One of the most common arguments against the New Atheists is to claim that they're railing against a straw man — that religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy. Here's one example: take a look at Steve Foss Ministries. In particular, watch the video titled "I-55 Revival explostion of POWER ", which has it all. Babbling idiots talking in tongues, people spazzing out in a frenzy, and worst of all, the minister and parents urging children to join in the insanity.
This crap is going on everywhere in this country. Maybe most moderate Christians aren't joining in directly, but they sure are good about closing their eyes to it.
I-55 Revival explostion of POWER
- Log in to post comments
Stomach churning. It reminds me of my youth. Nothing quite like babbling incoherently and falling down when someone touches your forehead to get you in the right perspective of reality, yeah?
It is indeed like half or more of the country is drugged and hallucinating. I, like you, am at somewhat of a loss as to why. At least you are actively combatting the irrationality in the public sphere. I hope that others, like myself, are working their personal networks to try to overcome this utter nonsense.
Amen. In my South Georgia community, "liberal Christian" is an insult. These straw men are alive and well. And in the pulpit.
Yeah... I havent had 'pleasant experiences' at churches Ive been to in OK...
Yeah...
Here is a fun blog where a couple goes 'church hopping' in OK. They havent gone to the churches Ive been to, though...
Twice the bullshit of the show Paranormal State on True TV. What in the living fuck is wrong with people? Don't they read?
Who's making the "straw men" claims and don't they pay much attention to their own flock? CBS news in Chicago is doing a story called, "The Atheist Next Door" tonight in an hour where some Atheists state their lack of belief. I already have a bad feeling about this. It's like we have to defend ourselves and justify our beliefs. But this would probably happen to Wiccans, Buddists, etc. We're just the belief of the day.
As I watched this, and I only made it about half-way through, the thing that struck me most is that this is a truly profound form of child abuse. I kept wishing I could crash this disgusting spectacle and whisk the kids out of there.
I always want to ask this folks, "What tongue, exactly, are you speaking in?"
There's always ifs, and ands, and buts;
It's always someone else who's nuts.
that religion is benign and thoughtful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy.
Disappointingly, there are many atheists who would say, "I am myself an atheist, but I do respect any kind of religion,". It appears many atheists just like believers themselves fail to make a distinction between religion and its followers.
Don't forget the flaming loons at Coral Ridge Ministries. Here are a couple of samples: http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/connection.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301 and http://www.coralridge.org/CRMResCtrdetail.asp?cat=other&pc=103626
Methinks it would require entirely too much effort for these loons to actually learn another language to speak. They think it is impressive to the impressionable to gibber in some sort of Middle Eastern sounding nonsense.
"hat religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, "\
Evidence please.
Might I remind you of the Courtier's Reply (of which you, PZ, are the author)?
This claim is made, but no religious person I've ever met or read about has any arguments worth shit. They have nothing. To call them "thoughtful and rational", might be fine, in regards to their day to day behavior, but when it comes to the beliefs of the religious, "thoughtful and rational" cannot apply, for their beliefs are obviously crap, obvious to even children. They are not thoughtful, they are not rational. Don't cut them that slack.
Fuck them with a lack of slack.
I no longer respect religion at all, making me a "militant," I suppose. Religion consists solely of varying degrees of self-delusion, from mild to extreme. But even in its mild forms it clouds judgement and makes the world a far more dangerous place, imho.
Alvarent - The show should be on in half-an-hour, so make sure you're turned into your CBS affiliate from Chicago. Here's a description of the program from their website:
I guess it's too threatening to consider that we actually don't believe, instead of having a belief we don't believe. Whatever.
Also, if speaking in tongues is a sign from God, does God prefer Tide stick?
I have also recently crossed the bridge to no longer having immediate respect for religious faith, and to trying to educate people instead of saying nothing. I had really my first experience this weekend, on a more general public chat forum, trying to reason with a group of people that religion (christianity, in this particular case) is dangerous and irrational, that evolution is a fact, and that there is no proof that we were created by an almighty being, but that there is ample scientific evidence for how we may have come to be. These people aren't even near being fanatical, as far as I can tell, some even say that they don't belong to a particular religion, but they are incredibly frustrating to talk to on this subject! I felt immediately like the lunatic and big bad guy, as I tried to show them gently that believing in a supernatural creator is ludicrous and totally non-sensical! I'm sure I'm just the crazy atheist now, haha. So so sad what most of the population believes. My favourite line was: "Lisa, I really appreciate all that you've said. But some of us believe in our faith in spite of scientific findings." That just sums the basic idiocy of religious faith right there!
I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that . . .
They're the same people who'd be kind and rational without religion.
I had to stop watching about halfway through that video, I was so disgusted. I especially felt bad for the one boy who wasn't moving very much, whose father (or whoever that was) had his hands on the boy's head. He looked like he was frightened and confused by the pitiful spectacle he was being forced to participate in. These people are intellectual bottom-feeders and child abusers.
Did anybody else notice the little boy (~10 maybe?) who was looking around at the adults in confusion? His (apparently) mom was next to him playing some sort of tambourine thing.
Whoops, sorry...was watching the first I-55 thing on the list.
WTF? Some video thingie just popped up in my viewer with some nutjob making up words - Oh Sh&t! This is beyond belief.
CAN WE SPECIATE NOW???
Well, if he can convert an Interstate freeway to Christianity, I'm sure going to be impressed.
Poor I-55.
ERV - Did you read the comments to the last post on the Church Hopping Blog? There's a great link to a Cowboy Church. I shit you not.
It is frustrating to read stuff from a "rational" religious person about other varieties of Christianity. God is just this really great guy who loves everybody, which is why he had to torture his own son for three days; there's an afterlife, and I guess it's for everybody, because that's so much nicer, don't you think? And you shouldn't take the bible literally, of course, except for all that parts that make me happy. Makes me want to punch infants. Hope Sarah ends up with the Unitarians.
This church-hopping talk reminds me of some of my conversations in class on Thursday. I was finishing up a conversation of this book. In it, the psychiatrists treat Santería and Espiritismo as superstitions and not as religions.
I moved from there to a discussion--basically, the point I tried to drive home in that context was that the difference between superstitions and religions is who's doing the defining, as well as their social distance from the practices. As an example, I brought up transsubstanciation. As I was describing the transformation of the host, one of my students, who's not from the US, got this disgusted look on her face. "Yep, I said, we're talking about ritual cannibalism (at least in a symbolic form)." From inside it might not seem that way (a point a christian friend tried to make to me on the phone that night), but it's eating a person--or the representation of that person (merely symbolic cannibalism).
After class, one of my students came up (her parents are from Sri Lanka) and she said, "I always thought the Catholic saints were similar to Hindu gods. I was fascinated with Catholicism in HS, and would even take communion. When I told one friend, he was like, 'You ate my god!'" So apparently some people inside are aware of their cannibalism.
Damn, I had a comment about class last week, (and religion and superstition) and for the first time since I've been commenting here, I got sent into moderation. I wonder which words set it off.
"Evidence please.
Might I remind you of the Courtier's Reply (of which you, PZ, are the author)?"
Fundamentalists who believe that the bible, or any other "holy" book, is literally true are clearly delusional. Of course, there are also serious problems with the belief that the bible, although not literally true, is still the "inspired" word of god. There are simply too many instances of barbarism, immorality, irrationality, and inconsistencies (both internal inconsistencies and inconsistency with observable fact) in the bible, or whatever "holy" book is at issue.
