Think Very Carefully...

[Dolmance]

"...But embracing this mystery comes at a price. If, like the archbishop of Canterbury, your faith is a kind of "silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark", then think very carefully before you open your mouth. Too often I find that faith is mysterious only selectively. Believers constantly attribute all sorts of qualities to their gods and have a list of doctrines as long as your arm. It is only when the questions get tough that, suddenly, their God disappears in a puff of mystery. Ineffability becomes a kind of invisibility cloak, only worn when there is a need to get out of a bit of philosophical bother."

- Julian Baggini · 07/11/2011 · guardian.co.uk

Source Link (added by moderator): http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/07/understand-my-religion-faith

 

[kallipolis]

"Mystery~Basil Hume

The meaning of things, and their purpose,
is in part now hidden
but shall in the end become clear.
The choice is between
the Mystery and the absurd.
To embrace the Mystery is to discover the real.

It is to walk towards the light,
to glimpse the morning star, to catch sight
from time to time
of what is truly real
it is no more than a flicker of light
through the cloud of unknowing,
a fitful ray of light
that is a messenger from the sun
which is hidden from your gaze.

You see the light but not the sun.
When you set yourself to look more closely,
you will begin to see some sense
in the darkness that surrounds you.
You will begin to see in them
the presence of the One
who gives them meaning and purpose,
and that it is He
who is the explanation of them all."

 

[kallipolis]

This is a link to The Guardian article that Dolmance is quoting from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/07/understand-my-religion-faith

The late Thomas Merton said that our ideas about God tell us much more about ourselves than they do about God.

The truth is that each of us brings his life's experiences to the table, that we may all share in a common understanding of what it means to be our self, attempting to relate to the meaning, and purpose of our life.

I rather believe that the holier, than thou syndrome is not monopolised by the zealous theist, but also appears to lead many atheists by the nose.

 

[Dolmance]

This is a link to The Guardian article that Dolmance is quoting from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/nov/07/understand-my-religion-faith

The late Thomas Merton said that our ideas about God tell us much more about ourselves than they do about God.

The truth is that each of us brings his life's experiences to the table, that we may all share in a common understanding of what it means to be our self, attempting to relate to the meaning, and purpose of our life.

I rather believe that the holier, than thou syndrome is not monopolised by the zealous theist, but also appears to lead many atheists by the nose.

I doubt you'll find much argument between critics of religious belief, power structure, presumptions of knowledge and etc and those who utilise the notion or metaphor of God (or other traditional concepts) as a means of self reflection, transcendence etc. Indeed, insofar as I'm concerned, as one of those critics, this is the most legitimate form and manifestation of the concept I can conceive of.

The problem most seem to rise in reaction to -and which this article is certainly an expression of- is the assumption and advertisement of literal, quantifiable truth with regards to these concepts, and the assumpetion of universal application. The article quite rightly points out that, when those who wish to apply their own highly idiosyncratic notions of an external God to all and sundry, regardless of whether they believe in such a thing or not, there is a tendency for the adherent to engage in a rather wishy washy, pseudo philosophical tap dance in which attention ia deliberately diverted from the core criticisms, obstruction and obfuscation are thrown up, etc.

This is far removed from, for example, the likes of John Donne, William Blake, Clive Barker, John Milton and any number of considered theists, metaphysicians etc who harboured a far more personal and enlightened notion of God, divinity etc than almost any (post) modern advocate I've ever heard speak on the matter (in point of fact, Blake and Barker are the two men I currently respect beyond all others in terms of their inspiration and metaphysic profundity, though I don't share their theistic persuasions).

 

[kallipolis]

^Idiosyncratic notions, or not I rather believe that Rowan Williams would feel rather hard done by, were he to read the captioned article authored by Julian Baggini attempting to out Dawkins, Richard Dawkins with so much militant froth.

 

[Dolmance]

^Idiosyncratic notions, or not I rather believe that Rowan Williams would feel rather hard done by, were he to read the captioned article authored by Julian Baggini attempting to out Dawkins, Richard Dawkins with so much militant froth.

I invite everyone to read the article and explain to me precisely what is "militant" about it? If this is as "militant" as critics of certain manifestations of religion get, then the faithful have very little to worry about (especially concerning that their most extreme and militant manifestations tend to involve guns and bombs etc).

 

[Dolmance]

Another point the author should have probably raised is that there is a nasty tendency amongst proclaimants of specific religious concepts as universal truth that, when even considered criticism of their claims are raised, they fly into a state of hyperbolic defensism, proclaiming those to whom they will happily apply their personal standards of "truth" without a second thought as "militant" for simply asking the questions: Why is your "truth" applicable to me?

