehner is fundi.

So yes, let's be clear what you mean by fundamentalist.

I agree. And until they do, I have no problem pointing out that they share responsibility for the activities that they fund.

But again, this is not fundamentalist. Are many churches conservative? Sure. Are there liberal churches, sure yes. How are the liberal or even moderate churches responsible for fundi-nut jobs existing? Do the conservative churches attract fundis? I would say the answer to that is much more likely than moderator churches, which is what Harriss' bad argument claimed. As I pointed out before, groups that like to say "We're right and everyone is lost, delusional, or whatnot", are likely to attracted fundamentalist thinkers. In this regard then, certain atheist groups are equally responsible for fundis in their ranks as the radical conservative religious groups are. Ultra-black and white fundamentalist thinkers are attracted those groups who think everyone else but themselves is nuts. They fit right in. That's the only way I would say the group is responsible, for thinking like this themselves and attracting the radicals!

So you don't consider the Catholic Church to be a religious organization? That's a new one. If you redefine terms however you want, it's no wonder that you can think religion is positive.

Of course the Catholic Church is a religious organization, and for the most part it does hold traditional values, and moves along like a tortoise crawling on ice as it trying to progress. But again, that's not the same as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a radical extremism, making even conservatives wince.

I personally think there is a huge amount of room for non-black and white thinkers within an atheist thought. But what defines the neo-atheist movement, by and large, is what Orbit pointed out earlier, the radical materialist reductionist paradigm which looks at things like "spirituality" as "woo", and whatnot. The spiritual by very definition is anything BUT black and white clearly defined lines. There's no room for the spiritual, something so grey and unbounded in the minds of those who need True/False lines. That's true no matter what their beliefs in God are, or aren't. You think religious fundamentalists are spiritual? Think again. It's all "God's word says black and white". The flip side of that is, "You can't prove it with science! It's all woo. It's just the brain. Etc.".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why wouldn't we want to be clear we're either talking about the same thing, or talking across each other to no end? If you say the church supports fundamentalists, I'm thinking very specific things, not just blanket calling everyone who has conservative values as fundamentalist. If you are speaking about conservatives in general, and just using the term fundamentalist to mean that, then you have to say for instance that the entire Republican party are fundamentalists. are you willing to use the word like this? Personally, I think that's extremely confusing. Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist, but I don't think we could say John Boehner is fundi.

So yes, let's be clear what you mean by fundamentalist.

I generally try to avoid using the term, actually. I realize that it has a very specific meaning. In this last back-and-forth, what I actually said was "more extreme elements of their faith". It was you who introduced the term "fundamentalist", apparently to describe those "more extreme elements" I was talking about.



BTW: it seems we've ended up in the semantic debate I wanted to avoid. I'm trying to talk about negative effects of religion and how moderate and extreme religion can interact. I think the question of what is and isn't "fundamentalist" is a distraction here. It's not as if I'm going to say "oh - that negative effect of religion is caused by 'conservatives' and not 'fundamentalists'? I guess it's okay, then."

Of course the Catholic Church is a religious organization, and for the most part it does hold traditional values, and moves along like a

tortoise crawling on ice as it trying to progress. But again, that's not the same as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a radical extremism, making even conservatives wince.

I disagree on your definitions, but I don't care enough to argue about it. Bottom line: I care more about the actual effects of religious beliefs than the labels you choose to slap on them.

 

[Windwalker]

I disagree on your definitions, but I don't care enough to argue about it. Bottom line: I care more about the actual effects of religious beliefs than the labels you choose to slap on them.

Well, I do think it is important to speak in terms of categories of religion if there is to be any meaningful discussion of it. It avoids the sorts of things I take exception with the rhetoric from Dawkins about "religion". Not all religion is the same. And if he means fundamentalism, than I am in agreement with him. If he thinks all religion is the same thing that Pat Robertson believes in, that I am in disagreement with him. Terms matter for productive discussion. Just as I do not say atheism is black and white thinking. I make it clear I am speaking about a type of atheism which tends to be like that. How is any of this "semantics"? It's not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I do think it is important to speak in terms of categories of religion if there is to be any meaningful discussion of it.

I want to avoid getting pulled off into a sideshow arguing over whether a particular negative effect of religion is from "fundamentalism" or "conservatism".

It avoids the sorts of things I take exception with the rhetoric from Dawkins about "religion". Not all religion is the same. And if he means fundamentalism, than I am in agreement with him. If he thinks all religion is the same thing that Pat Robertson believes in, that I am in disagreement with him.

You say you've rethe God Delusion (and listened to the audiobook); you should be able to say what he's referring to.