However, I agree with PZ that "some individuals within religion" are "benign and thoughful." Admitting that some individuals within religion may be benign and thoughtful is very different from the Courtier's Reply. The Courtier's Reply, IIRC, is a reaction to atheistic arguments that posits that the atheist has not reviewed enough "sophisticated" religious philosophy to really understand "true" religion; said "sophisticated" religious philosophy is, although perhaps well-reasoned, fundamentally flawed due to it's being premised on false assumptions. One can be thoughtful and benign, and still wrong.
Furthermore, there are some very intelligent religious people that I respect and admire, but the religion of such people is very unlike the religion we see in the "I55 Revival Explostion [sic] of POWER" video. Two examples of such thoughtful, intelligent religious people that come to mind are Thomas Paine and George F. R. Ellis.
Ok.... Am I the only one who thought the guy was having an orgasm?
The sobering thing for me is that I just moved into a new flat and one of my flatmates turns out to be what I think I'll call a fortune-cookie Christian. I think that's a fair description based on all the naive, feel-good phrases she's posted EVERYWHERE. Also, she has several DVD sets of a Jesse Duplantis (whose name sounds familiar, but for now all I can say is that I think he said that if you pray hard enough, you can get anything), and seems to watch them whenever she is home. I've also spotted a Benny Hinn DVD. Also, she seems to have Duplantis CDs and listens to them in her room AND her car.
Also, she talks to Jesus every night. And yes, Jesus talks back...
Save me....
I showed this to a Christian just a few moments ago and while shaking her head and finding it insane, she also added "I do believe God DOES let some people speak in tongues, but this... Mm... This seems fake. But then again, maybe..."
Do you see the problem here? She was confusing something OBVIOUSLY STUPID with something God might do.
This is why even moderate religious people can be just one small step away from the "danger zone."
I think I know where all that convulsing and writhing comes from.
These people don't dance.
What a wretched scene.
SteveC #12:
How exactly are "I'll agree that some individuals within religion are [benign and thoughtful and rational], but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy."
and
"To call them 'thoughtful and rational', might be fine, in regards to their day to day behavior, but when it comes to the beliefs of the religious, 'thoughtful and rational' cannot apply, for their beliefs are obviously crap, obvious to even children."
fundamentally different statements? Indeed, they seem to be saying exactly the same thing to me. I fail to see how you're using one to rebut the other.
What is it with these people and spelling anyway? EXPLOSTION? Seriously?
I think I know where all that convulsing and writhing comes from.
These people don't dance.
Calling Kevin Bacon!
PZ, you know, there's only so much that we can do. Speaking just myself, my first priority always has to be the stuff that either directly threatens science education or which attempts to sabotage the Establishment Clause.
But I'll tell you what, whenever you have a specific case that's important enough to make common cause with people like me, say so and I'll put the word out.
In solidarity.....SH
Those fucking theistards sure need a spell-checker.
Jesus doesn't check their spelling, apparently.
@22 "Two examples of such thoughtful, intelligent religious people that come to mind are Thomas Paine and George F. R. Ellis."
Thomas Paine was a deist, and his pamphlet "The Age of Reason" bashed Christianity and the Bible pretty soundly. To include him as a religious person devalues the term, imho.
And George Ellis is a Quaker, 'nuff said. ;)
I-55 Revival explostion of POWER, very disturbing. To me it was reminiscent of the Benny Hinn teenagers that did all manner of foolish things, if anyone remembers that. Apparently the 21st century is just a portal to 10,000 BCE or earlier.
Wikipedia on Glossolalia: Scientific Perspectives.
Oh, FSM dammit, I hope we're not related. I'd rather have an orange in my family tree than this fruitcake.
Cheeses! CHEESES! FIRE! FIRE! Yeah, this is "what our children need," to be exposed to religious gibberish that's more gibbereshy than usual. No wonder people are so screwed up. Those poor kids never had a chance; even if they eventually figure it out, they'll never shake the kind of warping this'll do to them.
MAJeff,
If you too would like to learn how to speak in "tongues," try my new beginners learning method!
Mix, match and repeat (often) these few syllables: "Ah" "Shun" "Day" "Cor" "Rolling R sound" "E" "Oh" "La" "Pa" and "Ta."
The pastors repeating of "Bo" as in "Bo-bo-bo-bo-bo-bo" is not as you might have guessed, a repeated request to be brought a clown, or monkey. Actually he is probably speaking in another tongues dialect, possibly "Lower East Side tongues."
(In case you're wondering, I get paid $1 every time I use "quotation" marks...)
One positive thing comes out of this, the band tuning up in the background, sounded like the Grateful Dead in one of their spacier moments. Otherwise the video was obscene.
DJH (#31), You wrote "Thomas Paine was a deist, and his pamphlet 'The Age of Reason' bashed Christianity and the Bible pretty soundly. To include him as a religious person devalues the term, imho." I guess it depends on what you mean by "religious." I understand why you think referring to Paine as religious may devalue the term, but I still think it applies.
Thomas Paine's bashing of the Bible and Christianity was part of what made him a thoughtful and rational religious person, IMHO. I still consider him "religious" because, although he forcefully rejected the existence of the Abrahamic god, he still firmly believed in a god. Paine wrote in the "Age of Reason," "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life....The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical." That makes him "religious" in my mind.
Regarding Ellis' Quakerism, Thomas Paine also wrote "The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers."
Deism and (liberal) Quakerism are, in my mind, examples of religions that do not exclude rationality and thoughtfulness as a prerequisite for belief. For example, Thomas Paine believed in a god, but he rejected any conception of god that was incompatible with the logic and evidence in front of him.
However, because so many "religious" people are wantonly ignorant and irrational, I understand why one might be uncomfortable using the label to describe someone like Paine.
Hm. I've heard of speaking in tongues. For some reason, I thought this might be like, you know, actual speaking that would communicate. What I heard on the video as "speaking in tongues" could pass for my dog's vapid and ridiculously repetitive use of the same phrase, no matter how much I school her. (She has similar problems with Newton's Laws, whoops, scientific theory, of gravity, namely lean into the turn, stupid dog!) "Bark, bark". "Jesus saves." "Bark, bark, bark." "What's that? Jesus wants us to vote for Bush? We can't again, without violating the constitution ... oh, yeah" "Bark, bark, bark, bark, ah-oooh!" "Well, Cheney only gets another year of office (until the revolution creates the theocracy, don't tell anyone)" "Bark, bark, Ba-ROOK" "Hows Canada this time of year? Are they taking any immigrants? Can't we leave now?"
Silly dog.
the sadness of this video is overwhelming
our innocence, our country, our future
one can only weep
When I was a kid my aunt and uncle took me to their church, Judson Baptist in mid-Michigan, and at one point this kind of lunacy broke out. I swear I almost shit my pants half believing that some kind of nerve agent was being pumped into the church. These people who babble and shake, run up and down the aisles in fits, who clutch at you like hungry zombies are referred to as "charasmatics" which is a polite way of calling them insane I guess.
I had no use for church before this incident but I never felt in any physical danger - at least until that day.
I think its time again for that old Benny Hinn classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI
Muhahaha, my field of expertise!
I've been lurking on Pharangula for a year or two now..
I happen to have met Steve Foss on various occasions when he came to New Zealand, on one (or perhaps two) occasions, having dinner with him, and also seeing him preach in person on a several occasians, and being prayed for by him (yes, it had a similar effect on me as in the videos) My family is quite heavily involved in our local church. Also, I have read two of his books- (the spelling and grammar are predictably atrocious).
While I no longer follow Christianity nor any other religion, he did come across very well; he certainly has charisma. Also, he upsets me less than some of the better-known american preachers as I am pretty convinced that Steve is sincere in his beliefs. The hypocrisy that is so prominent among many religious figures didn't seem to be there.
