Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 19, 2011 12:34 PM

Yeah, but we can join in with the interfaith initiative.

Sort of like telling Christians or Jews that they're welcome to join in the worship of Baal in the Canaanite "inclusive initiative."

Glen Davidson

Posted by: johnm55 | March 19, 2011 12:43 PM

That our government is embracing all faiths is just as much a violation of the separation of church and state as if they were to declare Episcopalianism as the state religion…its only political virtue is that it doesn't antagonize any of the other superstitions.

Give Episcopalianism it's due though, it usually only manages to upset other Episcopalians.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | March 19, 2011 12:46 PM

Welcome to the IFL. The Interfaith Fighting League. Tonights clash pits Calvinism against Deism. It's going to be exciting folks, just wait and see who can ignore who for the longest.

Posted by: Aperçus désagréables | March 19, 2011 12:50 PM

The only "faith" type of thing we could conceivably participate in would be a trans-faith initiative.

Posted by: raven | March 19, 2011 1:07 PM

How confusing. Are Pagans; Druids, Wiccans, and New Agers part of the Interfaith community?

How about Deists, followers of, well whatever its name is?

Pantheists, followers of The Universe?

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Xians always end up hating each other. The National and World Council of Churches is considered satan's front by a lot of fundie xians.

Posted by: Iris | March 19, 2011 1:09 PM

thecht182 #8:

Religions are, unfortunately, here to stay for some time, so I think it's good to promote them getting along with each other while they are here.

No, I much prefer the infighting. The more they're "getting along with each other," the more likely it will be at the expense of demonizing an out-group, and it's not too difficult to guess who that will be.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 19, 2011 1:41 PM

It seems all in the manner of so many penguins huddling on an ice floe as the cold winds of reality blow in.

They desperately need to prop each other up. At the personal level through repeating the mantras of belief. In the churches through verbalising and displaying their faith too each other. Between churches and faiths by maintaining the lie that all faiths are equally valid or essentially all strive to the same end goals. The lie must be kept going, the more broadly and the more intensely the better. Even to the extent of interfaith initiatives. "Belief in belief" looks to be more important than the (mutually exclusive) content.

@ thecht182 #8

I don't think interfaith is necessarily a horrible thing (as far as "faith" goes anyways...) I much prefer it over fundamentalism.

Er... no. I disagree with that. Like mushrooms on horseshit, it is the very moderates that form a substrate for "fundamentalism" to grow on. "Fundamentalism" is a word moderate godbotherers like to use when they see the true liabilities that their faiths inevitably give rise to. They are actually just trying to distance themselves from people who actually exemplify the very violent messages god has promoted through his holy books.

Posted by: colluvial | March 19, 2011 1:58 PM

Interfaith, adj., relating to the mental effort required to maintain a state of cooperation between people who each think they're the only one in the group who's not an apostate, blasphemer, or heathen that will burn in hell for eternity

Posted by: David | March 19, 2011 2:18 PM

It's like the Boy Scouts. Scouts have to have a religion, but it doesn't matter which one - they'll accept any. 40 years ago I told my scoutmaster I didn't believe in g-d, he told me that was unacceptable, and I quit.

Posted by: ClarySage | March 19, 2011 2:21 PM

You silly people! Don't you know atheism is included in "interfaith" because (as xians tell me) atheism is a religion too! See here for my response to them.

Posted by: ClarySage | March 19, 2011 2:27 PM

Damn link didn't work...
Try it again

Posted by: attorney | March 19, 2011 2:33 PM

There is a great metaphor for this phenomenonin the Book of Revelation, Chapter 16. (OMG, that B.A. in Biblical Studies from my fundie days might actually come in handy for once!)

Basically, in this myth, the nations of the world put aside their differences and unite to fight a common enemy, god. Of course, god simply rains fire on all of them and destroys them.

Here, the "nations" are the various religions, recognizing that they need to unite to fight a common enemy ("reality"). However, that enemy will destroy them (with a "fire" made up of reason, education, and time).

Posted by: RichVR | March 19, 2011 2:36 PM

So instead of delusional we now have inter-delusional. It's all still shit. But instead of pure bullshit they're mixing in dogshit and catshit as well.

Super.

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | March 19, 2011 3:18 PM

Wasn't there a Thing last year where there was an interfaith high schooler convention at the White House, and a bunch of the interfaithfuls pitched a fit because two atheist representatives were invited?

Posted by: cd | March 19, 2011 3:26 PM

You're being so pessimistic! I see it as one step closer to rationality - at least they recognize that all gods are of equal logical validity!

Yes, that's true too. Religionists know and fear when their believers start giving up particularist dogmas...that's the beginning of the eroding away of the belief system as a whole in the long run. So it's ultimately selfdefeating.

But there is that fanatical beginning phase, where they're all euphorically thrilled and feel validated in their commitment to the totalitarianism of an idealized selfprojection.

Posted by: thecht182 | March 19, 2011 3:41 PM

To those who addressed me:

I realize my point of view is not popular here, lol. However, in my experience, interfaithers tend to have a laid back "live and let live" approach to interaction with people from opposing worldviews. I think the cultivation of that attitude is a good thing.

I can certainly see how it's possible that moderates are the horseshit on which fundie mushrooms grow, but I am not entirely convinced that that is the case. Keep in mind that many fundamentalists tend to see moderates as the horseshit on which the atheist mushroom grows.

The way I see it is this: Religious de-conversion is often a long, slow process of gradual examination of views. I think every step along this way should be encouraged. These steps are helpful because religious blinders prevent people from applying skepticism to their beliefs as a whole. But the religious blinders don't work as well against small, incremental changes. I suspect these small changes will shift religious belief over time in populations as well, and right now I see interfaithers as a step in that process.

So ultimately, I think the religious community's cultivation of tolerance is a good thing, particularly for those who want to see a non-religious future. However, to be clear, I support interfaithers only to the extent that I support their departure from the intolerance of their holy books.

Posted by: Timberwoof | March 19, 2011 4:31 PM

"The problem is that people, especially those belonging to whatever religion, need someone to be against."

Libertarians, perhaps?

Posted by: Free Lunch | March 19, 2011 5:44 PM

If you want to include unbelievers, haven't you become Unitarian-Universalist? A friend who is quite adamant that it's silly to believe in gods or believe in a religion can be found at a UU Church some Sunday mornings.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 19, 2011 5:59 PM

You believe in a false god but at least you believe in a supernatural power.