 

[kallipolis]

Another point the author should have probably raised is that there is a nasty tendency amongst proclaimants of specific religious concepts as universal truth that, when even considered criticism of their claims are raised, they fly into a state of hyperbolic defensism, proclaiming those to whom they will happily apply their personal standards of "truth" without a second thought as "militant" for simply asking the questions: Why is your "truth" applicable to me?

Considered criticism?

I'd characterise Julian Baggini's captioned article as a mediocre attempt to entertain the reader with thoughts that he has written something, worth reading beyond filling space to earn a fee.

Dawkins, and Hitchens make better entertainment value.

 

[zoltanspawn]

people should be able to give clear answers to straight questions such as "was Christ's resurrection physical, leaving an empty tomb?", even if that answer is "I don't know"

Hmmm.

Thanks for the citation, Kallipolis.

Clear answers to straight questions?

Literalists often caricature the figurative as 'ineffable'....

 

[kallipolis]

Hmmm.

Thanks for the citation, Kallipolis.

Clear answers to straight questions?

Literalists often caricature the figurative as 'ineffable'....

Here lies the dilemma for the militant atheist much prefers to cite the beliefs, or understandings of those who interpret Holy Scripture as if it is a history book replete with historical facts read at face value; as if the atheist critic is also buying into the thought that scripture should be accorded a literalistic reading, and interpretation. Strange bedfellows!

There is a remarkable coherence in the writings of the New Covenant for it is not for nothing that the books are bound to reveal, and expound on the story of The Christ. At the same time they are in many respects heterogeneous; there are striking inconsistencies between them; evidencing a process of development, or evolution on going during the period that they were being written. There is considerable uncertainty about when exactly most of the content should be dated.

That there are differences, inconsistencies and even contradictions between the various books of the New Testament indicates that there was no conspiracy to fabricate the life, times and stories that emerge to reveal the truth of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

.

 

[Dolmance]

Here lies the dilemma for the militant atheist much prefers to cite the beliefs, or understandings of those who interpret Holy Scripture as if it is a history book replete with historical facts read at face value; as if the atheist critic is also buying into the thought that scripture should be accorded a literalistic reading, and interpretation. Strange bedfellows!

There is a remarkable coherence in the writings of the New Covenant for it is not for nothing that the books are bound to reveal, and expound on the story of The Christ. At the same time they are in many respects heterogeneous; there are striking inconsistencies between them; evidencing a process of development, or evolution on going during the period that they were being written. There is considerable uncertainty about when exactly most of the content should be dated.

That there are differences, inconsistencies and even contradictions between the various books of the New Testament indicates that there was no conspiracy to fabricate the life, times and stories that emerge to reveal the truth of the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

.

And once again, you miss the point; as stated above, you will find little argument from atheists and other critics or non-adherents of religious claims or authorities towards those who regard the stories of the bible and other scriptures as exactly that; metaphors or vehicles for self transcendence. This is not because the critic or the atheist does not see or acknowledge these positions; it is because they are largely harmless; they are not the claims or the interpretations that impose themselves on othersd or wider culture; that belongs exclusively to the literalist and fundamentalist. This is why atheists most commonly criticise and attack these positions; because these are the positions that are evidently causing the most harm and having the most impact culturally, politically etc.

You act as if these poisitions somehow do not exist, or as if what you call the "militant" atheist is reacting to nothing, or a strawman caricature, when all one has to do is look at any mega church, any number of pastors, any number of conservative or right wing politicians in the U.S. to demonstrate that not only does the position exist, but that it is directly affecting the manner in which policy is produced and applied.

As for this notion of "militant atheism" that you hold, what, precisely are these so called "militant atheists" doing that is so egregious? Insofar as I can see, those you caricature as "militant" are anything but; even the most outspoken or openly hostile of them is doing nothing more than writing books, voicing their opinion, engaging in debate. It seems to me that any criticism that is too trenchant, that is too specific in its criticism of the evident evils produced by biblical literalism is tarnished as "militant," despite the fact that the most extreme and overtly militant manifestations of religious literalism in the world are exactly that; violent, impositional, oppressive.

Even the article in question is asking for input; it is attempting to get clear answers regarding the advertisied divisions between this set of believers and that; answers which are, as the article points out, routinely ducked, deflected and distracted from by extremely scurrillous means:

I need to make these issues clear now because over the coming weeks, in the name of trying to uncross some wires and get some real discussion going, I'm going to be trying to get greater clarity about just what different camps in the religion debate are really maintaining. I anticipate all sorts of objections of the kind I've mentioned: that I'm simplifying; that I'm trying to eff the ineffable; that I am being too literal minded. I want to make it clear right now that these kinds of responses won't work as get-out-of-jail-free cards. They need justification.

