I was part of a Christian religious group at what I cannot avoid calling an elite university, because it was. People in the group were highly enthusiastic about the crusades of Billy Graham and his successors, "because they really knew how to put the Gospel before people in terms they can understand." Some of my colleagues in this group were studying theology, and would have been well aware of the complexities that were skated over in those stadium-filling meetings. But it didn't worry them one bit. I remember one very sophisticated clergyman telling us that once he was in a hospital bed nest to a man who said "Vicar, here's a question I bet you can't answer - who was Cain's wife?". The priest in question who certainly did not believe that the events in Genesis actually took place, told us proudly that he silenced the man by saying "Well, in those days it may have been OK to marry your sister". The point, he underlined to us, was to speak to people as you find them.
Thank you for the anecdotal evidence. There is an in-group avoidance of criticism of fellow travelers, but I have seen plenty of people eager to criticize those they do not travel with so closely. The way this conversation seemed to be framed by you was as a binary between religious people and atheists. Then you tell me that religious popularizers are not criticized by fellow believers in the divine, I presume. Now you bring out examples of people in relatively the same camp being OK with Billy Graham and pointless fairytales about Genesis. This is all over the place.
I don't think you intend to shift the goal posts, but you are really no longer talking about atheists versus religious people. You are talking about Episcopalians being fine with popular evangelists and the like.
Sorry - I ought not to speak from an atheist position in a way that makes it clear that the claims of the Abrahamic religions are untrue? Despite the fact that those religions are frequently used as the basis for depriving innocent people of freedoms which are their due as human beings? I don't think that is idealistic. I think it is naïvely optimistic about what the world is like, and how power is exercised in it.
Yeah, if it were only that simple. LOL. I think you are the one being naïvely optimistic.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I don't think they are superficial and misleading when it comes to Dawkins' views on religion. They may not apply well to you, but I do think they apply well enough to the celebrity atheists of recent fame. No one is saying that all atheists are poorly educated on issues of religion. Certainly I am not. But I will say that the most influential and popular atheists of our time, including such figures as Richard Carrier, who ought to have known better, are not impressive when it comes to their handling of the topic of religion.
No-one on the side of religious belief ever seems to criticise successful popularisers of religion for being superficial: on the contrary, they get compliments for their effectiveness in speaking to a wide audience of unsophisticated people in ways that can be immediately grasped "just like Jesus did".
I am not sure why a similar licence is not allowed to those atheists who address themselves to a popular audience. Given that the vast majority of well-known mass communicators on the topic of religion are fervent believers, it would seem to me that there is a definite need for clear and simply expressed advocacy of atheist positions pitched at a popular level. Obviously such advocacy cannot, if it is to be effective, be finely nuanced and culturally complex. But the alternative is to make articulate atheism an option that is only accessible to a few.
So my point was (clearly made, so I imagined) that religious people do not sneer at those of their co-religionists who make superficial points in favour of religious belief, directed at grabbing and holding the attention of a popular audience, but still feel entitled to criticise those advocates of atheism who direct themselves to a popular audience for ... well, being superficial.
I was part of a Christian religious group at what I cannot avoid calling an elite university, because it was. People in the group were highly enthusiastic about the crusades of Billy Graham and his successors, "because they really knew how to put the Gospel before people in terms they can understand." Some of my colleagues in this group were studying theology, and would have been well aware of the complexities that were skated over in those stadium-filling meetings. But it didn't worry them one bit. I remember one very sophisticated clergyman telling us that once he was in a hospital bed nest to a man who said "Vicar, here's a question I bet you can't answer - who was Cain's wife?". The priest in question who certainly did not believe that the events in Genesis actually took place, told us proudly that he silenced the man by saying "Well, in those days it may have been OK to marry your sister". The point, he underlined to us, was to speak to people as you find them.
Thank you for the anecdotal evidence. There is an in-group avoidance of criticism of fellow travelers, but I have seen plenty of people eager to criticize those they do not travel with so closely. The way this conversation seemed to be framed by you was as a binary between religious people and atheists. Then you tell me that religious popularizers are not criticized by fellow believers in the divine, I presume. Now you bring out examples of people in relatively the same camp being OK with Billy Graham and pointless fairytales about Genesis. This is all over the place.
I don't think you intend to shift the goal posts, but you are really no longer talking about atheists versus religious people. You are talking about Episcopalians being fine with popular evangelists and the like.
(Do you know of another kind of evidence I could have adduced other than the anecdotal? Where do you get yours from? A Pew survey that you commissioned?) As pointed out above, my point was precisely that "religious popularizers are not criticized by fellow believers in the divine", while atheist popularisers get criticised by believers in the divine for being superficial. Which is clearly inconsistent.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
So my point was (clearly made, so I imagined) that religious people do not sneer at those of their co-religionists who make superficial points in favour of religious belief, directed at grabbing and holding the attention of a popular audience, but still feel entitled to criticise those advocates of atheism who direct themselves to a popular audience for ... well, being superficial.
OK, so that is what you wanted to make as your point. My point is that people who believe in a religion or in divine things can be, have been, and are critical of each other (including the popularizers) as well as atheists. Atheists can be critical of the thinking of fellow atheists.
(Do you know of another kind of evidence I could have adduced other than the anecdotal? Where do you get yours from? A Pew survey that you commissioned?) As pointed out above, my point was precisely that "religious popularizers are not criticized by fellow believers in the divine", while atheist popularisers get criticised by believers in the divine for being superficial. Which is clearly inconsistent.
Identifying something as anecdotal is important for establishing the nature of the evidence we are considering. Is that not important to you? Let's just be clear about how we should weigh your personal experiences in life in settling this issue.