Terms matter for productive discussion. Just as I do not say atheism is black and white thinking. I make it clear I am speaking about a type of atheism which tends to be like that. How is any of this "semantics"? It's not.

No dice. I'm not chasing you down this rabbit hole. I didn't want to have a semantic debate with you over the term "fundamentalist"; I'm sure as hell not going to have a semantic debate over the term "semantics". If you want to know what it means, read a dictionary. I'm not going to help you on this one.

 

[McBell]

Then why are you refuting what I said? How can you claim to know anything about what atheism is or isn't without having this knowledge? Answer: you can't.

Wait, are you claiming that one has to know what every single person of a specific belief (or lack of) system has before one can even comment on it?
If so, why are you commenting?

 

[Nakosis]

But here's the problem: in many religious contexts, it's valid to link one person's "moderate" religion to those of more extreme elements of their faith.

For instance, a liberal Catholic who is personally in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion but tithes at Mass every Sunday is helping to fund campaigns against those issues he says he supports.

Like when you pay taxes you are funding a war you may not agree with?

We can't control every aspect of where the money we give goes. Can't stop the funding just because some individual decides to use those funds inappropriately.

If you stop funding it also stops any good that comes from the money. Otherwise, why pay taxes if you can't guarantee every bit of your money is going to be used for good?

Lets do away with the United States because some individuals make bad choices with how our money is used. I suppose we see enough good coming out of it we tolerate the bad. Of course do what you can to alter it for the better, but don't defeat the good done based on principle.

 

[Nakosis]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.

So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

You have to speak at the appropriate level, understanding, competence of your audience if you want to get your ideas across.

A group that already accept the Bible as the Word of God, not a lot of persuasion necessary there. A lot of common truths already accepted.

People have different views of reality. I don't see anything odd about changing an argument depending on how you know your audience will relate to it. If you can't relate to your audience then there is no point in speaking.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like when you pay taxes you are funding a war you may not agree with?

Exactly the same... because you get thrown in jail if you don't tithe, right?

We can't control every aspect of where the money we give goes. Can't stop the funding just because some individual decides to use those funds inappropriately.

If it's foreseeable, and if you have a choice, you most certainly can. If you don't, you're responsible for what you enable with the money you give.

If you stop funding it also stops any good that comes from the money. Otherwise, why pay taxes if you can't guarantee every bit of your money is going to be used for good?

Diverting money away from tithes that support causes you disagree with and putting it toward some other organization doesn't "stop any good". It might actually have a net positive effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have to speak at the appropriate level, understanding, competence of your audience if you want to get your ideas across.

A group that already accept the Bible as the Word of God, not a lot of persuasion necessary there. A lot of common truths already accepted.

People have different views of reality. I don't see anything odd about changing an argument depending on how you know your audience will relate to it. If you can't relate to your audience then there is no point in speaking.

So why wouldn't they give the nuanced view to, say, the devout believer who's not only going to worship services every Sunday but also Bible study every Wednesday night?

 

[Sapiens]

Somewhere in his writings, Richard Dawkins makes the interesting point that, when he is speaking directly with a member of the Christian clergy or a Christian theologian, that person will often enough give a relatively sophisticated and nuanced view of some issue or feature of Christianity.

However, when the same person is talking, not to Dawkins, but to the average believer, they all too frequently discard the sophisticated and nuanced view of an issue or feature in favor of promoting a cruder yet more traditional view.

For instance, the same minister as will tell Dawkins to ignore crude ideas about hell and that "Hell is merely a metaphor for being separated from God" will too often turn around and tell their congregation that a literal lake of fire awaits them if they do not have faith in Jesus.


So is Dawkins right about that? Does that sort of thing happen more or less frequently? And what do you make of it, if anything?

I am familiar with most of Dawkins' writings and I do not recall reading this. Nevertheless, the exactly describes one of the Baptist preachers I know up in Kona.

Dawkins is himself inconsistent.

Please note exactly where.

He also is an atheist and in no position to judge someone on that subject that he does fully understand and never will. Next question.

I'd say that even the most ignorant atheist I've communicated with understands it better than you have expressed it in these forums, and Dawkins is far more knowledgeable that the most ignorant atheist I've communicated with.

I don't think so. Your example isn't just being inconsistent it's doing a total 360 on one's beliefs.
Theists don't generally do that in the context you've provided.

I'm suspecting that you meant 180?

true, that's the whole problem with framing one's belief negatively- a-theist

It's always far easier to scrutinize others' beliefs than your own

Unless you have not beliefs.

There is no point in arguing claimed specifics about any Christian doctrine when Dawkins cannot even get his arms around a supreme being.

But for much of the congregation, they see what Dawkins cannot see. They have reason to believe. Hence, one can go deeper with a believer when basic premises are established.

