|
|
|
>However, full marks in general to Dawkins for a very well prepared and argued program.< Still, it was a whole universe away in quality from Jonathon Miller's series on Atheism. Dawkin's faith in Rationalism is 200 years out of date. N
|
|
|
|
Anth: >However, full marks in general to Dawkins for a very well prepared and argued program.< Nik: >Still, it was a whole universe away in quality from Jonathon Miller's series on Atheism. Dawkin's faith in Rationalism is 200 years out of date. Me: Hi Nik, I’m sure most forum readers are tired of Dawkins discussions, and I mostly prefer to talk about evolution elsewhere. But I’m getting annoyed by people not engaging with anything he’s actually saying, resorting instead to oblique, ad hominem snipes. Lower down this page he’s casually described as ‘arrogant’, for no good reason. Now I discover Dawkin’s ‘rationalism’ is a mere 200 years out of date. Which leaves me astonished that the already unfashionable Charles Darwin managed to join up the dots 150 years ago. I’m no philosopher, but to me rationalism means the scientific method - no more, no less. Do you have better suggestion for investigating and explaining the natural world? Or just a different defintion of ‘rational’? And to compare Dawkins negatively with Jonathan Miller [note correct spelling] is a bit unfair. I have heard the latter interview the former, and they share pretty much the same world view (humanist / atheist / rational). Dawkins would probably make a crap theatre director, but Miller could never have written ‘the Blind Watchmaker’. Horses for courses and all that. Call me old-fashioned, but what point are you making exactly?
Modified by Nigel at Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 16:13:30
|
|
|
|
Dawkins introduced 'rationalism' to his programme by saying that his youthful hope was that 'rationalism would have won out over religion in his lifetime' - it seems a fair point on which to challenge him. To shortcut what would otherwise be a long process of 'setting terms' - the following link is to a discussion that underlines many of my reservations about the useful scope of 'rationalism'. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ I certainly wouldn't equate the Scientific Method with Rationalism, and while there is not a direct equation between rational and rationalism, Rationalism seems to be frequently self defined by its opposition to its proponents perception of irrationality. Like many Rationalists Dawkins sets out rationality as though it were an innate law of the Universe - rationality is fact - irrationality is non fact. The irony is that the very movement that brought Rationalism into the forefront of 'modern' thinking - The Enlightenment - was also the movement that provided the intellectual freedom that generated an acceptance of the value of 'moral relativism'. And any appreciation of moral relativism must surely allow that 'irrationality' is impossible - every human (indeed every entity) acts from the rationality of its own purpose. 200 years on, the flaws in Enlightenment thinking are plentifully obvious. I'm not sure why there is any need to invoke Darwin - the bearded sky god/father of patriarchal Dawkinism ? Dawkins has not served Darwinism well - and Darwin was hardly an ardent Rationalist. Origin of Species was useful - but not original - the ideas had been first published by Charles' grandfather and Charles only published himself because he was afraid that he would be trumped by another author. Darwin's great - truly profound work was the Descent of Man which was concerned with sexual selection - and particularly what it is to be a human animal. For a modern work that celebrates Darwin's real achievement see: The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller Rationalism is a poor challenger to religion. Dawkin's programmes work fine as agit prop for antitheists but do little to engage the lazily religious majority. Why are religious schools so popular ? Virtually every religious and religious supported school in Britain is heavily over subscribed ? Why do people want church weddings ? Why do people who never attend church have their children christened ? Why did so many of we exs forsake Judeo-Christo-Islam for a Hindu-Sihk tradition rather than simply becoming non religious ? Dawkin's answer is that they/we are infected. Infected by an 'idea' - thus he raises the proposition that there are good ideas and deviant ideas. And those who have deviant ideas are themselves deviant - they are failing to evolve at the rate or in the direction that 'pure' rationalism would allow. It's all a matter of breeding - quite a Nietzchean our Richard. Rationalism has no answers for most humans in most circumstances - it does not offer respite from loneliness, from illness, or from poverty - religion, no matter how distasteful we may find it, clearly does provide respite from the challenges of daily life for several billions humans. If religion is to be seriously challenged it requires something other than the sterility of scientific determinism. Chimps are just Windows 95 and we are XP - yeah right that'll help settle the muderous conflict in Haiti and the redistribution of wealth in India.. And the final irony about Dawkin's programme was that ' the world's a beautiful place' ending - our Rationalist hero draping himself in the green gown of the new religion of environmentalism. Very Enlightenment - the world according the bourgeoisie.