We also have to be willing to accommodate the fact that belief comes in infinite shades and varieties. No two people believe exactly the same thing, and that presents another opportunity for evasion: plausible denial that you believe what is being attributed to you. We have to accept that, to make progress, we sometimes have to say, "that's not quite what I think, but it may be close enough. Go on." If anything less than perfect understanding counts as misunderstanding, then everything is misunderstood.

Everyone says that they are in favour of greater mutual comprehension, but the failure to achieve it is not just a result of people not making the effort to understand. Often it's just that people refuse to make themselves understood.

 

[kallipolis]

Even the article in question is asking for input; it is attempting to get clear answers regarding the advertisied divisions between this set of believers and that; answers which are, as the article points out, routinely ducked, deflected and distracted from by extremely scurrillous means:

Thanks to your reference I shall be visiting these articles in the hope of learning something worth while, even new from Mr. Baggini which has not already been provided by other militant atheists.

I rather believe that zoltanspawn's reference from the captioned article: clear answers, to straight questions speaks to the naivety of Julian Baggini's approach considering that matters spiritual are often couched in figurative language which does not easily interpret itself into answers that will satisfy the black, white investigative genius of the prejudiced atheist militantly attempting to disparage spiritual faith.

When I am speaking to the wisdom of divine revelation, as Holy Scripture would reveal to the person living by faith in God it may be, that such divine revelation transcends but cannot contradict what we have reasonable grounds for regarding as knowledge, or if you will reasonably grounded belief because otherwise it implies an over riding of the proper dignity of the moral, or ethical personality which God has created; and if he does this, God at the same time removes all possibility of human judgement whether Holy Scripture is divine revelation, or not.

Whatever God may reveal, human reception and understanding of it are involved in asserting it to be divine revelation. Unintelligible or, humanly unassailable alleged revelation, whatever else it may be, it is not divine revelation. Again, here lies our dilemma when we face the prospect of personally interpreting what we believe to be God's guidance leading us through our life.

Doubt remains, and without doubt faith remains an empty devotion to our perceived need to create certitude in our life when assuming that our interpretations are divinely inspired. Thus, even the most fervent of the faithful are wont to experience their periods of dark night, or profound doubt when God's support appears to have been withdrawn from our life. When in reality it is at that moment when God's enlightenment is piercing our doubts, and rewarding us with the resilience to endure by conquering our misgivings, and easy willingness to surrender to despair that we have made the wrong choices.

 

[Kulindahr]

I rather believe that the holier, than thou syndrome is not monopolised by the zealous theist, but also appears to lead many atheists by the nose.

And don't leave out agnostics -- I've known a few who were obnoxiously arrogant in their position that both believers and atheists were foolish people who needed to grow out of childhood.

Hmmm.

Thanks for the citation, Kallipolis.

Clear answers to straight questions?

Literalists often caricature the figurative as 'ineffable'....

Most literalists I've known wouldn't even know what 'ineffable' means.


Kalli, considering your last post: don't forget the problem of language, i.e. that inasmuch as revelation to humans must come in human language, revelation is thus bound and limited by human language.

 

[kallipolis]

And don't leave out agnostics -- I've known a few who were obnoxiously arrogant in their position that both believers and atheists were foolish people who needed to grow out of childhood.



Most literalists I've known wouldn't even know what 'ineffable' means.


Kalli, considering your last post: don't forget the problem of language, i.e. that inasmuch as revelation to humans must come in human language, revelation is thus bound and limited by human language.

......and the understanding/ interpretation that the language provides for our enlightenment.

 

[Dolmance]

I wish to challenge this notion of the "militant atheist" that you seem to hold, Kalli. What, in specific terms, are you refering to when you use the word "militant" in this context? Define it for me, and extrapolate its implications.

Because it seems to me that, with all due respect, you and many others who hold a theistic position apply the term "militant" whenever criticism is raised above a whisper. The article and writer in question are a very good example: you refer to the writer as militant, when all they are doing is asking those who hold particular religious positions to define their terms; provide a position from which debate and conversation can begin. And in practical terms, what are they actually doing?; They are writing articles. They are talking. They are advancing their own positions. Even those that theists seem to regard as the most "militant" of the "new atheists" (Hitchens, Dawkins et al) do little more than write books and engage in debate on the subject. They do nothing to actually impinge or impose on the rights of believers, which is a damn far cry from what the most extreme examples of the religious and theistic get up to.