Posted by: masksoferis | March 19, 2011 6:21 PM

Bah! I'll believe this interfaith stuff when they get the Satanists in.

That would make a sitcom, even: the city's interfaith group attracts only a fiery young Roman Catholic exorcist ordered there by his liberal bishop, and a priest of Satan hungry for publicity and the blood of the innocent.

Together, Father Theodore and Elric Goatwhisperer must keep up the appearance of amity, down the incidence of vade retros and maledictions, and the interfaith flag flying!

"Now this is another fine mess you've got me into, Goatwhisperer."

"By Moloch, Cross-boy, is that a pyre they're making?"

"I told you to let me do the speaking! I told you!"

Posted by: Sastra | March 19, 2011 6:37 PM

thecht182 #31 wrote:

So ultimately, I think the religious community's cultivation of tolerance is a good thing, particularly for those who want to see a non-religious future. However, to be clear, I support interfaithers only to the extent that I support their departure from the intolerance of their holy books.

I agree that it's a step in the right direction, but I also agree that atheists need to criticize it for not being far enough. It still pretends that faith in God and human virtue are a package deal. Those concepts need to be separated in the public consciousness.

Otherwise, as others have already pointed out, the in-group is widened not by including all those who share similar positive values, but by excluding all those who don't share a belief in the supernatural. Europe became more secularized partly as a reaction to religious strife: religious harmony might not end up weakening religion.

Once, I almost made it onto a proposed "religious diversity" panel for a county-wide high school Tolerance convention. I personally knew the person in charge. So she was reluctantly considering having a "secular humanist" up on the stage with the religious representatives when the entire issue became moot. Several of the principals discovered that "pagan" meant Wiccan -- horrified, they threatened to withdraw unless the already-advertised pagan was kicked off. So the entire idea of a "religious diversity panel" was scrapped.

I said it should have gone ahead and I should have been placed next to the pagan. The adults would all have been so horrified over the inclusion of the atheist that the Wiccan would have looked good in comparison -- and another victory for religious tolerance would have been won.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | March 19, 2011 7:03 PM

The interfaith shenanigans are a tacit sign that the woo fans are feeling somewhat threatened, they are banding together for warmth and comfort.
It has nothing to do with tolerance or 'hail thee fellow well met' allusions!

The tide is changing and religion feels the cold wind of rationalism blowing round their combined Dardanelles and chilling their nether regions!

Why else would delusions that at a basic level detest one and other to hell want to 'buddy up'!

I contend they are trying for a united front to defend against secularism and atheism...because those two facets are the real enemy to the combined scams they all operate.

They are not inter faithful enough to welcome Pagan, Wiccan into their coven methinks, well not with any real enthusiasm.

Nah! this is about a religious block on trying to reduce the gradual slide into oblivion they are facing...certainly as an xian delusion.

It has little else reason, pretending it is recognizing other religions as a viable alternative is a crock of horse shite.

For the most part of 500 years they have been at each others throats, this is a pragmatic if not desperate attempt to feign inclusiveness...all smiles and platitudes while the knives glint behind their backs, it is the common enemy they want, they need each other to much to have 'business as usual', but 'normal service' will be resumed as soon as they burn the last heretic.

In their fucking dreams...says I.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3keQ6IJrhNWCqIgSXDyP_22.z43NZPnss4nvsIfDaTmoOI9i#32a72 | March 19, 2011 8:03 PM

I don't think these religious folks are getting the message. Or they're putting their fingers in their ears and going " lah lah lah lah lah". We are a nation of human beings. I think they're trying to show that we're the intolerant ones by showing that they're willing to accept each other for their faith. And we're the ones who can't accept faith. But if they want to argue that the sky is green when It is plainly blue, we're not going to change our mind just to appeal to the masses.

Posted by: John Morales | March 19, 2011 8:37 PM

Marley:

I think we maintain the ritual of a Sunday service because we don't know how else to call everyone together. The purpose of the church is to provide a gathering place for the community.

I suspect it's more because that's the only way the faith-heads will tolerate you, and thus you avoid the bulk of social opprobrium.

You're playing their game, and legitimising their paradigm.

If there are so many atheists, just form a club, and skip the religious mumbo-jumbo. And don't call it a 'church', or your officials 'ministers'.

Bah.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | March 19, 2011 8:46 PM

Marley, how would a UU Center (as opposed to a church) not be able to provide the exact same services without the effect of saying "Yeah, we don't think there's a God, but it's good to pretend?"

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 19, 2011 10:49 PM

Marley:

For one thing, the minister is recognized as clergy, giving her whatever privileges come with that and putting her in a position to speak with clergy in other churches and convince them to get involved. She would almost certainly lose that.

The undeserved privileges and recognition of clergy and churches are exactly what secular individuals and organizations ought to be challenging. There's no need to accept whatever table scraps of privilege the more powerful churches are willing to grant. There's no need to buy into the notion that one needs a church to have a community, or a minister to have a leader. By doing that, one is complicit in the authoritarian, superstitious culture of even the most liberal churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

You want social justice? Start a "social justice initiative," not an "interfaith initiative." The churches can join in if they like, but cannot bring their faith with them if their intent is social justice.

Today, we are fortunate enough to have atheist, humanist and secular groups, from local to international in scale, that one can become a part of to satisfy your individual needs, and to support social and political causes. It would be wonderful if every town in the U.S. had a UU church just like yours, but even that modest goal is something I don't expect to come to fruition any time soon. It will take a lot of time and hard work.

What I would like to see even more is for groups like yours to be honest with themselves about what their purposes ought to be, and have the integrity to demand secularism, without backing down, even if it means losing the privileges that come with being part of the status quo. If the liberal churches can't comply with that, they are not your allies.

Posted by: A. Nuran | March 19, 2011 11:26 PM

Gotta disagree with you, PZ.

The idea of interfaith is to talk instead of fight and to seek human commonality instead of further isolation. This is a good thing. It would be an even better thing if they invited the non-religious. It's still far superior to "Kill them all. The Lord will know His own."

Posted by: John Morales | March 19, 2011 11:42 PM

A. Nuran:

It's still far superior to "Kill them all. The Lord will know His own."