There is no point in arguing claimed specifics about any Christian doctrine when Dawkins cannot even get his arms around a supreme being.

But for much of the congregation, they see what Dawkins cannot see. They have reason to believe. Hence, one can go deeper with a believer when basic premises are established.

You mean drown in the BS instead of just wade in it?

I think Dawkins does the same thing. When conversing with his staunch atheist brethren he takes more of a mocking aggressive anti-theist position and stance as opposed to the position he would present when debating with let's say the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So would I, it's called being polite.

I have read Dawkins. It's the basis for my observation.

Read, perhaps. Understood? I rather doubt it. I could provide you with a rather simple end of term, essay exam on the subject and we could all grade your response publicly. Are you game?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It wasn't mine when I self-identified as an atheist, nor is it that of those I know who are atheists today. It appears to me to be the point of view of those who are ignorant of the roles and functions religion plays in people's lives on a symbolic level. I do wish to point out, this "delusion" is leveled specifically at a God belief, not just our general delusion all humans live under, which I'll go into more in a minute. I understood religion a little better than then even back then.

We all live under delusions and that part I accept. But as an atheist I lack a belief in god. I know others believe in god. The only way that I can logically adapt that is that they are deluded. Perhaps I am delusional myself from their perspective and the more arrogant of theists have not been few in number to tell me this.

Though part of the reason why I believe belief in god is delusional actually comes from two other sources.
1) There is quite a bit of study done on why we believe in god and it has ranged from the old school Freudian explanation of a psychological need for an ultimate father figure because in our psycho sexual development we felt either voided or abandoned by a paternal figure. Then there are more modern psychological explanations about our need to face certain life questions as well as our well constructed "bubble" of delusions that we live in that keep us "safe" from all kinds of harmful thoughts. Then of course we have the historical development of religion and its various roles throughout history. All of that together brings a powerful argument against religion and by extent the belief in god that is culturally significant today.

2) Is from personal experience. I was an avid believer in god at one time. Now I don't know how I was. I don't feel mentally superior to my older self for not believing in god as I went through several different phases of belief and non-belief that is still evolving to this day. But I can say for a fact that the "beliefs" that I had, especially when I was younger and into my teen years, were totally based in delusion that was constructed for me as a child and sheltered by our culture. I "felt" those experiences. I personally thought Jesus had spoken to me. And as I went through my life I have had more experiences that blow those juvenile experiences out of the water and it was in the total absence of Jesus. Though the second is more of a subjective case and I don't claim it to be the total truth but it is my personal and current opinion.

The same

criteria to say people who are religious are suffering from delusions can easily be applied to atheism too. I think someone wrote a book called the Dawkins Delusion, or the Atheist Delusion. I think sauce for the goose is the same sauce for the gander.

Heard of it and even skimmed parts of it. I have been meaning to read it. But the main reason why I don't think it evenly applies is because atheism isn't promoting the belief in anything. The lack of a belief in the popular belief wouldn't even fit the classical definition of a delusion. From what I read of the writings, and I admit fully here and now that it is from skimming, that it seemed a bit reaching as if it was based in a reactionary text to justify the criticisms without actually addressing them. Though again I could also be biased but that was my subjective take on it.

Well, that's a different argument, of course. I fully believe what people claim is knowing "reality", even with their sciences and well-reasoned logic arguments is an illusion. I could go in depth as to why, but the point is, that was not and is not the intent or anything at that level of insight that Dawkins was going on about in his book singling out God belief as a delusion. Did he say in there, "And so is the world as I understand it in my mind, so with the same criticism I level at them it too can be leveled at me"? I don't think he did. If he did, then I will gladly go a revisit his thoughts on the matter as that shows some actual depth!

The god delusion itself was crafted to show the ways that our minds can be led to believe things that are contrary to our observable universe. What he bases his beliefs on, at least as explained in the book, is empirical evidence. Though I suppose that it can only be argued that his justification or reliant nature on empiricism would be "delusional" in some way. Though if we begin to say "all reality is relative or deluded and who can say what is what beyond anything" it reduces everything to a moot point. That is where I stop enjoying debates and even general conversations with some mystics.

Not all mystics mind you. Some are very intelligent and have a lot to offer conversations in the way of philosophy. However there are a lot of them, I prefer to call them Psudo-mystics or usually Youtube-mystics, have their heads so far up their rear-ends that they can't tell which way is up. Relativism has to be rooted before it loses meaning. You yourself have been reasonable in my crossings with you and I would like further clarification on what you mean in this particular instance and if it is the total relativism that reduces empiricism to the same as subjective experiences in terms of value in an argument about what is pragmatic or reasonable, then I think we should just focus on other portions to this argument.

