The original version of this page can be found at : http://forum.sfreader.com/default.aspx?f=35&m=43552
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 12:21 PM | | Anyone read Christopher Hitchens' latest book, "God is not Great"?
I saw him on Meet the Press (opposite Al Sharpton!) and the Tim Russert Show doing the rounds for his atheist's manifesto.
Here's a link to some excerpts:
I'm not an atheist, but I find Hitchens' latest project and cause admirable.
Anyone else have any thoughts on it?
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction." Daniel |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 7/3/2007 3:20 PM | Hitchens is a drunk, a liar, a contrarian, and a genius. He is almost always wrong, brilliantly.
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" , Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, July 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Sword Review, up now!
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 3:29 PM | | Hitchens is a drunk, a liar, a contrarian, and a genius. He is almost always wrong, brilliantly.
***
That's it!!!! That's it exactly. 
His short article from Vanity Fair on T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" is a perfect case in point!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction." Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/3/2007 3:56 PM | I've read it and agree with it, but then he's preaching to the choir in my case. I don't think it contains anything too new, but Hitchens writes with beautiful scorn and perception, and doesn't miss too many chances to tip some sacred cows. He does condem 'the faithful' for sticking together, as in the Pope's apparant sympathy with some muslim excesses (like the danish cartoon row). Hitchens bascially states that religion, faith, and unreason are inimical to western liberty and freedom, and don't offer the sort of leadership needed in a modern society.
As for the 'almost always wrong' Michael states above we'll have to disagree, as I find he's almost always right, once he grew out of his childish communist flirtations (which is something else he addresses in god is not Great, his loss of faith in a religion as silly as any other, communisim). Most of his fellow travellers took huge exception to this, strange they think its a virtue to keep a deathgrip on one's juvenille beliefs into adulthood rather than let reason and moral sense guide a person's opinions as they mature. People love to call Hitchens all sorts of names because of that, because he broke with the radical left and doesn't call his shots along the party line, but the best word I can think of to describe someone like that is 'adult.'
It is interesting that he has a brother who disagrees with him on almost everything, a web search should turn up some of their refutations and counter arguements.
I'm looking forward to read Hitchen's biography of Thomas Jefferson, as I think he's a writer and thinker of vast ability. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 4:15 PM | I'm looking forward to read Hitchen's biography of Thomas Jefferson,
***
Me, too!!! I think we're just calling Hitchens "wrong" in the spirit of brotherly/scholarly affection. I am anyway. I don't agree with most of his assertions but I do respect him as a thinker, damn straight.
In the case of "God is not Great" it seems like he may have confused the corruption of churches and dogma with the actual question of whether or not there is a God.
I haven't read the book yet, just interestedly followed Hitchens' convos on the telly.....
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 4:17 PM | Hitchens bascially states that religion, faith, and unreason are inimical to western liberty and freedom, and don't offer the sort of leadership needed in a modern society.
***
Probably cogent enough, but still...there are metaphysical questions (and assertions) which are not incompatible with these assertions of "inimical unreason."
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel Ausema - 7/3/2007 4:23 PM | Everything I've been hearing about this (in a number of reviews, some written by those who identify themselves as atheist, some by those who identify themselves as religious moderates) makes it sound like he paints a ridiculous straw man of religion and then sarcastically exposes that straw man as being shallow (obviously). All of this done with little awareness of the debates and discussions that have gone on for years among those interested in the philosophy of religion (which again will include theists, atheists, agnostics, etc. of many stripes).
Those other debates on the one hand would reveal many of Hitchens's attacks as simplistic and shallow...but on the other hand would offer more insightful and meaningful challenges to religion as well. But he writes the book as if completely oblivious to those deeper questions. So ultimately it sounds like a book you have to already agree with to enjoy (if then) rather than something that would convince someone to reconsider their own opinions. In fact, I've come across references from certain atheists that they're as embarrassed by his book as a religious moderate might be about a book written by Pat Robertson (for example) to defend religious faith.
I'm only reporting what I've seen in other reviews though--I haven't read the book myself. I'm interested what other people who aren't reviewers think.
Twigs and Brambles (my writing blog) |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 4:54 PM | So ultimately it sounds like a book you have to already agree with to enjoy (if then) rather than something that would convince someone to reconsider their own opinions.
***
Good point, he kinda gave that one away with the title, eh?
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 5:18 PM | keep a deathgrip on one's juvenille beliefs into adulthood rather than let reason and moral sense guide a person's opinions as they mature
***
Interesting. I think some "juvenile" beliefs are better than others. And everything according to its *function*, lol!
Certainly, I don't disagree with letting one's "moral sense" and "opinons" evolve through time and experience, to so disagree would be a form of dogma, right? Neither do I think anyone is ever truly free from their juvenile beliefs altogether, nor do it think this is altogether a bad thing as there are certainly aspects of childhood which form a sound basis for beliefs held by a person in their maturity.
Equating the belief in God with "juvenile" strikes me as specious. Certainly for someone raised in an environment in their childhood which promoted dogmatic beliefs, their evolution may take them "out" of this particular belief or set of beliefs; on the other hand, I was raised by an atheist (though never subjected to or really influenced by this view as "dogma") and have found myself becoming more and more convinced of the existence of God as I mature; not in terms of any particular religion, OR dogma, mind you, and that's an important distinction.
I'd imagine others have had (or will have) simlar experiences to my own in this wide, wide world.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/3/2007 5:52 PM | Daniel B., Actually the juvenille belief I was refering too was Marxism, still fashionable among the Che Guevara t-shirt crowd. That whole paragraph was about Hitchen's break with the radical left, not the book or religion per se.
Daniel A., Hitchens' didn't write the book as a philosophical or metaphyscial examination of God, but as a study of how faith and unreason distort human activity. The purview of the book is essentially world events and society, whether or not gods exist is actually quite secondary to the arguement, it's unreasoning faith and tribalism that Hitchens is focused on, which manifestly and demonstrabley do exist.
The concrete nature of Religion is the focus of the book, not philosophical speculation; which may clear up some ideas you guys are having about it. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 5:59 PM | Actually the juvenille belief I was refering too was Marxism, still fashionable among the Che Guevara t-shirt crowd. That whole paragraph was about Hitchen's break with the radical left, not the book or religion per se.
***
D-oh....
I must've thought you were trying to say Hitchens was equating the two paradigms....
Still trying to break my bad habits; this was another case of #3, "Not Listening" I believe?
Sorry, Bill!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/3/2007 6:00 PM | Hitchens' didn't write the book as a philosophical or metaphyscial examination of God, but as a study of how faith and unreason distort human activity. The purview of the book is essentially world events and society, whether or not gods exist is actually quite secondary to the arguement, it's unreasoning faith and tribalism that Hitchens is focused on, which manifestly and demonstrabley do exist.
The concrete nature of Religion is the focus of the book, not philosophical speculation; which may clear up some ideas you guys are having about it.
***
Yeah, I should check back in after I actually read the thing.
Thanks for your, as usual, excellent observations, dude.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel Ausema - 7/3/2007 6:06 PM | Ah, that makes sense to clarify it, to put in perspective what's being claimed and what's not. Thanks, WD.
Twigs and Brambles (my writing blog) |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/3/2007 7:54 PM | Hitchens just remarked in the book that he understood faith and loss of faith to some extent from his own experience with Marxism, and I got a bit off on a tangent about the radical left that never grew up despite the undeniable reality of the soviet experience and confused my post somewhat.
I believe the original title of the book was Religion is Poison, which is similar to the subtitle, and that would have probably suggested a bit more precisely the scope of it. It's definitely not a 'god doesn't exist because of this, this, and this' book (at least that's not his thesis, Hitchens assumes it as fact and moves on, with occasional reflections back toward the issue); its a 'religion is bad for humanity because of this, this, and this, and by the way how can these crazies claim some kind of divine sanction when they behave like that, and who would want to worship such a monster that demands this, this, and this of his supplicants, etc.' You get the idea.
So yea, you definitely couldn't give it to someone and say 'ha, this disproves god!' its not about that; but perhaps a religious moderate or 'independant' might change his mind to some extent as to the essentially beneficial nature of organized religion, or faith without reason. |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/4/2007 12:13 AM | I've not read any of Hitchens work, but I've heard him speak, plus a couple of interviews (including his _God Is Not Great_ promotion on The Daily Show). Not much of a sampling, but he didn't say anything I thought profound or new. He paints with a very broad brush while claiming to champion reason, two things I consider at odds.
I've never heard a good argument that history would have turned out different if people were "reasonable" for the last few thousand years, holding to no religious or superstitious beliefs. Would the outcome have been any different if the excuses had changed?
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 11:16 AM | |
I've never heard a good argument that history would have turned out different if people were "reasonable" for the last few thousand years, holding to no religious or superstitious beliefs. Would the outcome have been any different if the excuses had changed?
***
Ah, a confirmed cynic!
