|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:37 am Post subject: The Problem with Religious Moderates |
 |
|
| Quote: |
People of faith fall on a continuum: some draw solace and inspiration from a specific spiritual tradition, and yet remain fully committed to tolerance and diversity, while others would burn the earth to cinders if it would put an end to heresy. There are, in other words, religious moderates and religious extremists, and their various passions and projects should not be confused. However, religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others. I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.
We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man. This is not surprising, since many of us still believe that faith is an essential component of human life. Two myths now keep faith beyond the fray of rational criticism, and they seem to foster religious extremism and religious moderation equally: (i) most of us believe that there are good things that people get from religious faith (e.g., strong communities, ethical behavior, spiritual experience) that cannot be had elsewhere; (2) many of us also believe that the terrible things that are sometimes done in the name of religion are the products not of faith per se but of our baser natures-forces like greed, hatred, and fear-for which religious beliefs are themselves the best (or even the only) remedy. Taken together, these myths seem to have granted us perfect immunity to outbreaks of reasonableness in our public discourse.
Many religious moderates have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths, but in doing so they neglect to notice the irredeemably sectarian truth claims of each. As long as a Christian believes that only his baptized brethren will be saved on the Day of judgment, he cannot possibly "respect" the beliefs of others, for he knows that the flames of hell have been stoked by these very ideas and await their adherents even now. Muslims and Jews generally take the same arrogant view of their own enterprises and have spent millennia passionately reiterating the errors of other faiths. It should go without saying that these rival belief systems are all equally uncontaminated by evidence.
...
While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God.
Unless the core dogmas of faith are called into question-i.e., that we know there is a God, and that we know what he wants from us-religious moderation will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness.
The benignity of most religious moderates does not suggest that religious faith is anything more sublime than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, nor does it guarantee that there is not a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities.
Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy. Rather than bring the full force of our creativity and rationality to bear on the problems of ethics, social cohesion, and even spiritual experience, moderates merely ask that we relax our standards of adherence to ancient superstitions and taboos, while otherwise maintaining a belief system that was passed down to us from men and women whose lives were simply ravaged by their basic ignorance about the world. In what other sphere of life is such subservience to tradition acceptable? Medicine? Engineering? Not even politics suffers the anachronism that still dominates our thinking about ethical values and spiritual experience.
Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is flat, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago-while our knowledge on all other fronts was still hopelessly inchoate-or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We will see that there is much to recommend the latter view.
With each passing year, do our religious beliefs conserve more and more of the data of human experience? If religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress; its doctrines should become more useful, rather than less. Progress in religion, as in other fields, would have to be a matter of present inquiry, not the mere reiteration of past doctrine. Whatever is true now should be discoverable now, and describable in terms that are not an outright affront to the rest of what we know about the world. By this measure, the entire project of religion seems perfectly backward. It cannot survive the changes that have come over us-culturally, technologically, and even ethically. Otherwise, there are few reasons to believe that we will survive it.
Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what we were talking about. And they do not want anything too critical said about people who really believe in the God of their fathers, because tolerance, perhaps above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world-to say, for instance, that the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish-is antithetical to tolerance as moderates currently conceive it. But we can no longer afford the luxury of such political correctness. We must finally recognize the price we are paying to maintain the iconography of our ignorance. |
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15332.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmm. There is a group I can work with on many issues and another group I can work with on many fewer issues. What to do? Attack both and force them to be allies of each other. Yeah, that sounds like a good strategy. Yeah. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam Harris wrote: |
| [1] While moderation in religion may seem a reasonable position to stake out, in light of all that we have (and have not) learned about the universe, it offers no bulwark against religious extremism and religious violence. [2] The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief; we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled. [3] All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don't like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. This is not a new form of faith, or even a new species of scriptural exegesis; it is simply a capitulation to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God. |
[1] Wha? If more people are raised in Church to respect non-believers and to understand that its normal for doubt to accompany faith, then it is likely that we would have more religious moderates.
What we have learned about the universe is irrelevant: when we ask the universe why we are here, we are answered by a hollow echo.
Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave.
[2] We cannot say religious fundamentalists are crazy? Yes, we can! Religious fundamentalists are very crazy. If you believe that the story of Genesis is literally true: i.e., God created a garden, put Adam in it, made Eve out of his bone, they ate from a tree, etc, then you are friggin crazy.