Why? People have all manner of experiences all the time, and they inform them about themselves and the world. Interpretations into these types of experiences will of course vary, from magical to mythical, to rational, to transrational, and so forth. But the experiences are not a delusion. They are actual experiences. Religious experiences are entirely valid experiences, and they have remarkable, and more often than not, incredibly powerful and positive effects on the person's life. Do you have any knowledge in this area? Any personal experiences? I have and do, and I'd enjoy hearing how I am qualify as delusional from a rationalist point of view. Don't forget, I am rational and self-identified as

atheist for many years.

It very much depends on what you claim to be true.

I understand that. But Dawkins isn't

polite about it. He's juvenile, arrogant and belittling, betraying his position of ignorance. Just watch that video that was shared early in how he and his friends are snickering and mocking the foolish things his detractors were emailing him. It's juvenile. That is not the criticism of a reasoned mind. It's childish and arrogant.

I am still waiting on this ignorant position of his.

Actually no, for many people God is Santa Clause, and the role and function Santa plays in a child's magical world is doing the same thing for adults with God, in similiar ways. It's they own level of relating to the Absolute with a face that they need to relate to on that level. God is seen as this externalized, "up there" giver of good things. And that is valid symbolically for them, but not as an absolute interpretation and understanding the nature of what the Infinite can and will represent for them in their growing experience.

You see, this is where you and I can launch off into great depth if you're so interested. I see atheism as really that iintermediary step between casting off the adult version of the Santa myth in understanding God, to a more adult understanding. But it's not really mature, yet. It's still in the "Santa Clause is stupid!" phase. It hasn't seen the underlying truths that myths like Santa speak in human experience. It's stuck in differentiation. Dawkins is like the 'smarter' 6 year old telling their 4 year old sibling, "Santa is a lie!", feeling powerful for being so smart.

In way yes. But you seem to be implying than an 8 year old will somehow re-affirm his belief in "santa" but in a differnet way as if this "atheistic" phase is a temporary adjustment to understanding. This however is not the case. There are those that "loose" faith as they shed their rudimentary understanding of a god figure that doesn't match up to the real world and then need to adjust their understanding in order keep it. But the basis in which Dawkins has led to Atheism is rooted rather in empirical evidence or the lack thereof.

He is uninformed when you move beyond picking on the easy targets such as a 6000 year old earth as literal historic fact. He is good, as you say at debunking that mindset. But his limitation is that he thinks that mindset is all that religion is, and that's where he falls flat on his face as he continues to stand proudly on his accomplishment in ripping up the Sunday School picture book images of God. As I quoted a Christian Scholar, Elaine Pagels before, "He's not speaking of any God I believe in". That's a problem, don't you think?

God, where would I begin. Maybe you could offer some of his comments you think are valid and let's see how I would respond to it? Sound okay?

I have more I can add but I'm out of time.

This willl save a lot of time if you find something he has said because I don't think he has said it. And the belief in a 6000 year old world, actual transfiguration of the sacraments into blood/flesh, belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead and did not have a father but an X and Y gene from a mother with only X genes ect ect ect are actual beliefs held by the majority of the practitioners The 6k year old earth a little less so but frighteningly more popular than I think anyone wants to admit.

 

[Windwalker]

Though part of the reason why I believe belief in god is delusional actually comes from two other sources.
<snip>
All of that together brings a powerful argument against religion and by extent the belief in god that is culturally significant today.

Actually, I'm not sure why you conclude that taking into account all those 'reasons' for why God is created is an argument "against" religion? Let me explain a little further. I'll say outside of the classic reductionist approach to address why we think or perceive in certain patterns and forms (god figures and whatnot), I find it curious why these understandings work "against" religion in some people's mind. There is a difference between an explanation of cause and effect relationships, and explaining away the validity of something through so-called debunking and dismissive conclusions using science to buttress ones point of view. One is scientific, the other is political.

It could be argued that understanding these reasons validates the need to believe in God, actually. It could be argued that to be dismissive of something so deeply ingrained in us is to set ourselves against our own inherited nature and causes an imbalance in us as we deny ourselves through being so rational we in effect conclude it's good to cut off our own hands and feet because we don't know how to use them properly in an unfamiliar terrain. You see? The research can be taken to support either position. I find it a little frustrating when people say science shows x,y,and z, when in reality, that is their own interpretation of it supporting their personal beliefs. And that's fine for them to have these beliefs, but I think it's good to say that's what they are rather than saying "sciences shows" and then to magically make their own worldviews no longer part of it.

