I think that is the point, Mcsweetie. posted by LarryC at 6:40 PM on December 11, 2005
If that so-called atheist manifesto had a better layout, was double spaced, and had some nice pictures, I might try to read it. posted by Citizen Premier at 6:42 PM on December 11, 2005
McSweetie needs a trip to the grey. posted by spicynuts at 6:43 PM on December 11, 2005
As Dawkins once said, "I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
The old thread on this article suggested secular humanism as an alternative for those who don't think God has anything to do with our world, but still believe in the value of human life (I'm fumbling here, since its new to me too). I'm not sure I've wrapped my mind around how humans can really, actually have value without God, but that might be an alternative for those who find the linked author to be too dogmatic himself. posted by gsteff at 6:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Frankly by definition atheism can't have a manifesto beyond "there is no God."
Anything else and it ceases to be atheism. Kinda like someone trying to put together an "anarchist organization". Sorry Bubba, it ain't gonna work. posted by clevershark at 6:51 PM on December 11, 2005
why do i not see a problem? posted by j-urb at 6:53 PM on December 11, 2005
This is like that one time a kid took over his high school principal's office and demanded they play XTC's "Dear God" over the PA. posted by eatitlive at 6:55 PM on December 11, 2005
seems like i have read the work of Sam Harris before. posted by j-urb at 6:56 PM on December 11, 2005
If someone took the time to put together a non-violent, secular manifesto, which contained a lot of humanistic statements, I might be interested in that. But this is just crap. posted by Citizen Premier at 6:56 PM on December 11, 2005
Had this been posted instead of the last one I don't think I would have complained. It lacks the crappy setup and single-link structure. That said, is there more to say? posted by maledictory at 6:57 PM on December 11, 2005
May we say "atheism is just another religion" now? posted by brain_drain at 6:59 PM on December 11, 2005
i love jesus.
i'm listening to white zombie.
i perceive no disconnect therein. posted by quonsar at 7:02 PM on December 11, 2005
DEVIL MAN RUNNIN' IN MY HEAD
THE MOTHERFUCKER OF INVENTION posted by quonsar at 7:03 PM on December 11, 2005
Oh boy.... here we go again.... posted by Farengast at 7:04 PM on December 11, 2005
If someone took the time to put together a non-violent, secular manifesto, which contained a lot of humanistic statements, I might be interested in that.
Too bad this isn't FARK, or I'd photoshop that picture to be a crucifix being ground away... With a very distressed Jesus...
But it's not, and I don't have photoshop, so..
It's hard for me to get rallied up at an athiest rant.
It's like somebody writing on how they're pretty positive there isn't a tooth fairy. posted by Balisong at 7:08 PM on December 11, 2005
Eideteker FTW. posted by shmegegge at 7:12 PM on December 11, 2005
[fixed beRtrand russell's name in the fpp] posted by jessamyn at 7:14 PM on December 11, 2005
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PAGE TITLE? posted by quonsar at 7:16 PM on December 11, 2005
IT IS A SIGN posted by TwelveTwo at 7:23 PM on December 11, 2005
IS IT NATIONAL CAPS LOCK DAY AGAIN ALREADY????!!1 posted by keswick at 7:24 PM on December 11, 2005
[fixed beRtrand russell's name in the fpp]
Thanks Jessamyn! I was tempted to ask that my typo be fixed but didn't.
And quonsar, the page title? Oh I see. Does it need a title? I just recycled that because I couldn't think of one; I also have trouble coming up with Subject lines for Usenet posts. posted by davy at 7:27 PM on December 11, 2005
WHY IS EVERYBODY YELLING? posted by konolia at 7:27 PM on December 11, 2005
What? What's the big deal? Why is this even controversial? Christians are batshitinsane. Don't miss the end times chat.
There is this tendency among secular liberals to think that it's uncouth to point out that religion is regressive idiocy. Let's not fall into that trap. posted by fleetmouse at 7:28 PM on December 11, 2005
Does it need a title?
no. but it was there a minute ago. posted by quonsar at 7:31 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm confused. Was the last post deleted because people were offended? Don't tell me Metafilter has gone there... posted by Pacheco at 7:43 PM on December 11, 2005
I've been reading Bertrand Russell's the problems of philosophy recently, it's a great read.
I'm always up for an interesting discussion of religion, and the existence of god, however it really does piss me off that someone might choose to speak for all Atheists, like this douchebag.
"Atheist" mean a person who is not religious, beyond that they have all different kinds beliefs and ideas. While I would rather live in a world without religion, this is not a pressing concern for me. There are lots of good people who are Christians, and just like Atheists, the most vocal Christians are also the most crazy.
Unlike Christians, there is simply no 'religious' reason to try to convert people from Christianity. You're not saving anyone's soul, so what's the point? As long as people are happy then good for them. From a 'scientific' perspective, 'the truth' is what's practical to consider as true. But what do the views of a housewife on metaphysics really matter?
I think that a lot of these vocal Atheists are people who are not only non-religious themselves, but also hate religion for whatever reason. You know there are these atheists who base their atheism entirely on the Christian bible. That's just idiotic, really. If you spend all your time thinking about Jesus and Allah, then you're not really free of religion at all, in fact you're still a slave to it.
So I think these vocal, proselytizing, preachy atheists (in addition to being annoying) really do hate religion, and want to rid the world of it.
I personally think we should more time worrying about doing good in the world, and less time worrying about how why people do it. posted by delmoi at 7:46 PM on December 11, 2005
fleetmouse, there's no such thing as "religion" (proper noun). You and the author of the manifesto are confused and/or lazy thinkers. No matter how much you may want it to, religion does not and will not conform to the structure of political ideology. Any attempt to engage in ideological warfare with "religion" will fail. Religion, particularly today, is a cultural attractor and Politics != Culture. Any criticism of "religion" will only succeed if it's able to, like the original Enlightenment criticism, demonstrate that religion is regressive from a cultural perspective. posted by nixerman at 7:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Pacheco: The last thread was poorly worded and pissed people off. Mindless christian bashing gets old fast and is even more irritating to thinking Athiests. posted by delmoi at 7:49 PM on December 11, 2005
WHY IS EVERYBODY YELLING?
BECAUSE SOMEONE MENTIONED RELIGION!
Incidentally, I found willnot's link very interesting. But yeah, MeFi doesn't do religion well. posted by gsteff at 7:50 PM on December 11, 2005
clevershark: Kinda like someone trying to put together an "anarchist organization". Sorry Bubba, it ain't gonna work.
Ya see? Cause anarchism = chaos! (/teehee)
Anarchists are opposed to imposed authority, not organization. But please continue trotting out that non-argument. It makes you look very smart.
(Also, I love this new tactic of shitting all over posts that deal with atheism. A rational discussion might lead to impure thoughts...) posted by jsonic at 7:51 PM on December 11, 2005
Willful, willnot, potato, potata. posted by gsteff at 7:51 PM on December 11, 2005
There is this tendency among secular liberals to think that it's uncouth to point out that religion is regressive idiocy. Let's not fall into that trap.
Some religions are regressive and some are progressive, even those with the same 'brand' (look at Quakers vs. southern Baptists like GW). It was religious arguments that fueled the abolitionist movement in the 17 and 1800s.
And by the way, I'd be willing to bet that most of the religious atrocities were committed not because of true religious differences but simply power or ethnic issues and religion was more of an excuse.
I'd love to live in a world without religion, but not if it’s a world full of these irritating anti-religious wankers. posted by delmoi at 7:55 PM on December 11, 2005
Rational beliefs should not be based on a desire to show that religion "doesn't work" in a social or ethical sense. It should be based on a desire for the truth, based on as much evidence as possible, regardless of whether that truth fits with the increasingly recognised tendency of the human mind to be religious. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 7:58 PM on December 11, 2005
The old thread on this article suggested secular humanism as an alternative for those who don't think God has anything to do with our world, but still believe in the value of human life
That doesn't have to be an "alternative". The judgement of the value of human life is not necessarily tied to the existence of God. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:01 PM on December 11, 2005
But what do the views of a housewife on metaphysics really matter?
