The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris

Well, that's a nice answer to a question I didn't ask. Would you be interested in answering the questions I actually posed?

Once again: do you really think it's possible to discuss metaphysics--which is what we inevitably have to address when we're talking about God--without bringing in metaphysical arguments? Or does it bother you when people expose and challenge the metaphysical assumptions that the positions of polemicists like Harris and Dawkins depend upon, but that they're loathe to admit?

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Fair enough. So, what you're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, is that it's all right when atheists cling to an ideology that gives them a sense of metaphysical certainty, that frames their in-group as being rational and virtuous and their out-group as being irrational and vicious, that refuses to engage their primary opponents in honest debate, and that misrepresents their opponents' positions through the erection of straw men, but that when theists do these things it's a sign that religion is inherently malignant.

You said in another thread that you "hate religion." It also sounds like you want other people to treat this particular hatred with some sort of consideration, rather than to treat it the way we normally treat hatred--that is, as an expression of the most debased part of our emotional functioning, and the emotion furthest removed from rational discourse.

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Well, that's nice, but again you've answered none of the points I've raised.

By endorsing materialism, you have expressed metaphysical positions that you simply have not defended, and you have blithely ridiculed my attempts to examine these metaphysical positions. Most significantly, you responded to none of the points raised by Ian Barbour in one of my earlier posts that specifically addressed your central criticisms of religion.

This is an example of the arrogance that I often encounter in debates with atheists: many lay claim to an exalted rational status that they simply aren't interested in earning.

And, of course, you are being disingenuous in your list of reasons why progressives discuss religion. One of the reasons why many progressive atheists discuss religion is to mock theists, including progressive theists, and to thereby bolster their own sense of metaphysical certainty and ideological superiority. When this occurs...as it does regularly on this discussion board...it makes perfect sense for progressive theists to respond. When they do, however, they are called mentally ill, irrational, and otherwise foolish. This inevitably alienates people who should be natural allies.

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Unionist: Regarding your assertion that the movement away from theism is a kind of evolution out of ignorance, I'm going to re-post something I wrote some time ago in another thread, as it's relevant here.

The notion that atheism and secularism represent a form of societal evolution away from ignorance is a legacy of the Enlightenment, which itself was very much a stage in the development of a cultural dynamic that had been playing itself out in Europe for quite some time, perhaps beginning with the Reformation. The work of Walter Benjamin is rather useful in understanding these dynamics.

Reformation Christianity was the brainchild of Martin Luther. Contrary to the dogmas of the Catholic Church, Luther believed that salvation was brought about by faith alone, rather than by good deeds or the intercession of church authorities. Faith, however, was contingent upon God’s grace, which could never be compelled by human efforts and which was, therefore, forever uncertain. By making grace and faith the sole factors in the redemptive drama, this drained human actions, and indeed the mortal world itself, of their spiritual significance. A de-sanctified world, a world with an impoverished mythos, is a meaningless world, a world of melancholy and mourning. As Shakespeare puts it in Macbeth, “Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The primary virtue within such a world is the capacity to endure despair, to live without the comforts of sacred meaning. Benjamin argues that by valorizing existential dread, Reformation Christianity made possible the development of an economic system predicated upon the meaninglessness of human existence, wherein all things and all people are evaluated solely in terms of their usefulness in the metaphysically pointless process of capital accumulation. Once Reformation Christianity relocated sanctity outside the circles of the mortal world, capitalism could do away with sanctity altogether. In this reading, capitalism is devoted to the annihilation of the sacred. Benjamin writes that “Capitalism is an unprecedented religion which offers not the reform of existence, but its complete destruction.”

This set the stage for modernization, atheism, and secularization, cultural developments that may have had generally positive results for Europeans and their descendants, but which have had far more ambiguous effects elsewhere in the world. Consider, for example, the different roles that these developments have played in Europe and the Middle East.