2) Is from personal experience. I was an avid

believer in god at one time. Now I don't know how I was. I don't feel mentally superior to my older self for not believing in god as I went through several different phases of belief and non-belief that is still evolving to this day. But I can say for a fact that the "beliefs" that I had, especially when I was younger and into my teen years, were totally based in delusion that was constructed for me as a child and sheltered by our culture. I "felt" those experiences. I personally thought Jesus had spoken to me. And as I went through my life I have had more experiences that blow those juvenile experiences out of the water and it was in the total absence of Jesus. Though the second is more of a subjective case and I don't claim it to be the total truth but it is my personal and current opinion.

Let me explain my position a little better as I think it may help. I really like how you point out you had religious experiences that blow away those earlier experience, but in a context outside the active "Jesus" belief. You're preaching to the choir here. I'm looking forward to going in depth with you on this as you seem a reasonable and thoughtful person. How I understand these things today, what I've come to understand in reconciling religious experiences with belief structures is just that. They are belief structures.

Christianity, for instance in all the attendant symbolic structures and doctrinal truths, does not own God, so to speak. Someone who is an atheist, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or any human being outside of any religious system at all, can equally have these state experiences of the 'transcendent', or the ineffable, the timeless, the infinite, the absolute, God, or whatever term one wants to call it. They are the same experiences, in one degree or another, from a oneness experience with the world, to a self-identification as the absolute in ones own self. And when each person has these, they will interpret these, after the fact of them, within the context of their current belief structures, and their own personal development within those.

What the "delusion" is, in reality, is not the experience of "God", but the interpretation of it as a literal understanding of what that was. You yourself, as a young Christian heard "Jesus" speak to you. Then later, outside the system, you began to understand them within a different structural context. The Buddhist may see a thousand-armed Bodhisattva, while the devout Catholic may see Mother Mary. Each had a state experience of the subtle nature, and each then subsequently understood them within the context of their respective symbolic frameworks. This is not delusional. It's natural.

What your complaint is, I believe, is that to say that shows that the Bible is 100% factual because you saw Jesus Christ in a mystical vision. You're right. That's a bad conclusion. But the answer is that problem is not to say, "It's all just the brain. It's not real. God is a delusion". That to me is just as bad a conclusion as saying it proves Jesus physically rose from the grave. The experience is in a fact a real experience. What is understood about it is a matter of development and maturity. Throwing out that baby with the bathwater of myth to me is irrational. It's not the experience that's suspect, but how well how we understand it is helpful to us in integrating it into a modern context. That's a very different approach, one I see as far more healthy and reasonable, and why you hear me chaff against this "it's a delusion" argument which seeks to dismiss anything spiritual as hooey, or 'woo'.

Heard of it and even skimmed parts of it. I have been meaning to read it. But the main reason why I don't think it evenly applies is because atheism isn't promoting the belief in anything.

I hear this all the time, and I used to argue the same thing myself. But in reality, as I pointed out before, anytime something because a self-identification with a group, which is what this becomes particularly today when you have sites dedicated to atheists, forums for atheists, etc., group dynamics will always come into play and an average mean belief structure will emerge. Even though ostensibly it's an open-ended position of 'merely disbelieve in God', people build up around that a certain philosophy that begins to act against those who don't fit into that very well. The weak atheist versus the strong atheist, the 'spiritual atheist' as still dabbling with his silly past and not fully enlightened to the true rationality of that atheist life, or atheist path, and so forth. That mainstream philosophy is one of naturalism, positivism, philosophical materialism, and a rising tide of anti-theism.

I am speaking of this as a former insider, who found it anything but a "freethought" environment, and really little more than Christianity without God. Same thing, just different tenants of faith at play. It's certainly consistent in my experience with what others say as objective outsiders. I've just dropped the label myself as I don't fit into the 'group'. I'm not objecting to it as a whole, but I think its more productive to be more realistic about the nature of it, rather than hiding it behind saying 'it's merely disbelief in God'. That didn't hold up very well in my experience, even though it was the argument I stood by too.

The god delusion itself was crafted to show the ways that our minds can be led to believe things that are contrary to our observable universe. What he bases his beliefs on, at least as explained in the book, is empirical evidence. Though I suppose that it can only be argued that his justification or reliant nature on empiricism would be "delusional" in some way. Though if we begin to say "all reality is relative or deluded and who can say what is what beyond anything" it reduces everything to a moot point. That is where I stop enjoying debates and even general conversations with some mystics.

Here's where this will get interesting. I agree that dismissing everything as relative is unhelpful. Even though I certainly do understand and accept the relative nature of our perceptual realities (note the plural use of reality). I think dismissing science on this basis is equally as ill-conceived as dismissing religion using science is. First, as you are probably aware from other times on the site you've encountered me that I will self-identify as a mystic. If any label that fits because it really can straddle over many domains and beliefs without being pigeonholed into an 'ism'.