However, with strongly-held, sincere but rigid beliefs comes great danger. I vaguely recollect him having dominionist tendencies, etc, believing that the government should conform to the christian worldview, and thereby disregard preferences of citizens who do not follow his firebrand version of christianity. In his mind, all competing religions are false and/or of the devil, therefore making concessions to them is never the right course of action..
The same principle holds for concessions to gay marriage, abortion, etc
I strongly disagree with him, but I don't have any emnity for the guy.
It's just sad to see people so goddamn pathetic that believe in crap like that. After watching the Foss piece and re-watching the Benny Hinn video that was mentioned later, I'm even more firmly convinced that these people are all utterly and completely insane.
There's no other way to put it.
It is way past time to hold religious moderates responsible for their lunatic fringe elements- which is not to say that those very same moderates can be held up as examples of rationality. After 'Jesus Camp', this video was milquetoast.
Maybe the zelots along I-55 could be conscripted into construction crews to repair some of this country's failing infrastructure.
After 'Jesus Camp', this video was milquetoast.
Just watched that for the first time a couple weeks ago. Frightened and angered me.
I like to think that attending a similar type of service was one of mine first steps towards becoming an atheist. I was thirteen when I went with a friend to charimastic service. Watching all of the adults around spazzing out freaked me out. It is not as if I was not used to some of this type of action, my father was an alcoholic. But I could not believe that god wanted his followers to act like out of control children. And I was a barely controlled child.
It would be an other four years before I became an atheist. In that time, I was a teenage lay member of the methodist church committee.
I guess my main point is this, this type of display does not appeal to everyone. I guess it appeals to those who think themselves so insignificant, they might as well act like idiots for their master. Besides, prefer spazz dancing at concerts. I would rather give in to the music.
Marjoe
The fifth estate, a cbc program, just did a really good video piece on benny hinn. it's worth watching. what a creep.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/amazinggrace/
#48, I think I saw that. I think I mentioned above that I now live with someone who owns a Hinn DVD, and no doubt watches it with awe and reverence.
Sigh...
So what exactly is happening here? Auto-hypnosis? Mass hysteria? Knowing a bit about self-hypnosis, some of it looks a bit like that - the meaningless chants, and the auto-suggestion, especially of children (more suggestiblel subjects), but I can't explain all of it.
did you notice the absence of hot bunnies in these videos? that's for a reason ... church is for ugly, sexually frustrated chicks ...
A well-placed lawsuit might do some good, but seeing as the law is hopelessly in bed with religion...
PZ,
"One of the most common arguments against the New Atheists is to claim that they're railing against a straw man -- that religion is benign and thoughful and rational. I'll agree that some individuals within religion are like that, but religion itself is a poisonous nest that encourages lunacy."
So you don't think that there are people (like me) who believe that some aspects of religion are benign, and others encourage lunacy. Its' either Religion is benign or Religion is evil. Take no prisonners.
Well, that's the argument against the New Atheists then. "You are either with us, or against us" does that ring a bell ?
Then, " Maybe most moderate Christians aren't joining in directly, but they sure are good about closing their eyes to it."
And what's the reason for that ? That there aren't any moderates ? Or because they don't want to take sides as they're getting the impression, perfectly warranted in my honest opinion, that you are attacking them.
What's really going on is that because the New Atheists are systematically attacking ANY form of religious belief or practice, religious moderates such as Collins, Miller, etc... are encouraged to defend their, maybe irrational, but benign per say, forms of beliefs and practices.
Jeebus, the enemy is clear, it's religious fundamentalism , intolerance and anti-science. Why not attack that one FIRST ? That'd be a good start. Instead you are lumping everything together and attacking any form of God belief and religious practice.
Sorry to disagree. Still like you very much PZ.
Those poor fucking children. I can't describe how upset that video makes me.
It's mass hysteria, insanity acceptable by majority. Disgusting.
I seem to recall having a vaguely similar discussion with you about this very topic negentropyeater and although the outcome of that discussion seemed to be that we are on similar pages I have to disagree with you here. If moderates want to be regarded as such then they need to condemn this kind of thing unconditionally first.
In my experience when this kind of thing is mentioned they kind of go all red and mutter something about Stalin (or Hitler depending on their level of education) being nasty - see Alistair McGrath in debate with either Hitchens or Dawkins as a primary example of this. Where is their outrage an the inhumanity of the way the nutters act or, for that matter, the insult that their behaviour implies to the "true", fluffy bunny view of religion that the moderates have? If they don't show this then in my opinion they deserve a certain amount of criticism.
These forms of religous belief and practice are benign largely because these particular people are benign, moderate and generally rational people. However when they volunteer to debate with atheists (and they do volunteer remember, they aren't put upon victims, they have set out to provide a defence of their position so it is not unreasonable for us to examine the intellectual strength of that defence and point out the flaws) it becomes pitifully clear that the rationality that they bring to other areas of their lives has not been applied to their religious beliefs so they tend to wind up looking rather silly. This is not our fault and it is not beholden on us to pretend it isn't so and cover their blushes simply because they are the "right sort" of religious person.
One is pretty sure that if something ends in 'Ministries', it's going to be a nutjob institution.
Yeah, kind of like any organisation with "decency" or "family" in the title - it's kind of like a sign saying,
"Heath Warning: This Organisation Contains Nuts."
I'm going to Praiseland!
Man, I have GOT to stop readng these threads early in the morning before my eyes actually function. I was reading "Benny Hinn" as "Benny Hill," and trying to figure out what the hell everyone was talking about!
I got it now, though, and am fully on the bus. Still, the image of Benny Hill leading people to Jeebus may haunt through the rest of the day.
LOL - it made my day so thanks for sharing!
The good news is that most Christians I've encountered are nearly as quick as I am to dismiss this speaking-in-toungues crap as utter nonsense. As you point out, the bad news is that few will speak out against it for fear of offending those who engage in it or somehow diminishing the value of religion.
"Speaking" as a former Pentecostal: "Glossolunia!"
Tongue in check,
or it should be,
antaresrichard
God is pseudo-epilepsy! Praise the Lord!
Shimabalabalalalabalala babababababababababa!
As an epileptic I object - I am reliably informed that I look far less silly mid-fit than this bunch of nutters!
;-)
I would very much like to put the people who say this down in the middle of the next riot between hindu and muslim mobs (which are the two biggest religions in the parts I live in). And believe me, such riots are pretty common quite often result in the death of scores of people.
Bharat:
*Applause*
Lilly,
"If moderates want to be regarded as such then they need to condemn this kind of thing unconditionally first."
Here's one of my favourite quotes :
- However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D" Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
Who said this ? Barry Goldwater, Episcopalian himself and former US Senator from ... the republican party. Yes the republican party !
So when, for example, Obama (another, fairly important, religious moderate), in all his speeches on faith, is always very careful to mention that all believers, AND non believers deserve tolerance and respect, then what do non believers think, ah he's pandering to the faith communities. Yes, he is, and I'm sure he knows that, but he has no choice, he unfortunately cannot say the same thing as Barry Goldwater for the time being. He has to be a bit more careful, because things have gotten way worse than in those days. He first needs to get elected, in order to have a chance to reverse this disastrous trend.
In this context, are, "The God Delusion", "The end of faith", and "God is not great" helping to foster an alliance between religious moderates and non believers against the rise of religious fundamentalism and intolerance ?
In my view, their efficacy is very limited, first because they appear, at least to a large proportion of religious moderates, to be intolerant, of their beliefs and other benign irrationalities. Second, and it is an obvious crying observation, why hasn't it encouraged new religious moderates â la Goldwater to speak out ?