|
|
|
|
Well Nik, I’ve hardly read a thesis by a philosopher that I didn’t find tiring at best (with the possible exceptions of David Hume, John Searle, Gilbert Ryle, one or two others – but I suspect they’re unfashionable too, by now). It’s a bit of a cop out to point me at a website to do a crash course in rationalism, just to answer a thread post. Why not explain in your own words how ‘rationalism’ <> ‘being rational’? I suspect when Dawkins says rational, he means the same thing as I, or most people would. Actually, glancing at the rest of your post, there is so much I want to come back to you about, it will have to wait until I’ve worked out where exactly you’re coming from… (For now: Erasmus Darwin was an inspirational figure – rational sort of guy, in fact – but his back-of-a-fag-packet idea of evolution dealt only with the realisation that life forms change through lines of descent. No explanatory mechanism, ie. natural selection, and hence no theory with testable hypotheses.)
|
|
|
|
According to 'the philosophical dictionary', rationalism: >Reliance on reason {Lat. ratio} as the only reliable source of human knowledge. In the most general application, rationalism offers a naturalistic alternative to appeals to religious accounts of human nature and conduct. Which is my understanding of the term, and, I suspect, Richard Dawkins'.
|
|
|
|
Dawkins is devoid of a certain passion and charisma there's no need to go over the top, hehehehe. Though, having said that, on some levels I have a vague, general sort of sympathy with the position you're staking out. Well, some of it, at least, but not enough to seriously pour scorn on or dismiss Dawkins‘ attempt to bring the questioning of faith onto the mainstream agenda. I went to your link but to really argue with you properly I'd have to put my thinking cap on and even with the inclination I just don't have the time to do it justice. Suffice it to say that no matter what valid arguments can be lobbed against the Dawkins position, if there are any, I just thought it refreshing that at least one voice ( and there are so, so few of them) is out there in the mainstream countering a growing bombardment of religious/faith nonsense. It's about time too as those of faith are, pretty much, having it all their own way in the mainstream.Well, having a much too easy ride of it anyway. Dawkin's programmes work fine as agit prop for antitheists but do little to engage the lazily religious majority. Yes, I agree. The programmes primarily provided some relief to antitheists, myself included. The lazily religious majority, though, or to be more precise the “ lazily easily led ” - led by conditioning, sentiment, tradition etc providing, of course, no real commitment is required -aren’t exactly the problem, as I see it. Don't mean to sound arrogant there, btw : ) Societal norms and values seem to evolve and develop with the help of a big kick up the arse from a small minority of pioneering people usually ahead of their time and brave enough ( some would argue stupid enough) to suffer the flak from the majority. So when Dawkins was doing his Euro-cappuccino drinking photo shoots on a British sidewalk, he did make the point that 50 years ago gays wouldn’t be allowed to do this, that and the other but rather they'd be generally scorned by the majority as criminals and perverts.He also touched on other examples , in that vein. However, I think his point was that the pioneers on the religious front, if pioneers is the appropriate word, are increasingly making a concerted effort to roll things back so that a general “live and let live” liberality is vanquished. That live and let live liberality includes, of course, a generous tolerance of those of a religious bent even if one is basically antitheist but should not have to include forsaking all for the sake of some ridiculous OT inspired agenda.Tolerance should work both ways, shouldn't it? Those of faith, though, are increasingly politicising their faith and all I see is an increasing “ talibanisation ” ( or its equivalent in the other main religions) of society, if it’s allowed to go unchecked. Laugh at such a notion if you like and call it preposterous but let’s see what the world is like in years ahead if radical religion-ism goes unchallenged. And that’s where I think Dawkins has a point. Yes he was taking the populist route in getting the message across but so what? Obviously careful philosophical study and argument is a pre-requisite for everything of note but that wasn’t really what he was attempting. Given the restraints of operating in the mass media, at prime time, he did a good enough job in putting out a necessary warning of the growing dangers. Why are religious schools