Oh delmoi, you're so meta.
And thanks for voicing that tired stereotype that atheists oppose religion, sometimes vocally, because deep down inside, they're really just angry. posted by jsonic at 8:03 PM on December 11, 2005
no anger here. nope. posted by quonsar at 8:06 PM on December 11, 2005
Most atheists are, in fact, angry at how religions are used, because they judge it to be a lie. However, that should not be the basis for atheism. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:08 PM on December 11, 2005
Protocols of the Elders of Awesome:The judgement of the value of human life is not necessarily tied to the existence of God.
I totally agree. My valuation of human life comes from something I call the empathy principle: I find value in my life, other people are obviously the same sort of thing I am, therefore their lives have value. Simple enough. posted by Mitrovarr at 8:12 PM on December 11, 2005
And thanks for voicing that tired stereotype that atheists oppose religion, sometimes vocally, because deep down inside, they're really just angry.
Well, why else would they do it? I mean, I can understand getting into an intellectual discussion about religion with a friend, but what's the point in pointing out how horrible religion is if you don't actually think it's horrible ? And if it is horrible, a cancer on society, bringer of great pain to so many how could you not be angry about it?
I think Racism and Fascism bring great suffering to the world, and those things make me angry. How could someone believe that religion is as bad as those things and not be angry, unless they simply don't care about other people (in which case, why would they bother trying to get people to stop being religious) posted by delmoi at 8:16 PM on December 11, 2005
I was writing a post in the other thread, but it was mostly about kicking the poster of that version in the wheelhouse. I like davy more, he doesn't tell me what not to say.
I did have some points about the article itself . . . which in a roundabout way said: why is irrationality presented as the result of religion? And how does the author know he is rational, because he can point at other people and call them irrational? Aren't we born alone and rather insane as a result of that? People need their meaning, some find it in religion, some in money, some in art, some in sports, some (like Sam Harris) in self-righteous assumptions of rationality.
Now I am all for calling bullshit on religion and its continuing encroachment into the political and social life of this country, but I am not about to do so under a new banner of rationality. You know, Yeats's "The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" can apply to people whose convictions aren't powered by jesusdiesel. Yeah, Harris claims atheists "[expose] the problem of dogma itself" . . . but dogma is simple, it saves energy, so it is not only a problem, it's also a solution to the difficulty of being human and overwhelmed by a bunch of information that in the end doesn't really give us meaning. Dogma does. It binds you to other people, to things larger than yourself, and saves you a lot of work. In a sense, accepting dogma is a rational decision -- it may lead to horrible results, but it does make the follower's life easier.
But, too bad for the religious ones, according to Harris's book title, we are at the end of faith. Who knew it was so easy to finish off? posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 8:19 PM on December 11, 2005
We know that the Bible is not wholly true, because it is internally contradictory. We also know that all the evidence (strong or weak) that indicates that the metaphysical or supernatural parts of the Bible are true, is balanced by very similar evidence that other, contradictory holy books are true. This is sufficient to make the judgement that we cannot be confident that the metaphysical or supernatural parts of the Bible are true.
This should not stop us from choosing parts of the Bible to give us ethical guidance if we wish; but since the Bible is ethically contradictory as well, and we must make our own choices between the contradictory sections, this ethical guidance really stems from ourselves, our own choices, and not just from the book. The reason the world's contradictory religions still have such power, is because they tap into parts of the human condition that are pre-existing, and package them up for us in the form of ethical codes. However, none of this is evidence for the Bible's factual nature. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:24 PM on December 11, 2005
Well, why else would they do it? I mean, I can understand getting into an intellectual discussion about religion with a friend, but what's the point in pointing out how horrible religion is if you don't actually think it's horrible ? And if it is horrible, a cancer on society, bringer of great pain to so many how could you not be angry about it?
I refer you to my previous comment: atheism will often result in anger, but anger should not be the basis for atheism. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:25 PM on December 11, 2005
Voltaire was seriously cool. France had a quite healthy/progressive relationship with religion.
I've been hearing the word "post-theist" quite frequently; meaning simply "one for whom superstition is a non-issue". The Official God FAQ is an example. Why waist your time with unusable, unfalsifiable, etc. ideas? Life is too short. posted by jeffburdges at 8:26 PM on December 11, 2005
meaning simply "one for whom superstition is a non-issue"
That is the case for most atheists, except to the degree that other people's belief in superstition causes it to be an issue. This just sounds like a rebranding. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:33 PM on December 11, 2005
Well, why else would they do it?
In my experience, the opposition to religious belief and its influence on society is based on logic and the use of reason.
Here is the situation:
1. Many religious people have an absolute belief in a being that has absolutely no support in reality.
2. On top of this, they also claim to know what this being likes/dislikes, yet cannot demonstrate how they could communicate with a being that they cannot show even exists.
I think the common reaction to this situation is exasperation at the absurdity of it. And a desire to reveal this delusion for what it is. posted by jsonic at 8:36 PM on December 11, 2005
In a sense, accepting dogma is a rational decision -- it may lead to horrible results, but it does make the follower's life easier.
You seem to be confusing "rationality" with "pragmatism". Allowing the religious debate to become a discussion of what gives us a better or easier life, rather than what is true or not, is a trap. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:37 PM on December 11, 2005
We know that the Bible is not wholly true, because it is internally contradictory
All that statement tells me is that you don't have a complete understanding of the Bible-because it isn't internally contradictory. There is a reason that Bible colleges and seminaries teach courses in heurmaneutics.
I have been a Christian since 1980 and I have never found a seeming contradiction that didn't clear up once I had a proper understanding. posted by konolia at 8:38 PM on December 11, 2005
OTOH, Christians actively "discriminate" against non-theists. So it's best if atheists "come out of the closet." posted by jeffburdges at 8:38 PM on December 11, 2005
konolia, that is a very interesting claim, and I will follow you up on it after I've had some sleep. posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:40 PM on December 11, 2005
Yeah, post-theism does sound a lot like atheism, but I do think as a 'brand' it's nicer on the ears. A hell of a lot better then "bright". Anyone who thinks that could work hasn't got half a head for politics.
jsonic: but there's a difference between wanting to enlighten people, which is understandable, and going on and on about how evil religion is, which is what some people do.
You seem to be confusing "rationality" with "pragmatism". Allowing the religious debate to become a discussion of what gives us a better or easier life, rather than what is true or not, is a trap.
Well, before we can talk about what's true and what isn't, we first need to define truth. Good luck with that. posted by delmoi at 8:46 PM on December 11, 2005
Truth is that monster in the closet that, when your parents turn on the light and open the door to reassure you, eats them. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:52 PM on December 11, 2005 [1 favorite]
Konolia, yes, it is internally contradictory. There is no intellectually honest way to explain away the whole of those contradictions. None. Absolutely none. It is absolutely certain that the works of every Christian theologian throughout history, working to reconcile these contradictions and errors, have been in vain. They are wrong, and completely.
Thus, the Bible is not wholly true. Thus, it must be interpreted and cannot wholly be taken literally. Since it is subject to interpretation, it is not infallible; the various editions of the Bible are merely different edits.
Mr. Protocols is exactly correct: because it is not infallible, you are choosing an interpretation. It's not the book's morality; it is yours. posted by solid-one-love at 8:59 PM on December 11, 2005
but there's a difference between wanting to enlighten people, which is understandable, and going on and on about how evil religion is, which is what some people do.
And there's a difference between criticising angry blow-hards, which is understandable, and going on and on about how those who criticise religion are really just angry and intolerant, which is what you keep doing. posted by jsonic at 9:03 PM on December 11, 2005
Don't forget about the gospels too, Solid-one-love. Here. posted by Farengast at 9:04 PM on December 11, 2005
I'm not sure if konolia is a biblical literalist or not, but remember that it is possible to be a Christian and only believe some parts of the bible are true.