You're damning this with faint praise whilst trying to hype it as a virtue.

It doesn't wash.

Just because anything not hyper-extreme is far superior to the worst case, does not mean that something is to be sought.

Posted by: John Morales | March 19, 2011 11:46 PM

Randy,

But by not inviting the non-religious [...]

To be fair, they did include an atheist.

An atheist chaplain, but still. :)

</faint praise>

--

(Of course, religion is not synonymous with theism, and it is a mistake to conflate the two.)

Posted by: mrpoxman | March 19, 2011 11:52 PM

Interfaith is basically an admission that their religions are not really real.

They can only be equal if they are all wrong.

Posted by: John Morales | March 20, 2011 12:13 AM

[meta]

Nah, Randy, you were fine.

I was merely elaborating.

You're quite right; they did not invite the [non-religious atheists].

(A conclave of chaplains?¹)

--

¹ Yes, I know that implies secrecy. :)

Posted by: Marley | March 20, 2011 12:27 AM

John and CRazor, I'm a member of a UU church that meets the needs of its members, accomplishes a lot to be proud of, and has created a community of reasonable people who don't always agree but who at least agree to discuss, and we need to change it because you don't like the labels used to describe it?

I'm sorry we don't fit into the proper pigeonholes. If I'm given the choice of changing to exactly the right word and destroying what we've built, or using the words that evolved as the community changed and maintaining a rare house of reason in a neighborhood of religious fundamentalism, I'll live with the words that aren't quite right anymore. Why should changing the label entail losing privileges? It shouldn't, but it does. There's plenty in the world that shouldn't be, but is. It's not going to change overnight, and it will never change if the people working to change it shoot themselves in the foot.

And it's been an evolution. The Unitarian and the Universalist churches were originally Christian churches. The Unitarian Universalist Association is dramatically different from the two churches that preceded it. Even though the change to this point has been rapid, more changes can't happen overnight.

I'm thrilled that there are "atheist, humanist and secular groups, from local to international in scale, that one can become a part of to satisfy your individual needs." But none of them are near me. I can join any number of them, and I can remain in touch by phone, mail, and computer, but when I was in the hospital following an accident, I needed help from someone local, and the help I needed came from members of the local UU church. I called people who I knew I could trust, and they got in the car and came right over.

That's kind of difficult to do with an international group.

Nothing is perfect. This is quite good enough for now.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | March 20, 2011 12:32 AM

I made it about halfway through Epstien's book before I started getting nauseous about how imperative it was that everybody play nice with the religious and how the world needs religion to function.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 12:34 AM

Why should changing the label entail losing privileges? It shouldn't, but it does.

Because words are magic like that.

Just can't do it without them magic wurdz.

Eppur si muove!

Atheist Community of Austin

Posted by: Marcio G. | March 20, 2011 12:41 AM

"Idiots of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your brains!" They have not been making good use of them anyway... lol

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 12:44 AM

But none of them are near me. I can join any number of them, and I can remain in touch by phone, mail, and computer, but when I was in the hospital following an accident, I needed help from someone local, and the help I needed came from members of the local UU church. I called people who I knew I could trust, and they got in the car and came right over.

Marley, that's why I made sure to say in my opening salvo, "It would be wonderful if every town in the U.S. had a UU church just like yours." (That was terribly harsh of me, I know.)

I'm well aware that UUs do a lot of good things, and I understand that your choices may be limited. I wouldn't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you really want progress, then you'll have to accept that "good enough for now" isn't really good enough.

Posted by: Lord Setar | March 20, 2011 12:51 AM

bastion of sass #62:

I do not have faith

YOU HAVE FAITH THAT YOUR PERCEPTIONS ARE REALITY!!!!!

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 12:56 AM

I concur with Ophelia Benson: "interfaith" is a code word for the religious clubhouse.

So far so good.

It's used to exclude secularism

Except that in this case it was used to include secularism, so here you're wrong.

I, like Benson, I don't feel included. But in fact Epstein and crew have managed to get the SSA included in college interfaith groups. So they are included.

It is possible for some secularists to be included and some secularists to not be included. This is in fact what is happening. Many religionists are also not included, because they choose not to participate.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 20, 2011 12:59 AM

@ thecht182 #31

I realize my point of view is not popular here, lol.

"Au Contraire, Rodney!" More points of view = more good.
I fully support you in expressing your point of view even if not everyone here agrees with you. We are not seeking an anodyne "interfaith"-style position here. You may even be right. I am sure there are faithists who despair at the idea of interfaith initiatives. It leads to moderation (in order to find common ground) and a retraction from the more specific idiosyncrasies that define particular religions. At the same time it consolidates all the disparate liabilities of the various faiths and therefore makes their whole edifice weaker. (Many weak links in a longer chain).

On the other hand by creating a broad and generalized atmosphere of faith in society they do indeed provide a background in which the ridiculousness of faith in general does not stand out as clearly for what it is (compare a background of science and reason): utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: John Morales | March 20, 2011 1:07 AM

SG:

Except that in this case it was used to include secularism, so here you're wrong.

For some values of 'secularism'.

Specifically, those which when held can in all earnestness inspire one to write "here was a key representative of the highest authority in the land [Dubois, a young African American Pentacostalist, representative by virtue of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships "initiative"], looking us in the eye, in public, and making it indisputably clear that our beliefs, our Humanist values, and our secular colleagues were every bit as American as anyone else."

The near-alliteration quisling curs springs to mind.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 1:20 AM

The only "faith" type of thing we could conceivably participate in would be a trans-faith initiative.

That does seem to be a better word for it.

How confusing. Are Pagans; Druids, Wiccans, and New Agers part of the Interfaith community?

How about Deists, followers of, well whatever its name is?

Pantheists, followers of The Universe?

Yes, to the degree that they organize and insist upon being included.

No, I much prefer the infighting. The more they're "getting along with each other," the more likely it will be at the expense of demonizing an out-group, and it's not too difficult to guess who that will be.

If left to their own devices, that is correct, so this is why Epstein and crew are ensuring that atheists on campus are instead included in the in-group.

thecht182 - Wonder what the interfaith folks' position is on this:

They're against it.

