Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
Stairs In My House said:
(atheist here)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Moderates give cover to religious fanatics
- Thread starter LogDog
- Start date
(atheist here)
Scuba Pete said:
Science isn't presented as "proof against any belief in god." Belief is a choice. Science is presented as reason to doubt the god hypothesis. Science can't rule out the possibility of a god just as it can't rule out the possibility of the invisible pink unicorn.
I have read both books, and I would say that it doesn't seem very out of context, as this is essentially what he says.
More comments:
Harris, I believe, is a student in neuroscience, so I don't exactly know what he did for a living before selling tons of books. Clearly he does believe that, imo, that science has all answers and is mostly positive and compares the worst of religion with the best of atheism. (For instance, he is careful not to equate or mention the civil rights movement or the struggle against apartheid with religion, only mentions witch trials, the crusades). And he writes off things like communism as secular religions, so by definition their is no "bad atheism" or "atheism gone awry".
In End of Faith, he writes off metaphorically reading of the Bible, say, with a recipe for cooking shrimp. Of course, he is using reduction to the absurd but I didn't find it too compelling. In his view the only approriate reading of these things is totally literal.
As Reza Azlan says "I don't write books about neuroscience for a reason, I don't know anything about neuroscience". He handled him easily in a debate.
--des
More comments:
Harris, I believe, is a student in neuroscience, so I don't exactly know what he did for a living before selling tons of books. Clearly he does believe that, imo, that science has all answers and is mostly positive and compares the worst of religion with the best of atheism. (For instance, he is careful not to equate or mention the civil rights movement or the struggle against apartheid with religion, only mentions witch trials, the crusades). And he writes off things like communism as secular religions, so by definition their is no "bad atheism" or "atheism gone awry".
In End of Faith, he writes off metaphorically reading of the Bible, say, with a recipe for cooking shrimp. Of course, he is using reduction to the absurd but I didn't find it too compelling. In his view the only approriate reading of these things is totally literal.
As Reza Azlan says "I don't write books about neuroscience for a reason, I don't know anything about neuroscience". He handled him easily in a debate.
--des
robtex said:
lilithu said:
I was suggesting that science is not presented to disprove personal belief but instead to challenge the god hypothesis. I wasn't trying to convince anyone that disbelief isn't a choice.
lilithu said:
I would question the notion that science does not contradict the claim that an invisible god "designed" the universe in seven day and created man "of dust from the ground." I would also qestion the notion that science does not contradict the claims of virgin birth, resurrection and miracles.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Alright. Tho another atheist on another thread is saying that disbelief is not a choice, and I tend to agree with him.LogDog said:
You didn't say anything about creation in six (not seven) days or a virgin birth in your previous post. Yes, scientific theory contradicts a literalist interpretation of the creation story. That's not the same thing as saying that it contradicts the existence of God.LogDog said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
No it doesn't. Science has no idea what caused the earth to exist. Anything to the contrary is pseudo science.LogDog said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Sorry, dear lilithu, but the explanations of the big bang, etc do nothing to portray the existence of a creator as superfluous. There are indeed no editorial implications about the nature or the existence of God within them.lilithu said:
robtex
Veteran Member
Just to guide this thread a bit to the direction of the op of "moderates give cover to religious fanatics" can I ask for us to get a concensus on fanatic and moderate?
I am going to antee up that the measurement, subjectivly speaking between fanatic and moderate is such that a moderate has room for flexiablity in agenda whereas a fanatic does not or if does only by very small margins.
By subjective implication in terms of religion and the USA (assumeing this is from Harris' "letter to a christian nation") I would dub fanatic as:
1) a theist who is pro- dominion theology
2) pro theocracy
3) anti securlarism
whereas a moderate is by comparsion
1) dominion on a personal level but not a national level at the most
2) non-theocracy at the national level
3) indifference or support of secular (seperation of church and state) goverment
in as far as by dominion theology or theocracy one religion reigns as the supreme religion over subservent religions and non-religious
and,
with theocratic or dominion theology have impact on the specific areas of goverment of:
a) medicine
b) science
c) art
d) social programs including welefare, and govemental monolpolized enterprises like the irs or cps.
what aspects of this do you accept and reject and how would you reformat my premise to make it accurate by your calcuations and peceptions?
I am going to antee up that the measurement, subjectivly speaking between fanatic and moderate is such that a moderate has room for flexiablity in agenda whereas a fanatic does not or if does only by very small margins.
By subjective implication in terms of religion and the USA (assumeing this is from Harris' "letter to a christian nation") I would dub fanatic as:
1) a theist who is pro- dominion theology
2) pro theocracy
3) anti securlarism
whereas a moderate is by comparsion
1) dominion on a personal level but not a national level at the most
2) non-theocracy at the national level
3) indifference or support of secular (seperation of church and state) goverment
in as far as by dominion theology or theocracy one religion reigns as the supreme religion over subservent religions and non-religious
and,
with theocratic or dominion theology have impact on the specific areas of goverment of:
a) medicine
b) science
c) art
d) social programs including welefare, and govemental monolpolized enterprises like the irs or cps.
what aspects of this do you accept and reject and how would you reformat my premise to make it accurate by your calcuations and peceptions?
robtex
Veteran Member
Pete, if I could ask about a real life incident to you and how it relates to this. Last year, you quit your christian church because the church, as a congration via its leadership supported the war in Iraq on moral grounds. I would stipulate that in the realm of religion the general postulation and the specfic postulation of your old congregation was that of "god's will" . What I mean is that they largely felt it was "god's will" to be in the Iraq war or that the USA was preforming God's will by consent to involvement in the war.