Just because I'm a liberal doesn’t mean I believe everything Michael Moor says, for comparison. posted by delmoi at 9:04 PM on December 11, 2005
delmoi, why would you believe only some of it? How would you know which parts to believe? Seems like if you only believe some of it, you are really just adhering to the parts that you agree with already, for other reasons. You can be a liberal and not agree with everything Michael Moore says because he is just a man, you examine his evidence and agree when he makes a good case. The bible presents no evidence. So you have no reason to believe that parts that you pick out, and no reason to forgo the parts that you ignore. You don't believe everything that Moore says, but if he presented no evidence for anything he says and just stated it as fact with nothing to back it up, would you believe ANY of what he says? posted by Farengast at 9:08 PM on December 11, 2005
I have been a Christian since 1980 and I have never found a seeming contradiction that didn't clear up once I had a proper understanding.
By 'proper understanding' you mean 'non-contradictory exegesis', right? Because you're not saying that you're privy to the One True Interpretation of the Bible, right? Because you know different groups have chosen to interpret it in different ways, right?
I think I have 'proper understanding' of the seeming contradictions, see. My understanding is they are, in fact, contradictions. Hence seeming that way.
I'm not bashing religion here. I'm a Buddhist. I just wonder if acknowledging the truths in the Bible (it's good to be nice to others, to be selfless, to not lie or kill people) precludes ignoring some of the other content that ranges from unpleasant to batshitinsane. posted by RokkitNite at 9:08 PM on December 11, 2005
Solid,
I can't speak for Konolia, however I think the contradictions all depend on how you read the Bible. If you're using it as a historical document, then yes, the Bible is highly contradictory. We can't use it to figure out what happened thousands of years ago.
However, if one reads the Bible the way one would read a good book, written by an author with great insight into the nature of the human condition, the contradictions can tell us a lot about what that author is thinking.
I have learned a lot about myself and what it means to be a good person by studying the Bible, and I think the hullabaloo over the contradictions is a side effect of people (mistakenly) reading the Bible as an infallible, historical document.
On preview: sorta what delmoi and RokkitNite said. posted by anomie at 9:09 PM on December 11, 2005
I've seen those lists before, people-and I have had these discussions on other sites, and been able to explain.
Here's an example. Perhaps some of you do not know that in the ancient writings regarding generations, it is normal that there would be gaps-in other words, so-and-so is a descendent of such-and-such, not necessarily a son-father. We make a mistake when we apply our cultural standards and literary conventions to the ancients.
And now I really must go study before my A in theology goes bye-bye. (exam tomorrow, remember?) posted by konolia at 9:09 PM on December 11, 2005
I agree, delmoi. But this speaks to the root of Christian imposition into our secular lives. Abortion is wrong because God says so? Evolution is wrong because all creatures were created at once 6000 years ago? Homosexuality is an abomination? Since the Bible cannot be infallible, its adherents must be picking and choosing among the lessons taught and histories told. So it is therefore not their Bible admonishing us -- it is merely its readers, and not all of them. posted by solid-one-love at 9:10 PM on December 11, 2005
Protocol, I do not see how this is a trap, but more a description of what it is. I am stunned at the hubris of that article, and moreso when I think of the title of Harris's book _The End of Faith_. For all his so-called rationality, he fails to see that people will seek what makes them happier and what makes their life easier, especially in these existential realms.
So my argument isn't that one should get all jesused up because it is easier, but that people will. And the more you displace them, confuse them, overwhelm them, the more they will seek a myth, and it may be Jesus, and it may be invisible hand of the market, and it may be even "rationality".
I don't think the glut of information and the growth of fundamentalism are unconnected, and I don't think pointing out that there is no evidence of God is going to do anything to change the fundy trend. posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 9:11 PM on December 11, 2005
and been able to explain.
Much respect and all, but you absolutely have not been able to, ever, and neither has anyone else, ever, in the history of the world. posted by solid-one-love at 9:12 PM on December 11, 2005
Personally, I feel sorry for God. Humor is of no use to Him, because He already knows all the punchlines. His body is obviously perfect, so He can't get drunk. Yet He hasn't gotten laid in over two-thousand years. No wonder He's batshitinsane! posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:15 PM on December 11, 2005
I think the contradictions all depend on how you read the Bible.
Like the obvious differences - names of participants, etc. - between tellings of the same stories in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Does that depend on how you read the Bible, too?
Yeesh. If it works for you, great, but don't try to tell non-believers there's no logical inconsistency anywhere in the Bible. Good lord, that's dumb. posted by mediareport at 9:16 PM on December 11, 2005
Konolia, this is but a minor detail, I don't really care how many generations were what. I'm talking about the fact that Pilate's men captured Jesus by night so as to sneak him away without his followers seeing and causing a riot, and then the very next morning, mere hours later, these same followers Pilate feared would riot are actually there to condem Jesus to death? Does this make sense to anyone? The gospels are filled with this. Not just simple numerical contradictions amongst the different authors, but plot that makes no sense at all, even within the writing of a single author. The fact that the works become more disdainful of jews as you follow them through the chronology of their authorship is but extra evidence that they weren't written for spiritual reasons. For example, first just groups of people came to condem jesus. Then crowds of people in the second gospel, then crowds of jews in the third, then in the fourth, it's all the jews. ALL the jews came to condemn jesus. These also, were the same jews who paraded him into the city not long before and whose rioting support for the man caused him to be taken by dark. Anyone have an explanation? posted by Farengast at 9:19 PM on December 11, 2005
delmoi, why would you believe only some of it? How would you know which parts to believe? ... You can be a liberal and not agree with everything Michael Moore says because he is just a man
I don't know, why not? I don't think that there is any contradiction in being a Christian and believing that the bible is just a book about Christianity. posted by delmoi at 9:21 PM on December 11, 2005
I don't know, why not? I don't think that there is any contradiction in being a Christian and believing that the bible is just a book about Christianity.
Oh well if that's your bag, than carry on, man. Good for you. posted by Farengast at 9:25 PM on December 11, 2005
For all his so-called rationality, he fails to see that people will seek what makes them happier and what makes their life easier, especially in these existential realms.
It's precisely because of his 'so-called rationality' that he focuses on the intellectual argument without acknowledging the psycho-social allure. People rarely choose their religion after lengthy discursive analysis and critical comparison - they go by 'feel'. They go with what 'makes sense'. It's hardly surprising that in a world where so many people struggle just to make it through the day, institutions offering a reassuring, palliative assumption/expectation set will attract a lot of business.
I think the militant atheist camp might make a lot more progress if instead of yelling, 'C'MON YOU DIPSHITS, CAN'T YOU SEE HOW DUMB YOU ARE?' it maybe reflected that people put their faith in patently false religious bromides because they're desperate for reassurance, and that the need for reassurance is not something to be despised. posted by RokkitNite at 9:26 PM on December 11, 2005
I've seen those lists before, people-and I have had these discussions on other sites, and been able to explain.
No you haven't. Just because people give up on discussing these things with you does not constitute an acknowledgement that you've explained things to anyone's satisfaction. posted by clevershark at 9:28 PM on December 11, 2005
clevershark, it was explained to the satisfaction of those I had the discussion with. posted by konolia at 9:30 PM on December 11, 2005
Look, I am going to bed-but first let me point out that obviously all of you have made up your minds before I even bring you any information that obviously I must be wrong.
The truth is you WANT there to be contradictions, because if I am right and these things are explainable, then horrors, the Bible might actually have something to say to you.
I really don't have time for people who aren't serious about wanting to know. In a week or so school will be done as will my finals and papers-serious inquirers can find me by email then. posted by konolia at 9:33 PM on December 11, 2005
1. Many religious people have an absolute belief in a being that has absolutely no support in reality.
If by "reality" you mean what we can perceive with our five senses, then, I agree. If instead you mean "that which is real," then, I don't. In my experience, there's a chism between the two.