so popular ? Virtually every religious and religious supported school in Britain is heavily over subscribed ? Why do people want church weddings ? The schools issue is a no brainer, IMO. The majority non religious want them because of the discipline they offer and because of the focus on passing exams . The religious want them for the same reasons and for the extra reason of wanting to cocoon their offspring into the faith. Keeping their children safe from wider society. The schools ensure their pupils pass exams so they are on side with the Government and the Government, in turn, trumpet their success and perpetuate the wrong. The real solution is to promote truly liberal schools throughout society where religions ( all religions) are covered in the syllabus but where one religion isn’t dominant. IMO, schools and education in general should be neutral in terms of religious faith, there’s nothing illiberal about that either though I can understand their popularity and I'm not deaf to the argument that some would consider it part of free and liberal society to allow them.On the whole, though, especially in the current climate, I'm against them. Creeping creationism? Who cares! Creeping fundamentalism? Who cares! Seperating children in society from birth to adolesence/early adulthood for the sake of faith and faith alone? Who cares! Look at the exam results! No, if every school throughout the land was a good, caring, quality, liberal institution then over subscription wouldn’t be an issue. The onus is on the Government and society in general to aspire to that . That is progressive and laudable. Taking the easy option and appeasing those of faith isn’t. Ok, Dawkins uses strong words such as “ infection” and what not. What about his argument, though, concerning the special leeway given to religion re the schools issue. I thought he made a valid point about the fact that we don’t set up schools for children according to, for example, the various political affiliations of their parents. So we don’t have schools primarily for “ Labour kids”, “ Conservative kids”, Republican kids”, “ Communist kids” etc. It doesn’t just seem appropriate or fair does it? For the kids, I mean. No one seems to object unduly, though, in labelling kids, sectioning them off from their peers and classing them as “ Muslim kids”, “ Catholic kids” etc. Not a whimper from anyone. No questioning of the wisdom of such segregation. I guess you could argue that we have no qualms about labelling them “ British kids” “ Iraqi kids”, “ American kids” and what not but it isn’t quite the same is it? If general society continually accepts such segregation and even “ over-subscribes” to it without questioning the real wisdom of that acceptance, especially when religious faith is becoming ever more fundamental and politicised, then it’s storing up problems for the future. And you talk about “ breeding” ? Rationalism has no answers for most humans in most circumstances - it does not offer respite from loneliness, from illness, or from poverty - religion, no matter how distasteful we may find it, clearly does provide respite from the challenges of daily life for several billions humans. If religion is to be seriously challenged it requires something other than the sterility of scientific determinism. Chimps are just Windows 95 and we are XP - yeah right that'll help settle the muderous conflict in Haiti and the redistribution of wealth in India.. So what are you saying? That “ faith” will help the conflict in Haiti and the redistribution of wealth in India? No, I know you’re not really saying that but …what’s your real point? Just because religion provides some delusional emotional succour then that excuses it for all the wrongs and ills practised in its name? I don’t suppose you’re saying that either but what you seem to be saying is because religion provides respite from the reality of life then we just have to like it and lump it because scientific determinism just doesn’t cut it. Not much real faith in the human spirit there by the sound of it. That’s sort of conceding that only religion is in touch with fundamental human feelings and problems. I might be misinterpreting you but I also think that what you’re really saying is that religion cant actually be “ seriously challenged” at all not just by scientific determinism but by anything. I’m not as devoid of hope if that’s what you are saying though, obviously, I don’t wish to put words into your mouth. And the final irony about Dawkin's programme was that ' the world's a beautiful place' ending - our Rationalist hero draping himself in the green gown of the new religion of environmentalism. Very Enlightenment - the world according the bourgeoisie.