Karen Armstrong’s The Battle For God examines the different trajectories modernization has taken in Europe and the Middle East. She argues that modernization, which is a necessary feature of secularization, involves radical economic and political changes that influence every institution in society. Whereas agrarian civilizations are limited by the productivity of the soil and can never count on significant surplus production in any given year, modern civilizations employ industrial technologies to achieve ever-higher surpluses year after year. While agrarian civilizations are necessarily conservative and guided by memories of the past, modern civilizations value experimentation and are oriented towards the future. The process of modernization in Europe took several hundred years. It was accompanied by numerous wars, mass dislocations of people, ethnic cleansing, and wrenching cultural upheavals, but it gave Europe the means to raise standards of living and to dominate the entire globe. Because of this, modernization was generally regarded in Europe as a liberating process.

In the Middle East, however, the story was quite different. Europe modernized on its own over a long time within a veritable geopolitical vacuum. In the Middle East modernization was rapidly imposed by colonial conquerors or by regimes that were desperate to stem European incursions into their territory. Rather than having centuries to evolve, modernization had to move quickly, without allowing sufficient time for Middle Eastern societies to adapt to the changes it brought about. This made modernization even more violent and chaotic than it was in Europe. Most importantly, modernization didn’t confer any real geopolitical advantages in the Middle East. In the race for modernization, these nations couldn’t hope to compete successfully with European countries that had enjoyed a centuries-long head start. In fact, all too often modernization projects, such as the building of the Suez Canal, simply served the interests of colonial powers, leaving Middle Eastern countries terribly indebted and their people destitute. In the Middle East, therefore, modernization was generally and understandably seen as oppressive and exploitive.

The history of conflicts between rulers and religious authorities also had different trajectories in the Middle East and Europe, as documented by Richard Bulliet’s The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization (2004).

In Europe, religious authorities were far more centralized and powerful than they were in the Middle East. Violent European religious conflicts raged from the eleventh century Investiture Controversy until the Peace of Westphali in 1648. When the dust settled, kings had claimed the field, and the power of the clergy receded. Through the course of the religious conflicts, both Catholic and Protestant institutions were every bit as authoritarian as worldly rulers, and they almost always colluded with those rulers in their exploitation of the masses. For progressive Europeans, therefore, secularism became intimately associated with resistance to tyranny. Any explanation of the rise of European secularism has to take this history into account.

While Islamic religious institutions were weaker than their European counterparts, they were also more effective at resisting attacks by the region’s royalty. Unlike the Catholic Church, Islamic religious institutions never became major landholders and were never responsible for atrocities comparable to the European Inquisition, and so they had an easier time retaining their legitimacy among the populace. Furthermore, because the Quran places far more emphasis on the machinery of social justice than the Christian Bible does, Islamic religious authorities often became advocates for the oppressed.

Bulliet writes, “Traditional Islamic political thought had a horror of fitna, a word signifying upheaval and disorder and embracing everything from riot to civil war. Anarchy was intolerable, government a societal necessity. On the other hand, the impulse of rulers to maximize their power to the point of tyranny, zulm, appeared as a natural concomitant of government. All that restrained rulers from acting as tyrants was Islamic law, sharia. Since the law was based on divine rather than human principles, no ruler could change it to serve his interests. Since the interpretation of the law was the prerogative of the ulama, the religious scholars, rulers who were tempted to go beyond the law, and thereby achieve absolute power, had to devise ways of coopting, circumventing, or suppressing the ulama.”

People of European descent tend to see liberty as the opposite of tyranny. For most Muslims, however, the opposite of tyranny is justice, and in particular justice grounded in religious law. Thus, whenever rulers or colonial powers oppressed the people, popular resistance was always framed in religious terms. Islamic religious leaders led armies against imperial invaders, harshly condemned dictators, and organized boycotts of monopolies granted to Western businesses.

Whereas secularism in Europe was accompanied by democracy, in the Middle East it has all too often facilitated the rise of authoritarian regimes like those of the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or Attaturk in Turkey. From the perspective of traditional Islamic political theory, this is exactly what is to be expected whenever the uluma loses ground.