2. On top of this, they also claim to know what this being likes/dislikes, yet cannot demonstrate how they could communicate with a being that they cannot show even exists.
It's important to remember that just because someone claims to know what God wants, doesn't necessarily mean they're right. For example, Peter Attwood does an excellent job of refuting Bush. Unfortunately, religion is often used as a cover for, oh, I dunno, war maybe?
I think the common reaction to this situation is exasperation at the absurdity of it.
It is absolutely absurd. Insane, irrational and totally illogical. And all of those things are exactly what Jesus' opponents said about him and his claims to be the Son of God. I'm honored to be painted with the same brush. *bows*
For the record, there's a lot of "batshitinsane Christians" out there (current US administration comes to mind) who are doing an awful job of representing the rest of us. We're smart, sassy, liberal as hell (no pun intended), and laugh at radio/T.V. "preachers" and right wing rhetoric. We're not all bad. Promise. posted by hercatalyst at 9:37 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast - Not that delmoi needs defending, but your question - "why would you believe only some of it? How would you know which parts to believe?" - made me think of this point: my high school science text is full of information now known to be incorrect. Yet, I do not feel compelled to throw out the discipline of science, or to automatically assume that those entries not yet disproved will of necessity turn out to be fallacious.
In fact, your question applies to much of the news and information we are exposed to in life. Some of it will be true, some of it will be bullshit. But ultimately, we all have to choose our own expert witnesses and parse accordingly. Hence, shitstorms like the one that blew this ill wind into town. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:37 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast, your comments seem genuine, and without sufficient time to go into detail I will just have to leave you with the thought that their national politics (and the fear the common people had of the Pharisees who had power to kick them out of synagogue) had somewhat to do with it.
Please also remember each Gospel writer wrote from his own perspective (though inspired still) and they didn't exchange notes with each other at the time. You could get similar differences with four different reporters covering a news event-again, assuming they didn't confer over coffee right away afterwards. posted by konolia at 9:38 PM on December 11, 2005
RokkitNite, you've got the right idea, to be sure. I am definitely an atheist, but I'm not bothered by people who are religious. As long as they know that it is irrational. And don't get me wrong, I'm not using the word "irrational" as an intellectual substitute for "stupid". "It's ok to be religious as long as you know that it's stupid", no, that's not what I mean. I don't mean any negative implications with the word irrational, I mean the strict definitition of it. Not grounded in rational and reasonable thinking. I personally think that irrationality is a bad thing, that's just the way my brain works. But I understand that it is just my opinion. But religion is irrational, be that a good thing or a bad doesn't matter and I don't care either way. I know plenty of people who believe in god even though they have no reason to, just because they have a feeling about it. I think that's kind of silly, but as I said, that is just my opinion and I don't hold other people to that just as with any opinion. But to tell me that beliefe in god is rational? That the evidence is there, it's all around you. How can you not believe in god when it's so obvious? I HATE that crap. It's stupid stuff like that that makes us atheists angry in the first place. The smug self-rigteousness that only a religious person can muster (and only some, mind you, definitely not all or even most) to assert that god is obvious and people like me are idiots, or immoral, or just don't get it, or don't put the pieces together, or are only atheists because we don't like rules or want to do bad things without accountability or some stupid crap like that. Logic is what makes my gears turn and it always has, and if that's a sin punishable by damnation than I'll take it. My brain doesn't work any other way. posted by Farengast at 9:39 PM on December 11, 2005
The truth is you WANT there to be contradictions, because if I am right and these things are explainable, then horrors, the Bible might actually have something to say to you.
The truth is that you're full of grade-A shit. Don't dare to tell us what we actually believe.
I have decided that there is no way to explain the contradictions because I have explored it in detail, and in much more depth than some ridiculous Theology 101 course could cover.
Some of those contradictions can be explained. They all cannot without handwaving on a massive scale. You cannot bring anything new to the party on the subject. posted by solid-one-love at 9:43 PM on December 11, 2005
You could get similar differences with four different reporters covering a news event
Uh, yeah, but none of them would claim their work was the Word of God. Small diff. posted by mediareport at 9:44 PM on December 11, 2005
Look, I am going to bed-but first let me point out that obviously all of you have made up your minds before I even bring you any information that obviously I must be wrong.
Konolia, this is every single one of your posts about this subject... posted by hototogisu at 9:47 PM on December 11, 2005
made me think of this point: my high school science text is full of information now known to be incorrect. Yet, I do not feel compelled to throw out the discipline of science
Those facts were later proven false. Do you have any such example in the bible? The bible does not prove anything, or expound upon evidence of any sort. It is not testable and not able to be proved wrong, excepting in it's historical accuracy, in which it has been proven quite wrong already, as noted above. But to compare biblical cherry picking to scientific progress is a horrifying assault on reason. And it makes no sense. Science is built on evidence. Often we don't understand what all the evidence is telling us and we get somethings wrong, or not wrong but just not as right as they ought to be, i.e. Newton was not wrong, Einstein did not disprove Newton. Einstein discovered new science that included and expanded on Newton's Principia. The bible cannot be tested and expanded in this way, all you have is the word of the people who wrote it. Either you ahve reason to believe what they say, or you don't. And if you are ignoring stuff, that means that you don't have good reason to believe what they say, and you are only taking the stuff that you agree with already, for whatever reason. The whole reason why science is such a good description of nature is exactly because it CAN be proven wrong. It CAN be refined and grow to encompass new data that was unobtainable before. posted by Farengast at 9:49 PM on December 11, 2005
Any criticism of "religion" will only succeed if it's able to, like the original Enlightenment criticism, demonstrate that religion is regressive from a cultural perspective.
I'll tell you who I don't get - the devil. What's in it for him? So originally, he's God's favorite - which would make him one bad-ass angel indeed, I'm guessing. But he gets ambitious, tries a hostile takeover, and gets tossed right out of the boardroom. He's thrown to the gutter. Will never work in this town again. So what does he do? Threatens everybody who might be sympathetic to his plight with eternal torture. Tries to frighten prospective allies into joining up with his old Boss. And really lets his place go all to hell. And this was the bad-ass angel who got kicked out of Heaven for his pride?! Come on, man! Take a lesson from Katzenberg. Oh, right. Wrong religion. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:00 PM on December 11, 2005
I leave you kids alone for five minutes... and look what happens!!
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS! posted by Mr T at 10:06 PM on December 11, 2005
Actually, Raining Florence... the point of that is that lucifer really hates his job. He tried to be too much like god so god punished him by forcing him to be the opposite. To take on the grotesque task of perpetrating evil upon the world. Incidentally, this raises some interesting religious issues. Like that most satanists, I means actual satanists not fantasy, comic book, sacrificing people/animals kind of satanists, are actually quite reasonable. They believe that they should worship Lucifer because he is more human, because he knows what it is to suffer, to aspire to something greater and be struck down for just that aspiration. They wonder how it is possible that god loves his creations, when he created them to be imperfect, and then instructed them to try as hard as they can to be just that.... but don't actually succeed or you'll get punished like Lucifer. So modern day satanists don't actually kill anything or drink blood or even do evil things... they just think that given biblical mythology, Lucifer sounds like a more reasonable character to worship than god. Were I religious and believed these stories in the bible, I might be inclined to agree. posted by Farengast at 10:09 PM on December 11, 2005
It's disturbing how militant these religious discussions get. There are some angry, angry atheists here. posted by nightchrome at 10:17 PM on December 11, 2005
How can you not believe in god when it's so obvious? I HATE that crap. It's stupid stuff like that that makes us atheists angry in the first place. The smug self-rigteousness that only a religious person can muster (and only some, mind you, definitely not all or even most) to assert that god is obvious and people like me are idiots, or immoral, or just don't get it, or don't put the pieces together, or are only atheists because we don't like rules or want to do bad things without accountability or some stupid crap like that.