You left the church based on their moral support of that war. As a hypothcial, if you had stayed in the church would you feel you had consented to the war in iraq by non-dissent and by association ?
If so, and if one postulates that the idea of "it is gods will for the usa to invade Iraq" is a statement of a fanatic than the ones who reject, ideologically this statement, but stand behind the church by attendance and tithing are moderates that provide cover for religous fanatics (which doesn't include you as you left this organization).
You left the church based on their moral support of that war. As a hypothcial, if you had stayed in the church would you feel you had consented to the war in iraq by non-dissent and by association ?
If so, and if one postulates that the idea of "it is gods will for the usa to invade Iraq" is a statement of a fanatic than the ones who reject, ideologically this statement, but stand behind the church by attendance and tithing are moderates that provide cover for religous fanatics (which doesn't include you as you left this organization).
robtex
Veteran Member
I think, in the christian the methodist church puts the biggest dent in the moderates give cover to fanatics theory.
For instance the methodist church by mutual exclusion promotes darwin day (soucre www.darwinday.org)
is not anti-abortion, pro-humanism and doesn't support dominon theology by postuation of non-witnessing within the church structure.
If one such christian, the predominate religion of the usa, is non-theocracy, non-dominion in structure, by mutual exclusion (my favorite phrase this morning)this surely creates a measurement of "moderates give cover to fanatics" in margin as opposed to absolutes.
For instance the methodist church by mutual exclusion promotes darwin day (soucre www.darwinday.org)
is not anti-abortion, pro-humanism and doesn't support dominon theology by postuation of non-witnessing within the church structure.
If one such christian, the predominate religion of the usa, is non-theocracy, non-dominion in structure, by mutual exclusion (my favorite phrase this morning)this surely creates a measurement of "moderates give cover to fanatics" in margin as opposed to absolutes.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Pete, I did not say that there were any editorial comments about the existence of a creator in science. A Creator is not mentioned within the explanations of the big bang, etc, because a Creator is not necessary for scientific explanation. Something that is not necessary is by definition superfluous.Scuba Pete said:
That doesn't make God superfluous to us (or to the universe for that matter). But it does mean that belief in God is not necessary to explain physical existence.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Robtex, ya know I love your post, and I am very much against the argument that moderates give cover to fanatics and therefore all religionists are dangerous.robtex said:
Still I must point out the irony that George W. Bush is a Methodist. :cover: To back up your point, however, I'd say that the majority of Methodists are not happy with Bush.
JAMES HATFIELD
April 24, 2001
Dubya often talks the talk, but seldom walks the walk of his "faith"
Dubya and I have one thingand only one thingin common : We're both members of the United Methodist Church.
You might think the election of only the third Methodist to the nation's highest office would be a source of pride.
Think again, folks.
In a exceptional display of candor, the United Methodist News Service distanced the denomination from Dubya in the wake of the election debacle and went so far as to even point out his political views are more akin to those of the staunch conservative Southern Baptist Convention. (The United Methodists, with 8.4 million members, are the second largest Protestant denomination, after the Southern Baptist Convention, and are considered the "more liberal" of the two.)
The Methodists officially oppose capital punishment and handgun ownership. Dubya supports both. And the list of disagreements continues with abortion rights, gays in the military, school vouchers, even Social Security policy.
"Having a United Methodist in office does not mean the president's policies will reflect those of the church," read the statement from the news agency. (Note : Vice-President Dick Cheney is also identified as a United Methodist in his biographical material, but his office has never answered queries from the United Methodist News Service regarding his local church membership.)
http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/pearly/htmls2/bush-methodist.html
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Methodist leaders to Bush: Repent[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Clergy claim president's policies 'incompatible' with church teachings[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]Posted: June 6, 2003
[/SIZE][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif] [SIZE=-1] © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times][FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE] [/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]A group of leaders from President George W. Bush's denomination, the United Methodist Church, have signed a magazine ad asking the chief executive to "repent" of what they consider policies "incompatible" with Christian teaching, reports the Christian Times.