Thus, when Westerners argue for the secularization of the Middle East, we’re unwittingly arguing for the abandonment of the most powerful conceptual vocabulary for the promotion of social justice Middle Eastern Muslims possess, and we’re encouraging the region’s most dangerous authoritarian tendencies.

If the legacy of the Enlightenment has had such different consequences in the Middle East, then imagine how foolish it is to assume that Enlightenment values are necessarily applicable to peoples even further removed from Europe, such as the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

In short, there are grounds for believing that aggressive atheism of the sort advanced by Hitchens, Dawkins, and, frankly, you, is itself an expression of un-self-reflective ethnocentrism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]
Thus, when Westerners argue for the secularization of the Middle East, we’re unwittingly arguing for the abandonment of the most powerful conceptual vocabulary for the promotion of social justice Middle Eastern Muslims possess, and we’re encouraging the region’s most dangerous authoritarian tendencies.[/b]

---

"Westerners" who argue for the secularization of the Middle East are one wing of the White Man's Burden crowd. Progressive people (of all compass points) demand that nations be left alone to work out their form of government, culture, religion, etc. My wish for the region is that all invaders, aggressors and occupiers get the hell out - period. Then, che sera, sera.

You attack the straw men who want to "secularize" the region (like Stephen Harper, I guess, with his militant anti-Islamic fundamentalist stand, backed up by withholding funds from the Hamas-led PA). I agree with you - they should keep their hands off or suffer the consequences. But then, you go further, opining that some religious quackery or "conceptual vocabulary" is recommended for the region. Your interference is just as unwelcome as the fierce anti-Islamists. To them, and to you, I suggest: Mind your own business. The White Man has carried his Burden for too long. Take five.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]So, again, no, you aren't interested in responding to the points I've raised, but you are interested in taking swipes at emotionally convenient straw men.[/b]

---

You are getting a bit scary now. You asked me two questions (about whether we could avoid metaphysical discussion, and whether it bothered me when the assumptions of polemicists like Dawkins and Harris were challenged). I answered both questions, with some care and attention, I thought. Try scrolling up. It is, of course, possible that you didn't like my answers.

quote:

---

[b]Now, as for threads opened in order to ridicule theists, Sven recently opened a thread that mocked Christians who were killed at a rock concert specifically because they were Christians at a Christian rock concert, and this thread was opened in order to discuss the views of a man who is utterly contemptuous of theists and who is more Islamophobic than Christopher Hitchens. Are you honestly incapable of seeing this?[/b]

---

You're quite right. That was in my view a gratuitous and infantile swipe. I don't really know why Sven did that, and I think a number of posters made their views known - and some people went overboard. Here's what I said to one gentlemen who accused anti-religious progressives of being in the pay of the Republican Party:Can't you just accept that some progressive people oppose religion (not religious people) because they think it is harmful to human beings?

Have you also not noticed that the vast majority of critiques of religion by babblers are based on the anti-human stands of certain churches and certain church leaders - like misogyny, homophobia, anti-abortionism, anti-birth control (and its effects on HIV/AIDS control), anti-other religious people, etc.? [/qb][/quote]

quote:

---

[b] Edited to add: Ah, we're cross-posting again. So, we agree that the push for the secularization of the Middle East is an example of the White Man's Burden. However, while I believe that we need to engage respectfully with the intellectual traditions of the region, you are content to contemptuously refer to them as religious quackery and to withdraw smugly into your ethnocentrism. Frankly, I see this as abandoning the burden but emotionally clinging to the intellectual superiority of the White Man.
[/b]

---

Oh get off your horse. I'm a Jew, and the main religion I've abandoned, and which I ridicule as mercilessly as I can, is Judaism. As for Islam, it's just as bad. It's not the superstition that bothers me, it's the chauvinism, misogyny, intrusion on individual freedom, warmongering, all the rest. Oh, and the same for Christianity. Isn't it a remarkable coincidence how all these religions treat women and LGBT (for example - but people in general) like shit? What is it about theism that turns your brain and your conscience to mush?