Wow, you don't have much of a capacity for self-reflection, do you? There are a ton of smug, self-satisfied atheists out there. I'm not saying religion isn't silly, it is, but atheists can be just as irritating, especially when they try to speak for all Atheists.
Don't have much of a sense of paragraph construction either.
Einstein did not disprove Newton. Einstein discovered new science that included and expanded on Newton's Principia
Uh, no Einstein did disprove Newton, logic-boy.
/tired
//cranky posted by delmoi at 10:20 PM on December 11, 2005
Yeah, it's a good thing this one's just religious. If it was religious AND political.... damn. posted by Farengast at 10:20 PM on December 11, 2005
It is absolutely absurd. Insane, irrational and totally illogical. And all of those things are exactly what Jesus' opponents said about him and his claims to be the Son of God. I'm honored to be painted with the same brush. *bows*
Sometimes the parody writes itself. posted by jsonic at 10:22 PM on December 11, 2005
The biggest difference I can see between the two camps I perceive in these discussions always seems to be not between atheists and theists, but rather, between fanatics and reasonable people. The fanatics on both sides really need to chill out. posted by nightchrome at 10:25 PM on December 11, 2005
Wait a minute, so some people don't believe in God? Will a day ever go by that I don't learn something amazing on Metafilter? posted by nanojath at 10:25 PM on December 11, 2005
Delmoi, you must not be much of a scientist. Einstein definitely did not disprove Newton. Newton still works and always has, within the boundary conditions he worked in. Newton never said anything about masses moving anywhere near the speed of light, or about the speed of light itself. Newton still works, people still use it everyday. Basically applying Einstein to an everyday mechanics problem would give you a deviation from Newton much smaller than the accuracy of what you are measuring. MUCH smaller. Therefore, to all practical measurements and experiments, Newton is valid. Ask a physicist. I know a few of them seeing as how I am one.
As for the self-rigteousness that only a religious person can muster, you find me a quote from any atheist on this or any thread about how religious people are going to hell, or will be punished supernaturally. Atheists will claim as loudly as the next that someone is wrong, but only a religous person does and CAN claim that someone is wrong and that their wrongness will destroy them and see them punished for eternity. THAT is the kind of self-rigteousness that an atheist just can't compete with. And as well I never speak for all atheists, same way I never speak for all scientists or all people with brown hair, because it's stupid. So go find another whipping boy for your abuse. posted by Farengast at 10:28 PM on December 11, 2005
I'd love to live in a world without religion, but not if it’s a world full of these irritating anti-religious wankers.
...between fanatics and reasonable people. The fanatics on both sides really need to chill out.
False equivalency. posted by jsonic at 10:41 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast: "The bible cannot be tested and expanded in this way, all you have is the word of the people who wrote it. Either you ahve reason to believe what they say, or you don't. And if you are ignoring stuff, that means that you don't have good reason to believe what they say, and you are only taking the stuff that you agree with already, for whatever reason."
Full disclosure (or as full as you're ever going to get from the sockpuppet of a mostly anonymous internet blog account): I am an atheist. A technology professional with a solid background in science and engineering. So believe me when I tell you (or don't, it really makes no difference to me, I'm mostly just a gadfly) that you're preaching to the choir with the scientific method lecture.
On the other hand, my devil's advocate nature (see above, for some true devil's advocacy) compels me to point out that your assertion that the Bible "cannot be tested and expanded in this way" using the same methods as the scientific principle (is it principle or principal in this case - damn it, it's late - I'm not looking it up again!) is only true for those claiming absolutes. That it is absolutely true, or absolutely false are equally absurd notions, from a truly scientific perspective; because though its veracity suffers from the confused perspectives of those who wrote, compiled, and (heavily) edited it, the book also contains much of historical and sociological value (even up to and including the study of those confused perspectives and their biological origins), and as such, is hardly above being either tested or expanded. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately ignore the vast amount of archiological and other scientific work being done in this field. Neither your statement that the Bible's "historical accuracy... has been proven quite wrong already," nor the meager "cherry pickings" in your links is sufficient to dismiss its value in this regard.
Again, this is not meant as a defense of literal Biblical interpretation. Simply to state my disagreement that it is a "horrifying assault on reason" to suggest that it is possible to approach spirituality with the same open minded questioning that informs the scientific method.
To the majority of those who look at it (yes, including atheist historians) the document is neither 100% true, nor 100% false. The truth, therefore, lies somewhere in between. As a rationalist, myself, I don't find evidence for any mystical interpretaions within those pages. I do not, however, kid myself that that isn't simply my own "cherry picking," and don't therefore begrudge cherry toppings to others who at least profess to understanding that they're just trying find where the artificial flavoring ends and the fruity treat begins.
Farengast, the word you were looking for, instead of trying to redefine irrational, was nonrational.
I am like you, I am a happy rational atheist who doesn't mind religous sorts, as long as they keep their dogma out of society's business. posted by wilful at 10:44 PM on December 11, 2005
jsonic, it doesn't look very false from where I'm standing. There's a lot of rudeness, stubbornness, and ignorance being tossed around in this thread, and it certainly isn't coming from only one side. posted by nightchrome at 10:44 PM on December 11, 2005
nightchrome, I think jsonic means that atheist "fanatics" don't tend to shoot doctors, fly planes into skyscrapers, ring your doorbell on Saturday morning and otherwise make pests of themselves. posted by fleetmouse at 10:54 PM on December 11, 2005
Raining, let me clairfy. I did not assert that the bible has no value, it has obvious value even if it's totally false as a historical document. Lot's of important historical documents are important BECAUSE they are wrong and not inspite of after all.... I did state that the bible cannot function as a spiritual foci if some of it is false and some of it isn't. There is no way to know which. What if the only true part was that god hates it when people wear clothing made from different cloths? People have stated that they enjoy it as a story book, or as a book about christianity, but not a work of god. And that's cool with me. I think the bible's got some scary shit in it, but if people find something there they like, that doesn't bother me. But it doesn't change the fact that without divine authorship, or even inspiration, the bible's lessons are just a reflection of what the reader already knew. This has been pointed out many times in this thread.
As for the scientific testability... you just agreed with me, except in the degree to which it is or is not historically accurate. I did not mean to assert that it was totally inaccurate as a history, but simply that it's inherent unreliability as a history makes it largely useless as a history book. We know which parts are or are not accurate because of other historical accounts, thus we have no need of the bible as a history. Agreed that I should have just said that instead of thinking it... And as for the spiritual matters covered? Yes, it is not possible to prove them wrong. You can't prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It is a matter of the supernatural, and no amount of eye witness accounts or found remains can actually prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. So your devils advocacy turns out not to be so devilish. But cheers anyway. posted by Farengast at 10:55 PM on December 11, 2005
There's a lot of rudeness, stubbornness, and ignorance being tossed around in this thread, and it certainly isn't coming from only one side.
I'm sorry that you consider criticism of religious belief to be rude. You've lost me, however, when you claim that criticising religion is somehow stubborn and ignorant.
Also, it seems the only comment that would rate the label of 'fanatic' in this thread is the one that claimed the bible had no internal inconsistencies. posted by jsonic at 10:56 PM on December 11, 2005
fleetmouse, yeah but I'm just talking about this thread here. On metafilter. On teh intarweb. Unless you guys are off flying planes into buildings between posts... posted by nightchrome at 10:57 PM on December 11, 2005
jsonic, I'm less concerned with the topic you are discussing and more concerned with the way you talk to each other. posted by nightchrome at 10:59 PM on December 11, 2005
Why do I always get to these threads when they're 115 comments in? I always miss the beginning - if I'd been around before it degenerated I would have taken issue with the statement that Voltaire wanted to wipe out religion - revealed religion, perhaps, specifically the various types of 18th century Christianity, but no more than that. I think he would have been perfectly happy with deism or natural religion.