Hahaha, ok, ok, I concede it was bit on the contrived and sterile side but give the guy marks for trying. He generally came across as a decent minded/hearted sort of guy in spite of my tongue in cheek characterisation of him earlier. Remember, too, he’s at a disadvantage. He can’t overwhelm anyone with over the top, bombastic, flowery- tongued bullshit as those of faith can. Horses for courses : )
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 23:03:48
|
|
|
|
Nik, you wrote:-Rationalism has no answers for most humans in most circumstances - it does not offer respite from loneliness, from illness, or from poverty - religion, no matter how distasteful we may find it, clearly does provide respite from the challenges of daily life for several billions humans. If religion is to be seriously challenged it requires something other than the sterility of scientific determinism. Someone who wants only truth should not care whether the truth will bring him happiness or misery. Someone who wants only happiness will not care whether the happiness is based on a lie. Of course faith and reason have different purposes, and reason should not even try to replace faith in overcoming existential problems like loneliness. For many people, religion cannot be challenged by reason in the realm of providing happiness, but it can and should be challenged in the realm of expanding our understanding of the existence we find ourselves in. In this second aim, science so far wins hands down. In the first aim, I find a good bottle of wine and the company of a beautiful woman pretty much does the job. Nothing to do with the truth, but it feels good. John.
Modified by JHB at Sun, Jan 22, 2006, 17:41:19
|
|
|
|
Clearly and succinctly put John!
At the risk of diluting what you have written, I would like to add a little.
The idea that truth is somehow related to the consciousness of bliss is I think more deeply rooted than just what we absorbed in the cult days.
'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' - that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. John Keats
Enlightenment stuff. Before that, I imagine truth was perceived as order (I'm no historian).
Truth, beauty, happiness, fulfillment - it was all one for us in the cult days. What a mix-up! Can anyone say why these virtues might be connected, except that we would wish it so?
Here are a couple of quotes I prefer:
Nadine Gordimer
The truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is.
Albert Einstein
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.
Unless we can accept that the truth is not necessarily how we would like it to be, we don't have a chance of escaping faith-based wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
I take it that when people here talk about rationalism, they use the term without the capital letter, in the sense of being amenable to rational discourse and the rules of evidence. The term "empiricist" would do just as well to describe that common-sense position of looking at the evidence and reasoning about what's going on.
You say If religion is to be seriously challenged it requires something other than the sterility of scientific determinism and with this I agree, if you mean what I *think* you must mean.
But mind the baby, please! Determinism has proved to enjoy an astonishingly fecund sterility, wouldn't you say? Many of us reading would not have been born healthy, or at all, or lived in comfort, or enjoyed remotely as much leisure and prosperity without this sterile scientific determinism. At root it is simply the principle that like effects follow from like antedents; that there is order and regularity in the world which we can understand.
Religion (being philosphically antithetical to that position) is challenged by science. But, the challenge being philosophical, it is one that a person may accommodate by means of their own way of thinking about life, the universe, and everything. So we do find religious scientists (Professor Lord Robert Winston, one of my favourites, is a good example); and the Vatican itself now points telescopes at the skies, and is clear that "Intelligent Design" is not science, but a species of creationist religion which is incompatible with Catholicism.
The challenge then is not so much for science (it works) as for philosophy. How is it that we experience ourselves as active agents in a world governed by regular laws? More briefly, how is it that we experience anything at all? After all, evolution could have evolved us as unconscous mindless zombies, much as we imagine the insects to be. What's the point of consciousness (functionally speaking)? How is it even possible?