You will note that I state under my name I say Integral Aperspectival. What that means is I take into account the relative nature of all our truths and realities, such as the materialist view, the atheist view, the theist view, etc, and do not afford anyone of them special privilege as being "The Truth", or Reality. But, the Integral part of this is where I say we have to say something to give structure and meaning to the world, to give some weighted value to certain perspectives over others. That does not mean however that that is now The Truth. It still recognizes that our perceptions of reality are just that, and that we can never say with absolutistic authority that a particular perception or view is the One Ring to Rule them All. The power hierarchy of belief domination is seen as a simple artifact of those various modes of perceptual truth about themselves, "we're right and you're wrong".

So, when I hear someone say that the religious is not 'facing reality', I smile with some amusement. What they are in reality not facing, is that person's perceptual reality. What they are not doing, is adopting the structures of perception the same as the accuser. That's the delusion. That Dawkins has "objective truth", which when one truly examines it, does not, nor ever can truly exist. And that is in effect, simply shifting the wholly transcendent God out of our theistic mythic structures, into yet another external 'law giver' that we seek to inform us about truth. God moves from "up there", to down here in the myth of the pregiven world that is just laying around waiting to tell us all there is to know about who we are, using science to turn the pages of its text to read it's revealed truths to us, like priests turning the pages of the Bible.

Now, I can go on at much greater length here, and would certainly enjoy that with you as someone engaged in thoughtful discussion, but I have to try to keep from writing what will amount to a book. But the takeaway of this brief explanation of my views is that we can and should in fact say something about the world. Certain views have more utility, more usefulness than others depending on the contexts. But what I will emphasise is that even our very best, most inclusive models of truth and reality, are not, and cannot function realistically as the One Ring to Rule them All, to others, or to ourselves! We have to hold our ideas of reality with an open hand, not a closed fist to pound others with. Discussion can and should be had, but Absolutistic, black and white notions of what are at the beginning and end our own relative models of truth and reality, should not become weapons over others. We are best served holding even our views with an opened hand, especially when we think we've got it all figured out now.

Not all mystics mind you. Some are very intelligent and have a lot to offer conversations in the way of philosophy.

I trust you can included me amongst that number.

However there are a lot of them, I prefer to call them Psudo-mystics or usually Youtube-mystics, have their heads so far up their rear-ends that they can't tell which way is up. Relativism has to be rooted before it loses meaning.

I completely agree. This is what I tried to lay out in the previous section. But again, we have to be careful that 'rooted' is not mistaken as "I have the Truth!". Even mythic belief systems have to be rooted and grounded within their systems. You see where this will go yet? To me as a mystic, who is both rational and scientific in thought, being rooted and grounded for me is first and foremost in my own being, irrespective of any and all relative truths and realities. My ground is the Ground of Being, not a belief system. But that's not the same for those who are not mystically oriented. Their rootedness and groundedness will being within their respective structures of reality for them, their systems of truth and reality. To me the only Absolute, is that which is itself not a propositional truth, but can embrace all relative truths. It is is not something you 'believe in', but rather something you are.

You yourself have been reasonable in my crossings with you and I would like further clarification on what you mean in this particular instance and if it is the total relativism that reduces empiricism to the same as subjective experiences in terms of value in an argument about what is pragmatic or reasonable, then I think we should just focus on other portions to this argument.

I hope I was able to articulate this somewhat for you. Again, I don't believe on the scale of weighted value that a higher truth is the same as a lower truth (I'm talking natural hierarchies here, not power structures of this is true and that if false and should therefore be done away with). My emphasis is to understand that all our understandings of "reality" are themselves relative, even though they may be better than others within the appropriate context. I think in the context of a modern world, rational systems are better than mythic systems. So as I said before, I believe atheism is a step forward, but it hardly is now to be considered the Truth, in the sense it can claim against others, "I'm facing reality!". No, it's redefining it. It's trying to find a way out of the mythic past and into the context of Modernity. That's the beginning of how I see and understand this.

I hope this helps, and I'd enjoying digger deeper with you. I leave it at this for now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, I'm not sure why you conclude that taking into account all those 'reasons' for why God is created is an argument "against" religion? Let me explain a little further. I'll say outside of the classic reductionist approach to address why we think or perceive in certain patterns and forms (god figures and whatnot), I find it curious why these understandings work "against" religion in some people's mind. There is a difference between an explanation of cause and effect relationships, and explaining away the validity of something through so-called debunking and dismissive conclusions using science to buttress ones point of view. One is scientific, the other is political.