I stand, unyieldingly, for the right of peoples to make their own destiny. You use charges of "ethnocentrism" to emotionally blackmail me into respecting their stupid [i]ideas[/i] as well? You want to turn me into some mealymouthed diplomat saying,

"Well, yes, I can certainly see how you and I, sitting here having a cocktail, could possibly be fleeting nightmares in that long-dead ant's troubled sleep, very picturesque, yes I respect and cherish and will perhaps even help you to fund private schools to pass on this rich legacy to your children, but you know I, personally, believe that this 32-year-old died for your sins, had second thoughts and came back 3 days later, then packed his bags and left again, ah, yes, waiter, two more Margaritas please?"

Non, merci.

What is not interesting is you constant attempt to get people to take religion seriously. You are in essence, trying to convert us to a belief in a God. Give it up for god's sake! We are not shoving our beliefs down your throat as secularists, you however, seem to feel the need to do that to us, while accusing us of persecution (in essence). Please!! Enough is enough. Unionist has answered your questions. You want to post more about your beliefs, go for it, just don't expect to be taken too seriously.

Oh and once religion stops trying to dictate what the world should live by, then and only then do you have any valid criticism of secularism or atheism.

Perhaps you are comfortable with the massive inequaliry inherent in religion. We as progressives, well, hey we just aren't. Respect that and leave it alone.

leave

I don't live in a glass house. I live in a brick hose and like, I'm not trying to convert you to anything. I am just rather tried of your long-winded posts. But yeah, I can chose not to read them, but can you simply stop with the pot, kettle back thing because hey, unless you want to come over to my house and burn some sage and let me give you a two hour long talk about the benefits of the blue men, then I'm postive I'm not trying to talk you into believing squat.

quote:

---

Frustrated Mess: Regarding pinching me...this is a stimuli that you would use to elicit a response that would demonstrate, in your opinion, evidence of consciousness

---

The pinch is not the point.

I think I understand what it is you are trying to put forward. You are suggesting that God may be a consciousness at another level that we can neither see, communicate with, or comprehend. Is that correct?

At the same time you are arguing that I can't prove my own existence so how can I expect anyone to prove God's. Is that correct?

Well, if indeed an entity exists that we can't see, nor can we communicate with it, nor can we comprehend it, then why would we call it God since most religions exist on the basis of a relationship with God and many Christians with a personal relationship. Surely, in most faiths, there is a "communion" with God.

Are you saying the universe is God? If so, then are you redefining God? And to what end?

As to my own existence, I do not need to prove it as the evidence of my existence is enough to satisfy myself. In other words, if God was to sit down beside me for a conversation, I would no longer deny God's existence as I do not deny yours.

We are simple creatures no matter how we try to spin it. We require food, shelter, clothing, and we reproduce like rabbits. If we continue to foul our own nests we will destroy our own habitats and ourselves and no amount of deep thought, meditation, prayer, or pleading will change that and no being will arrive at the 11th hour and pull our asses out of the fire.

The one thing the bible got right, the most overlooked but meaningful passage is "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Sven, you appeared to be expressing hatred of all religion, which of course is irrational.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
[b]Sven, you appeared to be expressing hatred of all religion, which of course is irrational.[/b]

---

Why is that “irrational”? There are many rational reasons for despising religion.

Okay, I'm back. Still no endorphins, just significant pain.

Unionist: You wrote, "I have seen examples of individuals, theist or not, being referred to in those ways. But a reference to people who are (say) practising Presbyterians, or who believe generally in God, as being mentally ill, stupid, etc.?"

Note that on this very thread Jingles wrote:

"Atheists are egotistical? She must be high.