Just try to ask yourself this question, in this current climate of hyper-polarization, what would you do, if you were a moderate ?
And also, in order to at least try that they do condemn unequivocally, fundamentalism, why not organise constructive debates between New Atheists and Religious Moderates, on that specific subject ?
Why no debates on the following subjects :
- How to counter the rise of religious fundamentalism in the USA ?
- Religious moderates and Non believers. An impossible alliance ?
- etc...
Instead we get things like :
Debate between Al Sharpton (a moderate) and Christopher Hitchens (New Atheist) on the subject of his book, "God is not great". Give me a break. Outcome predictable.
It seems that in America, for a debate to be interesting, it must result in a blood bath. No constructive debates allowed. Only debate subjects that will result in a clear opposition between the parties involved, be it moderates and non believers, otherwise, it wouldn't be fun to watch. And make sure the books that go with it clearly demonstrate this opposition. Otherwise, they won't sell.
(Exception to the latest PZ / Loyal Rue debate which I thought was pretty good)
What I'd also like to see happening is a debate between a New Atheist, a religious moderate, and a fundamentalist.
Like a Ben Stein / Sharpton / Hitchens debate on the rise of fundamentalism. Would love to see that one.
And then, didn't the religious moderates help to get a positive outcome for the Dover Trial ?
Benny Hill = YES!
Benny Hinn = NO!
negentropyeater:
In my personal experience, I grew up as a religious 'moderate' and it wasn't until I reached my twenties that I really began to ask myself what I actually believed, and why I just couldn't believe what the church was telling me. For a long long time I just didn't buy it, but didn't know how to reconcile my possible non-belief with living a morally just and fulfilling life (as of course, I believed that this really wasn't possible with god). Today I am a very proud atheist, living a much happier, confident, and more morally and intellectually fulfilling life than I ever did before or even thought possible. I give a lot of credit for the life I have now and my 'clear mind' to non-believers who did challenge my beliefs and who really told me what I needed to hear to get over my religious delusions. Granted, I know I still live with a fair amount of that damn catholic guilt that's so hard to get rid of, but I really am thankful to those atheists who gave me the right information to start thinking about life the way I do now, without the need for god and a supernatural creator. So, I think a big reason as to why we challenge even religious moderates is that, and I am speaking from personal experience here, they do harbour delusional ideas about life (practical and moral issues) and how we got here, and this makes them susceptible to become less moderate in some situations, and/or to not always recognize when religion has gone to far and people need to be protected. From my own previous personal experience and by interacting with other religious moderates that I know, these people are often confused as to what they believe to be true, and I know that I sure appreciate now those people who open my eyes by 'attacking' my beliefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GjNSUatTc4
Then he's selling his principals down the river (assuming you are correct about what his ulterior motives are). Seriously someone religious does need to talk like Barry Goldwater did, now more than ever, precisely because the nutters are so much more powerful. Otherwise you have a situation where (to quote WB Yeats) "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity" and guess what? The worst win.
What we need are more moderate religious people standing up and saying, loudly what Barry Goldwater said and when there is a strong movement of the religious that does this loudly and often I will gladly celebrate it (I've already said that I don't have problems with this type of believer whatever I think about the status of their beliefs).
However the problem that we have is the believers who fall fairly into the "I'm a moderate but I'm not going to do or say anything about the nutjobs" camp. Since they aren't calling out the nutters why shouldn't we criticise these believers for their silent compliance (the Barry Goldwaters of this world are surely more of a rebuke to such believers rather than an affirmation - this is what they should be doing) and why, in the absence of anyone else doing so, should we not call the nutters to account if no-one else will?
Actually I think they are - they provide a counterbalancing voice and point out, loudly and insistently, that there is an alternative to religion out there. I would also point out that frankly, if a religious moderate is more offended by any of these books than they are by the antics of the religious right then I have to wonder how "moderate" they actually are in any case. Moderates are generally not offended by an alternative point of view being put to them in an unapologetic way - when, for example did you hear atheist say that they were mortally offended by Alistair McGrath or Francis Collins's attacks on the athiest position (we might think they are rather weak but we don't take offence at their existence).
Speaking in tongues has been pretty thoroughly investigated. One of the earliest studies is still one of the best:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w023125824v8q504/
Glossolalic speech from a psycholinguistic perspective.
Osser, Ostwald, MacWhinney & Casey
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Abstract This is a psycholinguistic study of glossolalia produced by four speakers in an experimental setting. Acoustical patterns (signal waveform, fundamental frequency, and amplitude changes) were compared. The frequency of occurrence of vowels and consonants was computed for the glossolalic samples and compared with General American English. The results showed that three of the four speakers had substantially higher vowel-to-consonant ratios than are found in English speech. Phonology, morphology, and syntax of the four glossolalic productions were analyzed. This revealed two distinct forms of glossolalia. One form, which we called ldquoformulaicrdquo tends towards stereotypy and repetitiousness. The second form, which we called ldquoinnovativerdquo shows more novelty and unpredictability in the chaining of speech-like elements. These contrastive forms of glossolalia may relate to dimensions of linguistic creativity. Precise correlates with personality patterns, educational backgrounds, psychopathology, and other sociolinguistic variables remain to be employed.
Apologies (and this was a genuine error, not a tongue-in-cheek effort . . . though I wish I'd thought of it):
From the abstract above, the two distinct forms of glossolalia are, respectively, "formulaic" and "innovative."
You are in good company -- the vast majority of Christian denominations agrees with you. After all, it is written in the Book of Acts:
(Elamite was still spoken that late? Cool.)
When I saw the name of the ministry, I thought for a minute that it was Bob Fosse Ministries, which would have at least had a little style and flair...
Jeebus, the enemy is clear, it's religious fundamentalism , intolerance and anti-science. Why not attack that one FIRST ? That'd be a good start. Instead you are lumping everything together and attacking any form of God belief and religious practice.
Because it's all nonsense.
LisaJ,
I'm not disputing the fact that the New Atheists are helping some moderates to get rid of some of their delusions. It worked for you, as it did for others.
Prior to becoming an Atheist, as a moderate Catholic, you said you were already doubting your beliefs, and you were probably not spending your time trying to convince others that they should believe the way you did.
But obviously, not all moderates react the same way. And I also personally know some who reacted the opposite way. When they heard of all these books, and remember they were more or less in the same place as where you were, doubting and tolerant, they didn't read these books, they got stuck at the titles, were scared, and started defending their faith, they started saying more and more silly things, they started becoming more and more virulent and intolerant towards non believers.
So, for all the people who went your way, we should also count those who went the opposite way.
Of course, I'm not saying that the rise of fundamentalism was caused by the New Atheist movement. It started way before then. We've got to blame the education system for that, the rise of poverty and hardship, the neo conservatives, American Exceptionalism, etc...
But I am suggesting, that the New Atheist movement has not had only positive effects, and as I said, I question it's efficacy in reversing the trend. And in encouraging moderates to speak out against fundamentalism.
Hmm, I see what you're saying. I guess the really tough thing about all of this is how do we reach people who don't want to be reached? This is something that I struggle with, because I find that often times when I get into a debate about religious issues with a religious 'moderate', no matter how overly respectful I am, the reaction is that I am talking down to them and calling them stupid, when I am only trying to open their eyes to how things really are. I'm really not sure of what the answer is as to how to we can be appeal to people's senses, but not scare them off. However, it's also possible that we are going about it the right way, and a lot of people really don't want to change their views, no matter how much they may question them themselves.