If some of these interfaithiests agree with the Bible's position on stoning to death for homosexuality,

They don't. Pretty much nobody does in our society. Those in higher education, much less. And it's higher education where interfaith groups are most active. Demographically, the interfaith people, as obnoxious as they can be, are among the least likely to approve of religiously motivated murder. Really, this should be obvious.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 1:23 AM

For some values of 'secularism'.

A clarification which could be applied to any mention of the word.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 1:38 AM

It seems all in the manner of so many penguins huddling on an ice floe as the cold winds of reality blow in.

It does seem that this interfaith stuff is a response to the rise of nonbelief.

Possibly all the more reason for nonbelievers to get in there and weird things up.

Er... no. I disagree with that. Like mushrooms on horseshit, it is the very moderates that form a substrate for "fundamentalism" to grow on.

This thesis remains completely unevidenced, and is rather unbelievable since fundamentalism was in fact a reaction against modernism and liberal theology.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 1:53 AM

Interfaith, adj., relating to the mental effort required to maintain a state of cooperation between people who each think they're the only one in the group who's not an apostate, blasphemer, or heathen that will burn in hell for eternity

You realize that many of these cults don't actually believe in hell at all, right? And of those that do, many believe it's not eternal?

Those comparative religion classes in K-12 are starting to sound more attractive, if they could result in less of your kind of ignorance.

It's like the Boy Scouts. Scouts have to have a religion, but it doesn't matter which one - they'll accept any.

The BSA is a contemptible organization, but this is not like that at all.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 2:02 AM

I find that claim unbelievable

Then you haven't studied history.

since literalist interpretations of scriptures and strict adherence to dogmas may well have started before the modern period.

"Literalism" (which cannot in fact exist, regardless of attempts toward it) is not fundamentalism, nor is one a subset of the other.

The label on the package is relatively new, but it's the same decaying product inside.

That is what the fundamentalists would have you believe. But they made it up quite recently.

but there were almost certainly a lot of "fundamentalists" before the modern period.

No, there certainly were not. The search for "fundamentals" of the faith would have been a nonsensical nonstarter before there was textual criticism to react to.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 2:35 AM

strange gods:

Then you haven't studied history.

*throws history books out the window*

Oh, well then. For a moment there I thought I had, but I'll let you have that one. My doubt of your claim means I haven't studied history. You win.

"Literalism" (which cannot in fact exist, regardless of attempts toward it) is not fundamentalism, nor is one a subset of the other.

I agree that literalism is doomed to failure, but Biblical literalism itself is an extant phenomenon and it is rightly associated with fundamentalism. Is there anything to dispute about that?

I don't consider "literalism" a subset or superset of fundamentalism, but only one of many components which makes it fundamentalist. Is there something wrong with how I'm conceptualizing this, or does it have to do with my never having studied history?

The search for "fundamentals" of the faith would have been a nonsensical nonstarter before there was textual criticism to react to.

I'm only saying most of the pieces were already present in previous centuries. Obviously modern fundamentalists you describe are reactionaries, just as you say. I don't dispute that at all. Perhaps there is another term I should use for similar goddists in earlier periods.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 3:08 AM

Protestants.

But not Catholic or Orthodox Christians?

Before the Fundamentalists were going back to their delusional fundamentals, and before the Protestants were protesting the Catholics, were there no other goddists of a similar mindset?

Being the non-student of history that I am, it does strain credulity. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 20, 2011 3:50 AM

@ strange gods before me

This thesis remains completely unevidenced, and is rather unbelievable since fundamentalism was in fact a reaction against modernism and liberal theology.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. "...moderates that form a substrate for "fundamentalism" to grow on." In the sense that religious communities supply the platform and endorsement for ever more radical points of view. There is a level of brinkmanship in the game.There will always be a conflict between revelation and logic - for very obvious reasons. This will only be exasperated during social change (whether or not due "modernism"). Not all fundamentalists share your level of abstraction and intellectualism.

One could draw a parallel with gangsterism around Cape Town, South Africa, which is provided with the sustenance and protection of its communities. There is often a very religious element at play too. They certainly do not go into your level of analysis to justify their actions.

I could also point out the social circumstances of the rise of Wahhabist fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia versus its failure to reach similar success in Delhi, at around the same time, due to the critical nature of the community it encountered there. But I guess you know that already.

Fundamentalism was the word chosen by fundamentalists for themselves. You really don't have a clue about history, do you?

In terms of American history no, I readily confess I am fairly weak on that. Sorry if I assumed that this was a more general, inclusive discussion.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 3:56 AM

Oh, well then. For a moment there I thought I had, but I'll let you have that one. My doubt of your claim means I haven't studied history. You win.

Yay!

I agree that literalism is doomed to failure, but Biblical literalism itself is an extant phenomenon

There are people who call themselves Biblical literalists. I try not to let them get away with it, since they do not in fact take the Bible literally (as it is impossible to take contradictions literally).

The phenomenon of their existence I do not dispute. Rather I dispute that they are what they claim to be.

and it is rightly associated with fundamentalism. Is there anything to dispute about that?

Well, that association should be disputed. Reading the Bible without the weight of traditional expectations about what one will find there would produce a very different understanding of Sheohl, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, for example. Jesus's death and resurrection would remain important, but not for the purpose of preventing a soul's entrance into Sheohl. The doctrine of the Trinity just isn't in there. The virgin birth was not as important to the authors as fundamentalists now emphasize. Other gods besides El and Yahweh would be recognized to exist. Jesus would not necessarily be understood as a god (and wasn't universally understood as such by early Christians). The serpent in the garden would not be identified with Satan. Satan would not be understood as a fallen angel. These are some of the big things, but there are tons of less stunning differences, though no a priori reason to think they should be less important.

This is not to say that such a reading of the Bible would be any more or less Christian. But it would be very different from fundamentalism.

I don't consider "literalism" a subset or superset of fundamentalism, but only one of many components which makes it fundamentalist. Is there something wrong with how I'm conceptualizing this,

Yes. The degree to which certain parts of the Bible should be understood as metaphorical remains an active debate among fundamentalists today. The rejection of metaphor is not a given. Fundamentalism was a response to higher criticism, not metaphor.

I'm only saying most of the pieces were already present in previous centuries.

To even determine what we should include in "most" requires a question of whether we focus on what the fundamentalists weight heavily or whether we enumerate and weight equally each and every theological notion that springs up in history. In any case the emphasis or importance of certain doctrines was certainly very different.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 4:37 AM

The degree to which certain parts of the Bible should be understood as metaphorical remains an active debate among fundamentalists today. The rejection of metaphor is not a given. Fundamentalism was a response to higher criticism, not metaphor.