"Believers are the most narcissistic, egotistical, megaolomanical, and selfish people on earth. They believe that this God, the very Creator of the Universe, the One God, the Alpha and the Omega, without beginning and without end, gives a shit about their pathetic, meaningless lives. I have fossils that are older than Homo Sapien Sapien, and yet there are people who think that there is a divine, universe-shattering plan for their sneeze of a lifetime.

It's not faith, it's mental illness."

I didn't even have to search other threads for this example. So, your position is that progressive theists should just let statements like this slide, right?

As for your undergrad philosophy courses, I also have an undergrad philosophy degree, and if you're ever interested in sharing reading lists on the subject of religious studies, please let me know, as I suspect...based on your apparent inability to recognize materialism as a metaphysical position that's just as scientifically indefensible as theism...that my list is a little longer and the books on it a bit deeper than those on yours.

Now, as for your dreaming ant example: when theists argue that the universe appears to be mind-like, and that the leap of faith that attributes mind to it is much the same leap we make when we attribute mind to other human beings, we aren't saying what exactly this mind is. In fact, the greatest theologians in all of the major religions argue that God cannot be described literally, and that all stories about God have to be understood in symbolic or allegorical or metaphorical terms (for evidence of this, check out Karen Armstrong's A History of God, 1993). Your ant example, on the other hand, describes in a literal fashion exactly what this mind is. It turns the ineffable into a Douglas Adams-esque caricature. In other words, what you seem to be criticizing isn't religion per se, but rather religious literalism, which is recognized by major theologians as being a degenerate expression of religiosity.

So, to summarize:

You have provided absolutely no arguments to support the claim that materialism is more "rational" than other metaphysical schemes.

You have stated that no threads on Babble have been started with the intention to ridicule religious beliefs. I showed you several.

You have stated that no one on Babble has described religious people as mentally ill. I directed you to a post on this very thread that makes that claim.

When it's demonstrated that attacks like this have been made, you dismiss them as examples of isolated "foolishness". (I doubt that you would be so forgiving if, for example, Jingles said, "Feminism isn't an ethical philosophy, it's a mental illness," or if remind started a thread called "Stalin a Devout Marxist?")

Rather than respond to the strongest arguments that theologians make, you have chosen instead to attack literalism, which major theologians also condemn, and to erect caricatures of literalistic beliefs in order to argue your point. In other words, you rely upon straw men to make your points.

Frustrated Mess: Yes, in saying that the universe is God I am revealing myself to be a monist. There's a very long tradition of monism in numerous major religions. If you want, I can give you examples of monist thought from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, and Buddhism.

The difference between myself and, say, Ian Barbour, is that theists such as himself believe that while God encompasses the universe, God also transcends the universe.

Both positions regard the universe as mind-like, and neither introduces anything new to theological discourse. These ideas are very, very old...though of course people unfamiliar with and uninterested in theological debate wouldn't know this.

As for the potential for communion with God, refer again to my discussion of the book Why God Won't Go Away. One of the points raised by the authors is that the capacity of the human brain for deafferentiation may have the same relationship to God that our capacity for mathematical thought has to the universe: both may be neurological mechanism that allow us to access dimensions of reality that are otherwise hidden from scrutiny. Deafferentiation, in this reading, would allow for the possibility of communion with the divine...a communion that transcends language and is, therefore, "ineffable".

Stargazer: If your disdain for religion is grounded in a materialist metaphysics, then, no, your house is not made of brick and stone, it's made of glass. If your disdain for religion is not grounded in materialism, then it's self-contradictory, and, again, your house is made of glass.

As for the suggestion that no one except the religiously-minded is trying to shove their beliefs down anyone's throats, please spare me. People try to shove their beliefs down other people's throats on this board all the time...beliefs about imeprialism, feminism, Zionism, colonialism, 9-11 conspiracism, and, yes, atheism and religion. That's what people do on discussion boards like this: we advance positions and then defend them, sometimes vigorously, and we respond when people challenge positions that we hold.