Lilly,
"Moderates are generally not offended by an alternative point of view being put to them in an unapologetic way -"
Generally not, but depending on many factors (education level, peer pressure, personal events, influence of fundies that they might have had in their close friends or families) some got overly preoccupied. I know off hand a few examples. And they were moderates, they didn't really care about religion, they had this wishy washy warm feeling type of religion, going to church once in a blue moon. And now what, I have to spend time explaining to them why Atheists are not bad guys.
"- when, for example did you hear atheist say that they were mortally offended by Alistair McGrath or Francis Collins's attacks on the athiest position (we might think they are rather weak but we don't take offence at their existence)."
As I said, why is now Collins attacking Atheists, when he'd be better off attacking fundies. WHY ? Because of the books, and the blanket "Religion is Evil" ideas.
"As I said, why is now Collins attacking Atheists, when he'd be better off attacking fundies. WHY ? Because of the books, and the blanket "Religion is Evil" ideas."
The problem with this argument is that it ignores what happened before the so-called "new" atheists. The "new" atheists are not pushing a new message of course, but they have in the last few years become more vocal.
Have you bothered to ask yourself why they felt the need to become so ? Maybe if Collins, and other moderate theists, along with those atheists who think Dawkins et al are too vocal had done a better job combating the excesses of religion the rise in vocal atheism would not be needed. Dawkins makes it clear in "The God Delusion" that were moderate religion dominant then he would not have written the book he did. The sad fact is that much religion is not moderate. And to those who say Dawkins is not the answer I say, you have had your chance. You failed.
I've little respect for religion, nor do I have much hope that the 'moderates' are going to challenge the 'fundamentalists'.
The 'moderates' have already compromised themselves by interpreting their holy books to suit their own preferences, why expect anything better of them? There are very few people who are truly Christian (as in following the teachings of the radical rabbi Jesus for other Jews) and even the followers of Paul (evil nasty person) or Luther (ditto) or Calvin (ditto) are not really Christians.
Best suggestion I can come up with? Give them a bag of grapes and ask them when the next visiting hours are. They are all deluded, but only some of them are dangerous.
Did you note the information on the Steve Foss Ministries website? "Please note: Child care will NOT be provided". The most truthful part of the whole sorry mess.
I've been sick all weekend. I suppose I should be grateful for "moderate religious" people offering to pray for me rather than asking them to do something that will actually help me get better, like pick up some medicine for me.
"I've been sick all weekend. I suppose I should be grateful for "moderate religious" people offering to pray for me rather than asking them to do something that will actually help me get better, like pick up some medicine for me."
This remind me of a time when I was helping my mother load a desk into her car. A couple of JWs called round as we were struggling and said they could see we were busy but to remember god was always there to help us. To which my mother replied "He could give us a bloody hand with this desk then".
The JWs made a quick exit.
I've been sick all weekend. I suppose I should be grateful for "moderate religious" people offering to pray for me rather than asking them to do something that will actually help me get better, like pick up some medicine for me.
(rolls eyes)
As if the moderately religious weren't in fact seeing their doctors and taking medicine, etc.
Sorry to hear that you're sick, though.
Matt,
I agree that the New Atheist needed to do what they did. And I have great admiration for them in doing so. It was a long needed rallying cry. But if it stays there, it's efficacy will remain very limited.
All I am suggesting is that we need now to get to the next phase. We need more diversity in the approach, and even more vocal. We can get at least three different voices, all fighting in the end for the same goal ;
1. the new Atheists
2. the moderate free thinkers, who, like me, do not believe that all in religion is evil, but will defend Science and Secularism above all.
3. the religious moderates, who like Goldwater did years ago, can provide some of the most formidable oponents to the religious right
And especially, ounce this election is over, and this country has finally gotten rid of Bush and hopefully, the neo conservatives.
The time has come, the Walrus said, to speak of many things...
It looks any other ritualistic group experience you see on Discovery Channel or your local dance club. Notice that throughout the entire proceeding, he maintains a steady cadence to his speaking in tongues, which helps individuals who want to participate, enter a trance like state. The kids, who are young enough to enter this state easily, are going into the trance because they are watching their friends do it and don't want to be left out. Once the trance like state is entered, it's euphoric and probably quite pleasant, so they keep doing it.
If you wish to experience the same thing, just go to a club and dance, or go to metal concert and head bang. It's all the same thing. There's nothing spiritual about it. The only difference here is the brainwashing that will occur after fun part of the service is over.
They boast of the fact that they will pray? And that's considered moderate in the USA? Over here it would be considered obnoxious -- it's even in the Bible: "don't be like the hypocrites who stand in street corners..."
Not so much obnoxious as embarrassing in fact. But likely it would be interpreted as a holier-than-thou attitude.
there is a discussion going on over at Jesus General about baby bible bashers (young evangelists) the video is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=873506285315690275
so sad, the little 7 year old samuel is heartbreaking
i have only 2 words
child abuse
sick sick sick
The parts of religion which are "benign, thoughtful, and rational" stand on their own without the religious framework. The religious framework doesn't support the benign, thoughtful, rational parts, it provides the foundation for building anything at all, including things which aren't the least bit benign, thoughtful, or rational -- like this stuff on the videos.
For "religion" substitute the word "pseudoscience." Why attack homeopathy when dangerous cancer cures are out there? Why go after astrology when some people are killing other people for being witches? Shouldn't we smile and join with "moderate" pseudoscientists in order to go after the really dangerous stuff? I mean, we shouldn't act like all pseudoscience is equally "bad," should we? We need to draw distinctions.
Sometimes, perhaps -- but as a general rule, I think there's no good substitute for advocating truth over lies. Even -- gawd help us -- "benevolent" lies. Harmless ones. The "nice" pseudosciences which teach people to scorn real science for fantasy only a little bit, and not too much.
Where do you draw the line? I'm sure the people at this ministry have their own extremist nutcases and can eagerly point to fringe ministries which are really over the line -- unlike their own moderate stance.
In my own experience, my benign, thoughtful, rational religious friends tend to defend their religion by re-translating everything they do into my own terms: prayer is really taking time to reflect; rituals are really reminders for the importance of family and friends; God is really a symbol for appreciating nature, and so on and so forth. When I ask "Ok, where is it different than secular humanism?" they're not comfortable. There must be some way I can just re-interpret it all into rational terms, and end up appreciating it.
Sastra,
"In my own experience, my benign, thoughtful, rational religious friends tend to defend their religion by re-translating everything they do into my own terms: prayer is really taking time to reflect; rituals are really reminders for the importance of family and friends; God is really a symbol for appreciating nature, and so on and so forth."
And, is there a problem ?
negentroyeater:
The problem is that they don't actually mean it. They appear to be playing a word game which slides in all the irrational beliefs under the cover of being "similar" to rational beliefs -- but not really. You can watch them go back and forth. The translation doesn't stick.
Yeah, that "helping the sick" thing is so 1st century.
(just kidding, but I think you missed MAJeff's point, unless you think that *eyeroll* is an appropriate response to the suggestion that Christians should help people in tangible ways :)
Sastra,
it's their problem, not mine, nor yours. Or is it ?
Sastra,
I am in agreement with you as regards to "revealed" religion, in which adherents must conform their world-view to "scripture" no matter how illogical or factually wrong the scripture may be. Religion such as this is dangerous because 1) it is delusional, and 2) because it claims to be the absolute Truth. Anything contrary to the revelation is wrong, including other religions.
However, I do think that there is a natural tendency for people to believe in god or gods, and I don't, in principal, see any real problems with that if they understand that what they believe and what they know are two different things, they have seriously considered their belief in light of facts and reason, and they remain open to revising their belief in light of new knowledge. In other words, I guess I don't have a problem with "natural religion" or "natural theology."