Of course, we've had examples of atheistic and secular governments and nations: Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, communist Spain (though they were crushed by Franco), North Viet Nam, and --- go back to classical cultures -- there was Sparta.
And then , of course, supposedly, America itself, which enjoyed an Age of Reason.
Anyway, here's a chart (can't vouch for its credibility) which shows the breakdown of atheists by nation; looking it over one might conclude atheistic nations do run more efficiently?
| Country |
Total country
population (2004) |
% Atheist/
Agnostic/
Nonbeliever in God |
Number of Atheists/
Agnostics
Nonbelievers in God
(minimum - maximum) |
| Sweden |
8,986,000 |
46 - 85% |
4,133,560 - 7,638,100 |
| Vietnam |
82,690,000 |
81% |
66,978,900 |
| Denmark |
5,413,000 |
43 - 80% |
2,327,590 - 4,330,400 |
| Norway |
4,575,000 |
31 - 72% |
1,418,250 - 3,294,000 |
| Japan |
127,333,000 |
64 - 65% |
81,493,120 - 82,766,450 |
| Czech Republic |
10,246,100 |
54 - 61% |
5,328,940 - 6,250,121 |
| Finland |
5,215,000 |
28 - 60% |
1,460,200 - 3,129,000 |
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/4/2007 12:47 PM | Jeff, the crux of the book isn't so much that history would be different, but that our future may be because as we are no longer living in a world of spears and horses or even cannon and steam but mass media, mass travel, and nuclear weapons. As for whether people would behave any better if the 'excuses had changed' consider that relgion is often not an excuse but a primary motivator, or that when it is an excuse it amplfies things to a profound degree. Religion is in many ways tribalism institutionalized.
I don't recall Hitchens view on this, so this is all me, but I often find it useful to articulate a modern fallacy that seems at the heart of many misunderstandings western educated people have about the world, history, and humanity, something traceable to a marxist view of history (that fusty remant of Victoriana that won't go away), and that is the interpretion of humankind as rational economic actors that need to secure 'excuses' to act in ways that benefit them concretely. The reality is that very often, perhaps most often, human history is made by individuals and groups that don't understand their interests, and act irrationally and for the satisfaction of some imagined neccessity, whether it be holy war, building a socialist paradise, or securing lebensraum -- none of these things is rational. To view humanity as rational is irrational, and this is yet one more reason why the marxist-leninist-trotskyist-maoist messianic religions completley failed to accomplish anything but misery until they were swept into quiet corners but a new generation of rulers who saw the destruction wraught by true believers.
As for these secular regimes that turn out bad they are condemned for unreason as well in Hitchens book, for the 'god' of a communist utopia for example. If anyone doubts communism was a religious ideology just consider how much of it had to be taken on faith, or think about nazism's messianic triumphalism and secure belief in providence. These poisonous ideologies are religions, indeed amongst the worst religions mankind has produced.
Daniel: interesting chart. Vietnam is a puzzle, I'd wager that's a lot of people still trumpeting the party line over there go home to light joss sticks to buddha in private. European atheism is interesting, I think in most cases its more a case of secure government producing the conditions for atheism, and I've noticed anecedotaley that the irrationality that might manifest itself as superstition or worship in more orthodox settings becomes an almost mystical belief in government and a strong inclination toward conspiracy theory type beliefs in europe (government is all powerful ergo nothing can happen by accident, the government [or a government, the US is popular in this capacity] did it secretly: the same thing as someone saying its all part of god's plan). I think humans naturally look for patterns that aren't there and try to find sense where none exists and want to put their trust in a tribal father-leader, and all of that comes out no matter how supposedly enlightened a group is. |
| Posted By : BarbT - 7/4/2007 12:56 PM | |
The serious problems arise because of humanity's innate clannishness. "God is Great" really means: "Our god is great, yours is puny or doesn't exist. Since we have the backing of the Ultimate Power of the Universe, we are 'all that and a bag of chips'."
You are nothing. You are expendable/disposable.
Fundamentalism is a backyard clubhouse with a "You got cooties! Keep Out!" sign hanging from a sorry old nail.
-Barb
|
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 1:00 PM | | I've noticed anecedotaley that the irrationality that might manifest itself as superstition or worship in more orthodox settings becomes an almost mystical belief in government and a strong inclination toward conspiracy theory type beliefs in europe (government is all powerful ergo nothing can happen by accident, the government [or a government, the US is popular in this capacity] did it secretly: the same thing as someone saying its all part of god's plan).
***
Great post, Bill!
You make a lot of important and highly-persuasive points here. I agree with most of what you say.
A few questions: do you see "mystical belief" always as a fallacy? Are you suggesting that "pattern making" among the masses (making patterns from chaos, or projecting them onto chaos) is always compensatory and irrational?
Subquestion: does science -- quantum physics, forex,-- partake of this "tribalism" or is science in some ways immune from trying to find "sense where none exists?"
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 1:58 PM | | The serious problems arise because of humanity's innate clannishness. "God is Great" really means: "Our god is great, yours is puny or doesn't exist. Since we have the backing of the Ultimate Power of the Universe, we are 'all that and a bag of chips'."
***
Absolutely! Well-put.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/4/2007 2:21 PM | WDWard said...
As for whether people would behave any better if the 'excuses had changed' consider that relgion is often not an excuse but a primary motivator, or that when it is an excuse it amplfies things to a profound degree.
This claim is what I'm doubting. I've known too many people, individually and in groups, to believe they would behave any better if religion was stripped away. In my experience, the majority only find religion important when they can use it to justify themselves or set themselves apart from others. When I listened to Hitchens, his arguments didn't strike me as rational. If he can't manage it, why should I expect better of others when they gathered together in groups? Does it really matter why people embrace "us against them" if you have no doubt that they will embrace it?
Daniel said...
Ah, a confirmed cynic!
I find it meshes nicely with Christianity. 
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 2:27 PM | | I find it meshes nicely with Christianity
***
LOL
Wasn't Christ spreading the "Good News?" Or more accurately, "discovering" it.
You can count on people to corrupt anything: medicine, science, commerce, art, sex, friendship, love.
Though I am not a Christian by any means, I find the idea of a "forgiving god" and eternal life optimistic-at-heart. But then again I am a romantic! And mystically inclined to boot!
The practice of Christianity may be cause for some cynicism, I suppose. But even then, it is a learning curve, even Hitchens would grant that, I assume, to some degree.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 7/4/2007 2:43 PM | Perhaps he would, but don't count on it. I always love to read what Hitchens has to say, but one of the pillers of his style is he never grants anything unless it bolsters his argument. He is especially passionate about creating stawmen. Hitchens is not a critical thinker in practice; everything is in support of his current religion. Like every apostate he loaths his former faith with the same irrational passion as he loved it.
That he would have been a passionate Marxist is a peek into his soul--- that particular religion is just as cult-like as any bunch waiting for a comet to take them away to the planet Xenon. Not many of them around, and their ineffectualism just feeds into the persecution complex that makes the whole experience so tasty.
No, Hitchens didn't suffer an enlightenment, he just changed religions. Now he is the most talented member of the Order of Blowhard Drunkards. If any of his views coincide with yours, it is just a random hit, most likely unsupported by any underlying philosophy of his.
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" , Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, July 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Sword Review, up now!
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 2:45 PM | Now he is the most talented member of the Order of Blowhard Drunkards. If any of his views coincide with yours, it is just a random hit, most likely unsupported by any underlying philosophy of his.
***
Wow! Bill, like to reply to that one?
LOL
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 7/4/2007 4:18 PM | This wasn't a slap at Bill or his beliefs, rather a remark that anything Hitchens believes is based on more of what he is against or what irritates him at the moment.
Hitchens is the one who claimed that Achmed Chalabi, his old friend, who was found to have leaked that the US had broken the Iranians' encryption while we were promoting him as the George Washington of Iraq, most likely saw the algorythm by himself and figured it out in his head. Now I work in IT security; I am certified as a CISSP and as a HIPAA Security Specialist, among others. I can assure you that no DOD used, NSA developed encryption algorythm can be worked out in someone's head after a casual glance at some encrypted page. But because Hitchens was invested in support of Chalabi, none of his critical thinking skills were called upon--- he believed, stated and defended what he wanted to believe, just same as the most deluded follower of the rattiest street-corner prophet.
Hitchens is not a clear thinker--- he is a brilliant and persuasive writer who uses his contempt for everyone he disagrees with as a faux objectivity. He is not at all interested in the truth--- he is interested in winning this argument, after which he will be interested in winning the next.
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" , Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, July 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Sword Review, up now!
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 4:36 PM | This wasn't a slap at Bill or his beliefs
***
I know, I just thought Bill might want to stand up for Hitchens a little!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/4/2007 7:59 PM | Daniel said...
A few questions: do you see "mystical belief" always as a fallacy? Are you suggesting that "pattern making" among the masses (making patterns from chaos, or projecting them onto chaos) is always compensatory and irrational?