That is a good point, but I should've indicated that I was referring to the much more common sort of piecemeal "literalism" which allows for poetics and metaphor to some extent (still doomed and delusional).

It might have been better to characterize it (briefly with handwaving as I intended) as a strict adherence to dogma and a belief in biblical inerrancy. That's different from my original claim obviously, but that's a closer approximation to what I'm driving at about probable early Christian beliefs. If those aren't necessary for fundamentalism, then I admit wholeheartedly that fundamentalists have never made any sense to me. ;)

To even determine what we should include in "most" requires a question of whether we focus on what the fundamentalists weight heavily or whether we enumerate and weight equally each and every theological notion that springs up in history. In any case the emphasis or importance of certain doctrines was certainly very different.

I agree.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 5:17 AM

But not Catholic or Orthodox Christians?

Before the Fundamentalists were going back to their delusional fundamentals, and before the Protestants were protesting the Catholics, were there no other goddists of a similar mindset?

What mindset? Let's see, evangelicals are a newer reaction against both modernism and what has become the "traditional" fundamentalism over the course of the hundred or so years that fundamentalism has existed; evangelicals' doctrines and emphases are different from fundamentalists, liberals, and the various mainline churches. Some rising strains right now are "postmodern evangelicalism" and the "emerging church". Much of this is about getting out of the buildings called churches and into people's lives wherever they are: Jesus will come to you and meet you where you are. I think this trend
is possible because of the atomized marketing available today, learned from business.

Fundamentalists placed new emphases on certain doctrines than the earlier Protestants they evolved from, and it is often the emphasis which makes the character of the group. They had a big thing for personal testimony, which was ironically probably inherited from the same modern domesticity that gave rise to Spiritualism. This testimonial nature was not completely new, and one could point to Paul's letters, but the notion that it should spread to every individual and not just the learned elites was fairly new. This remains a common annoyance to atheists today, so it's interesting that it wasn't always so.

And the earlier Protestants, where to begin? Calvinism is so different from Lutheranism that I'd rather send you to Wikipedia, but the doctrine of predestination which explodes onto the scene with Calvinism, it radically changed the world. It brings with it an obsession with Providentialism, a horror that we're still dealing with today, having crossed denominational boundaries.

Lutheranism, well, it's a radical break with the piles of Catholic tradition that had accreted around various parishes and larger geographical areas. Previously, while Rome demanded fealty and payment, it left different subgroups to deal with local superstitions however necessary. There was, and to an extent remains, such tremendous variety in the church that it's hard to identify the Catholic church in different countries as being of the same body. Pragmatism was the way of things, and the church interacted with other power brokers accordingly, with such a disregard for preserving dogma that it would shock the modern observer.

There are various churches which use the name Orthodox, different in many ways, but they at least share(d) this pragmatism. Notable is how the geographically closer to Dharmic regions that the Orthodox churches get, the more they absorb Eastern concepts of God.

Contrasting these with newer developments like fundamentalism, what distinguishes the newer strains is perhaps a universalizing tendency, homogenizing, that there is one way to be Christian and everybody should be doing it. Probably there have always been elites in the various churches who dreamed of such, again for example in Paul's letters "correcting" his disciples, but in practice this has always been terribly hard to enforce. It becomes much more possible in recent centuries, and we see this now and assume all Christians have always thought this way, but its prominance is a function of technology and trade. Wars have been fought around religion, but not exactly for the sake of imposing one dogma over another, more because They aren't Us and They have nice stuff. The theological differences more served as a signifier that They're not Us.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 5:30 AM

Strange that SB doesn't see Sola scriptura as the fundamentalism of its day.

It's not wholly dissimilar in that getting-back-to-basics trend, but the character of those basics in 1500 is different enough from those of 1900 that the comparison can be very misleading without a detailed understanding of theologies (and who wants to bother with that?).

When I see people lumping all pre-liberal Christianities together as "fundamentalism", I shudder to think of the work it would take to really get into it. Given limited time, it's clearer just to say "there's nothing much like fundamentalism before the rise of higher criticism."

Posted by: John Morales | March 20, 2011 6:47 AM

Scat Theist:

Why are you so angry PZ?
[...]
Love and Light is all there is.

So, Anger is part of Love and Light, in your view?

Heh.

Posted by: KG | March 20, 2011 7:34 AM

Before the Fundamentalists were going back to their delusional fundamentals, and before the Protestants were protesting the Catholics, were there no other goddists of a similar mindset? - consciousness razor

Protestantism placed an entirely new emphasis on the text of the Bible - its rise was, as I'm sure you're aware, closely related to the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages, and the spread of both printing and literacy. Catholic and Orthodox "thinkers" have always stressed the authority of the Church hierarchy, which has (among other powers and perquisites) the sole right to interpret the text. Hence both religious liberalism (culminating in the homeopathically religious UUs), and fundamentalism, which are both reactions to the bizarre nature and claims of the text itself, could only arise within Protestantism - and maybe European Judaism (consider Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn on the liberal side, Hasidic sects on the fundamentalist), in which literacy rates had long been relatively high. However, I'd say they have spread back into Catholicism and even into Islam - I don't know about Orthodoxy.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 20, 2011 8:38 AM

@ Strange Gods #98

... Sam Harris...

Whatever, I haven't read any of his books.

[South Africa] The metaphor still wouldn't be evidence.

No metaphor. I would refer you to PAGAD (People Against Gangsterism and Drugs) as a prime example. This was a religious/community initiative to clean up local communities (I lived in one of the affected communities so do not feel overly compelled in quoting "knowledgeable" sources in this. Feel free to google away though.) What started as a fairly benign action gradually got overtaken by more fundamentalist and criminal elements. Certainly there was brinkmanship involved, and the situation escalated into murder and bomb attacks.

No I am not suffering from "... so little care for evidence...". I lived through that fucking experience! I am just responding to a blog and not writing book on this so I leave it there.(I do think such a book would make excellent reading though. Those where very exiting and troubling times)

[Wahhabists Saudi Arabia/Delhi] I refer to the role of community in supplying the substrate in which to grow fundamentalist 'shrooms. Najd was a community which readily accepted al-Wahhabs crazy ideas and allowed them to develop and grow into murderous proportions . The same ideas met with disagreement and ridicule in Delhi and so could not take hold.