My gut thought is that the people you are describing want to believe in **something**, and they are simply trying to reconcile incorrect "revelation" with what they know. In other words, they are trying to be logical, which is to be commended, while still being involved in a religious organization.
Oops, that should be "in principle" and not "in principal."
negentropyeater:
In the small, personal sense, it's not my problem -- any more than it is my problem if friends of mine take homeopathic remedies or speak in tongues (and yes, I also have or have had friends who do both (though presumably not in conjunction.)) I usually leave them to bring up the subject of faith, but then deal with it honestly. Which they seldom seem prepared to do -- hence their equivocations.
The larger issue is whether it is a good idea, in general, to allow a culture to promote irrational beliefs like pseudoscience or religion as a sign of character and maturity -- and agree to keep out of the debate until it goes too far, and is no longer "reasonable" and "moderate." I think that, in the Big Picture, principles matter. And that once you begin to hold "belief beyond the evidence" as a virtue it's harder and harder to draw lines on what is or isn't reasonable.
That there are indeed some forms of superstition which are relatively harmless doesn't mean that we really only need to concern ourselves with "the extremes." The extremes don't think they're extreme, they point to other views they consider extreme -- which often includes those wacky extremist folk who don't believe in any supernatural forces at all (can you imagine?)
I have no problem making political alliances with religious moderates who are on the same side of an issue. Welcome, welcome. And, unlike a lot of the commenters here, I see plenty of religious liberals and moderates bewailing the fundamentalists and their practices. But from my point of view they seem to be playing a sort of Calvin-ball form of criticism.
"Silly fundies, fairies don't cast magic spells on people! The evil eye and eye of newt are harmful superstitions. No, fairies give beauty to the flowers by vibrating in harmony with nature. Why can't people be more rational?"
God is a real energy and power. This knowledge has been ripped out of our consciousness, and seekers who are on spiritual quests, are easy targets for dark forces and unenlightened beliefs. The church, knowingly or unknowingly, is party to this. The elite are party to this. Keep the people stupid. Withhold the real power.
However, God is a real force! We are spirits living a physical existence. Since we have been dummied-down by religion and dogma, we have lost the idea of who and what we are . . . these people are searching for GOD and healing and through unenlightened use of free will, ignorance, whatever, they are being sucked into something unsavory. Rather sad, don't ya think???
Christ return is near. What you say?
cathy #100 wrote:
Yes, in more ways than you realize.
However, God is a real force! We are spirits living a physical existence
What is this nonsense?
Sastra, Wyatt,
I like to separate religious beliefs in 3 categories :
1. those contrary to evidence
(creation myth, Bible is word of God, Evolution is wrong, 6000y earth, I'm no distant relative to them monkeys, etc..)
2. those harmful to others
(women, blacks are inferior, condemation of homosexuals, abortion and other religions and non believers, I'm communicating with God, I'm saved you go to hell, my religion has a monopoly on morality, etc...)
3. those non evidenced based, but not contrary to evidence, and not harmful to others
(Loving God created the universe, prayer makes me feel better, the soul is not made of flesh, there is life after death, need for ritual and ceremony, to me there are important metaphors in the Bible, etc...)
If people only have the third type of delusions, and respect my free thinking, don't try to impose their beliefs on me, nor on anybody who doesn't hold these beliefs, why should I care ? I'm not in the business of trying to prove them wrong. If they respect me, I respect them. Puncto basta.
There are way sufficient nutcases to worry about who hold the first and second types of delusions. Those are the ones I worry about.
negentropyeater,
That's essentially what I'm saying, but you did a better job parsing out the categories of belief. #1 and #2 (especially # 2) are problematic. If we're respected, or at least not interfered with, by #3, then let's leave them alone and not drag them into this.
Sastra, Wyatt,
also, don't forget that, experience shows that when you are succesfully erradicating type 1&2 delusions (like in many W.European nations), type 3 also fade away, just through "natural selection" (those weak type 3 memes are not passed on succesfully through generations).
And then, it is incoherent to promote an Agenda which is wilfully attacking type 3 delusions, when on the other hand one is demanding respect for non belief. It's not tolerant, and not compatible with the basic idea of secularism.
In the USA, where over the last 25 years, type 1 and 2 delusions have actually grown, and nothing has been done to stop that growth, now suddenly, in panic, you seem to be convinced that one has to attack all 3 types at ounce to solve the problem. And with only 10% healthy people. Good luck !
negentropyeater #106 wrote:
Whether I agree with your statement above turns on exactly what you mean by "willfully attacking type 3 delusions ('non-evidence-based, but not contrary to evidence, and not harmful to others.')"
Sneering, scorning, mocking, insulting, and deriding 'moderate spirituality' like a disagreeable yahoo on the warpath is different than discussing, disagreeing, analyzing, and addressing the question of whether or not such non-evidence based beliefs are true, are likely to be true, should be believed to be true, should be hoped to be true, and so forth - like a sensible, reasonable person discussing an important issue with another sensible, reasonable person. In fact, I would argue that giving such harmless beliefs a free pass is not only condescending, but disrespectful, both to the person with the belief and to the belief itself. And I feel the same when it comes to atheism. I expect rational argument as part of the public dialogue. That's why "everyone already knows there's a God in their heart" apologetics are so infuriating. It doesn't take honest disagreement seriously.
Unless religion is taken seriously, and examined as to whether any of it is reasonably likely, I think there is no real way to divide the line on what's rational or harmful. One person's liberal is another person's extremist, and vice versa. Is "true religion" measured by its similarity to secular humanism? Can there be a religious consensus on that?
Moderates who have their religious views openly "attacked" (ie "questioned") do not always simply get more religious. On the contrary, they tend to get more tolerant, simply by finally considering the other side. Intolerance doesn't come from the view that "I'm right and you're wrong." It comes from the view that "I cannot consider being wrong."
I suspect that patting moderates on the head and making soothing noises that of course their meaningless, harmless, incoherent faith is exactly the wonderful, right thing for them, we sooo respect it, really -- but we don't need the delusions ourselves -- fools nobody.
Cathy at #100 wrote
So God can be measured in both Joules and Watts? I had always thought the two were incommensurable... I'm sure glad somebody is researching this stuff!
not harmful to others
It is arguable that there is no harm in any of your examples; you seem to be ignoring the counterarguments that have been offered.
why should I care ?
Because the normalization of delusion has consequences.
If they respect me, I respect them.
So if someone with awful spelling respects you for your good spelling, you should respect them back for their lack of it? I can't see any connection between the antecedent and the consequent. If being respected is your end-all and be-all, then you might indeed be inclined to respect anyone who respects you, but there's more to being respectable than that, and the subject here is about some of that "more". At the very least, we should distinguish between respect for people and respect for their views -- I see no reason to respect someone's views simply because they respect me or my views. And whether I respect them is not simply a matter of whether they respect me, but of whether they generally act in ways that I respect.
There are way sufficient nutcases to worry about who hold the first and second types of delusions. Those are the ones I worry about.
Uh, so what? No one you're talking to doesn't worry about them. That they are worrisome doesn't mean that other categories aren't. If you don't want to worry about the others then don't, but kindly stop concern trolling those who do.
And then, it is incoherent to promote an Agenda which is wilfully attacking type 3 delusions, when on the other hand one is demanding respect for non belief.
This sort of false equivalence is tiresome. We aren't refusing to vote for believers or questioning whether they are citizens or claiming that they are devoid of morality (not all of them, anyway, and not merely by virtue of being believers). We don't have to respect delusions or the people who have them in order to demand that people stop abusing us and telling lies about us.