I just used mystical to describe the peculiar reverence I've seen for government in some places and culture, as if it was some sort of diety. I don't think pattern making is always irrational at all, its what lets us discover the stuff that is there and make sense fo the world and make useful intuitive leaps; so the jist of what I think is that it works in reverse; ie. I think most irrational beliefs and superstitions arise out of man's capacity and need for making patterns, which is often a good and valuable thing.
Daniel said...
Subquestion: does science -- quantum physics, forex,-- partake of this "tribalism" or is science in some ways immune from trying to find "sense where none exists?"
No my view is that science intends to bring ground rules into the hunt for answers that try to cut through a lot of that; however it can't ever be immune. In a minor sense most scientists have preconcieved ideas that they set out to prove or disprove, so right away its never a process that's free from bias. Unlike religion, however, there is a 'revolutionary' element to science that does allow for a person to turn the establishment's ideas on their head provided enough proof can be mustered. It isn't perfect, but religion and dogma don't even attempt to do this.
As an example of when it isn't perfect, it seems most universities are now dominated by string theorists, and this most tenuous of 'theories' is pretty heavily entrenched. I do think that, while these guys won't give up in the absence of lack of evidnece, I do think the tide would turn if contrary evidence presented itself, at least within a generation or two. Contrast this with how many people believe things like virign births are possible, or the earth is six thousand years old, or species are immutable, or killing infidels will net them virgins in the afterlife, etc. despite all evidence to the contrary.
Incedentally and tangentally, recent linguistic analysis of aramaic loan words into old arabic suggests that the seventy six virgins presented to the martyr in paradise mentioned in the Koran are actually grapes, the word for the 'new grapes' apparantly only later taking on the meaning of 'maiden'. I guess a lot of those suicide bombers wrapped their genitels in tin foil for nothing. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 8:19 PM | Bill,
Two thoughts: 1) mysticism is often a precursor to the knowledge attained by science. 2) Your quote about the Koran in some ways verifies this in that mysticism involves a *poetic* interpretation of experience just as science involves a materialistic or rational orientation; however, each are equally subject to misinterpretation with disastrous results.
String theorists aside, there were endless amounts of scientists lining up to support discounted theories like phrenology and physiognomy, not to mention Einstein's own insistance on a "cosmic ether" depsite all evidence to the contrary. Just as there are plenty of scientists now lining up to deny the existence of global warming and sanction the use of pharmeuciticals for schoolkids, etc.
For that matter, there still is no unifying theory for subatomic and astrophysical gravity and all classical methods of physics were turned on their heads by the quantum age. Which itself will be turned on its head, and so on.
Religion has moved from pantheism to monotheism in most cases? Is that progress of any kind in your opinion?
I think it's fair to say belief in human reason is irrational, as you've mentioned upstream. I'm not sure there's a revolutionary aspect to most religions although there seems to be because most of them have sects and orthodox and "non-orthodox" splinter groups. I know there is revolution in science but I am not sure it is any quicker or any more honest in coming, so to speak, than the Church.
Do you view the religious impulse that people claim to have as, in any way, a suitable subject for scientific investigation?
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/4/2007 8:33 PM | Jeff Stehman said...WDWard said...
As for whether people would behave any better if the 'excuses had changed' consider that relgion is often not an excuse but a primary motivator, or that when it is an excuse it amplfies things to a profound degree. This claim is what I'm doubting. I've known too many people, individually and in groups, to believe they would behave any better if religion was stripped away. In my experience, the majority only find religion important when they can use it to justify themselves or set themselves apart from others. When I listened to Hitchens, his arguments didn't strike me as rational. If he can't manage it, why should I expect better of others when they gathered together in groups? Does it really matter why people embrace "us against them"
I'm not certain which of his arguements you mean, or if you just refer to his caustic and uncompromising manner.
I agree to some extent with what you say, I think Hitchens would too, but the way some beliefs warp whole societies goes beyond just providing a framework for selfish or hierarchical behavior, it can mobilize a whole society in a way that most other beliefs can't, and can justify and institutionalize inhuman behavior. Beyond that the point is that it not only amplifies or provides and excuse for things people or a society might 'normally' do, it creates whole reasons for a society to behave against its best interests or against sane human norms. examples:
The Catholic church preaches against the use of condoms in AIDs ravaged Africa, and reportedly some clergy have even told their flock that condoms cause AIDs. Now, this assertion only has value within the confines of religion, it is a dogmatically inspired imposition that serves no 'selfish' purpose on the part of the church. It's not like the church benefits from AIDs, just the opposite I'd imagine, yet it sticks to its ideology.
How many children of christian scientists die when their parents refuse medical help in favor solely of prayer? I don't see selfish, natural, or rational reasons for this, instead it's a dogma getting in the way of sane human thinking.
The cult of the suicide terrorist would not exist in the absence of religion, specifically in the absence of islam, a political relgion that preaches that its followers are the dominate power on earth and have the right to subjugate all other people. Too huge a subject to even attempt to get into, I'll just say that it is obvious that a death cult of this kind would not exist without supernatural underpinings and a culture that refuses to adapt a moral code created in the dark ages (afterall, the koran is the perfect word of god and cannot be changed). It is not a case of young angry men doing what they would do naturally and looking for an excuse, its a case of people warped by a sick culture of nihilism, force fed glorious fantasies of heroic resurrection, and told that god is on their side. Obviously other examples of suicide bombers exist in all manner of times and societies, but not to this extent, not as its own cult of martyrs.
People base their actions on dogma all the time, and often they do things they don't want to do or wouldn't normally do to satisfy the dictates of a religion or irrational belief. |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/4/2007 8:51 PM | Daniel said...
Two thoughts: 1) mysticism is often a precursor to the knowledge attained by science. 2) Your quote about the Koran in some ways verifies this in that mysticism involves a *poetic* interpretation of experience just as science involves a materialistic or rational orientation; however, each are equally subject to misinterpretation with disastrous results.
I agree, however I think misinterpretation is severly lessened when one is examing things through the filter of reason in the first place, rather than a dogma.
Daniel said...
String theorists aside, there were endless amounts of scientists lining up to support discounted theories like phrenology and physiognomy, not to mention Einstein's own insistance on a "cosmic ether" depsite all evidence to the contrary. Just as there are plenty of scientists now lining up to deny the existence of global warming and sanction the use of pharmeuciticals for schoolkids, etc.
Absolutely, but there aren't phrenologists or lamarkians or that sort of thing anymore, at least in places where science is allowed to operate without ideological imposition (like the ussr with its own 'soviet science' of lysenkonian biology). I don't think science is always right, or always holds the answers, however it is the best mechanism in my opinion for the prgress of human thought since it weeds out old, dead, and unworkable theories. The break through therories of a centruy ago are today's common sense. That is not the case with relgion, with is antiprogressive, and has a vested interest in preserving its dogmas without modification.
Daniel said...
Religion has moved from pantheism to monotheism in most cases? Is that progress of any kind in your opinion?
I'm of two minds here, in one sense it was the advent of a personal god, and then of a personal faith free of an institution, that paved the way for humanism and atheism, on the other the 'culture based' pagan religions seemed not at all unsophisticated in their day and were a useful metaphor for aspects of their societies, and seemed to change with those socieites without retarding them as much as some monotheistic relgions. I don't think I think of it as progress, just differences. There are certainly monotheistic relgions that are saner than others.
Daniel said...
I think it's fair to say belief in human reason is irrational, as you've mentioned upstream. I'm not sure there's a revolutionary aspect to most religions although there seems to be because most of them have sects and orthodox and "non-orthodox" splinter groups. I know there is revolution in science but I am not sure it is any quicker or any more honest in coming, so to speak, than the Church.
That's true, but its not a 'built in' revolutionary concept. In science its expected to challenge the status quo, and the culture of science for the most part rewards discovery and reinterpretation. Church revolutions are bloody, and often don't lead to progress but mere factionalism, just look at shi'a and sunni islam.
Do you view the religious impulse that people claim to have as, in any way, a suitable subject for scientific investigation?
Absolutely, I think Dennet just wrote a lukewarm book on the subject, and Dawkins may have addressed it as well. I think everything is a suitable subject for scientific investigation.
Fun discussion! |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/4/2007 9:01 PM | Michael: I'm not familiar with Hitchen's relationship to Chalabi, though I am acquinted somewhat with the unrealistic appraisal many in the west had of his abilities and intentions.
I suppose I'm not to alarmed that Hitchens argues vehemently and spices his invective with vulgarity, and fights to win his arguements rather than present a complete nuanced picture (in some, not all cases), when he's right. He's one of the few public people saying things that need to be said, I suppose it's entirely possible some of his arguements and beliefs are irrational. Afterall, emotion and passion are irrational, as is courage, and I didn't see any churchleaders or politicians publically standing up to denounce the censure of Jyllands Posten, or the fatwa against Rushdie, and proclaim unambiguously and from the gut that western ideals of freedom are not something that will go away just because a vast tide of unreason laps at our shores. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/4/2007 9:01 PM | | Fun discussion!