All religions make great play with the mystery of existence, or the fact of consciousness (practically speaking these come down to much the same thing). So, effectively to challenge religion, science will need to have a Theory of Consciousness. And indeed, I am with you, in that I would expect such a theory not to be determinist. Instead, I expect it to describe how mind arises from material dynamics that come into play as an organism chooses its own future. An organism that is able (to however limited an extent) to pick between courses of action and so choose its own future would have a much greater space of possible behaviours than a computable or clockwork mechanism. That, on the face of it, would provide a clear evolutionary advantage.
That some types of material processes are accompanied by consciousness seems undeniable, given empirical sudies of the brain. It also seems certain that the ability to choose (to be more than a computable or clockwork mechanical automaton) would be evolutionary advantageous.
So far, so good. A major problem is that one cannot disentagle the idea of consciousness from that of time. Ever since Aristotle it has been accepted that without some change in the world of objects and movement (including within our brains, which are also bodies in the world of objects and movement) we are aware neither of time nor of our own existence and awareness.
So it is likely that a Theory of Consciousness will fit rather badly with our present understanding of space-time -- the time part of things in particular.
I find that rather exiting myself, and follow the growing discussion with interest. I've found the paper Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness to be a useful read for clarifying the issues involved in the debate.
Modified by jonti at Thu, Jan 26, 2006, 07:19:56
|
|
|
|
Personally, I found this somewhat gauche, and myself in natural sympathy with the Bishop in believing that traditional western religion and spiritual experience can be compatible with reason and good sense. And that’s based on the whole twisted, bloodstained, hypocritical, intolerant, fairy-tale believing tradition is it? Or just a cherry picking of odd bits of that tradition? Back to the roots, my man, back to the roots!! For starters, until and unless the Bishop and others totally, utterly, 100% unequivocally denounce and renounce the Old Testament and the “ God” depicted in it, then as far as I’m concerned, they are just fence sitting. Most definitely. The Old Testament, as Dawkins and many others have pointed out, is just the most foul tract imaginable. Racist, sado-masochistic, misogynist, genocidal ….aww forget it…I’d be here forever. And the “ God” it reveres is truly one of the most petty, vicious, brutal, cruel, jealous Mother******* ever conceived. They haven’t denounced the testament or the “ God”, though, have they? They still find it appropriate to acknowledge them as the common binder re the three monotheistic faiths. They still find time to reproduce copies of that utterly foul, atrocious testament and include it in the Bible and leave copies of it in churches etc. They still find time to quote from it, in typical cherry picking fashion, in all the services. Ok, so there are some pretty little psalms and what not but the whole just stinks , so forget about the parts, I’d say. Sure, remember and keep some for world literature purposes but to still spread it around as part and parcel of the “ faith” instead of honestly denouncing it? Also, and this is the important point, they all - the three religions and the Bishop you speak of- continue to give Abraham a really good press. Revere is probably more accurate. That twisted, stupid old fool Abraham. I’m not just thinking of his disgusting affair with his son but his violent, petty inclinations in general. But that’s tradition, eh? It was no mistake that Dawkins mentioned Hitler and Saddam in the same breath when discussing the Old Testament, Abraham and others. You think you can divorce the roots from the “ traditional western religion and the spiritual experience” ? You’re a fitter mental gymnast than I am, that’s for sure. Isn’t Abraham the ultimate