It is trivial to show that there is a large element of the religious "feedback loop" in many religious communities. I point for example to the upward climb of titles within the Shia leadership in Iran over time: hojjatoleslam --> ayatollah -->grand ayatollah. I presume each in turn was closer to god and its revelation than the previous. I leave it to you as an exercise to consider the popification of the pope.

^{/ gratuitous pedantry}

Posted by: Sastra | March 20, 2011 12:55 PM

fester60613 wrote:

Only problem is that the most namby-pamby members go to these things and there's too little conflict, too little name calling and mud slinging.

That's because the whole point of interfaith gatherings is to avoid the topic of religion. That is, they talk and talk about religion, and what people believe, and how people do religion, and what it means to the people who do religion -- but only in the shallow sense entailed in doing an overview and looking for pleasant commonalities. They don't take religion seriously, as a topic open to debate and dissent. Instead, the goal is for everyone to "agree to disagree" and move on.

It's the equivalent to having a Republican/ Democrat "dialogue" where the conversation remains focused on what both parties love best about America and never gets into specifics on policies. No bickering about the economy or health care or who tortured who. This is supposed to be a happy occasion -- one where we all recognize that the people on the "other side" are just as nice as the people on your own side. The assumption is that this isn't going to happen if you bring up differences: conflict is bad. Everyone smile and nod and "respect" each other like crazy, no matter how crazy their beliefs are. The politics is avoiding politics.

So there's a tacit agreement that, for the time being at least, truth doesn't matter. We all believe the same things, really. Underneath.

I think we atheists should start attending - we can lie about everyone else and spread rumors and then sit back with nice cocktails and watch the ensuing brawl.

Oh hell, we don't have to lie or spread rumors in order to cause deep concern and flutterings of mild panic among the religious. Just bringing up religion will do that -- if you act like it matters whether any of it is true or not.

I think that whether atheists/humanists joining in an "interfaith alliance" is advisable depends a lot on circumstances. Bottom line, what is the main message of the group?

1.) What people believe about religion and God doesn't really matter: what matters is how we behave towards each other, and how we live in this world. Our common humanity allows us to work together.

2.) What people specifically believe about religion and God doesn't really matter: what matters is that we believe in a religion, and believe in God in some way. Our common faith allows us to work together.

That first one is humanism, and I think it's reasonable -- even important -- that atheists join in. The second should, imo, either be avoided altogether or 'infiltrated' with the purpose of either changing the underlying theme to #1 -- or throwing the cat among the pigeons by bringing up uncomfortable topics: religious truth, and whose got it.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 20, 2011 4:23 PM

(And this discussion of PAGAD, interesting as it is, is so far removed from interfaith meetings on college campuses as to be laughable. If this is your complaint about interfaith discussion, then you can be safely ignored, theo.)

CR:

That is a good point, but I should've indicated that I was referring to the much more common sort of piecemeal "literalism" which allows for poetics and metaphor to some extent (still doomed and delusional).

How would this be literalism? I mean, if simply accepting something in the Bible as literally true makes one a Biblical literalist, then I might be a Biblical literalist because I believe Timothy literally was a disciple of Paul.

I think you get closer to accurately labeling the phenomenon you're addressing as "inerrancy".

It might have been better to characterize it (briefly with handwaving as I intended) as a strict adherence to dogma and a belief in biblical inerrancy.

Now this is an accurate descriptor of fundamentalism! It's incomplete but not wrong. I am sincerely pleased. :)

That's different from my original claim obviously, but that's a closer approximation to what I'm driving at about probable early Christian beliefs.

But that accurate description of fundamentalism is much less accurate when applied to early Christian beliefs.

Inerrancy on the subject of salvation has probably been a feature of Christianity in general -- though the beliefs about what exactly is necessary for salvation have of course differed -- but inerrancy on other matters has not been consistently insisted upon.

Important church fathers preached against both literalism and general inerrancy:

Origen, one of the earliest Christian theologians, writing around the year 225:

Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body—which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen—the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

Augustine of Hippo, circa 400:

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

As for strict adherence to dogmas, well, to a degree this is simply what distinguishes one sect from another, their different dogmas. Even the Unitarian Universalists, in practice, have a dogma that people should not be required to accept any other dogmas.

But if you mean that members of a given sect are generally required to uphold a certain dogma to remain in the sect -- and if this isn't what you mean then I'm not sure I grok you -- then this isn't necessarily so. Example: Catholics for [reproductive] choice are able to use Catholic dogmas to defend their promotion of abortion rights. As denominations age and take on more contradictions, the heap of dogmas can become inclusive of whatever. This is more adaptive than one might think; throwing people out can be bad for business, when they're still willing to tithe if the organization allows them some elbow room.

IMO the most consistent message of religion is "send me money, send me green, Heaven you will meet; make a contribution and you'll get a better seat", though social currency -- "just take us seriously" -- is accepted from the destitute.

Posted by: consciousness razor | March 20, 2011 8:28 PM

strange gods:

How would this be literalism?

Frankly, it isn't in any strict sense, but that doesn't stop a delusional and dishonest fundie who's never even read much of their own Bible from describing their beliefs as such.

Now this is an accurate descriptor of fundamentalism! It's incomplete but not wrong. I am sincerely pleased. :)

It was my mistake. It's not complete, and thus I'd say it isn't entirely accurate. It's a fine distinction between the two and there is overlap, but the fact that fundies conflate inerrancy and literalism is no excuse for me to do it as well. My apologies.

Inerrancy on the subject of salvation has probably been a feature of Christianity in general -- though the beliefs about what exactly is necessary for salvation have of course differed -- but inerrancy on other matters has not been consistently insisted upon.

Of course. However, if we compare two modern fundamentalist sects, it isn't necessary that they agree how exactly the Bible is supposed to be inerrant. Both can just be characterized with that sort of view, even though there may be significant differences.

Thanks for the interesting Origen and Augustine quotes -- they are every bit the weaseling apologists that I remember. Again, I'll just note that what theologians wrote and what many others may have believed could have been quite different, as it is today.