It seems to me that, culturally, many Western societies still suffer under the assumption of privilege with regards to religious belief and authority, so much so that even these calls for discussion and written criticisms are inflated in certain believer's minds, becoming far more threatening and "militant" than they actually are. There is a profound double standard here; whereas the most extreme and "militant" examples of the religious commit the most vile and horrendous acts, actively seek to impose their beliefs on all and sundry through political policy, by infecting and corrupting education etc, the most "militant" atheists (or critics of religion) at present are doing nothing more than writing books and engaging in debate.

 

[Telstra]

What is god ...?

 

[kallipolis]

I wish to challenge this notion of the "militant atheist" that you seem to hold, Kalli.

Hardly a notion, more a fact of life.

Militant fundamentalists of all varieties are determined to propagate their agenda with the militancy of an army battle group, totally focused on victory over their opposition which on the contrary does not persuade, rather alienates the very people whose eyes they are attempting to open with the zeal normally associated with the fervour of religious fanatics.

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins represent a trinity of obsessed, born again atheists whose media crusades represent a blitzkrieg targeted at those who they believe can be converted by their aggressive, even mocking approach to theists that identifies the atheist evangelist as extremist, as are those Taliban fundamentalists so determined to turn the clock back to the sixth century in tribute to their perception that their prophet would condone their violent tactics.

That many militant atheists view theists in some manner, defective even lacking intellectual awareness can be interpreted as damning proof of the manifestation of a superior (atheist) life form eulogising, even praising the much publicised benefits of atheism as a means to live life in a manner best representing the superiority of the higher evolved human person who embraces the atheistic path through life.

There is an irony in that both fundamentalist theists, and the fundamentalist atheist mind sets are focused on ridiculing their respective opponents with the militancy normally reserved for destroying ones most hated enemy.

 

[Telstra]

Hardly a notion, more a fact of life.

Militant fundamentalists of all varieties are determined to propagate their agenda with the militancy of an army battle group, totally focused on victory over their opposition which on the contrary does not persuade, rather alienates the very people whose eyes they are attempting to open with the zeal normally associated with the fervour of religious fanatics.

Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins represent a trinity of obsessed, born again atheists whose media crusades represent a blitzkrieg targeted at those who they believe can be converted by their aggressive, even mocking approach to theists that identifies the atheist evangelist as extremist, as are those Taliban fundamentalists so determined to turn the clock back to the sixth century in tribute to their perception that their prophet would condone their violent tactics.

That many militant atheists view theists in some manner, defective even lacking intellectual awareness can be interpreted as damning proof of the manifestation of a superior (atheist) life form eulogising, even praising the much publicised benefits of atheism as a means to live life in a manner best representing the superiority of the higher evolved human person who embraces the atheistic path through life.

There is an irony in that both fundamentalist theists, and the fundamentalist atheist mind sets are focused on ridiculing their respective opponents with the militancy normally reserved for destroying ones most hated enemy.

Did they ever preach to kill anyone ?

On the other hand, God fearing people already preached and killed countless numbers of people.

 

[kallipolis]

^Ah! yes, according to your reasoning human beings who are atheist don't kill other people, and therefore should be considered peace loving whereas, those human beings who purport to be God fearing, kill countless numbers of people and should be considered war mongers.

Do you have research that I can link too, to support your claims?

Or, should I just assume that you will refer me to The Crusades, in preference to the two great world wars of the twentieth century when tens of millions of people were killed for ideological reasons?

A psychologist colleague informs me that violence has been a feature of human behaviour since the dawn of recorded human history leading him to believe that with, or without religious belief the human being will continue to kill other human beings with little thought for their atheistic, or theistic beliefs to measure the morality of their actions.

 

[Telstra]

^Ah! yes, according to your reasoning human beings who are atheist don't kill other people, and therefore should be considered peace loving whereas, those human beings who purport to be God fearing, kill countless numbers of people and should be considered war mongers.

Do you have research that I can link too, to support your claims?

Or, should I just assume that you will refer me to The Crusades, in preference to the two great world wars of the twentieth century when tens of millions of people were killed for ideological reasons?

A psychologist colleague informs me that violence has been a feature of human behaviour since the dawn of recorded human history leading him to believe that with, or without religious belief the human being will continue to kill other human beings with little thought for their atheistic, or theistic beliefs to measure the morality of their actions.

Those 3 (Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens) simply studied the evidence and they don't believe and they lecture why the don't believe.

So who is more violent?
Those 3 or the religious preaches who preached you will go to hell if you don't listen.