Also, nanojath wins the thread... posted by greycap at 11:06 PM on December 11, 2005
Greycap, 115 comments? Did you miss the FIRIST thread? Man, you are even more behind than you thought. posted by Farengast at 11:16 PM on December 11, 2005
First, that is.... posted by Farengast at 11:16 PM on December 11, 2005
Farengast: "I did state that the bible cannot function as a spiritual foci if some of it is false and some of it isn't. There is no way to know which."
But now we're back to the devilish part. As I initially commented, here is where I cannot agree. I used a science textbook as my analogy, which the rationalist in you rebelled at, so we zigged over to history, instead; but let's go back to my original point:
If we can agree that scientific truth is the realm of the textbook in question, and spiritual truth the realm of the Book in question; and we further state that the science textbook at any given time contains both elements that are true and elements that at some future point will prove not to be true; and that the spiritual seeker is willing to grant that the literal truth of their Book is also at least partly in question, then I cannot logically determine how one foci is legitimate (for its own intended purpose) while the other is somehow to be dismissed.
The fact that we cannot infallibly determine for ourselves which elements are absolutely true and which are not does not mean that there are not elements of truth and of fiction, or that there is no value in the study and seeking of said truth and fiction. And I further posit that this statement holds true for both books.
Of course I personally don't expect such study to turn up anything supernatural, but that's not what I'm talking about at the moment. I just don't have a problem with spiritual seekers who think the Bible is a reasonable jumping off point for discovery. Especially if they're willing to take a realistic view of what they discover.
And nightcrome, you are epitomizing what I ranted about regarding the last thread, earlier today: the hipster fence-straddlers, who think by not taking sides or having a real, needs-passionate-defending, opinion is somehow nobler or cleverer than the "fools wrestling it out in the mud". Have some sincere, vulnerable beliefs about something for a change- the terrified-of-being crowd that is scared to hold any opinions, or to be passionate about anything, are really pissing me off.
All it takes is for good people to do nothing. By standing idly by, pretending that splitting the difference between two warring camps endows you with some Solomon-like wisdom, you only ensure that some fanatics win. And as jsonic noted, it's a false equivalency to suggest that rabid religious people, with intractable beliefs and dogmatic, often personally destructive or violent morals ("teh gays! teh western infidels!") are no worse than dogmatic rationalists, who are tired of fantasy-land infecting politics to the detriment of people's lives. One side is accepting of change by definition (I'd be a believer tomorrow if a 1000 mile high face appeared in teh sky over Puget Sound and said "Let me clear up some confusion..."), and is just tired of being told we can't criticize what are more and more apparently "crazy" people, in a technological age of mankind where "crazy" can be... disastrous. In particular, these mythical "good" Christians in America sure seem awful quiet... and invisible in the voting rolls!
What I'm really saying is, the world does hang in the balance, we are a monkey offshoot with the ability to kill every human on this planet in a day, and the same ancient patterns of myth and fantasy ruling our interactions.... so pick a fucking side, you pansy. posted by hincandenza at 11:28 PM on December 11, 2005
metafilter: pick a fucking side, you pansy. posted by jsonic at 11:32 PM on December 11, 2005
hincandenza, it's a lot easier to throw around trash terms like "hipster" than to deal with people civilly, isn't it? I haven't said anything at all about my beliefs, yet you feel you have them all pegged simply because I called out both sides in this discussion for acting like jerks? You know that part where I mentioned stubborn, ignorant, rude fanatics? You couldn't fit the bill better if I'd made a puppet account and written you out myself. posted by nightchrome at 11:56 PM on December 11, 2005
Raining, I see your point now, but I think it is overly diluted and simplified to the point of saying nothing at all. To say that both a bible and a science book have information that is true and information that is false, therefore we should.... accept that both have some true and some false and go from there. Your argument makes sense, only because it doesn't actually argue anything. As for why one is legitimate and one is not. You mentioned that your science book had some things that were wrong....
First step, they were discovered to be wrong either through experiment (i.e. the science was bad but experiment illuminates the real deal) or through correction of typos based on the correctness of previous experiments. As I said, this first step can only be applied to the historical context of the bible. You can't "correct" the supernatural parts because there is no way to deem them "wrong".
Second step, your book was probably corrected in a later edition. Errors were acknowledged and corrected. On a larger time scale, some scientific truths changed entirely. NEW science was adopted. We both know that this does not happen with the bible. For all it's inaccuracies, can you imagine what kind of venom would be spit at someone who tried to correct it? You mention it as a good jump off point, and that's precisely the problem. You HAVE to look elsewhere to investigate the truths of the bible because nobody ever changes it to reflect new information. (people of course have changed it for many other reasons, mostly political. but that's a totally DIFFERENT discussion)
However an up to date science book is not just a good jump off point, it is definitive insight into the best science has to offer at the time. Errors corrected.
Another point which bears mentioning again. When dealing with good science and good scientific method, nothing is ever proven to be wrong. What I mean is, if you've done and experiment properly, and you got a result. That is concrete. You can't prove those results wrong. Those results reflect nature and ALL of nature's workings going on during it. Sometimes science doesn't see ALL of the nature at work, and sometimes the experiment is not done properly and is not actually testing what they think it is. But I've already made this example. Newton did not get proved wrong. He performed all of his experiments as well as he ought to have. Newton is right. Einstein is also right, just over a much larger set of boundary conditions. So no science was overturned, just expanded in a totally unexpected way.
What I'm getting at here is that you don't need to worry about something in your science book turning out to be totally wrong. If it's based in experiment, it must be right. It might not be the whole story, but like Newton, it is still right. Of course theories are proved wrong all the time. Michelson and Morley set out to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether and their experimental results left them with naught but to admit that they were wrong about it. But that's the crux of it. The ether wasn't science until it was tested. The experimental results are a definite reflection of nature, as long as you have a handle on what nature is doing during your experiment, you can understand the results, and thus declare that the luminiferous ether is false.
So science only changes over time through differing interpretation of irrefutable data. The bible's got that differing interpretations down, but nothing in it is concrete. There is no foundation of irrefutability to work from like there is in science. Once again, this is in reference to spiritual and supernatural concepts in the bible. This science all applies very nicely to historical questions. Once you throw out consistancy (the very definition of supernatural) you lose any hope of the kind of firm working foundation one needs to test for truth and understanding. All you are left with is faith, and some people find value in that and they are welcome to as long as they don't try to make it "work in the real world". Or poison my country with politics based on it. So there you have it, the scientists rant. You asked for it, Raining.... Off to bed now. If you are still up to read this go to SLEEP. posted by Farengast at 11:58 PM on December 11, 2005
I pick the Dark Side. Try spouting your rationalist dogma when you're on the wrong side of a Force Choke muthafucka! w007!!11 posted by RokkitNite at 11:59 PM on December 11, 2005
There is a reason that Bible colleges and seminaries teach courses in heurmaneutics.
it's good that you mention hermeneutics (you might want to run a spell check before you turn that essay in), konolia -- textual criticism and history do lead us on a very interesting path. see, it's about applying scientific tools of research to the Bible the way you would apply them to any other text.
but if you stick to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for example, you won't find many scholars ready to follow you there. not to mention, you don't really have one inerrant text to begin with, because you don't have a reliable text: see, for two examples among hundreds, Haines-Eitzen (Guardians of Letters) or the new Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus). I don't know which "Bible colleges" (Sunday schools?) are you referring to, but Cornell's department of Near Eastern Studies (Haines-Eitzen) and UNC-Chapel Hill (Ehrman) are serious academic institutions. Oxford University Press is a prestigious publisher, too.
your comment re: the Gospel writers as reporters is indeed telling of the somewhat anti-academic slant of most fundamentalist teaching. I'd be curious to know what they're teaching you re: the synoptic problem. a problem that, just read Kloppenborg on the stratification of Q.. if you read up a bit on textual criticism, konolia, you can find many answer to otherwise impossible-to-solve problems. if you shield yourself from it, you're basically shielding yourself from serious scholarship, sticking to what you know won't put your ideas into question.
which can be comforting, but it's not scholarship, and doesn't bring you nearer to the truth of what really happened posted by matteo at 3:46 AM on December 12, 2005 [1 favorite]
The truth is that you're full of grade-A shit.
it is possible to be filled with grade-A shit and still emit an aroma sweeter than honey. what was that popping noise? could it have been your head coming out of your ass? nope, unlikely. in a universe filled (defined, even) by paradox those who revere thier self-defined reason are the most superstitious twits extant. posted by quonsar at 4:11 AM on December 12, 2005
those who revere thier self-defined reason are the most superstitious twits extant
On one side we have those believe in, and claim to communicate with, an invisible being. Yet not a shred of support can be produced to validate their detailed claims.