***
You said it, thanks for hanging out in the "Hitchens" thread! LOL
"I'll be back!"
Or, to go retro on all of you:
"I SHALL return!"
<off to take my kids to watch fireworks, that tribalistic thing, ya know! But I promise not to see god in the pretty colors this time!>
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 7/5/2007 2:22 AM | Is when Hitchens right even discernable when he lies to support his current argument? His passion is not for any cause, it is for the argument itself. And bah, Hitchens is not a lone voice in the wilderness, plenty of others say the same things as he does, just less brilliantly.
"I didn't see any churchleaders or politicians publically standing up to denounce the censure of Jyllands Posten, or the fatwa against Rushdie, and proclaim unambiguously and from the gut that western ideals of freedom are not something that will go away just because a vast tide of unreason laps at our shores." Then you haven't been to any fundamentalist church in the last 5 years (which I have, a lot of them), or watched TBN or Daystar, (which I do) 'cause baby there is a reason they call it the religious right. Hal Lindsey in particular has a hate on for Islam in any form, and does plenty of denouncing, as does John Hagee.
Plenty of unreason within our shores too, and the "Fortress America" mentality is far older than our current troubles with radical Islam. New enemy, old tune.
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" , Fear and Trembling, coming soon!
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, July 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Sword Review, up now!
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 10:08 AM | I think most irrational beliefs and superstitions arise out of man's capacity and need for making patterns, which is often a good and valuable thing.
***
My objection to this whole line of thinking starts with the idea of "irrational beliefs." Which beliefs are NOT irrational?
I find capitalism highly irrational, forex and also modern psychology, science, and for that matter "democracy" to a big extent. SO are all forms of human thought and understanding "irrational?" Which elements manage to evade this tag and why? And: who decides?
I'll give a concrete example of what I mean: science, as it stands in modern practice, displays an inherent irrationailty (and conscious limitation) simply by investigating and examining a *dead* world rather than the world of living reality. When you take a "sample" from the natural world into a "lab" and start looking at it under microscopes and under various "lab" conditions you are no longer examining the world you are ostensibly trying to understand by way of scientific inquiry.
When you make a consistent and socially active claim to this form of investigation it becomes dogma and maybe even worse it becomes "truth" to many people depite the obvious Universal will toward eluding laboratory analysis! In this regard (among others) science is spectacularly "irrational;" in fact, the entire scientific method is insane, and yet science is viewed by many if not most as the *highest*form of human rationality.
The results of this irrational behavior are manifested everywhere in the destruction of the natural environment and in the raping of natural resources and the alienation of the individual from the natural world: this much more dangerous to humanity than religious oppression in my opinion. And especially if you believe in a human "soul" or religious response which is obviously, need I even say it? -- a part of the non-lab world.
Just scratching the surface here, trying to stake out my territory and dogmas as it were!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/5/2007 10:16 AM | WDWard said...
I'm not certain which of his arguements you mean, or if you just refer to his caustic and uncompromising manner.
He uses some tried and true tactics, like guilt by association and pushing the opposing position to the extreme before attacking it. These are effective, but not rational.
I don't claim the details of bad deeds would be the same without religion, just that the overall effect would be little changed. I do, however, disagree with you regarding suicide terrorism. Suicide attacks are honored in Western society for the deeds themselves, although many doubtlessly see God as rewarding such self-sacrifice. Terrorism generally stems from the asymmetric nature of the struggle and the oppression the recruiting pool feels they are living under. Given those two, I can't imagine suicide terrorism vanishing along with religion. I have no doubt that talk of the afterlife makes recruitment easier, but I also have no doubt such recruitment would still go on if they had no belief in the afterlife. Indeed, I believe we have examples of suicide bombers who did it for the honor and support it would bring their families.
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/5/2007 10:20 AM | MichaelEhart said...
Hitchens is not a critical thinker in practice; everything is in support of his current religion.
As I said, my exposure to him is limited, but that matches with what I saw. That, however, shouldn't undermine validity for debate of the ideal he is championing.
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 10:20 AM | Terrorism generally stems from the asymmetric nature of the struggle and the oppression the recruiting pool feels they are living
***
Absolutely.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 12:15 PM | Michael: Hitchens also is one of the people publically condemning fundamentalist christians. When I say 'our shores;' I don't mean the US, I mean whats left of the western world that still holds to the values of the enlightenment. Hitchens certainly asserts in his book it is a struggle from within and without, indeed that's much of the point; that you can't rely on one religion to fight another.
Yes, terrorism is asymmetric, etc. and so forth. I doubt this conflict would even exist if a certain desert prophet had died of heatstroke in a cave rather than seen visions and live to plagarise the bible, but thats out of the scope of this discussion. I hesitated to even mention suicide bombers because I thought it might provide a launch point for losing the point I was making (which you still obviously disagree with Jeff), that there are plenty of actions that are purely dogma based. Why would a parent not seek medical help for his child in the absence of a religious doctirine that forbids it, etc. Address those points, rather than the terrorism point, in which I think many people still confuse tactics (which would exist with or without religion) with motive and culture (why would those suicide bombers families be so honored, which you mention, if it wasn't for religion? no sane culture operates like that, no sane culture actually maintains a cult of suicide soldiers, no sane person would join said cult without indoctrination).
As for the 'oppression' perhaps a non-relgious person woud realize the oppression comes from their own wicked theocratic leaders, rather than a western bogeyman. Or, for our homegrown crazies, are we really saying the london and glasgow bombers are 'oppressed'? Nonsense, that's the marxist fallacy of the rational and economic man raising its head again, in reality it all comes down to humilation and pride. As individuals these people live in prosperous societies, societies that have even gone out of their way to champion multiculturalism rather than assimilation, but instead religious mania infects them. So they tie into the current islamic temper tantrum as a way of feeling empowered and not feeling humiliated for adhering to a system of beliefs that has proven to be a loser in the modern world. It isn't an asymmetric conflict so much as an unneccessary one. I'm not suggesting that that same sorry cocktail of emotions that leads someone to spectacular violence and/or self destruction wouldn't exist without religion; but relgion causes it in many cases where it wouldn't exist (the conflict of fundamentalist seventh century ideas with the modern world), and provides a legitimacy (framework, culture) that would not be there without it.
Dan, what I can follow of what you're saying is interesting, but for the sake of my own sanity I just limit my definitions to conventional ones. I disagree that science is irrational because it studies things or phenomenna in isolation (though, not always, there are plenty of systemic studies whether it be zoologists following gombe chimps, or meteorologists tracking global weather patterns), that's just another way of knowing. I don't think science or the community is flawless, or doesn't have dogmas, but it's far better and more elegant a set of principals for understanding the nature world then anything else. If it doesn't capture the emotional resonance or signifigance of the objects of its study every time or for some personalities there are always the other Arts. I agree that capitalism isn't rational, and has its own dogmas, but the same applies to all human systems. I think the jist of rationality is to use reason to select the best of what the irrational has to offer. I can accept that, when looking philosophically and semantically at much of our discussion, defintions break down, which is why I fall back on the conventional usage, and freely admit that all human thought and endevour is irrational to some degree or form.
Also, I think the general assumption is that because Hitchens champions the rational he has to be a robot, or behave like Mr Spock. The man is a contrarion and a firebrand, and he's standing up for a point of view that has few public champions, but many public defamers, and he's crass and provacative and aggressive. Someone said he lies to make his point, I haven't detected a lie -- certainly not in the issue we are discussing -- and I'd hesitate to call him a liar over other things such as unscrupulous or incautious. Also, seeing him on a talking head show is the worse kind of exposure, as nine out of ten times its the host or another guest and him shouting over each other to make a point (see the youtube clips). Whole presentations of his or debates (he's on book tv all the time) are a much better indicator of what he's saying.
Also someone mentioned, I gorget who, that Hitchens is like any apostate in that it hates his former beleif with an unreasoning passion. That is incorrect, he was never a god-believer but a marxist, and his book is about relgion. He is also not a hater of all things assopciated with religion, he doesn't want to tear churches down like Gibbons, he has some appreciation for the positive power of ritual in services he has attended, and has taught his children with religious texts. He condemns faith and dogma, literalism, and institutionalized belief, he's actually slightly more of a moderate then someone like Dawkins who doesn't have the imagination to understand why people are religious or to concede that there is or was anything of value associated with religion. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 12:36 PM | I disagree that science is irrational because it studies things or phenomenna in isolation
***
I think that this practice in science is analogous to the exclusivity and esotericism of ritual and jargon of religions. In other words lab+jargon+method = Esoteric Knowledge (TM)  Add a labcoat and you have vestements! Add a couple of computers or geiger counters and you have oracles! A couple of "subjects" like lab-rats and you have a sacrificial rite! Add greed and corruption and you have medical and scientific tyranny as we do in America.