And it truly would be "incoherent" to attack delusion while leaving unchallenged denigration of the lack of it.
God is a real energy and power.
Have you any argument or evidence for this or any of the rest of your ravings?
And negentropyeater, do you really want to claim that there is no harm to this sort of thing?
What are these discussions about "respect"?
One needn't "respect" any of these memetic constructs being displayed on a kindling of emotion. We probably "respect" the freedom in our Constitution for these not-yet-certifiables to behave in this manner without the restraint of law whilst we cherish our freedom to declare it Bullshit!
We may shout our opinion in the public thouroughfare or our own precincts in knowledge that our freedom ends at theirs. They can behave as demented monkeys on the streets too.
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
--H. L. Mencken
Seriously, the way this guy screams and talks gibberish and hears voices... these are all symptoms of autism. I honestly wouldn't be surprised.
A charasmatic autistic? Well, I suppose I couldn't rule it out, but that wasn't the feeling I got.
He has a book, if you want to see what the inside of his head is like.
Could be worse. They could be getting their kids to throw live rattlesnakes around!
TM,
#111 "God is real energy and power"
Ok, maybe I should have added another category, meaningless statements. That belongs there. Usually, when one asks what is meant by this statement to the one that pronounces it, one can quickly determine if he belongs to category 1, 2 or 3. If it's just a wishy washy feel good type of statement with no additional meaning, then I put it in 3. When what is meant is that God can provide some people, on their demand, extra energy and power, then I'll put it in 2.
Anyway, usually, people who make these statements, are ignorant and don't know that energy and power are two different things, so I'd just say meaningless. But ignorance is not always harmful, nor benign. It depends, what this ignorance leads to.
#110 "We don't have to respect delusions or the people who have them in order to demand that people stop abusing us and telling lies about us."
I'm not asking you to respect their delusions, but if their delusions are harmless to you or anybody else that doesn't hold them, and that they are not contrary to evidence, then you should respect the people who hold them (not the delusions).
There is a difference in saying :
"I don't personally believe these things as I see no evidence for it, but if that's what you want to believe, and you don't want to try to convince me, than that's fine with me."
and
"Believing these things which have no evidence makes you deluded. You shouldn't, and I think that it is insane and dangerous to others." (Or any other equivallent form)
Because when you say this to people, they WILL abuse you and spread lies about you.
Again, I only say this with regards to type 3 delusions. Type 1 and 2 should be systematically attacked.
And as I said earlier, type 3 delusions are weak memes, when people only hold these and not type 1 and 2, they naturally fade away from generation to generation. That's what is happening in W.Europe. We have systematically attacked type 1 and 2, in our education, in the media, in our political debates, but we have been careful not to speak about type 3, and let people make their own choices. And now, type 1 and 2 are by and large erradicated, and type 3 are fading away.
That's where I think you are making a strategic mistake, attacking all at ounce. It only works in the short term, as a wake up call for some, which is good. But now, what you need is to get to a different phase, where you systematically, and very vocally, attack 1 and 2. Because then, you will start a bandwagon, and the moderates will join in. And then you will win. I don't think that sticking to the current approach will work in the long run.
Well at least, that's the way I think at the present moment. We have a different opinion on this strategic issue, and through these discussions I 'm trying to understand your arguments and those of other Pharyngula commenters better.
False. For example, Torbjörn has previously pointed out the role of the acerbic critic of religion Ingemar Hedenius in post-WWII Sweden. I'm reading his book now and he's extremely snarky on the subject of wishy-washy religion.
Also false. New superstitious fads are popping up all the time, and lots of Europeans believe in angels, astrology and whatnot (you could argue that these are contrary to evidence, but they are also relatively harmless)
However, this does not mean that getting rid of religion is useless (as you sometimes hear), since even though Europeans are still superstitious, few people define themselves or choose their political identification based on their belief in angels and horoscopes.
But Dawkins and Hitchens (alright, Dawkins more than Hitchens but they both do it) go out of their way on numerous occasions in their books to state that this is their position, that they disrespect the religion, not religious people per se (unless their religion leads them to do harmful things). The vast majority of people who comment on this blog say the exact same thing (criticising the way moderate religious people behave is not showing disrespect, it's fair comment on observable behaviour).
I can't really see how much farther we can bend over backwards in order to accommodate potential religious allies without tipping over into outright intellectual dishonesty ("framing" e.t.c). This is not something I for one am comfortable doing just to gain a temporary political advantage (and it would be temporary - political bullshit has a way of revealing itself for what it is rather quickly and people don't like being bullshat (can I use bullshit as a verb?)).
Windy,
I had heard of Hedenius, and as far as I remember, he did spark an important debate on religious beliefs in the 50s in Sweden. In a similar way as what was started by Dawkins and others now in the US.
I'm not disputing this. I'm talking of how this debate evolved. I don't know well enough the particular situation history of Sweden, so I can't talk about it.
I was talking in broad terms about what happened after this, and where the focus has been in the culture, education, media, and political debates. And I was refering more to the bigger nations, like France, UK and Germany.
So, in what followed, was there much debate on "God belief", "the delusions of prayer", "wishy washy religion", not really, or at least, not in an impactful way.
And Yes, we haven't gotten rid of superstitious beliefs (although they are much less prevalent then in the USA) but I don't believe we need to be like Don Quixote, fighting windmills. If people want to believe in Astrology, homeopathy, Angels and what not, I really don't give a damm. As long, as they are not forcing their beliefs on me, on our education, our government policies, on what is Science, etc...
You can't turn everyone in becoming rational, evidenced based people. If just doesn't work. But you can get rid of the more harmful delusions. It's a question of where do you focus. Where can you really achieve results.
negentropyeater said:
Sorry, I just have to call you out on this part of your post. Respecting beliefs such as these allows an environment where evidence-based medicine and science is put on an equal level with Guess/Feeling/I-has-had-a-vision/Someone-told-me-in-the-pub-the-other-day based views on looking at the world and that can be very dangerous (look up the history of the anti-vaccination movement and it's effects if you need an illustration of that).
Pointing out the flaws in these delusions is a vital part of the job of keeping such delusions small and out of the mainstream - being wishy wasy and "respectfull" about such things merely suggests that the beliefs in question deserve respect, which they clearly do not.
Lilly,
in their books they do. But most people get stuck at the titles, and only listen to the huge echo chamber of the media. That's the result, not my wish.
And again, that's great, it was a long needed spark.
But now, what do we do, do we want to encourage people to say,
"I disagree with Dawkins, about religion as a whole, as I don't think it's all evil, but I agree with him that it's time this country starts getting rid of all the more harmful delusions and those that are in direct contradiction with the evidence",
or are we only happy when people agree fully with Dawkins ?
And if framing means intellectual dishonesty, it should be avoided at all costs.
But for example, I can make the following statement, of what I truly believe :
"I believe Evolution happened in the exact ways as has been discovered by Science. We do not know better. There are no other Scientific theories that have any supporting evidence. Intelligent Design is a farce, creationism is a farce, people who believe the earth is 6000 years old and that God created all species at once are ignorant, stupid people.
But, I do believe that not all in religion is harmful, evil, and that it can be for many people, a positive source that encourages charitable behaviour, temperance and can help them in times of hardship. I also do not believe that religion has, or should have a monopoly on morality, and should in any way, shape of form influence Governement policies. It should remain absolutely, a personal choice, that does not impose it's will on others who do not make the same choice."
Now, is this different from what Dawkins proposes ? I think so. Is is intellectually dishonest. I don't think so.