It could be argued that understanding these reasons validates the need to believe in God, actually. It could be argued that to be dismissive of something so deeply ingrained in us is to set ourselves against our own inherited nature and causes an imbalance in us as we deny ourselves through being so rational we in effect conclude it's good to cut off our own hands and feet because we don't know how to use them properly in an unfamiliar terrain. You see? The research can be taken to support either position. I find it a little frustrating when people say science shows x,y,and z, when in reality, that is their own interpretation of it supporting their personal beliefs. And that's fine for them to have these beliefs, but I think it's good to say that's what they are rather than saying "sciences shows" and then to magically make their own worldviews no longer part of it.

I can't agree that belief in god is a powerful cultural impact. However we begin now to understand "why" they believed such things. Psychology has taken steps forwards to understand "why" religion is still so prevalent and perhaps more evidently, an individual person. And those research opportunities find that there are other reasons to belief in god rather than actual experience based evidence.

And to me when we talk about something "ingrained" within us that seems to replay in the history of religion and spirituality, but no real evidence outside of our own minds begin to tell me that it is within our minds. Thus the concept of the god delusion brought forth in a real explanation of human behavior.

Let me explain my position a little better as I think it may help.

<SNIPPED FOR ROOM>
That's a very different approach, one I see as far more healthy and reasonable, and why you hear me chaff against this "it's a delusion" argument which seeks to dismiss anything spiritual as hooey, or 'woo'.

To add on I have had amazing experiences not only with other religions but in non-religious settings as well. My subjective conclusion based on it is that I myself have this experiences. I have had an acid trip once. Its not something I'm particularly proud of and I have never been a junkie and honestly when I did it I wanted to see what it was like. Well it wasn't fun and I don't really recommend it but the reality that I went through. I like the way you talk about "realities". Anything we ever perceive is our individual reality and that changes over time. Some quicker than others. During this acid trip it was something beyond anything I had ever thought. It wasn't like a high from a pain medicine or marijuana it was legitimate belief in what I was seeing and feeling but none of it existed outside my head. This is one of the reasons why hallucinogens were used in the past for Shamans and other spiritual leaders.

I don't think less of people who are religious and believe in god except when it interferes with quality of life of themselves or others. There are harmful beliefs in god. But most are not. If someone takes comfort in god and the idea of heaven because their child had just been shot, who am I to take that from them?

I hear this all the time, and I used to argue the same thing myself. But in reality, as I pointed out before, anytime something because a self-identification with a group, which is what this becomes

particularly today when you have sites dedicated to atheists, forums for atheists, etc., group dynamics will always come into play and an average mean belief structure will emerge. Even though ostensibly it's an open-ended position of 'merely disbelieve in God', people build up around that a certain philosophy that begins to act against those who don't fit into that very well. The weak atheist versus the strong atheist, the 'spiritual atheist' as still dabbling with his silly past and not fully enlightened to the true rationality of that atheist life, or atheist path, and so forth. That mainstream philosophy is one of naturalism, positivism, philosophical materialism, and a rising tide of anti-theism.

The problem with this is that there are "groups" of atheists. But the term "Atheist" applies to them and many other. The majority of "atheists" probably don't even call themselves "atheists". They usually don't care and simply keep to themselves about it. Where I work it I spent years there and through some conversations with some of the people that became my friends I find out they are atheists or if they don't call themselves that they simply say "I dunno if I believe anything. I mean I think "x" is bull**** but..". This is the extent of atheism. IF you are part of a community then you do start to have defined beliefs.

Its an interesting story as to how I became an "atheist" by self description. I enjoy debate. That is my vice. I enjoy it and spend hours doing it and jumped from all different kinds of sites where I could debate. The most interesting usually was the political debates and that helped me really see who I am inside on my own political views. I often go into a debate believing one thing but change my mind after a good argument. I've even made an *** of myself on more than one occasion because of things that I believed or claimed to be true that simply were not. It was a great learning experience. Then I started going into the philosophy sections of the debate forums which were a lot like the political sections but without the heated personal aspect of it that people get into. However most of the time people tended to sway into total relativism and head or assness.

And it was the section of the site that I usually avoided was religion. And its because back at that time I didn't know what I believed I on the one had didn't believe what I used to but didn't know what I believed now and still had some childhood scars and fear of "hell" if I ever actively went against christianity. But slowly I sunk into it and enjoyed it. Again I made an *** of myself on more than one occasion and went through a long metamorphosis of ever changing understanding of the topic. I think for nearly a year I was a very hard anti-theist that was very very sure of himself and his position. But even that changed. Now I don't like to even label myself an atheist in real life simply because of the misunderstanding of the term and what it means. But I know that is the accurate term but it doesn't really describe who "I" am or even my real thoughts on this complex discussion with a near infinite amount of opinions.