role model of the whole caboodle? The ultimate demonstration of “ faith” personified? Faith above reason revered down through the centuries. The basis of the whole tradition? Abraham was certainly pushed down my throat as one of the great and admirable historical figures in my Catholic upbringing as I’m sure he is with other Christians as well as Jews and Muslims. ABE: “ It’s ok son, the voice in my head has now told me that I don’t have to slit your throat after all. Sorry for dragging you up this mountain and frightening the shit out of you”. SON: Gee dad, that’s ok, I understand. I’m sure you’ll go down in history as one of the greatest of men. Forget about the indescribable trauma I’ve just been through and the loss of my trust in you. I’ll get over it. The important thing is you’ve clearly shown that faith is the greatest virtue. ABE: Aw shucks, son …I just knew you’d understand! I knew you’d understand that nothing is more important than the voice of “ God” I hear in my head. Also, as I’ve mentioned Hitler, the Bishop is akin to some lefty-liberal political party that places a copy of “Mein Kamph” on the chairs of its convention meetings.” Well, it’s sort of “ political” old boy, not that we agree with everything he says blah de blah de blah …but he was writing in his own time blah de blah de blah ….and there are one or two very revealing points he makes blah de blah de blah ….of course we see things differently now, blah de blah de blah …oh please, don’t criticise our inconsistency …we have a very good explanation for it, blah de blah de blah..” Ok, maybe I’m stretching it a bit but maybe I’m not. There’s no getting away from it, Anthony, the New Testament, Jesus, modern Bishops, Judaism, Moses ( another sicko if ever there was one), Mohammed and Islam have the same roots. That is the point. Those roots go all the way back to the disgusting “ God” and his mentally imbalanced “ prophets , seers, and apologists” Those roots can’t honestly be glossed over. They can be dishonestly glossed over though. So, your praising of his analysis of the Old Testament but, in a sense,your attempt ( and the Bishops) to divorce the edifice of “ faith” from those all too obvious roots as if the “Western religion and spiritual experience” somehow don’t belong in that analysis is, well….curious... if not wholly incompatible with reason and good sense : )
Modified by Dermot at Wed, Jan 18, 2006, 22:38:36
|
|
|
|
If there is, and it has power, drama may be the big action sport, and it may not fit our definitions, but unless someone can explain human nature to me better, I have to vote yes to the is there a somebody question.
|
|
|
|
" drama may the big action sport, and it may not fit our definitions..." is one way of describing the foulness of the Old Testament and the roots of the monotheistic tradition, Bill. It's as good as any, anyway. The old T is just a collection of writings depicting the mores of the times and I guess you can't attach blame just for that....at least it's honest. But universal values? Something to explain a "God" ? A " somebody" to base " Faiths" on for thousands of years to come? I'll say one thing, if it weren't so perverse it'd be good for a laugh at least.Well, ok, it's good for a laugh anyway : ) I'll paraphrase one of " Gods" edcits as so clearly revealed in the " Holy Book" : " If your guest is a man then treat him with all due consideration. Do not abuse him in any repsect. By all means give him your daughter and servants to rape and abuse any way he likes and sees fit but feed him well and remember always, he is your guest" Some " somebody ", Bill : ) Sure has a grasp of " human nature" too, ho hum.
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 07:42:12
|
|
|
|
Perhaps some amount of orchestration is a total creative thrill for our well hidden larger somebody. Do I sound like Isaac yet?
|
|
|
|
communities with standards? as time goes on, loons will define life and become a faction that dominate the bulk of religion free drifters.
|
|
|
|
Satan, who has been demonised, never killed anyone, whereas God (with a BIG G) killed 1000s in all sorts of ways that would make Hellraiser a 'U' film. 