No, your point evidently is not precisely that "religious popularizers are not criticized by fellow believers in the divine" because the example you have raised is presumably Christians of one sect approving of the popularizing actions of specific other Christians. Obviously this example does not show that all Christians usually approve of the popularizing actions of other Christians, or that all believers in divine things approve of the popularizing actions of other believers in divine things.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
I have honestly reached the 'whatever' phase with this exchange.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I have honestly reached the 'whatever' phase with this exchange.
Whatever.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
You have a point though. Do we respect peoples beliefs simply because they find deep meaning in them? I suppose we should consider how we balance our need to critique each other’s ideas and beliefs and maintain the overarching goal of respecting their right to believe what they want, give room to the notion that they may have plenty to offer, and point out what we see as problems. Kish keeps giving the impression since others find it meaningful there must be more to it. I think that idea is part of our need to be balanced. But too far, kish. We have to still maintain space to observe, analyze, object, explain, etc.
Too far how? No one said you could not or should not “observe, analyze, object, explain, etc.” Of course, before you object and explain, it is important to understand what you are objecting to and explaining. I think it is important to understand that the major world religions have been tied up in some of the most intense intellectual discourse and philosophical thought of the ages, and for that reason they probably do merit some respect. The facile objections of those whom Dean Robbers calls “science popularizers” (an apt if unfortunate phrase) do not do justice to that legacy.
And, I would go further and say that some of the greatest and most influential minds in history did have the mystical experiences they believed to be the experience of God or the One, or what have you. I think it would be foolish to disrespect that too.
No one says you have to agree with them or believe what they believe, but an inability to weigh properly the significance of these things in human history is characteristic of the ignorant and arrogant.
I find this a bit facile too. I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Science popularizers might not do justice to the whole of human history when it comes to religious insights, but that too doesn't mean religion itself remains a useful enterprise. And I suppose in defense of religion we can say "that's just so ignorant and arrogant", (which all too often accurately reflects religion and it's adherents) but that wouldn't be much of a defense, since people from every direction are often found to be ignorant and arrogant, or at least some of them. And saying thoughtful science popularizers aren't doing justice to religious thought simply because at the beginning, at the level of presuppositions, there is massive disagreement seems in itself dismissive and mischaracterizing.
No one can possibly give ear to every religious pronouncement of the past and address each one showing its error...or whatever. I don't even know what that would look like or would mean.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
And, I would go further and say that some of the greatest and most influential minds in history did have the mystical experiences they believed to be the experience of God or the One, or what have you. I think it would be foolish to disrespect that too.
No one says you have to agree with them or believe what they believe, but an inability to weigh properly the significance of these things in human history is characteristic of the ignorant and arrogant.
I am sure the supposed mystical experiences affected those that claimed them. It affected me for a time. But as you say, it is not necessary to believe that it actually happened. The mind combined with social pressure to conform can play tricks. I don't know how these mystical experiences played a part in what these influential minds in history did. I default to that these mystical experiences didn't affect much of what made these people great minds, but I could be wrong. But since I don't know of whom you are talking about, I can't judge. Could you give examples of whom you speak and maybe how these mystical experiences perhaps affected their greatness?
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
And, I would go further and say that some of the greatest and most influential minds in history did have the mystical experiences they believed to be the experience of God or the One, or what have you. I think it would be foolish to disrespect that too.
No one says you have to agree with them or believe what they believe, but an inability to weigh properly the significance of these things in human history is characteristic of the ignorant and arrogant.
I am sure the supposed mystical experiences affected those that claimed them. It affected me for a time. But as you say, it is not necessary to believe that it actually happened. The mind combined with social pressure to conform can play tricks. I don't know how these mystical experiences played a part in what these influential minds in history did. I default to that these mystical experiences didn't affect much of what made these people great minds, but I could be wrong. But since I don't know of whom you are talking about, I can't judge. Could you give examples of whom you speak and maybe how these mystical experiences perhaps affected their greatness?
And it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that people may have striking mental experiences that are very important to them, which they unsurprisingly explain in terms drawn from the culture and religion in which they were brought up, without it being in the least disrespectful to say that if they had been brought up in a different religion, or in no religion, it is likely that their interpretation of those experiences would have been very different.
I don't think, for instance, that there are any historical records of people in Buddhist countries before Christian contact, who tell us that they had an experience which, when we read their account, is quite clearly an encounter with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob rather than with Avalokitesvara. And so on.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I am sure the supposed mystical experiences affected those that claimed them. It affected me for a time. But as you say, it is not necessary to believe that it actually happened. The mind combined with social pressure to conform can play tricks. I don't know how these mystical experiences played a part in what these influential minds in history did. I default to that these mystical experiences didn't affect much of what made these people great minds, but I could be wrong. But since I don't know of whom you are talking about, I can't judge. Could you give examples of whom you speak and maybe how these mystical experiences perhaps affected their greatness?
And it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that people may have striking mental experiences that are very important to them, which they unsurprisingly explain in terms drawn from the culture and religion in which they were brought up, without it being in the least disrespectful to say that if they had been brought up in a different religion, or in no religion, it is likely that their interpretation of those experiences would have been very different.
I don't think, for instance, that there are any historical records of people in Buddhist countries before Christian contact, who tell us that they had an experience which, when we read their account, is quite clearly an encounter with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob rather than with Avalokitesvara. And so on.
These are great points. The community religion certainly would affect the interpretation. This tends bring the experience off of the mountain and back to the individual. I would also say that perhaps what is termed a religious experience was merely the subconscious mind putting things together culminating into a flash of insight? A person with a religious background might confuse this with some outside force affecting their thoughts, inspiring them, but it is actually the subconscious. "Give God the credit" that the religious class pushes then becomes entirely misleading.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