Harris wants to paint religious moderates into a kind of faith-based relativism, wherein they cannot disagree theologically with those of their own flock. But there's no such necessity for religious moderates to accept such a relativism.
Harris' opinion here is worthy of ridicule, and thank God for South Park:
| Quote: |
| Dawkins manages to turn Garrison to atheism in a appeal to ridicule citing the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as a form of a logical fallacy. The two have sex; the next day, Garrison � just as outspoken about her new atheism as her former beliefs � denounces God to the class and makes Stan sit in the "dunce chair" after Stan makes the suggestion that evolution could be the answer to how and not why life is the way it is |
Its sad enough that fundie-crazies cannot reconcile this, but that someone like Sam Harris can't is ridiculous. Again, I'm incredulous. I'm pretty sure that Harris understands damned well but is rolling in his book money. Hey, sophistry is an old calling.
[3] No. Here's a better argument.
Proper interpretation of the Bible is paramount. In Catholicism, a direct relationship between the believer and scripture is presumed to be fraught with difficulty. Indeed, it is, as the absurdities of evangelical Protestantism reveal (I live within a 100/mile radius of the Creationism museum).
How do we interpret the David v. Goliath story?
A) Literally. Two individuals are selected from each army to settle a battle. The small and weak one wins because of his faith in God and his super-duper aim with a slingshot.
B) Allegorically. Each individual represents an aspect of each army. David represents a leadership and tactics focused on guerilla tactics, light artillery, and mobility. Goliath represents a leadership and tactics focused on size, strength, and intimidation. The Davidians win because of their tactics and their faith in God.
Sam Harris is saying that interpretation B is impossible. According to Harris, religious moderates who adopt interpretation B are surrendering "to a variety of all-too-human interests that have nothing, in principle, to do with God." But in the Catholic Church, such interpretations are considered and even taught in advanced seminary programs. Are we to believe, therefore, that the Catholic Church hierarchy is full of religious moderates with a weak connection to God?
No, the deeper the interpretation, the deeper the understanding of the world and the connection to God. And this was what Don Quixote was all about. Don Quixote became obsessed with novels of chivalry in a time when knighthood was dying out: Cervantes himself was a war hero scourged by gunpowder wounds. Knighthood and chivalry themselves were not entirely outmoded, but Don Quixote's literalist understanding was truly ridiculous. Quixote's charge of threatening windmills and his engaging in a knight's duel was a commentary on religious literalism. The very book is evidence of just how wrong Sam Harris is: religious moderates have spoken out against religious literalism and fundamentalism for over 500 years.
But Sam Harris' interpretive and allegoric comprehension is for shit, clearly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Problem with Religious Moderates |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15332.html |
I knew that sounded familiar. If you haven't, you should read the whole book. It's very good.
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree. The End of Faith is an excellent book and should be read by any interested in religious debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with all of this is the same problem that has plague humanity from the beginning. Like it or not, we are NOT created equal. Some people are stronger physically, others stronger intellectually.
The purpose of religion, or as I would prefer to call it "faith," is to provide hope to the hopeless. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact it has sustained humanity through some of it's darkest times.
Organized religion is something altogether different and should be viewed with, if not contempt, a careful eye. It is the reason so many devotees of science are so dismissive of faith.
The odd thing is the tendency of empiricists to treat science the same way the devoutly religious treat their individual belief systems. Nothing is absolutely correct, including the human ability to perceive that which is outside itself.
One day science may find God, Buddha, Allah, an oversoul, or whatever you might want to call it. If you truly believe in the scientific method you can't and won't dismiss religion as irrelevant as there has been no proof that a higher power does, or does not, exist. The call is out, same for string theory and most higher orders of science.
As the saying goes, "Practice what you preach."
In this case it would seem that humanism, or irreligiosity, is the preferred method to religion, but it is all the same. To bring it back to science, would you say the same thing about science since the Nazis used scientific progress as a means to justify killing and torturing masses of people?
Peel, deep down, are you a fascist? Because given what you post you really seem to be, and that's the only group I know of that need to be silenced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
Religion is a horrible teacher of morality. It's roots are in tribalism and mistrust of outsiders. And a society's morals tend to change from generation to generation. Any attempt to stick to one holy book or another would simply be a regression.
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
Religion is a horrible teacher of morality. It's roots are in tribalism and mistrust of outsiders. And a society's morals tend to change from generation to generation. Any attempt to stick to one holy book or another would simply be a regression.
-S- |
Are you a Westerner? Do you have any idea of the West's history? I'm guessing not.
Okay, Jesus Christ's followers founded Christianity. They took what was tribal (and while I grant that the Jews are a tribe, they are the very best kind of tribe, and have done exceedingly well in adapting to the modern world) and made it universal. The spread of Christianity was the first era of globalization. It promised entrance to everyone who would join. Christianity killed tribes, and replaced it with an idea of universal equality under one God and the ideas of love and redemption.
Some religions are indeed tribal, but not all. Again, this once more goes to show how theologically (and historically!) ignorant Harris' opiated masses are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
a religious moderate is neither. following a brand name religion is an "all or nothing" proposition. you cannot simply pick and choose the aspects of the religion that best appeal to you. warts and all. a moderate is gonna burn in hell. except, the catholic church acknowledges that hell doesn't exist.
the sooner we don't have religion the sooner we'll be better off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
| following a brand name religion is an "all or nothing" proposition. you cannot simply pick and choose the aspects of the religion that best appeal to you. warts and all. |
For the most part, the above is true.
But you fell into Harris' sophistry: its the moderates who are the religion, and the extreme fundamentalists who are going to burn in hell. The moderates are careful in their intepretation of the Bible, or in the case of Catholics, they follow the guidance of the Church.
Also, given what you have quoted, it is important to seperate religious organizations/faiths that emphasize compassion from those that don't. Since following a religion's ideals is nearly impossible, compassion and understanding must be the bedrock of any worthy faith. Once again, Harris wants to lump all religious traditions together. Harris is intellectually lazy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
Religion is a horrible teacher of morality. It's roots are in tribalism and mistrust of outsiders. And a society's morals tend to change from generation to generation. Any attempt to stick to one holy book or another would simply be a regression.
-S- |
Are you a Westerner? Do you have any idea of the West's history? I'm guessing not.
Okay, Jesus Christ's followers founded Christianity. They took what was tribal (and while I grant that the Jews are a tribe, they are the very best kind of tribe, and have done exceedingly well in adapting to the modern world) and made it universal. The spread of Christianity was the first era of globalization. It promised entrance to everyone who would join. Christianity killed tribes, and replaced it with an idea of universal equality under one God and the ideas of love and redemption.
Some religions are indeed tribal, but not all. Again, this once more goes to show how theologically (and historically!) ignorant Harris' opiated masses are. |
Yes. And yes.
Religion creates an us and them mentality. An In group and an Out group. Which side your on depends on which book you believe. That is what I meant by tribalism. Who comes out the winner depends on who has more swords or guns or, in this day and age, more bombs. Religion is a divisive force, not a unifying one. Each one preaches the wrongness of other religions and each one has a built in mechanism to spread the faith, by force if necessary. You only get that universal equality if you're a card carrying member, and even then that's no guarantee. Sunni-Shia conflict, anyone? Catholics and Protestants? To say that religion brings peace shows a rather stark ignorance of history.
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Colo. Church Gunman Had Been "Kicked Out"
By JUDITH KOHLER, Associated Press Writer
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The gunman believed to have killed four people at a megachurch and a missionary training school had been thrown out of the school a few years ago and had been sending it hate mail, police said in court papers Monday.
The gunman was identified as Matthew Murray, 24, who was home-schooled in what a friend said was a deeply religious Christian household. Murray's father is a neurologist and a leading multiple-sclerosis researcher.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071211/ap_on_re_us/church_shootings
;_ylt=AmskbqEYLJWOceay4uEwIoADW7oF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sam Harris wants to construct an altar to the scientific method and exclude all worship except to it: but in his grovelling (and idiotic) worship of efficient cause, he will not find any guide for how humans should behave. |
If you're suggesting that science cannot provide morality but religion can you are sorely mistaken. |
I'm suggesting that religion is the correct venue for matters of morality (some religions do better than others).
Science can teach us NOTHING of morality. |
I totally disagree. As Christopher Hitchens has so succintly stated: "Do you really believe the ancient Hebrews had no idea of the immorality of murder, envy, and theft before they reached Mt. Sinai?" The law of general morality is written on our hearts via comprehensive natural selection in the process of our species becoming human (a materialistic paraphrase of Jeremiah).
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