be well Jethro
Modified by Jethro at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 02:09:44
|
|
|
|
Satan's gaff and what awaits us, ho hum.Quite enjoyed the little piece of the prog dealing with " hell". What a crock that concept is!! It has a powerful resonance, still, though with many believers. As for purgatory and limbo...hahaha...they couldn't just stick to " heaven" and be done with it, could they? Spoil sports !!! : )
|
|
|
|
is a valley in Jerusalem where they used(and still do) to burn rubbish( not garbage :> ), so there were/are always fires burning there. hence hell-fires etc. I used to live 5 minutes from Gehinnom when I lived in Jerusalem... . Lots of nice cafes in the area. "It has a powerful resonance, still, though with many believers" Yes, scary isn't it what some people believe; just as crazy as what many of us believed about Rawat. I used to think that athiests became athiests after having bad experiences in their religion, but lately I have been meeting many who are athiest BECAUSE they did read the Bible. Anyway, cheers Dermot 
|
|
|
|
would still be an OK guy. If you saw the program, the Bishop was discussing homosexuality in terms of the New Testament and the notion of people being loved warts and all by a nice God. In other words - very much different than the crazy tribal God of the Jews. Certain early Christians were in favour of ditching the Old Testament completely, as it had no connection with Jesus and the events of his life, which represented a whole new outlook from the past.
But it was retained to keep the Jewish community on board. Over time a whole story was concocted in which Jesus had come to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve in having sex (which is a ludicrous misinterpretation of the Garden of Eden story), consequently had to be born of a Virgin, etc. (I guess they miss out whether she herself was born of a virgin or through sexual congress, but most people are bewildered by the time they might think of that). In other words, you couldn't make it up - only a whole series of odd-thinking sadistic, self-loathing Bishops did make it up. However, what remains is a guy who gave the Sermon on the Mount and talked of people loving one another. That all humans were part of a human family first, before tribes or countries. And that sometimes it was a good thing to die for others. This is the good stuff, which in other circumstances might possibly have survived without the accoutrements of the dire Old Testament perverts, murderers and that long list I think you have mentioned in two posts now. And that's the stuff which most Sunday evening Songs of Praise type Christians probably have in mind, plus probably many other people who attend church only for their own baptism and funeral and the odd wedding, but have some sympathy for the figure of Jesus (OK, as presented, but probably not far from the truth). Anyway, the last thing this is meant to be is a sermon - but to really question whether such people really need to go through a formal re-education to purge them of any vestigial religious sense, or they can go about their business without some collosal guilt trip. Also, there exists within many people a natural spiritual sense regardless of their formal religious education, and this can be quite compatible IMO with the use of reason. These are the sort of parameters in which I might respond to certain elements within Dawkins generally very interesting, provocative, and to my mind, very discerning and acceptable series.
|
|
|
|
It's simply a huge chunk of the cultural context in which Christ came; a culture you need to understand in order to understand Christ. I've often wondered what Christ's message would have been like had he come in some other context, e.g., a pantheistic society. I've usually concluded that very little would change in either his message or his treatment by religious authorities. Neville B
|
|
|
|
Hi, Neville, I think I agree with you.
It is a huge historical irony that the Old Testament was retained in Christianity due to the need to keep the Jews on board, thus leading eventually to some very bizarre ideology which seemingly had nothing to do with the original Jesus. I'll have to read The Master and Margarita again. I read it a few years back and found it fascinating. Vastly funny novel which partly deals with the ironies of historical misinterpretation.
Hope you're well.
|
|
|
|
Here is something an ex emailed me. I find the quotes quite hilarious but they do get the point across about the Old Testament. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am struggling with a few things I’ve read in the Bible and am hoping you could answer the following 8 questions: 1. I would like to sell my middle daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 2. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. I am a little squeamish. Am I morally obligated to smite him myself or should I hire someone, say from the Mafia? 3. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims this rule applies to Mexicans and Orientals but not to Canadians. Why? Can you clarify? Why can't I own an Canadian? 4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 5. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some flexibility here? 6. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? I really like these guys, but do I have to kill them myself or could I hire someone? 7. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 8. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (a cotton/polyester blend).
My uncle also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14). I presume that you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help and thank you again for reminding us that God's Word is eternal and unchanging.
How do you explain away these quotes from scripture?
Modified by Steve at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 16:59:34
|
|
|
|
Yep, I did watch the second programme. It's all very well citing your warm & fuzzy " In an English country garden" vicar/Bishop but isn’t he just a dying breed in the Anglican and Roman strands of the religion and in Christianity in general? As far as I see it even his views on homosexuality ( just one of many issues but as you mentioned it….) are increasingly challenged in his fold and the OT is a powerful force in that challenge. Without being at all racist, but just keeping to the facts, the ever growing power and influence within the Christian fold is from non-Western enlightenment traditions ( African, US Bible belt etc) and Western scientific enlightenment, or even a depiction of Jesus as being predominantly of a “ Sermon on the mount….love one another ….turn the other cheek” type of guy, is on the wane. In its place is an ever growing strict, fundamental, unyielding interpretation of social, moral, scientific and historical matters, much of it more in tune with the OT than the NT. Not only that, the whole point of his series was to argue that all three religions are now growing in power and influence, indoctrinating generations to come with a completely slanted, unenlightened world view. Increasing in influence, not decreasing. I honestly don’t think this can be denied. And the root of the three religions? Not the NT, that’s for sure, but the good old voice of God heard in full within the pages of the OT. Your attempt to link the general, vague sense of spiritual stuff with a compatibility with reason is neither here nor there. That’s not where Dawkins was going with the series. He was keeping strictly to the main religious faiths V rationality angle. That’s not to say the pros and cons of your stuff can’t be discussed or argued but it’s off on a tangent, IMO.I think Dawkins was attempting to be deliberately stark. The roots of faith culture V the roots of scientific rational culture. Then to argue that the balance is slowly, but surely, tipping back to the dark ages. I tend to agree with him.
Modified by Dermot at Thu, Jan 19, 2006, 07:55:50
|
|
|
|
The New testament needs a lot of cherry-picking too, Dermot, especially by the modern, ecumenical, liberal Christian. How often does a vicar base his sermon on the rantings of arch-misogynist and homophobe, St. Paul?: "…[homosexuals] are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious towards their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:29-32. Isn't there a law against propogating that kind of incitement? "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (I Cor 14: 34, 35).
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (I Tim. 2: 11-14)
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife..." (Ephesians 5: 22-23). (Nor does the average church scripture reading ever come from that mad, hallucinogenic Book of Revelations.) It’s one thing to insist this kind of stuff needs to be placed in its historical context, but how come nothing is ever edited out of the NT if is no longer considered revelant?
|
|
|
|
"…[homosexuals] are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious towards their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." Romans 1:29-32.Yeah Paul, but apart from that, what do you really think of them ? : ) Paul was one of Malcolm Muggeridges' big role models if I remember rightly.I guess because he had a similar " miraculous" conversion to the one true path. Still, in spite of everything, always had a soft spot for the old fart Muggerridge.RIP & Oblivion
|
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder some how ex-premies manage to exit from the cult, but to my mind, only part of the way. They still get into all the spiritual stuff, as if M was some abberation and no longer worth following, but assume salvation must lie along a slightly different path. Thus spake 13 below in a thread about root of all evil. This lead to Jonti posting that great article under that thread from Dawkins, and now Dawkins smashingly smashing religions on TV. I say right on. I really appreciated going down the page and reading what this was all about. I totally agree. Crap, all of it. Here in US we now support religious schools with tax payer money, they're called "Chartered Schools," privately/religiously run but with grants from the city/state. While not endorsing any idea, they're just allowed to do it with public assistance. The bottom line is religion is a bear and tribal revenge sucks. I was forced fed as a child all of it and I do agree it is mental child abuse. Singing about our warrior anscester who slayed the enemy and the miracles and holidays around rememberances of warring is barbaric. Yet I did it with a smile, as I was a good boy. Horrible images of atrocities flushed into my little growing mind over and over and over again. How horrid. Thanks 13 and all for the Dawkins discussion. Of course, enough already. The ratings for dawkins in my country would be lower than the weather report.
|
|
|