The difference with religious discussions on this board is that many atheists have based their sense of self upon their atheism, they like to use progressive theists (again, people who follow in the tradition of people like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Tommy Douglas, and Malcolm X) as whipping boys because it gives them a sense of ideological superiority, and it makes them very uncomfortable when they're called on what they're doing.

As for the length of my posts, ignore my posts or live with them. I'm challenging none of the underlying principles of progressive politics, I'm not disparaging other poster's positions as being expressions of (for example) "mental illness", and at least I have the decency to try and respond to as many points raised against my positions as I can.

Contrarian: No, that was Frustrated Mess, who wrote "Dawkins does not "hate" religion. That is another lie. That would be irrational. You can't hate religion anymore than you can hate superstition. All you can do is point out the fallacies of religion and the inherent delusions. And that is what Dawkins did."

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Unionist: One more thing. You seem to believe that discussions of religion have no place on a progressive board, as religion has nothing to do with progressive politics. Do you, then, suppose that the religious motivations of Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Malcolm X and the movements they spearheaded were politically irrelevant? If not, then, since people and movements such as these have had such a significant role in progressive circles, it seems to me that you have to allow for discussions about religion on progressive websites.

Sven: Since I suspect that you'll ignore all of the arguments I've made about metaphysical materialism, etc, here's a good practical reason not to make a habit of mocking religion.

In The Battle For God, Karen Armstrong extensively documents the shift of Christian evangelical movements from left-leaning politics concerned with promoting the Social Gospel (that is, with redistribution of wealth and the erection of a welfare state) into movements that embrace apocalyptic violence and corporate greed. One of the major factors in this transformation was the omnipresent ridicule that evangelicals endured because of their beliefs in a rapidly secularizing environment in the earlier part of the 20th Century, and especially following the Scopes trial. Humiliated and vilified by the national media, they withdrew from public discourse and formed a counter-culture, within which the worst possible features of religiosity were allowed to spread unchecked. Using an extensive analysis of the growth of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Armstrong argues--persuasively in my mind--that religious people tend to respond to this sort of widespread evangelical atheism by withdrawing, abandoning progressive politics, forming counter-cultures, and turning to apocalyptic literalism.

While the contempt you express for religion probably feels good...a pleasure undoubtedly shared by the teenagers who, in the 1980s, thought Rush was just brilliant...but it has real-world consequences that do nothing to advance the cause of social justice and much to hinder it.

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]

Contrarian: Yes, exactly.

I have absolutely no problem with atheists like Noam Chomsky. He's very clear about his metaphysical beliefs, but he doesn't feel compelled to embark on anti-religious tirades, and he tends to be pretty damn respectful when he's talking to people regardless of their metaphysical beliefs.

Furthermore, I don't have a problem with atheists like Albert Camus, who condemn religion but do so only after examining the strongest arguments theists advance on behalf of their views, and after demonstrating some respect for their point of view.

In other words, I have no problem with atheists who behave like adults, rather than like children who revel in the forbidden delight of pissing against the cathedral wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
[b]Furthermore, I don't have a problem with atheists like Albert Camus, who condemn religion but do so only after examining the strongest arguments theists advance on behalf of their views, and after demonstrating some respect for their point of view.

In other words, I have no problem with atheists who behave like adults, rather than like children who revel in the forbidden delight of pissing against the cathedral wall.[/b]

---

a) very presumptuous aren't you in believing that others like have not examined the stongest arguments, and indeed religions on which to base our condemnations? Moreover, why would we respect your pov, when you have shown no respect for others pov, particularility those who do not agree with your perspectives.

b) You are now dismissing people as children pissing against the cathedral wall because they do not agree with your perspectives, amazing your self righteousness embodies all that is loathsome about those suffering from false religiousity and you do not even see it.

Chomsky speaks highly of the Liberation Theologists. I still remember the Pope shaking hands with Reagan on a balcony in Alaska and the purge of those brave men and women just a short while later.