Science will only admit certain "phenomena" as even being legitimate criteria for scientific inquiry. Usually that depends on a preconcived idea of what can or can't be accomplished in an "isolated" settting. "Field studies" as such don't abandon the lab they just take it outside and go back to an isolated dogma in the fresh air for a few hours.
One thing, most of the people I have seen arguing against atheism, myself included, are willing to give up idealizing organized religion and certain limiting factors of organized religion, but not the belief in God, per se. OTOH, atheists using science as a primary reference point do tend to idealize its accomplishments and underlying ethics and philosophies even more than a typical Jehova's Witness idealizes the "Second Coming."
Science, like religion, can exist apart from any *specific* method or tradition because the rational impulse (from which all foms of science draw their claim to existence) is as universally present in individuals as is the religious urge -- or not. My point is: just as there are many religions and spiritual beliefs, there have been (and are) many 'sciences" none of which can lay claim to being either "elegant" or "principled."
In fact, just as the universal religious impulse has been perverted by organized religions and dogma, the innate and individual will to rationality has been perverted and dogmatized by contemporary science. And in each case to confer a status of exclusivity and esoteric power/knowledge/social status to a secific class of individuals: namely priests/holy men or scientists and "doctors."
In either case, the essential "elegance" or "nobility" of the individual-in-itself is exposed to the corrupting dogmas of church or science, each of which occludes a natural spiritual evolution toward a very real God. And these flawed systems are more important for their ironic misses than dogmatic hits, so to speak. We'll find God through the hypocricy of science and religion, from their paucities which will, in turn, eventually lead us back to communion with Higher Consciousness.
How's that? LOL
Incidentally, have you, Bill (or anyone else) read Julian Jaynes' studies on consciousness: "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi_Cameral Mind"? I believe that is the tongue-twisting title of his door-stopper manifesto. Sort of straddles the two sides of this conversation nicely if, in the end, falling on Hitchens' side.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : MichaelEhart - 7/5/2007 12:50 PM | Rather than re-invent the wheel, here is a review that states most of my objections to this latest polemic from the incredibley dishonest Mr. Hitchens.
From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Reviewed by Stephen Prothero
A century and a half ago Pope Pius IX published the Syllabus of Errors, a rhetorical tour de force against the high crimes and misdemeanors of the modern world. God Is Not Great, by the British journalist and professional provocateur Christopher Hitchens, is the atheists' equivalent: an unrelenting enumeration of religion's sins and wickedness, written with much of the rhetorical pomp and all of the imperial condescension of a Vatican encyclical.
Hitchens, who once described Mother Teresa as "a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud," is notorious for making mincemeat out of sacred cows, but in this book it is the sacred itself that is skewered. Religion, Hitchens writes, is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children." Channeling the anti-supernatural spirits of other acolytes of the "new atheism," Hitchens argues that religion is "man-made" and murderous, originating in fear and sustained by brute force. Like Richard Dawkins, he denounces the religious education of young people as child abuse. Like Sam Harris, he fires away at the Koran as well as the Bible. And like Daniel Dennett, he views faith as wish-fulfillment.
Historian George Marsden once described fundamentalism as evangelicalism that is mad about something. If so, these evangelistic atheists have something in common with their fundamentalist foes, and Hitchens is the maddest of the lot. Protestant theologian John Calvin was "a sadist and torturer and killer," Hitchens writes, and the Bible "contain[s] a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre."
As should be obvious to any reasonable person -- unlike Hitchens I do not exclude believers from this category -- horrors and good deeds are performed by believers and non-believers alike. But in Hitchens's Manichaean world, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Indeed, Hitchens arrives at the conclusion that the secular murderousness of Stalin's purges wasn't really secular at all, since, as he quotes George Orwell, "a totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy." And in North Korea today, what has gone awry is not communism but Confucianism.
Hitchens is not so forgiving when it comes to religion's transgressions. He aims his poison pen at the Dalai Lama, St. Francis and Gandhi. Among religious leaders only the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. comes off well. But in the gospel according to Hitchens whatever good King did accrues to his humanism rather than his Christianity. In fact, King was not actually a Christian at all, argues Hitchens, since he rejected the sadism that characterizes the teachings of Jesus. "No supernatural force was required to make the case against racism" in postwar America, writes Hitchens. But he's wrong. It was the prophetic faith of black believers that gave them the strength to stand up to the indignities of fire hoses and police dogs. As for those white liberals inspired by Paine, Mencken and Hitchens's other secular heroes, well, they stood down.
Hitchens says a lot of true things in this wrongheaded book. He is right that you can be moral without being religious. He is right to track contemporary sexism and sexual repression to ancient religious beliefs. And his attack on "intelligent design" is not only convincing but comical, coursing as it does through the crude architecture of the appendix and our inconvenient "urinogenital arrangements."
What Hitchens gets wrong is religion itself.
Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf. To read this oddly innocent book as gospel is to believe that ordinary Catholics are proud of the Inquisition, that ordinary Hindus view masturbation as an offense against Krishna, and that ordinary Jews cheer when a renegade Orthodox rebbe sucks the blood off a freshly circumcised penis. It is to believe that faith is always blind and rituals always empty -- that there is no difference between taking communion and drinking the Kool-Aid (a beverage Hitchens feels compelled to mention no fewer than three times).
If this is religion, then by all means we should have less of it. But the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers. Hitchens describes the religious mind as "literal and limited" and the atheistic mind as "ironic and inquiring." Readers with any sense of irony -- and here I do not exclude believers -- will be surprised to see how little inquiring Hitchens has done and how limited and literal is his own ill-prepared reduction of religion.
Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens's pet themes -- the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.
Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.
"Darkling I Listen; and for Many a Time" , Fear and Trembling, coming soon! "The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007
"Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, Feb 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, July 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Sword Review, up now!
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 1:04 PM | (to Dan)I have not read that, no, sounds beyond me :-p
I think the 'lab coats equals vestements' is a bit too cute, personally, and more of a metaphor than anything else. I admit that the clanish impulse (sacred truths, secrte language, etc.) can or is satisfied by particupation in science, but the same could be said of any 'rarefied' profession with its own learned norms of behavior and proceedures, I don't think that makes it a religion.
Science does limit itself to the potentially proveable, but those limits are pushed further away with each generation, just look at phyics at the turn of the century where it was assumed 'everything was known' and then comes along quantum mechanics.
I don't deny innate human impulses toward the 'spitritual' or religuous have been perverted by dogma, I think Hitchens may have even mentioned that. I don't think this innate impulse exists outside of ourselves, or will always defy quantification, but that doesnt' mean I don't recognize and participate in it.
I think many people associate atheism with science for the obvious reasons, but also because most public champions of atheism are scientists, and because science has chipped away at the edifice of relgion. But it is not the sole engine of unbelief, my own atheism stems from my study of history; while science made (for me) the notion of relgious dogma nonsensical at a young age, it was history and the study of mankind that made me realize that god was and had always been in the imagination of man. It's almost impossible to use science to refute relgion now-a-days because all of the easy stuff has been stripped away, as no rational person believes the tennants that were ironclad two centuries or more ago, and fundamentalists even attempt to use a scientific wrapping to champion their dogmas (intelligent design), and I've always felt that atheism comes from humanism and the study of mankind, because it is not the same thing as the obvious dismissals that science has already made.
This does remind me of one unfortunate aspect of this whole thing, and it's that atheists are often seen as being on one side of the debate, and believers on the other. The truth is anyone who does not hold to a dogmatic religion in the absence of evidence, whether they believe in a higher force, great universal, misunderstood god, or indifferent universe, have far more in common than they do with someone that insists the world is six thousand years old because of some half forgotten and poorly translated geneology belonging to the prehistory of mankind. What word someone uses to describe the universal spiritual experience doesn't really make much difference, at least to me.
(to Michael) OK, what's the problem? The reviewer doesn't agree with Hitchens take on a lot of stuff, but where are the 'lies' that you are talking about? Certainly not everyone will interpret things as Hitchens does, but he isn't lying when he says that he doesn't think MLKing was a great man first and a chritian second, or that Mother Tereasa is a fanatic and a fraud (she was): where are the lies and untruths? Disagreeing with his conclusions or disliking his invective doesn't mean he's just making stuff up.
Ah, I've read your post again, you weren't sayign it was examples of lies but rather of his tactics and his lack of 'critical thinking.' OK, I'll just point out for anyone not already aware, this book is a polemic, not a history of religion, and of course he dwells on the bad. But, his view is more nuanced than that reviewer lets on. Still, if you are looking fof a balanced tretise on religion look elsewhere, this is an expose of its crimes and cruelties. |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/5/2007 1:12 PM | WDWard said...
why would those suicide bombers families be so honored, which you mention, if it wasn't for religion?