I am speaking of this as a former insider, who found it anything but a "freethought"

environment, and really little more than Christianity without God. Same thing, just different tenants of faith at play. It's certainly consistent in my experience with what others say as objective outsiders. I've just dropped the label myself as I don't fit into the 'group'. I'm not objecting to it as a whole, but I think its more productive to be more realistic about the nature of it, rather than hiding it behind saying 'it's merely disbelief in God'. That didn't hold up very well in my experience, even though it was the argument I stood by too.

From what I said before I still take atheism to be a lack of belief in god. We can talk about different sections of atheism and It took me nearly two years to figure out what "atheist" really meant. And I can't agree with you on that atheism is a qualifier for any kind of belief. We can have popular thoughts and beliefs of a group of individuals but surely you know it is far to complicated than that just as I can't really say any universal thing about mystics even.

Here's where this will get interesting.

<SNIPPED FOR ROOM>
We are best served holding even our views with an opened hand, especially when we think we've got it all figured out now.

We can get lost in our thoughts and really just float away. However the only way we have ever brought about "truth" or rather "accurate" (as the second is a better way to describe it) understanding of the universe and the world around us has been through empiricism. It goes back to the great Socratics of ancient greece. Aristotle the first empiricist was the one that was able to take the great thought and understanding of philosophy and bind it to the real world to make real discoveries of substantial nature. I don't trust my own mind. I don't fully trust my sanity because my reality is exactly what it is, personal to me. And it is NEVER exactly what it "really" is objectively. So the only way I can trust something to be true outside of myself except by something objective (at least in the best way our relativist nature can see) that others can verify. This lets me know if something exists. But this doesn't mean I discount the possibility of there being more. I fully believe its possible there could be a god. I just don't have faith that there is one. I have an active belief that no one has it "right" simply by the nature of what we are discussing.

Something that sets me apart from other atheists is my supernatural experiences (and I hate the world supernatural) but specific paranormal. I have done a lot of paranormal investigations and I grew up in what some call a "haunted house". I have seen things I can't explain. But I don't want to take that leap into something beyond what I can empirically verify. There is a lot of mystery to this world and I don't want to get caught up in my own mind when finding out what is outside my mind would be far more gratifying.

I trust you can included me amongst that number.

So far I can yes

I completely agree. This is what I tried to lay out in the previous section. But again, we have to be careful that 'rooted' is not mistaken as "I have the Truth!". Even mythic belief systems have to be rooted and grounded within their systems. You see where this will go yet? To me as a mystic, who is both rational and

scientific in thought, being rooted and grounded for me is first and foremost in my own being, irrespective of any and all relative truths and realities. My ground is the Ground of Being, not a belief system. But that's not the same for those who are not mystically oriented. Their rootedness and groundedness will being within their respective structures of reality for them, their systems of truth and reality. To me the only Absolute, is that which is itself not a propositional truth, but can embrace all relative truths. It is is not something you 'believe in', but rather something you are.

By rooted I mean something outside your own mind. Your mind can go anywhere you want it to. You can build an incredible structure with many walls, intricate piping and have it on a cloud and it just fall through and all of that construction be for naught.

I hope I was able to articulate this somewhat for you. Again, I don't believe on the scale of weighted value that a higher truth is the same as a lower truth (I'm talking natural

hierarchies here, not power structures of this is true and that if false and should therefore be done away with). My emphasis is to understand that all our understandings of "reality" are themselves relative, even though they may be better than others within the appropriate context. I think in the context of a modern world, rational systems are better than mythic systems. So as I said before, I believe atheism is a step forward, but it hardly is now to be considered the Truth, in the sense it can claim against others, "I'm facing reality!". No, it's redefining it. It's trying to find a way out of the mythic past and into the context of Modernity. That's the beginning of how I see and understand this.

I hope this helps, and I'd enjoying digger deeper with you. I leave it at this for now.

Yes this has been helpful.

 

[Nakosis]

Exactly the same... because you get thrown in jail if you don't tithe, right?

What's a bit of jail time if you feel strongly enough about your cause? However there is always an excuse to be found to justify your support.

If it's foreseeable, and if you have a choice, you most certainly can. If you don't, you're responsible for what you enable with the money you give.

Why would it be foreseeable? You can assuming knowledge of where the money goes to support. Not every Christian organization is anti-gay. Even the Catholic church is trying to welcome Gay folks in.

Diverting money away from tithes that support causes you disagree with and putting it toward some other organization doesn't "stop any good". It might actually have a net positive effect.

Sure with religion it is easy enough to find among the many different ideologies an organization to support. No worries about jail time either.