On the other we have those who point out the absurdity of such unsupported claims.
And, according to you, the latter are the superstitious ones? Hmmm..... posted by jsonic at 4:40 AM on December 12, 2005
Metafilte: Surely some revelation is at hand
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Thank God I'm not religious! posted by acrobat at 5:31 AM on December 12, 2005
in a universe filled (defined, even) by paradox
Quonsar gets it.
If you disagree, then perhaps you would be so kind as to settle for me whether light is made up of waves or particles. posted by konolia at 6:33 AM on December 12, 2005
konolia: "perhaps you would be so kind as to settle for me whether light is made up of waves or particles."
Oh god, another manifesto. I think I'll stick to reading the comments and save my time for manifestos of more political import, like GOP state grass party planks. posted by troutfishing at 6:58 AM on December 12, 2005
konolia: If you disagree, then perhaps you would be so kind as to settle for me whether light is made up of waves or particles.
Is this really a paradox?
I'll just observe that a critical difference in many of these discussions is that atheists when confronted with these unanswered existential questions are more comfortable with, "I don't know, but would sure be interested in finding out." While theists seem to jump to, "I don't know, so god must be involved."
For me, the big killer is anthropocentrism. I'm willing to grant that the deist god, the Einstein-Spinoza god-as-universe, or the Pythagorean divine order in numbers, might exist. But I don't think it's wise to call those things "god." The God as creator of heaven and Earth. God as lawgiver and judge. God as the guy who mooned Moses. That inspires a profound lack of faith. posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:03 AM on December 12, 2005
Konolia, two things. First, abruptly changing the subject is usually indicative of the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. But I'll leave that one be with just that.
second, there is NO paradox in wave particle duality. I'll admit that it's weird physics (much less weird if you understand the math), but it is not paradoxical. I could explain it to you definitively, but as I said, there is lots of math involved and it would bore people without illuminating anything. For your information there are no "paradoxes" in physics. There's plenty of theoretical cocepts CALLED paradoxes, but since paradoxes can not exist (the very definition of paradox) physicists find that all seeming paradoxes are either impossible to acheive (i.e. the grandfather paradox isn't actually a paradox because you can't travel to the past.) or further investigation shows the paradox to evaporate entirely, as in the twin paradox.
You've already told us all that you study at seminary, trying now to pretend to be a physicist is just silly. We all know you don't have any background to understand wave-particle duality. Not a crime in and of itself, but trying to prove a point with something you don't even understand is foolhardy. posted by Farengast at 7:13 AM on December 12, 2005
I didn't bother reading the comments, was it just a battle of who's more smug and ruining government followed by a dogpile on konolia as usual? posted by mikeh at 7:21 AM on December 12, 2005
konolia: If you disagree, then perhaps you would be so kind as to settle for me whether light is made up of waves or particles.
It's a linguistic fiction not a scientific fiction. Two ways of describing the same phenomenon.
The whole "the universe is so strange so it's fine to believe in God" argument is stupid. It'd be acceptable coming from a little kid but not from a grown adult.
This criticism of "religion" is also stupid. I'm not sure why so many people seem intent on confusing religion with a political ideology. Perhaps because nobody knows how to argue about anything but political ideology these days. Either way, the argument is a non-starter. Simple words like "power", "value" and "truth" mean totally different things to religious people.
If you really want to make negative arguments against religion in itself you'll have to "sink to their level" and accept the Torah/Bible/Koran as an authority. Also note that such arguments tend to make problems worse.
There has never been (and likely never will be) an "atheist revolution." Past criticisms against religion always taken the form of (1) criticism of an earthly religious authority (e.g. the Pope) (2) arguments for science and modernity (3) arguments for the (culturally significant) State.
The only valid criticism of religion, indeed the only one that really worked, is (3)--the positive Enlightenment/French criticism that's derived from a culturally powerful State. Religion, as it manifests in the political sphere, is a nothing more than the "politics of difference." It has no place in the government of a real democracy.
(3) is a very powerful argument precisely because it's the aggressive argument. It's based on a desire to unite, respect and include--not exclude and condemn. The Founding Fathers realized this and were successfully able to "tame" religion in the political sphere for hundreds of years. It's only very recently--since the political and cultural spheres have merged and indeed you get stupidity like the "culture wars"--that the Church and State have again sunk into large-scale conflict. Still, it's possible to make a strong pro-Democracy, pro-Rights, Enlightenment criticism of the current persons who use religion for personal power. posted by nixerman at 7:30 AM on December 12, 2005
Point of order-just a bible college student , not a seminarian.
Actually, the light thing doesn't have to be a "true paradox" to make my point. The point being that just because you don't understand something doesn't make it incorrect. Human logic has limits. posted by konolia at 7:31 AM on December 12, 2005
konolia, how do you read the Bible? Is it an innerant historical document written by God? Or do you read it through the lens of the culture it emerged from as a commentary on humanity? If the former is true, then you are flat out wrong. If the latter is true I can understand your POV with respect to biblical inconsistencies. posted by anomie at 7:45 AM on December 12, 2005
nixerman, actually, the first two are also valid and did work, since the Pope is no longer in the business of running an actual empire with legal decisions over its citizens, and scientists are no longer put to death for saying the earth is not flat, or prevented from pursuing their work.
Speaking of paradoxes, when people identify all religion with fanatics and fundamentalists, they end up giving credit to arguments in favour of literalism ('why do you believe an interpretation? why do you accept this but not that?'), which is rather masochist too. posted by funambulist at 7:53 AM on December 12, 2005
I believe in the Bible as inspired* by God.
*Definition of "inspiration"-" God breathed through the human authors so that by using their own individual personalities they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs."
Further, let me define it as what my notes call "organic inspiration."
The Holy Spirit used the authors just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary, diction and style; illumined their minds, prompted them to write, and repressed the influence of sin in their thoughts. posted by konolia at 8:09 AM on December 12, 2005
nixerman, you're living in the past, and inaccurately at that. Enlightenment and post-enlightenment atheists had to call themselves deists and pay lip service to God in order to avoid beatdowns and torchings.
The culture wars, even though they're being exaggerated and exploited for ratings by leeches like O'Reilly, have been developing for a long time. Secularity and religiosity make strange bedfellows indeed and it was only a matter of time before they started fighting over the covers.
In the past few decades it has become almost acceptable, within certain islands of rationality on certain campuses or in large cities, to be openly atheistic and say that fairy tales are fairy tales. Read the Secular Lifestyle support forum to see how atheists fare outside of those islands, in what I've come to call the secular diaspora.
Prominent atheists like Sam Harris are politically, culturally and morally obliged to use that window of opportunity to speak out - it's not so much about changing people's minds and turning them into atheists as it is about bringing the debate to the surface and making it acceptable to hold opposing views. That, by definition, would create a tolerant and diverse political and cultural climate I'd be comfortable in. posted by fleetmouse at 8:23 AM on December 12, 2005
konolia What do you mean by "without error" as it concerns the OT? Are you a literalist or do you believe that certain sections of the Bible may not have actually happened? posted by anomie at 8:26 AM on December 12, 2005
Also, sorry if it looks like I'm baiting you... just trying to get a sense of what constitues a Biblical "contradiction" as you see it. posted by anomie at 8:27 AM on December 12, 2005
Enlightenment and post-enlightenment atheists had to call themselves deists and pay lip service to God in order to avoid beatdowns and torchings.