These aren't really three separate categories, since groups 1 and 2 overlap. Better to go with:
1) those beliefs which are contrary to evidence and harmful.
2) those beliefs which are contrary to evidence, but not harmful.
3) those beliefs which are not contrary to evidence, but are harmful.
4) those beliefs which are not contrary to evidence and are not harmful.
You seem to be OK with arguing against my groups 1 and 2, and I don't think there's any great controversy there, so I'll leave them aside.
The problem, then, is how exactly one argues against group 3. We can point out that their beliefs are harmful, but I somehow doubt that they're going to reply 'oh, fuck, I hadn't noticed. Thanks!' and deconvert on the spot. Unfortunately, one's concept of 'harm' is fundamentally connected to one's beliefs about the world. Members of group 3 generally won't agree that their beliefs are harmful, precisely because their concept of harm is different. A hypothetical Inquisitor who truly believes that torture can save a heathen's soul is not doing 'harm,' as he understand it. Indeed, in preventing him from torturing heathens, we are doing 'harm,' as he understands it.
So if we can't, in general, rely on arguments that the beliefs of group 3 are harmful, on what basis can we argue against them? The only one I can think of is that, while not actually contradicted by evidence, their beliefs are unwarranted; there is no rational reason to accept them. But that line of argument applies equally to group 4.
So, if you don't want us to argue against group 4, can you propose a useful argument which addresses 3 but not 4?
And BTW, Lilly, you will never, ever hear me say on a blog, or in public, wether I believe or not in God. When people ask me, I reply that it is not relevant. I categorically refuse to wear any label. My belief, or non belief, is a very private matter, that I only share with people I can fully trust.
In terms of the end result of social policy, it is not different from the kind of society that Dawkins (and for that matter I) would want to see and, as I have said many times I have no problem with religious believers per se, it's the beliefs I have a problem with. In a society where such beliefs are not stuffed down my throat this wouldn't be a problem (it's their head, not mine), however we are not living in such a society at the moment and acting as if we were isn't going to help us I fear.
Here you and I part company I'm afraid (I find that the religious people who are charitable, temperate e.t.c tend to just be nice people and I see no evidence that their religion makes them more so). That's OK, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am and I've thoroughly enjoyed arguing the toss with you (it would be a very boring world where everyone agreed on everything).
My worry seems to be that you are arguing that all of us should argue from the same standpoint that you do for strategic reasons and it's this that I would describe as leading to intellectual dishonesty if we were all to follow your lead. Please understand I say this not because I don't think you are sincere, I have no doubt at all that you are, but because for me and a lot of the people who disagree with you to argue as you do would be intellectually dishonest and I think it would be wrong for us to do so (not to mention, as I have said in my previous post, counterproductive in the long run).
I don't quite see your point. If something directly relevant happens but not in a "big nation", you can disregard it? And how about some evidence for the assertion that there never really has been public criticism of religion in Western Europe, at least not in an "impactful way"?
MartinM,
if a belief has no evidence (historical, scientific, sociological, etc...) to back it up, it suffices that it is harmful to others who do not hold that same belief, to argue against it.
Example :
Belief : "Homosexuals are sick people who should be cured"
Is there any evidence to support that claim ? No
Is it deemed harmful to those who do not hold that belief (eg homosexuals) : Yes
(Note, it can also be argued that it is contrary to evidence, but it doesn't matter, if suffices that it harms others who do not hold that belief to eliminate it, same goes for your torture argument.)
Now, other case:
Belief : "There is a loving God who created the universe"
Is there any evidence to support that claim ? No
Is it contrary to evidence : No
Is it harmful to those who do not hold that belief (eg Atheists) : No, if they don't want to impose it on me, ie respect my non belief.
So, how argue about this ? Will you argue that it is contrary to evidence ? How ? Or will you argue that it is harmful to those who hold this belief ? How ? Or that it is harmful to you ? How ?
Windy,
there has been a lot of public criticism of religion in W.Europe. Huge amount.
I mean, I'm French, do you think I forgot about J.P.Sartre, Camus, etc... For God sake, No.
But there has not been, as far as I can remember, a criticism that invoked saying that all in Religion is evil, that the mere fact that you believe in God makes you a deluded person, etc...
Deemed harmful by whom? I think it's harmful, and you think it's harmful, but the people who who hold the belief think it's beneficial. Indeed, were their beliefs true, they'd be right. Were homosexuality really a sickness which would ultimately lead to an eternity of unimaginable torment, opposing it would be absolutely the right thing to do.
So we can argue that their beliefs are harmful, but if their beliefs are true, we're wrong.
We can argue that their beliefs are false, but we're assuming for the sake of argument that there exists no contradictory evidence.
What does that leave, save arguing that belief without rational basis is itself wrong?
The point Dawkins makes in "The God Delusion" is that believing in things for which there is no evidence is harmful in itself, regardless of what consequences those beliefs may have. He argues that they are harmful because accepting beliefs that are not directly harmful ultimately causes harm because it allows other, harmful belief, to flourish.
Yes, precisely. If it's true that our only consistently effective arguments against 'group 3' beliefs sweep in 'group 4' beliefs, then any counter-argument offered by group 4 must implicitly lend support to group 3.
There is a difference between 'respect' and 'tolerate'.
I tolerate the strange beliefs of many other people - as long as I think the beliefs are harmless to the general population and me in particular. Strange beliefs include organised religions, astrology, unthinking support for a sports team and a liking for brussel sprouts. I expect other people to tolerate my beliefs in return.
Even though I might tolerate strange beliefs my respect for them varies. Like brussel sprouts or Manchester United - fine. Believe in astrology or organised religion - no respect (although I might respect some of the charity work carried out by religious organisations).
Try and extend your religious beliefs into secular laws? No respect and no tolerance.
Change a few pronouns, but otherwise leave the behavior intact, and you'd have something that these folks would rail against as lies and nonsense. (Sort of like a Catholic decrying pagan spell chanting while saying a rosary under her breath, then finishing up by crossing herself to ward off the evil influence.)
It ain't nonsense when it's MY nonsense, dammit!
If they only had a brain...
Really. Even one brain. Collectively.
Cathy is probably a Timecuber or a Urantia reader.
RE: Michael X @ #37
I can't get to the video at the moment, but your mention of the constant repetition of the "Bo" syllable gave me an alternate explanation. Perhaps the guy's an anime fan with no sense of taste, and he's waxing exstatic on the series "Bobobo bo-bo Bobo" in which the protagonist battles the forces of evil with his magical nosehairs. (No, I am not making this up. No, it is not as dumb as it sounds. It's even DUMBER than it sounds.)
Even so, the utter, transparent insanity of the premise for this idiotic (supposed) comedy is not as insane as many things claimed in all seriousness by religious believers.
And I fear that when I get the chance to actually WATCH the video, the truth will seem even more ridiculous than fiction.
Cathy @ #100
And do you have the slightest shred of evidence for this, "cathy"?
*crickets chirping*
*more crickets chirping*
Didn't think so.
You are in good company -- the vast majority of Christian denominations agrees with you. After all, it is written in the Book of Acts:
(Elamite was still spoken that late? Cool.)
They boast of the fact that they will pray? And that's considered moderate in the USA? Over here it would be considered obnoxious -- it's even in the Bible: "don't be like the hypocrites who stand in street corners..."
Not so much obnoxious as embarrassing in fact. But likely it would be interpreted as a holier-than-thou attitude.
First, I'm a Christian.
Second, I'm an intelligent, rational human being
Third, I'm appalled by almost perverse idiocy that is pictured in that video. Disgusting and stupid, for sure.
We're not all like that.