Now I think we're largely in agreement, despite my introducing a lot of confusion. Basically, I just think we need to account for fundamentalism a bit more thoroughly, more than simply as a reaction against the modern trend in textual criticism, although I'm sure that was the major impetus for it to become a "coherent" social group. In one form or another, a lot of their naive and authoritarian views almost had to have been circulating in the population early in church history. Nay?

Posted by: scornucopia | March 20, 2011 10:33 PM

YOU HAVE FAITH THAT YOUR PERCEPTIONS ARE REALITY!!!!!

I acknowledge the ironic use of Comic Sans and ALL CAPS, yet I still feel bound to remark that to call that statement sophistry is an insult to the intellectualism of lighting one's own farts.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 21, 2011 2:48 AM

@ sgbm #112

Whatever, you hang out at websites where people cheer his unevidenced thesis.

Er ... no. Could you kindly provide evidence for this? I think you are being overly keen in trying to discredit me based on your own groundless assumptions. Because you are behaving like a smug hypocrite in this matter, does not entitle one to deduce that you have been inspired by some other particular hypocrite.

[PAGAD] I'm glad you have learned to google. I have read your links and would like to point out that they clearly do not give the whole story (not that one could expect this in such very short pieces). In focusing on the role of the main players (always convenient to talk of "main players" while neglecting entire societies beneath them) they certainly have given the communities and the society that gave rise to this phenomenon short shrift. They therefore fail (conveniently for you) to highlight the point I wished to make. Having lived through this I do tend to notice the gaps in their discussion.

...because of moderates per se...& ...It is trivial to show countless instances of moderates not being made into violent extremists.

Your statements, not mine. This was not my argument. I just wanted to point out the relevance of community and society as an (active) backdrop to the more fundamentalist (and/or extreme) phenomenon. Moderates do not have to be transformed by this activity to supply at least an ambient supportive backdrop. (Am I wrong to call this "substrate"?) At #77 I compare this religious backdrop against an alternative, namely (even "moderate") science and logic. Just an idea to play with, not to get all anal and bent out of shape about.

...so far removed from interfaith meetings on college campuses as to be laughable.

So, you get to set the agenda and determine what constitutes relevance to this debate? If this was other than a cheap shot then you could have raised this point earlier. If you know that the phenomenon of interfaith meetings is not going to grow into a broader social movement (in which my comments may or may not become more pertinent) please back this up. I thought you were playing the historian and not the oracle here...

^/grumpy

Posted by: Lord Setar | March 21, 2011 3:08 AM

Gah. I meant to note that 'me and three other regulars' refers to how many people fall under "3", not the people projecting their status as a 1 or 2 onto us 3s.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 21, 2011 6:46 AM

consciousness razor:

what theologians wrote and what many others may have believed could have been quite different, as it is today.

Since they couldn't read the theologians even if they wanted to. What the people believed was just what they heard from others, including peers. Regardless of what any parish priest can say, there are continually new legends that accrete around the stories of canonical scripture as explained by priests, current events, and legends of previous events. These may have been even more important before commercial storytelling than they are for Catholics today.

This accumulation of new myth is one way for religion to account for changing social trends. Whether we'd call those trends positive or negative, this just isn't fundamentalism, as it lacks any back-to-basics impetus. And what does it mean to say that people hold a book to be inerrant, when they can't even read the book to determine what it says beyond those bits that the priests choose to share with them?

To suggest that they held to inerrancy per se suggests that errancy was even a possibility to be rejected in the first place. But the way that urban legends spread today may be instructive. Their transmission arises by something more like complete credulity and lack of doubt. Watch the way that young children spread whatever they hear. With religion there is this credulity toward peers, plus the submission to authority of priests and lords.

Basically, I just think we need to account for fundamentalism a bit more thoroughly, more than simply as a reaction against the modern trend in textual criticism

Even disregarding textual criticism, fundamentalism might be characterized more broadly as a response to doubt, but in many ways, to doubt one's community has only recently become tenable.

In one form or another, a lot of their naive and authoritarian views almost had to have been circulating in the population early in church history. Nay?

Sure, patriarchy must be accounted for more broadly than as a phenomenon of religion. Status of birth, the place of commoners, and the violence allowed to keep them in their place, predate the church and are still with us today. But these things must be understood in their own right. Bundling them together as "this is what fundamentalism does" would tend to distract by prematurely declaring analysis complete, as overbroad schema generally do.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 21, 2011 12:31 PM

@ sgbm #122

Harris, like the other celebrity atheists, enjoys much currency in the atheist blogosphere generallly. It's silly to act like his influence isn't present in your recitation.

I beg your pardon! Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi? Or are you just another hypocritical pot calling the kettle black?

Could you kindly link to an explanation of Harris's position in this regard. I would be fascinated if I can recall reading this on Pharyngula ... or anywhere for that matter.

I am pretty damn "monogamous" when it comes to Pharyngula. I am not much into the "atheist blogosphere generallly", as you appear to claim... now go ahead and prove otherwise.

I don't know how Harris has influenced my thinking on this matter. You are making the claim that I am influenced by him and I would like for you to present evidence. Perhaps you could lay the paragraph that I have supposedly "recited" next to the original. Then at least you will have provided some circumstantial evidence. (You could also resort to citing Rupert Sheldrake.)

I may be going out on a limb here in suggesting you have an issue with something Harris has said in this regard and are upset that some other person might independently arrive at a similar point of view. Don't go and shit yourself. We could both be independently wrong. My biggest gripe right now is that your whole argument revolves around insisting I support every single statement I make, yet you absolve yourself of similar criteria. Until you remedy that, you can wear the hypocrisy hat and go and stand in the corner.

Posted by: Sal Bro | March 21, 2011 1:06 PM

My first big breakthrough in deconverting from fundamentalist Christianity took place during an interfaith Thanksgiving service. Sometimes it can be helpful to religious folks to realize they're only going to heaven because they happened to be born into the "right" religion. Likewise, exposure to other religions can highlight how unlikely all faith-claims seem.

That's not to say that I approve of a gov't-sponsored Interfaith initiative. But I think Interfaith clubs can be an important tool for fighting xenophobia, and they may inadvertently promote skepticism.

Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο) | March 22, 2011 4:26 AM

@ sgbm (general)

Acting on the assumption that we are at least being civil to each other again, I wish to proffer some more information with regard to PAGAD and my earlier comments:

I would like to point you to the work of Anneli Botha, a senior researcher in the ISS in South Africa and a specialist in terrorism. The article appears in the following: Link to Jamestown Foundation. (I know, they're a bit neocon, but at least it's free ;)

I wish to draw your attention to the following relevant quotes:

From its inception until the eventual split in September 1996, there were three distinct strands within PAGAD: 1. Populist moderates and concerned citizens. ....

Initially PAGAD employed a dual strategy, acting as a community pressure group ...

It is also clear that community-based organizations modeled on PAGAD are heavily penetrated by the highly secretive Qibla organization..... its radical ideology can prepare vulnerable individuals for terrorist recruitment further down the line.

^{Emphasis mine.}

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | March 22, 2011 7:14 AM

Jews generally teach that everyone or almost everyone goes to heaven eventually and any non-Jews who obey the Noahide laws will go to heaven immediately when they die. And many Muslims have taught the salvation of non-Muslims, and many Muslims believe it today.

Harris makes these simple errors often. And it's no good to claim it's a big difference between clerics' faith and commoners' faith; polls show for instance that majorities of followers of the major Christian groups in the USA believe non-Christians go to heaven. That includes a majority of the evangelicals, the most notoriously fire-and-brimstone of modern cults. His claims about exclusivity would be important if true, so it's a shame that he didn't care for evidence.

The problem that religious moderation poses for all of us is that it does not permit anything very critical to be said about religious literalism. We cannot say that fundamentalists are crazy, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief

This is absurd. Does he even know any moderates? I can hardly think of a more common attitude among them than that fundamentalists are batshit. It's typically their first response to discussions of Westboro.

we cannot even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled.

Fundamentalists rarely understand anything of higher criticism, so their knowledge of scripture is generally facile. Ask a fundamentalist about the documentary hypothesis sometime. And moderates do say the extremists are mistaken in religious terms. There is a profitable sector of the industry devoted to just this.

Back to you, theo:

I am pretty damn "monogamous" when it comes to Pharyngula. I am not much into the "atheist blogosphere generallly", as you appear to claim... now go ahead and prove otherwise.

But I did not claim otherwise. I said "Harris, like the other celebrity atheists, enjoys much currency in the atheist blogosphere generally [so] It's silly to act like his influence isn't present in your recitation."

I don't know how Harris has influenced my thinking on this matter. You are making the claim that I am influenced by him and I would like for you to present evidence. Perhaps you could lay the paragraph that I have supposedly "recited" next to the original. Then at least you will have provided some circumstantial evidence.

In addition to your general claim that moderates support fundamentalists and/or extremists, you have more specific claims which mirror his. Harris: "[moderates] cannot even say that [extremists] are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivaled." You: "They are actually just trying to distance themselves from people who actually exemplify the very violent messages god has promoted through his holy books." In both cases there is this implication that the extremists are more "true" to their own beliefs! Besides that this is an absurdity on its face -- forgetting not only talmud and hadith but the basic nature of religion as a living cultural practice rather than the mere recitation of ancient words -- you both end up praising the extremists to make your argument against the moderates. I wonder what possible good you think could come of this praise.

I may be going out on a limb here in suggesting you have an issue with something Harris has said in this regard and are upset that some other person might independently arrive at a similar point of view.

I am just not so stupid as to believe that ideas arise without influence. I'm sure Harris picked it up from somewhere else too. But he's the one who popularized it, and that's why you're saying this now.

My biggest gripe right now is that your whole argument revolves around insisting I support every single statement I make, yet you absolve yourself of similar criteria.

Now this is a lie, for which you should apologize. Even before I went to the trouble of giving you this evidence that you asked for, I made clear that I was willing to give evidence for whatever claims you or anyone else here found extraordinary. "You need to bring the evidence to support any point you wish to make. Yes, a lot of unevidenced claims are made on blog discussions. It may still be demanded that when evidence for a particular claim is requested, it should be provided, else it is in fact unevidenced."

What I have said in most of this thread is uncontroversial and amenable to simple google searches. Even so, I do not insist that others must do those google searches. Whatever I say, in this thread and any other, I am willing to back up. I can't foresee everything that someone might ask for evidence about, though I try. I certainly do make the effort when asked, or else I simply admit, as to Rutee, when I cannot.

You, though, seem to think it's sufficient for you to believe something, as though what you believe about PAGAD does not need to be evidenced because you believe it. Well, this is not just about what you believe. It's about what you can demonstrate to others. I really couldn't give less of a shit about your influence by Harris. It's just funny that you don't realize it, and I made the claim, you asked for evidence, so here I am giving what I can. Yet you asked me for evidence about this claim regarding Harris, while you have completely ignored my demands for evidence about PAGAD. I did the work regarding Harris anyway, but you should have given at least some of the evidence I asked for regarding PAGAD before you turned right around and tried to call me a hypocrite.

That you've finally even bothered at #129 is an improvement, but if it's contingent upon me being civil to you then you aren't going to get much of that. You have to bring your own evidence regardless of how civil someone is to you, and if you don't, then you discredit yourself.

Your bolded quotes at #129 demonstrate nothing except that you don't understand the issue at all. They certainly do not support your claims. I'll read the link now and see if there's anything in there which does support your claim which you might have overlooked.

Posted by: Jonathan Figdor | March 25, 2011 12:08 AM

Here are a few great reasons to do interfaith service:

1. It accomplishes service. Who cares if it means we have to hijack someone's religious delusions to compel them to help us build a park. The point is, we get a park built.

2. It lets people know about Humanism and Atheism. A lot of people don't even know that we exist. This helps raise our profile.

3. It disproves the stupid assertion that atheists are immoral. If we build parks and hospitals just like believers, we're just as good morally.

4. It gives us an opportunity to talk to believers about their faith and show them that they don't have to believe in an invisible man in the sky to live ethical lives.

Best,

Jonathan Figdor
Assistant Humanist/New Atheist Chaplain at Harvard

Posted by: fred mertz | June 25, 2011 6:12 PM

"That our government is embracing all faiths is just as much a violation of the separation of church and state"

The SCOTUS says you're wrong, Pee Zee. Too bad.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 25, 2011 6:25 PM

continues to include a certain Clarence Thomas, it's opinions on matters of truth (or for that matter, law),

Still ethically challenged, but not impeached last I knew (which should be change ASAP).