Again, our society honors similar self-sacrifice. Movies are overflowing with examples of this, and religion generally doesn't enter into it. Bruce Willis isn't a hero because he made the logic choice that one person should die to destroy the asteroid. He's a hero because he sacrificed himself for the planet. It's not a large step from honoring self-sacrifice to suicide bombing, provided you don't see the latter as murder (and the cultural framing for that doesn't require religion). But back to your main point, as I said, I'm not claiming the details wouldn't change. I'm not aware of a nonreligious case similar to your Christian Science one, for example. I just don't see the case for any change in the big-picture results if religion were taken out of the picture.
WDWard said...
As for the 'oppression' perhaps a non-relgious person woud realize the oppression comes from their own wicked theocratic leaders, rather than a western bogeyman.
First of all, you're asking them to be rational, which is a very different matter from taking religion out of the picture. I believe Hitchens is an example of that problem. Second, taking religion out of the picture wouldn't remove the conflict in the Middle East. To do that, you'd have to get rid of colonialism and oil. In my view, most of the conflict has been economically driven.
WDWard said...
provides a legitimacy (framework, culture) that would not be there without it.
I agree with the first part, but I think you're making an assumption about cause and effect that can't be made. Impossible to prove out one way or another, of course, but that's the nature of the beast. If religion weren't an element in this, why couldn't tribalism or nationalism provide a similar framework?
WDWard said...
Also, I think the general assumption is that because Hitchens champions the rational he has to be a robot, or behave like Mr Spock.
Not from me. I don't believe passion is necessarily irrational. It's his arguments that I find irrational. If rationalism is his thesis and he can't make his point rationally, that's a problem. But as I indicated, I don't need him to make this debate viable.
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 1:13 PM | | because science has chipped away at the edifice of relgion
***
But rock n' roll blasted it away! At least in Western culture.  And science didn't invent that even if Roger Meyer and Tom Scholz pitched in a bit!
Good post, Bill. I am not sure we will find any fertile ground by arguing over what constitutes "rational" thought or what does or doesn't constitue "dogma."
But let me say this: you said "god was and had always been in the imagination of man" and I don't disagree with that. In fact the best argument for the existence of God made in scientific terms, by my reckoning was always Jung's: he said "Whether or not "God" exists may or not be provable, but the God *archetype* certainly exists."
The archetypes are living quantities, beyond rational quantification in many ways, and transcend human rationality and experience. In fact, they are human rationality and experience.
I'd just modify your statement a bit (to give it a proper mystical slant):
"God is and has always been the imagination of man."
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction." Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 1:21 PM | | (to Dan)I have not read that, no, sounds beyond me :-p
***
Sounds it, but I'd wager it's within your rational capacities! It is probably no more obtuse or technical than Hitchens.
Here's a "soundbyte" from Wikipedia that may assauge your fears:
"Jaynes' theories on consciousness proved highly controversial. At the time of publication of The Origin of Consciousness, he was heavily criticized for pandering to pedestrian readers and not submitting the work for peer review. It was, however, a successful work of popular science, and was a nominee for the National Book Award in 1978...."
And etc.
You should put this one on your list, dude. But be advised I am not endorsing Jaynes' concepts; in fact, I violently disagree with them, but it is an excellent read! My mother turned me on to Jaynes and she was about as eloquent a spokesperson for rationality (and atheism) as I've ever met, for sure.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 1:39 PM | In my view, most of the conflict has been economically driven.
***
All wars and conflicts are, at heart, economically driven. That was the great lesson of "modern" warfare commencing with Napoleon and straight through the American Civil War and right on through to the gates of Moscow when Hitler's Generals lost the war through personal vanity and their inability to grasp the economic impact of the Ukraine and the Caucausus -- or to put it even more simply: the Axis refusal to admit Western economic might. And right on through to oil-drenched Iraq.
"We are a big nation; we need more mash; we must steal our mash from other, smaller nations."
Some such quote from "The Once and Future King" about ants-at-war -- the Principles of War. I'm *still* moving my library so I don't have the book, alas.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 1:43 PM | Hitchens is not so forgiving when it comes to religion's transgressions. He aims his poison pen at the Dalai Lama, St. Francis and Gandhi. Among religious leaders only the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. comes off well. But in the gospel according to Hitchens whatever good King did accrues to his humanism rather than his Christianity. In fact, King was not actually a Christian at all, argues Hitchens, since he rejected the sadism that characterizes the teachings of Jesus. "No supernatural force was required to make the case against racism" in postwar America, writes Hitchens. But he's wrong. It was the prophetic faith of black believers that gave them the strength to stand up to the indignities of fire hoses and police dogs. As for those white liberals inspired by Paine, Mencken and Hitchens's other secular heroes, well, they stood down.
***
This was a very moving passage from the review, I thought.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 1:59 PM | Jeff, we just have to disagree then. Colonialism is a paper tiger in my opinion (unless you want to talk about the perception of colonialism , inflated out of all reality by Edward Said and his ilk), colonialism didn't cause polititcal disfunction in the near east, it fed on it, it didn't cause an inability of certain groups to function in the modern world or influence individuals infected with a dark ages psychology to cling to it or reembrace it even once they're economic status changed with their relocation (or birth!) into the developed world. You are a believer in the marxist fallacy in my opinion, you'd have us all accept that the crusades were nothing more than a landgrab, that martin luther was just mad at not being promoted, that communist dicatatorships were really all about making a cynical excuse for power, and, of course, that islamic extremism only exists because evil westerners tried to take their oil. Ridiculous, how many other groups in the third world have been victimized and haven't tunred into jihadists? The original jihad itself was a conquest of those areas, and the concept (like many others) is what has created this particular disease and loathing for the west. People will kill and die for pride and self image more than anything else.
Dan I think your confusing economic factors for war with primary motives.
Equating the approval of suicide bombers with a natural impulse at heroism misses the point, again I'm talking about the celebration of death and killing of the other, and the pervasive and cult like institution that this has become, rather than isolated occurances or the choices made by sick individuals. It is the religion that has allowed it to florish and become legitimate, and to consider the killing of inoccent people as 'heroism.'
Tribalism and nationalism can provide some of the framework of course, but when you inject the religious promises and rewards you have a far worse situation. Neither Hitchens nor I or any sensible atheist honestly thinks that if religion disappeared all mans ills would vanish, in fact man's ills go much deeper, and religion is a symptom as well as a cause: but its chief offence as a cause is that it resists change more than anything else because it is an all or nothing proposition.
You are right that when dealing with conterfactuals it is impossible to prove things one way or the other, but we can use comparisons between socieites as our guide as well as common sense; and I think its fair to say that some beliefs are more harmful than others for a society. |
| Posted By : BarbT - 7/5/2007 2:03 PM |
Daniel said...
I'd just modify your statement a bit (to give it a proper mystical slant):
"God is and has always been the imagination of man."
I'd like to try another modification:
Man has always been the imagination of God. Religion has always been man's attempt to understand and leverage that situation.
-Barb |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 2:09 PM | Dan I think your confusing economic factors for war with primary motives.
***
I? Or TH White? LOL
Fair enough, Bill. But my reading of history indicates that most religions are corrupted and controlled by an oligarchy somewhere down the line, even in *actual* tribal societies many times. If you could but see it: so is SCIENCE and, so, also, the notion of rationality and atheism. After-all Hitchens is trying to sell books primarily, not trying to change the world!
To completely be free of the oligarchies (and dogmatic midsets that accompany them) you must rely on individual evolution (or self-individuation) and I can't see how "rational" or "science" or "atheism" add up to anything much more than their supposed irrational counterparts: religion and superstition, when it comes to self-empowerment and civic integrity.
As to warfare being economically driven: would you care to cite any single instance in history where a war was fought wherein an underlying economic principle was not at work? And only a religious principle. By contrast, I most certainly can demonstrate instances where pure materialism drove a war, say WW2, where the Germans were hardly motivated by any extraneous "religious" distractions! It was all about taking territory and slaves and resources. Don't pull a "hitchens" and tell me National Socialism was a religion!!! It wasn't: it was "Hitler-ism" pure and simple.
As I recall Hitler threatened to invade Vatican City. "Do you think the Vatican embarasses me?" he asked rhetorically.
Why not? And how *do* you whitewash Stalin, another non-religious, yet totalitarian society. What drove this corruption of communism? If not materialism in one form or another. In short: economics.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 2:10 PM | Man has always been the imagination of God. Religion has always been man's attempt to understand and leverage that situation.
***
Beautiful!!!!!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 2:22 PM | Colonialism is a paper tiger in my opinion (unless you want to talk about the perception of colonialism , inflated out of all reality by Edward Said and his ilk), colonialism didn't cause polititcal disfunction in the near east, it fed on it, it didn't cause an inability of certain groups to function in the modern world or influence individuals infected with a dark ages psychology to cling to it or reembrace it even once they're economic status changed with their relocation (or birth!) into the developed world.
***
And yet we are, ourselves, citizens of a former British Colony....
But you're probably right, it was only a "paper tiger." It certainly didn't inspire the masses to fight for American Independence; in fact, in many cases, the colonists mutineed against it (the revolution), yes?
Weren't those colonists who were oppossed to the American revolution trying to cling to "the developed world?"
Or am I missing your point (s) altogether?
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 3:01 PM | I disagree completley, communism held economics and rationalism as its standard but it was itself a faith; ie. it made promises about a future despite evidence to the contrary. It was a revealed religion, complete with its own branch of 'science' and 'ethics,' it was not rational, and very often its leaders instituted disasterous policies based their faith; stalinist collectivism and the great leap forward are prime examples of a people putting faith before logic. They were true believers, even stalin was before he shifted more to a statist position and became more of what we think of as the cynical leader using an ideology he did not beleive to accomplish goals outside of that ideology.
I don't think any war is caused by any one thing, they are too complicated. I disupte that WWII was caused by economics, i think economics were, in this case, used as, on one hand, an excuse for conquest and, on the other the guide to the strategy of conquest. Hitler may have aimed at the Romanian and Ukrainian oil fields, but the idea of conquest in the first place and the enthusiastic support for it arose from national humiliation, a culture of german militarism dating back to at least the eighteenth century, and the doctrine of nazism and the person of Hitler. It was the will to power in action, not the desire for wealth or the need of expansion to sustain the nations productive capacity.
I never claimed religion is the only cause of wars and excesses, nor do I describe communism as a religion merely to fit an arguement that all relgion is bad or to dodge the notion that an atheist society is a bad one (if they were atheists, then I'm not one, and nor are most atheists, the communists were as godsick as any bible thumper).
As far as citing examples I'd say that nearly every war ever waged outside of human prehistory was not primarily motivated by underlying economic causes: this doesn't mean economics did not heavily influence the wars or the leaders and nations that waged them, but it is never paramount, which is the cynic's view. I do not subscribe to the marxist notion that has the dismal science as the supreme motivator, the unseen hand that makes history. I'm surprised your thinking goes along those lines Dan, given your distrust of the natural sciences etc. to hold the economic equation above the quicksilver of human motive is something like worshipping a false idol in my opinion ;)
My point about colonialism is that it is used as a justification for every attack on the western world, not that it wasn't a profound determinant of the modern age. I think its a paper tiger in these debates because as soon as someone wants to put responsibility for bad behavior on anyone outside of the developed world the cry of 'imperialism!' raises its head as a supposed explaination for everything wrong witht he world.
Wow, this thread reminds me why I don't get involved in current events discussions, I haven't accomplished anything today! |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:05 PM | As far as citing examples I'd say that nearly every war ever waged outside of human prehistory was not primarily motivated by underlying economic causes: this doesn't mean economics did not heavily influence the wars or the leaders and nations that waged them, but it is never paramount, which is the cynic's view. I do not subscribe to the marxist notion that has the dismal science as the supreme motivator, the unseen hand that makes history. I'm surprised your thinking goes along those lines Dan, given your distrust of the natural sciences etc. to hold the economic equation above the quicksilver of human motive is something like worshipping a false idol in my opinion ;)
***
I didn't "hold economics above the quicksilver of human motive" I simply admitted that *others* do so. And they often use science, religion, warfare, and philosophy as a means to gratifying these ends. Purely material ends.
To suggest that there are not people who value materiality above all else, including the noble aspects of religion, science, warfare, and philosophy, ie -- poeple for whom nothing *other* than a rational will and pragmatism directed toward material indulgence and power is real -- seems to contradict your arguments regarding "reason" and atheism itself.
That's one reason I mentioned the American revolution and its utter lack of popular support among certain segments of the colonists. Certainly you don't regard "democracy" as a revealed religion? Or would you argue that the Founding Fathers weren't invested in the Age of Reason and atheisitc principles you are presently now ardently defending, and quite well, I might add!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:12 PM | As far as citing examples I'd say that nearly every war ever waged outside of human prehistory was not primarily motivated by underlying economic causes
***
Wow. You really believe fighting over "mash" is a (relatively) modern idea?
You must have either a too-high or too-low view of our ancestors!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 3:23 PM | I don't doubt that such people exist, but such socieities do not. I did think in your assertion that all wars have an economic determinant you were championing the dismal science as supreme motive force, I may have misunderstood.
I'm not sure how my arguements above about reason and atheism mesh with examples of people concerned purely with material indulgence and power; atheism neither enables or disables that propensity in individuals, though a monster like Hitler would have been less dangerous as an atheist thats for certain. No atheist thinks of themselves as a World Historical Leader put on earth with a mission from providence to lead a chosen people to dominance. That's faith again, of the ugliest and most self-indulgent kind. No, I won't say its a relgion, but it is related to that tendency of humans to see something that is not there, that's gets very dangerous for anyone in positions of responsibility, and we all see what it did for a biggoted maniac.
If, perhaps you suggest that brutality and disregard for humanity may arise out of a materialistic view I won't dispute that, only to say that disbelief in god is so very minor a variation in a philosophy that it can never account for virtue or vice in and of itself. I refute the idea that human beings cannot behave morally without a supernatural justification for laws an ethics. Beyond that when one looks at russian and chinese culture, taking them as the examples, one can see an attitude toward human life and suffering at variance with western socieities, and that combined with messianism and ruthlessness has far more to do with the brutality of communist rule than their state sponsored materialism.
Maybe part of the issue too is how one defines atheism, and I freely admit that are many shades of meaning to the word (which, at the least, is the name of a conept and a school of thought).
Not fighting over mash Dan, fighting for pride and dominance, to prove ones self image and cuture are valid or better than the other guy, fighting for glory, to feel part of something more, fighting for personal or national honor. Fighting for fun or for self definition. I'll turn the example we've been using on its head by saying lets assume that inequality of resources was eliminated, everyone has exactly the same amount and couldn't even get more by taking it, would war stop? I say no, war is about deeper psychological and societal issues than economic ones. |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:23 PM | Wow, this thread reminds me why I don't get involved in current events discussions, I haven't accomplished anything today!
***
Yeah, I may have to drag myself out of these forums at some point! LOL
It's so easy to stay here and chat with such intelligent and well-read and highly informed people!!!
A pity!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:31 PM | No atheist thinks of themselves as a World Historical Leader put on earth with a mission from providence to lead a chosen people to dominance
***
Then Jefferson was acting on material grounds? So if atheists are all common in at least *that* then you admit they do have a "dogma" of sorts! No Atheist will develop a messianic perspective. Under whose law, exactly: which messiah (Hitchens?) brought that particular truth about atheism? More importantly, who will enforce it and de-athieize someone who breaks the rule? LOL
***
I refute the idea that human beings cannot behave morally without a supernatural justification for laws an ethics.
***
I refute the idea that humans will behave more "morally" (and by whose definition?) by throwing off the "shackles" of the "supernatural" a term which, again, I think needs some definition before we can really talk about it as such. If your definition of supernatural turns out to be be as much "quicksilver" as your definition of "rationality" and "reason" I would be hard put not to accuse you of engaging in some form "bait and switch" as you certainly broached the term here yourself, eh?
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:34 PM | Not fighting over mash Dan, fighting for pride and dominance, to prove ones self image and cuture are valid or better than the other guy, fighting for glory, to feel part of something more, fighting for personal or national honor. Fighting for glory and fun. I'll turn the example we've been using on its head by saying lets assume that inequality of resources was eliminated, everyone has exactly the same amount and couldn't even get more by taking it, would war stop?
***
Yes, and ritual war would ensue. There are historical examples of this after-all. Until Conquistadors come plunging in: were they really looking for the spread of religion or just gold and slaves? I already know what I think. You are giving the predators of this world wayyy too much credit. There is such thing as "the banality" of evil. At work in Hitler's case, for sure. And in many others who have perverted sacred waters, so to speak.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:37 PM | Hell, Bill, I've read damned convincing studies that purport to demonstrate how ritual war in the Aztec and Incas -- highly agrarian cultures -- included modes of cannabalism due to protein deficiencies. It doesn't get any more material or economic than that. You say they are eating each other for pride; I say for protien. Maybe even "unconsciously" to some extent. But people are basically lethargic and don't do much of *anything* life-endangering like wars, especially en masse, until their food-pots are empty! Or they want them over-filled.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 3:41 PM | Fighting for glory and fun
***
Then the absence of religion shouldn't change whether or not people fight wars at all.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 4:12 PM | Jefferson was an atheist? A deist certainly, I thought his opponents just liked to call him an atheist because he had no religion. I retreat on my absolutist stance however, but in essence you get my point, believing in destiny has the potential for making for truely spectacular misbehavior, thinking god is on your side has you seeign your enemies as the enemies of god.
No bait and switch, I never said discarding the supernatural was a panecea, only that a) religion causes gross excesses and is overall a bad thing and b) morality and religion are not the same thing, which is the point of my 'refutation' above: ie. disbelief in god is not a licence for unethical behavior, and relgion has no right to claim ethics and morality are its exclusive purveiw, I was not tryign to assert the oppoiste of my statement by inference. I think you confuse atheism with a purely mechanistic and dour view of the world, one where non-quantifiables like beauty and compassion and inspiration can't exist. Atheists just don't see those things as being granted by a dubious incorporeal being, those things are humanity's own, a product of our mind and culture, no more a gift than our moral precepts ought to be impositions from another world.