I haven't read Harris' book. I did enjoy Dawkin's book but it was a light read. I can see why the religious didn't appreciate it at all. But going in the reader knew it would be a highly partisan book offering a very one sided view. In the same way conservatives would not be pleased by Al Franken's [i]Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them[/i].

I will look at Armstrong's book, but from the interviews and reviews I have read, I might feel like a Liberal reading Ann Coulter.

Karen Armstrong is well-known and well-respected authority on religions. Her books on Islam and Buddhism are well-regarded, so all this venom against her is quite out of place.

Hell, I'm an atheist, and roll my eyes and get nauseous over the holy roller stuff. However, I also know quite a few rabid atheists who think theists are stunted mentally, backwards thinking, and generally stupid. This arrogance is appalling and blind to modern history, especially when Western Science and positivist ideology are responsible for just as many modern atrocities.

Therefore I think the central question is not so much about personal belief, but always about the eternal war of the powerful against the weak. Whether ordained by God, or by eugenics and social darwinism, the dark motivations of elites find its justification in whichever way it wants.

And while religion is the opiate of the masses, it is also the "sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world." So I think more understanding is warranted.

ceti: Well said. I mean that...not only were your points solid, but there was a quality to your prose that was quite pleasant.

Frustrated Mess: I appreciate that you're going to take a look at Armstrong's work. Again, I recommend The Battle For God. I honestly think you will enjoy it, and that you will find its arguments compelling, even if in the end you disagree with her conclusions. I'd very much like to hear your opinion about it once you're finished.

Uhm, no it isn't. Does the study of theology explain the iPhone or the Xbox?

I am not even convinced that many of the evangelical movements are as much a religious movement as they are a populist political movement veiled in the trappings of religion.

I will look at the book, Michael. I did read the Pagan Christ and enjoyed it very much. Atheism and Paganism, I think, could probably get along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
[b]Western Science [/b]

---

That is a very intriguing term. There is "non-Western" science too?

Jesus, unionist.

Why do you jump into conversations on a particular topic just to rabidly and relentlessly insist that nobody should be talking about it?

Why do you go out of your way to disrupt these conversations with mockery and thread drift, contributing nothing but derailment of the conversations other people were interested in having?

Why do you repeatedly state that said conversations are beneath you and not worth your time, ridiculing those who indulge in them, despite the fact that you are putting as much energy into them as anyone else, and more than most? In fact, why do you flat-out state that you [b]don't[/b] indulge in conversations of such topics, even though you contradict yourself with the very existence of the denial?

If the conversation wasn't worth having, you wouldn't have it. And we wouldn't have to hear about why you wouldn't have it because you wouldn't be here. Imagine, a thread about a topic, filled only with people who actually wanted to discuss it.

Again and again I see you devote your considerable time and energy to shutting down conversations that you think shouldn't happen. Again and again you avoid actual discussion, claiming that the topic is beneath discussing, while cluttering up the threads with your unproductive ridicule. Apparently it's not beneath doing that with.

Of course, if you have no respect for the topic, then you'd have no respect for those who think it's worthy of discussion, and your behaviour here has shown that ably enough, I think. And yet the question remains, [b]why are you posting in a thread that you clearly don't want to participate in?!?[/b] What do you get from it?

If I were you I'd examine your motives for being here, because (speaking of rationality) they don't seem too rational to me. They seem a little pathological from where I'm standing.

If it's not worth talking about, then stop. Go away.

quote:

---

Do you think that the religious motivations of Ghandi, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the people who were drawn to their causes were irrelevant to their progressive politics?

---

That is an interesting question. Did religion add to their politics (I don't know if Ghandi and Malcom X were [i]progressive[/i]) or as leaders within their communities did it merely facilitate their rising to the fore. I mean, I can't help but to note that all three were members of oppressed and persecuted communities. Ghandi as the liberator of India from British empirical rule, and Malcom X and King as African Americans during the civil rights movement.