This is not true. During the Enlightenment many intellectuals openly doubted the existence of God. Not only that but Hume's founding philosophical move--that we couldn't know whether God exists--was made at this time and is the cornerstone of modern atheist thought. So, no.
Secularity and religiosity make strange bedfellows indeed and it was only a matter of time before they started fighting over the covers.
This just demonstrates that you really fail to understand and appreciate what the Church:State duality was really about.
And, just to note, this word you use--"secularity"--it doesn't quite mean what you think it means. 'Secular', as it was originally conceived, was a negative concept defined by the absence of a formal religious system. (Indeed, the original meaning of the term applied to "lay" priests IIRC). It wasn't some poorly thought out alternative to religion.
In the past few decades it has become almost acceptable, within certain islands of rationality on certain campuses or in large cities, to be openly atheistic and say that fairy tales are fairy tales.
See, this is where your argument falls apart. There is this misguided belief among atheists that it's perfectly valid for them to regulate religious beliefs to the level of Santa Claus and the Easter Rabbit. The problem with this argument is that it's not an argument. It's just an assertion. Worse, it's just not a very sensible debate. History proves that it just don't work. Religious people call other faiths fairy tales all the time--it's been going on since the dawn of time--with little effect.
This "debate" you speak about is nothing more than (2) that I referenced earlier. Now, you can make an argument for "modernity" but you will soon find yourself running into a brick wall. Religious people will rightly point out that your argument is indistinguishable from political ideology and, as such, is analagous to a kind of thought opression. Now whether this is really true is debatable... Foucault's insistence that religion offers some sort of escape from the hegemon of the State is pretty damn counter-intuitive though it's no surprise that all the religious wing-nuts these days are against the concept of a Nation State, as an independent ideal... but the problem remains. If you are going to argue for some notion of human freedom and then declare religion a "badness" you are going to look foolish. Again, think long and hard about what the phrase "freedom of conscience" really means.
I think the existence of a "Secular Lifestyle support forum" is hilarious though. Really, nothing could be more misguided. Ah, the internets. posted by nixerman at 8:58 AM on December 12, 2005
Silly me for always falling into the trap of assuming that when people here say "religion" or "atheism" they mean something larger than the political context of a country. posted by funambulist at 9:00 AM on December 12, 2005
Hey, Farengast - I think you're only seeing half of my point, and I can only assume that I'm doing a poor job of communicating, because you're obviously trying to get what I'm saying. I'll try once more, just for the sake of clarity, and because I've thought of a better way to say what's at the heart of my discomfort here:
Your position actually supports konolia's. In continuing to assert that The Bible must be an all-or-nothing proposition, you imply that fundamentalism is the only intellectually honest way to find spiritual value there. You argue the factual merits of The Bible, then take delmoi to task for granting that argument, but continuing to find spiritual value within. Your (valid) defense of the scientific method is that scientific theory is informed by new discovery, yet you would deny the same courtesy to spiritual seekers who are willing to look honestly at their source material, and adjust their views accordingly.
And I think I see why we see this differently: In reading back over your earlier responses, I noticed that you tend to slip back into rationalist mode too quickly when writing about the spiritual. This statement, for example, is illustrative of the disconnect:
“And as for the spiritual matters covered? Yes, it is not possible to prove them wrong. You can't prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.”
But whether Jesus did or did not rise from the dead is not really a spiritual matter. It is highly symbolic, and yes, clearly a critical element of the text, however you are still arguing facts here, not spirituality. Spirituality is the meaning of the text, not the details. Now, before someone gets all literary criticism all up in my face, I’m way at the front of the line for pointing out that the “message” of The Bible is also morally ambiguous (at best). Nonetheless, the point is that you begin your argument from a rationalist perspective – stating that The Bible isn’t factually true – and then seem to take on the spiritual implications of that, but without ever really moving into the new rule set of that part of the argument. Once you state that “it is not possible to prove them wrong,” you don’t get to dismiss philosophic, moral, or spiritual elements simply by continuing to try to prove them wrong as factual elements. Now, you must argue them on their own merits, with philosophic logical constructs, and with the clear understanding that there is no final understanding in such matters.
You state that my argument is really no argument and my position really no position, but I actually feel the same about your own, in a totally non-hostile/snarky, not-at-all I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I sort of way. To wit: Your view of The Bible is understandably Atheist-centric. Your underlying assumption is that there is no God, and the supernatural elements are untrue. Therefore, once you’ve disproved its absolute veracity on the facts, you simply dismiss any possible spiritual value because the source is untrustworthy. There is no God, therefore there is no God.
An open-minded Christian scholar, on the other hand, should be expected – and quite reasonably so – to see it in a different light. Granting that Biblical accounts of God are questionable does not mean there is no God. Just because the ancients viewed the world differently than we and the text suffers from all of the various vagaries of time, language, and questionable motivation, does not mean that their writings have nothing to teach us. And once you grant that spiritual, moral, and philosophic questions can never be empirically solved to an extent that would satisfy a hard-core rationalist, then you pretty much have to also grant that cherry-picking is part-and-parcel with spiritual discourse in any context, pretty much by definition, whether we’re invoking The Bible or not. Your argument then pretty much leads to: Because you do not agree with the underlying assumptions of spirituality, you do not see how pursuing questions of spirituality can have real value if those questions can never be proven to your satisfaction. The specific source material for that pursuit (The Bible, in this particular case) seems actually irrelevant to your argument.
For my part, while I seem to have reached the same basic conclusions as you, I find myself more aligned with the seekers and the cherry pickers than the fundamentalists. And it is precisely because of my respect for the scientific method that this is the case. Because the seekers are looking for truth, testing the logic of their arguments, and updating their world views accordingly. Many of the Atheists I know personally actually reached their positions from precisely this path of discovery (I know, I know – unsupported anecdotal evidence… but this is philosophy, and that’s all you get – pthththttt!).
And I don’t even like cherries.
Anyway – thanks for the polite conversation. Time to get back to what I do best: blithely poisoning the MetaFilter gene pool. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:11 AM on December 12, 2005
I think the existence of a "Secular Lifestyle support forum" is hilarious though. Really, nothing could be more misguided.
Point of order: "The Bible" is a highly problematic concept in itself. Preferred terminology today is Hebrew and Christian Testaments, and Apochrypha.
And for the most part, it wasn't written, at least not originally. There are Paul's letters, but the synoptic gosepls were told many times before being written down by people as third- and/or fourth-hand accounts of the life of Jesus.
Which is just to say, if there is a Christian God, he/she/it sure didn't put much value on clarity of message.
(Can you tell I used to work in a library?) posted by bardic at 9:28 AM on December 12, 2005
"The Bible" is a highly problematic concept in itself. Preferred terminology today is Hebrew and Christian Testaments, and Apochrypha.
Just rolls off the tongue. posted by boaz at 9:41 AM on December 12, 2005
fleetmouse, it's just my opinion, but the phrase "Secular Lifestyle" suffers from all kinds of internal contradictions. I don't know anything about the given "Secular Lifestyle," but on the surface it seems to confuse and mix up all of the major intellectual currents--from modernity to relativism to Marxism--of the last 300 years. Considering the definition of 'secular', the phrase is literally nonsense, but, after all, since you're only talking about a "lifestyle"--i.e. a collection of rationally forgiven social preferences--it's "ok." But then you throw in the "support forum" part and it just begins to sound absurd. posted by nixerman at 9:46 AM on December 12, 2005
Sure, it loses a little something, but to refer to the Bible is pretty lazy intellectually. And some find it offensive, e.g., Jews certainly don't feel that there's anything "old" about their sacred texts, and "new" has a perjorative connotation as well. If by "Bible"
Subscribe
posted by davy at 6:37 PM on December 11, 2005