I don't want to get into semantics about the defintion of reason and rationality, you know the conventional useage of these words, and you understand the main thrust of my arguement: therefore I ask for the sake of my typing fingers you intepret any shades or subtle fluctuations of meaning in the spirit in which they are indended :-P |
| Posted By : Bill Ward - 7/5/2007 4:25 PM | Daniel said...
Then the absence of religion shouldn't change whether or not people fight wars at all.
It won't eliminate war anymore than egalitarianism would, of course not, I never said it would, no thinking person would. All the examples of reasons for war are inherent in our pshycological makeup, at the biological level I believe, and removing religion wouldn't eliminate it. However, you only have to look at the excess caused when relgion amplifies these impulses, and becomes a dead hand that continues to animate conflicts that should have long ago been forgotten, that you start to see that religion is a dangerous prop for a species with our inclinations. Even some of the religons that have curbed these excess in a population somewhat provide just the same framework of hyper-tribalism that leads to the exceptionalism of the other in their rules of conduct. Combine that with the propensity to start basing actual decisions on dogmatic considerations (the world will end anyway at the millenium so lets try nuclear brinkmanship, this holy city as the sacred gravy mark of the prophet's thrid cousin therefore we should decapitate children until we get it back, the holy book says the world belongs to us, so lets take it). |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 4:37 PM | Very logical and informative posts, Bill. I can't seem to easily (for the sake of my own typing fingers!) disagree with anything you've said. Thanks for sharing your PoV, it is certainly illuminating.
Maybe it is possible for atheists and mystics to arrive at common ground: if so, we may be catching a glimpse of land, wayyyyy off on the horizon. And maybe even a Sage waiting on shore to moderate our discussion.
If not, even an eidolon can be amusing!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 5:21 PM | | OK Bill, I just couldn't help myself, your comments haunted me during my afternoon "break." And I must punish you for that!
***
Bill said:
I think you confuse atheism with a purely mechanistic and dour view of the world, one where non-quantifiables like beauty and compassion and inspiration can't exist. Atheists just don't see those things as being granted by a dubious incorporeal being, those things are humanity's own, a product of our mind and culture, no more a gift than our moral precepts ought to be impositions from another world.
***
Here's where we'll either find common ground or an eidolon....
1) I never said atheists were projecting a culture of ideas wherein "non-quantifiables like beauty and compassion and inspiration can't exist" what I am saying (or more accurately, intimating) is that such "non-quantifiables" almost invariably lead to the same "superstitions" and religious urges and concepts you claim are a part of oppressive religious institutions. I could start citing examples, but as a concession to "reason," let's resrict them to scientifically minded artists like Poe or Einstein (yes, Einstein, who referred to himself as a poet, not a scientist). I'd be happy to further explicate these highly-appropriate examples, specifically, but I'm going to refrain for now (except in relation to specific points) in the interest of brevity only. In my considered opinion, art and atheism are essentially incompatible because (as I have rather laboriously been trying to explain in another thread) creativity and the experience of mysticism are intrinsically locked together.
2) I don't think anyone draws their moral precepts from "another world." Which world? Materialistically speaking. These precepts are drawn from inner-experience and there is no homogenizing factor (other than universality of consciousness) despite the persuasive influence of religions, even corrupt religions. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that religious people never (or seldom) break with the moral precepts of their particular "superstitions" and that's never true. In fact, certain models of Christianity like Catholicism are founded on the idea of recurring moral lapse. Others, like Voo Doo, or even Ceremonial Magick are chock-full of "foul practicioners" who break every moral precept known to man.
3) I also reject the idea of "dubious incorporeal being" as being the vision of a god or gods that I, or anyone else, may happen to have. Certainly, I feel the existence of God as much when I look through a telescope or microscope or walk in the woods, or "kiss" a beautiful woman, or eat a good meal as I do by thinking in purely intellectual terms. All paths lead to the Divine, after-all; how could it ever be otherwise? I see God-in-the-material which, in fact, has formed the basis of most of my commentary in this thread and elsewhere. Active in creativity, in war, in history, in imagination, Eros, Thanatos, aspiration, the nebulae, the black-holes, all dark matter, and super-strings --ALL aspects of God-in-Motion. A living God, not a "Prime Mover." So, no, I am no deist.
4) Poe uses a scientific method of inquiry (which he calls a prose-poem) in his " Eureka" manifesto where he assumes the cosmic ether is, in fact, the consciousness of God (metaphorically speaking of course) which *can* be to some degree measured and quantified. In this regard, Poe's suggesting that eventually all particles will be seen to be "non-particles" but "pure energy" squares up nicely with quantum mechanics. Poe, is, in fact, a solipsist in this essay, which probably confirms, in your mind, his deficiency as a "rational" thinker. Nonetheless he arrived at quantum reality long before science and both he, and Einstein, would credit their startlingly powerful ideas to Divine revelation and the poetic sense rather than an abstract (and rather arbitrary) definition of "reason." Einstein claimed to have regarded NO other scientific sources in the composition of his Relativity theories and he claimed, also, to have used the speed of a light as a constant in his equations "arbitrarily." He was also a firm beliver in God. As was Poe. But neither of them were religious in your terms nor wre there reflected (especially in Poe's case) any derivement of moral or ethical standards from their metaphysical insights.
So are we to write them off or only listen to *half* of what they said. The intellectual paradigms they offer are, in some ways, only "carrots" to draw people into their metaphysical ideas. Truly. And to demonstrate them.
Lastly, I didn't type this, but used mystical hypnosis to dictate it to my cat! So there!
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Daniel - 7/5/2007 7:55 PM | It was the will to power in action, not the desire for wealth or the need of expansion to sustain the nations productive capacity.
***
Yes, but Hitler was nothing if not a Social Darwinist, which, in turn, makes him a pure materialist, operating from Spengler's cynical notions and also --- corrupting Nietzche. The idea is: limited resources, high competition, might makes right. That's the will to power: the acquisition of material and material based power.
"Art is the celebration of the ego's destruction."
Daniel |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/6/2007 4:18 AM | Jeff Stehman said...
I'm not aware of a nonreligious case similar to your Christian Science one, for example.
My wife corrected me on this. I have known people who would not take themselves or their children to doctors, not because of religious beliefs, but because they believed the medical community's attention is too narrowly focused to be effective healers.
WDWard said...
Jeff, we just have to disagree then.
Never!
Oops, sorry. It's a reflex thing.
WDWard said...
Colonialism is a paper tiger in my opinion
Just because some people are quick to play the colonialism card doesn't mean it didn't have a profound effect on the modern power structure of the Middle East, and that that structure hasn't disenfranchised a huge number of people. That's the same pool traditionally used as a source for the rank and file of hate groups in the US.
WDWard said...
you'd have us all accept that the crusades were nothing more than a landgrab,
I'd have said glory.
WDWard said...
that martin luther was just mad at not being promoted
Just a guess, but I'd say a profound experience led him to cast a more critical eye on his studies, which led to beliefs that conflicted with indulgences, and it kinda snowballed from there.
WDWard said...
Ridiculous, how many other groups in the third world have been victimized and haven't tunred into jihadists?
I have to ask how you're defining jihadist here, and if strictly, why. Revolution and violence against civilians have been common in the third world. Death squads were all the rage when I was in college, and my attention wasn't on the Middle East.
WDWard said...
Equating the approval of suicide bombers with a natural impulse at heroism misses the point, again I'm talking about the celebration of death and killing of the other, and the pervasive and cult like institution that this has become, rather than isolated occurances or the choices made by sick individuals. It is the religion that has allowed it to florish and become legitimate, and to consider the killing of inoccent people as 'heroism.'
I've known several otherwise normal-seeming Americans whose preferred approach to invading Iraq was to carpet bomb Baghdad. As far as they're concerned, the populace was complicit with their leaders and "the terrorists." When I juxtapose them with terrorists who justify attacking civilians by saying they are complicit with their corporations who steal resources and their governments who prop up dictators, the only differences I see is where they were born and whether or not the state does their killing for them. Both are members of small-to-moderate-sized extremist groups that mix well with and are more or less tolerated by their respective cultures. Both watch videos of people being killed and cheer. The Americans I know who fit into this group range from clergy to atheists. Religion is used as justification by those who need or desire to do so, but is not a necessary part of the mind set. Blind hatred and arrogance seems to do the trick just fine, regardless of the belief system it sits atop.
--Jeff Stehman |
| Posted By : Jeff Stehman - 7/6/2007 11:38 AM | Coincidentally, I stumbled upon this today:
"Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature"
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml
Number 4 is "Most suicide bombers are Muslim."
"The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). |
|
| |