[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The group of 120 signatories to the document, entitled "A Prophetic Epistle from United Methodists Calling Our Brother George W. Bush to Repent," includes seven United Methodist Church bishops.[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]"It is our judgment that some policies advanced by your administration give evidence of the spiritual forces of wickedness that exist in our society today," the ad read, according to the report.[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The signers also include two UMC leaders who were arrested during an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C., this year. They claim Bush is "threatening the very earth and all its inhabitants with open discussion of the usage of nuclear weapons."[/FONT][FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times]The Methodist leaders don't think much of Bush's domestic policies, either, saying they are "incongruent with Jesus' teaching" because they allegedly lack the kind of compassion Jesus taught, said the Christian Times report.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32946
[/FONT]
robtex
Veteran Member
I think at this point I am more apt to take a middle ground and think that there may be a forumla or application of religiousity that is more apt to make the op valid but I am still thinking on what that formula is. However, I can see by posters on here that viewing this terms of absolutes or near absolutes has been the method of choice for the most part in both the pro and the con.lilithu said:
lilithu said:
not much of a noteworthy tangent. I don't think you could find 5 posters on here that would argue that Bush is philosophically speaking, congruent to the methodist ideals of christianty.
a more interesting angle on methodist interpertation of the gospels is what makes them, if one finds them not giving cover to fanatics different than others that may be more apt to give such cover to fanatics and is the contrast a paradigm from which we can construct a model that would make the statment "religious moderates give cover to religious fanatics" for the most part true?
I would say in the christian paradigm that methodists are the "reform jews of christianty." What I mean by that is that their alligence to the validtity and merit of dogma is dimished in both importanance and spirtual practice.
Lets me propose to you, for the purpose of debate,that assassination of abortion doctors is fanatical. I am going to assume from your past postings on rf that you agree with this premise but realize in this debate thread not everyone will agree at the same level that you and i will and that is the subjective nature of proposing fanatical.
Now lets say you have a room with a
methodist
catholic
baptist (southern or first)
aog (army of god) member.
and that the 4 indivduals by and large beliefs are congruent to the doctrine and practice so their church so that the methodist is for abortion, the catholic and baptist against and the aog is against and sees the action of abortion as a war on god. Each propose dogma exist in congruence to the doctrine and practice of their church which is to say that the methodist by and large subscription to dogma and by association absolute morality is marginal by comparision.
Of this the aog openly advocates that assassinations of abortion doctors is not immoral.
In regards to the op I think it would be fair to state that the methodists gives less cover or less spirtual advocation to the idea of assassination of abortion doctors than the catholic or baptist by marginazation of both dogma, and the immorality of abortion as well as the idea that man can discover the will of God and invoke it on earth.
now even if the baptist and the catholic say, "hey assassination of abortion doctors is going to far only god can judge" they still tithe the church which politically (while evading taxes) proposes via lobbying efforts and in their houses of worship that abortion is evil and wrong and use their money and influences for such which sends the message to the aog that he is not on the fringe with his beliefs only that he feels direct intervention is neccessary despite the baptist and catholic views on such.
the sheer number of the congregations and populations of such further the aog postulation and even if that aog in our hypothical room doesn't want to personally assassinate an abortion doctor if his friend does and he is looking for spirtual justification he won't find it in the methodist crowd but will find it in the ideology of the catholic church and baptist minus the direct intervention and supported by the vast congreations of which he can not nor will not stop to view each members personal viewpoint. the members by association adopt the canon of their repective institutions by viewpoint of the outsiders both in the institutions offical political stances (of which there are many and frequent) and cultural socialization.
If this assessment is speculated as correct than I would ante up as a first posulation that dogma, the mere finding merit in the idea of dogma, irregardless of the dogma prescirbed and the organizations that do, add credence to the idea of moderates covering fanatics (in as far as catholics and baptists don't advocate assassination abortion doctors but aog does) and by inverse the divorce from meriting dogma denies credence to the idea that moderates cover fanatics.
The reason dogma provides credence to the idea of moderates covering practices and ideals of fanatics is that dogma is an assigment of divine revelation and as such has equal validity to all other dogma from outside third parties but less than those who prescribe to the dogma of their organization and furthered by the idea that collectivley organizations that strongly promote dogma, by their promotion alone validate others dogma by protaganizing their own dogma under the general umbrella of "dogma should be protaganized".
PeaceSeeker
Member
lilithu said:
Agreed...all we know about God and beliefs are what we have been conditioned into.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
The tone of the OP usually determines the tone of the responses to the OP. A perceived attack generally makes people defensive. And I'm sorry but there is no way that I can view the OP as anything other than an attack against all religion (or at least all Abrahamic religion, since so many people view the term "religion" as synonymous with the Abrahamic faiths).robtex said:
If you want a reasoned discussion on the ways in which religious moderates may unwittingly act to aid religious extremists, I think you will have to post the argument yourself. (And of course be careful with your words, since the issue has already become so polarized.) Perhaps you and Standing_Alone and Sunstone can formulate an argument together, since I know they have voiced similar thoughts. And all three of you are known to be tolerant/open-minded, not knee-jerk anti-religionists.
Oh I agree, and I felt a little silly for bringing it up. The vast majority of Methodists are great and we UUs work with them on a number of social issues. In fact, I know several UUs who are attending a local Methodist seminary. They couldn't do that if Methodism were incompatible with UU values. But it still amuses me that Bush is Methodist and Clinton and Carter are Baptist.robtex said: