Christian apology by a non-Christian

[Skip]

... (The other is Descartes.)

Really, why? Dualism? Surely his other contributions weigh heavily against this.

Depriving our fellow animals of souls, thus making them "fair prey" for whatever purpose man devises: torture, captivity, vile servitude. With this, too, he orphaned the human race; cut us loose from our environment, heritage and connectedness with the web of life. Free to conquer, rule, use up and despoil.... And we are going crazy over here.

Other contributions don't begin to compensate for global insanity.

(But I did exaggerate his guilt, as well as Paul's. The harm they did was unintentional.)

[Skip]

Both are moot, as my interest has long since waned.

You may have lucked out Skip, as here you might find Fermi in question, might mind you, but if you are saying you've given-up all hope of sanity in the interweeb why still posting?

Anyhoo, at least admire the cleanness of the environment, the lack of adverts and distractions, class on the eyes, you don't get this much nowadays.

I love the interwebz. (kittehs, not so much) Some days I have more patience for its grammatical vagaries and greater interest in its mysterious denizens than on others. Nice layout here, yes. No pop-up ads and no grammar-bots editing my commas or inserting asterisks, should I refer to bodily exudates.

What I lost interest in is this thread, which seems to go round and round. First page, I was reading closely; third, I was scanning; seventh, I was cutting to the punch line in the last paragraph.

Kenny Rogers:
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealing's done.



Besides, I have no idea what Fermi had to say about this, or intelligent life in the universe, and am not motivated to wiki-peek it.

[uwot]

'Ere Gustav

From what I can gather, your posts can be summarised thus:
To use Freudian terms, you are claiming that people have an ego and an id.
Hierarchies based on this premise are quite good, although, to be fair, ones based on merit are better.
The way to suppress your id is through self-discipline and adherence to a particular set of values that Europeans have had thrust upon them for the last 1500 years of warfare and serfdom.
Science is a product of this way of thinking, despite compelling evidence that what we understand as science took hold when people started looking at the evidence, rather than referring to authorities.
You could provide the evidence, but you think it is for others to prove the truth of things they argue are untrue, which they will do by referring to authorities.
The evidence you do provide is that your ideas have merit, because you appreciate some so-so poetry.

Have I missed anything?

[Skip]

Who? If me, I can probably argue half of those statements.

[uwot]

Sorry Skip, that was very rude of me. I have edited the post appropriately.

[abepat]

I think the dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, rituals, holy books, philosophies traditions etc. are not the most important aspects of a religion. These things evolved over time and are rooted in human-social-political contexts than any thing else. In fact, I feel any intelligent person needs to transcend these. I am not suggesting a revolt but a shift in the mind just as we no more believe that the earth is flat.The essence of each religion is more important than all these.

The essence of Christianity is love and God as love as 'preached' by Jesus Christ. I think this is the guiding principle for every christian. It is its strength.
For Buddhism it is compassion for everything (similar to Christianity)
For Taoism it is flowing with the Tao or the Way or the Universal Intelligence.
For Zen Buddhism it is mindlessness which is being mindful of everything and which is possible only by being completely aware of one's obsession with one's 'self'.
With Vedanta it is knowing about your true self or identity.

There seems to be common denominator. Yet it is not visible because the cultural contexts are not the same and dogmas, beliefs rituals etc make them look very different.

As one of the comments suggests the animists seem to be more in unison with nature than we are who make up a thousand different religious philosophies.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Sorry, uwot, I don't have anything to say directly to that. But I will attempt this indirect commentary: What seems often to happen where there are contentions, and I suppose this is common and even universal, is that a given struggle---between people or communities, perhaps also nations---has a 'surface' of rational content, but what actually determines the interaction is an internal, perhaps invisible willfulness. Once this willfulness has been aroused, the rational or intelligent or 'good faith' element quickly becomes irrelevant, almost ridiculous. In the end it devolves into merely a contest of wills. Once it comes to that point it also comes to an impasse of sorts. But there is a particular willfulness that actually desires impasse, and establishes it. To shut down the possibility of conversation.

I do feel that a wide and open conversation on the value or importance and relevance---the centrality if you will---of Greco-Christian traditions in our culture is possible. I have lots of that material and read it, refer to it. I am aware that there is an opposing pole, say for example Christopher Hitchens who I have up till now only glossed. There is, with no doubt, a relevant critical position of 'Christianity' and the institutions of the West. Yet in my view such a critical position, to be actually relevant, has also to be aware and capable of elucidating the positive and constructive aspects of the culture it critiques. And it is my sense, or my guess, that if there is a way forward it is through a synthesis of critical positions with 'apologetic' positions.

I look forward to reading your (plural) contributions in the second week of November. I will be away till then and with only the most limited Internet access. Take care.

[Arising_uk]

Depriving our fellow animals of souls, thus making them "fair prey" for whatever purpose man devises: torture, captivity, vile servitude. With this, too, he orphaned the human race; cut us loose from our environment, heritage and connectedness with the web of life. Free to conquer, rule, use up and despoil.... And we are going crazy over here.

Hmm... maybe, maybe not as I'm not so sure that we'd still not have industrialised domestication production methods regardless. Even is I was to agree with Descartes being the source of this which I'm still yet to be convinced about but can understand the link.

Other contributions don't begin to compensate for global insanity.

Which has done what? Raised the population and fed more than ever before.

(But I did exaggerate his guilt, as well as Paul's. The harm they did was unintentional.)

So what guilt at all?

[Arising_uk]

...
What I lost interest in is this thread, which seems to go round and round. First page, I was reading closely; third, I was scanning; seventh, I was cutting to the punch line in the last paragraph.

I've enjoyed yours and Gustav's conversation and agreed with much of what you said and understand, I think, what Gustav's concerns are. Not that I agree with them.

Besides, I have no idea what Fermi had to say about this, or intelligent life in the universe, and am not motivated to wiki-peek it.

No biggie. I just thought your crack about SETI and Sagan and intellgent lfe in the cybersphere highly amusing so was playing along, i.e. Fermi's idea that if Sagan and SETI are right 'Where is it?' Why does there appear to be no evidence of it in the forums? Thats all.

[uwot]

The essence of Christianity is love and God as love as 'preached' by Jesus Christ. I think this is the guiding principle for every christian. It is its strength.
For Buddhism it is compassion for everything (similar to Christianity)
For Taoism it is flowing with the Tao or the Way or the Universal Intelligence.
For Zen Buddhism it is mindlessness which is being mindful of everything and which is possible only by being completely aware of one's obsession with one's 'self'.
With Vedanta it is knowing about your true self or identity.

I don't know enough about all the particular religions you mention to comment on your analysis, but I'll take your word for it. The thing is that religions have to be broad enough to accommodate sufficient different interests within a society for it to be viable. This is a piece of cake with polytheism, any interested party can have a god to itself. It's a bit more of a stretch with monotheism, but saints can usually cover the same bases. So while all the virtues you mention feature in religion, so do hierarchies and warfare. Religion doesn't illuminate society, it reflects it.

[Skip]

uwot: Religion doesn't illuminate society, it reflects it.

Bingo! Give that Earthling a fish that he may eat for a day.

(But I did exaggerate his guilt, as well as Paul's. The harm they did was unintentional.)
Arising UK: So what guilt at all?

Hypocrisy. They knew better, wrote doctrine anyway, and people used their authority as license to do harm. I'm not really holding the two of them solely responsible for the whole religious/scientific development of western thought, but they were major contributors to its ethical underpinnings.

[thedoc]

uwot: Religion doesn't illuminate society, it reflects it.

Bingo! Give that Earthling a fish that he may eat for a day.

(But I did exaggerate his guilt, as well as Paul's. The harm they did was unintentional.)
Arising UK: So what guilt at all?

Hypocrisy. They knew better, wrote doctrine anyway, and people used their authority as license to do harm. I'm not really holding the two of them solely responsible for the whole religious/scientific development of western thought, but they were major contributors to its ethical underpinnings.

No, Much of what is attributed to these writers was added later by others who intended to alter and corrupt the teachings. Much of the harm, if not all of it, was added later.

[uwot]

No, Much of what is attributed to these writers was added later by others who intended to alter and corrupt the teachings. Much of the harm, if not all of it, was added later.

So, how do you determine which bits are the true teachings? The problem is that different interests promote the part that best serves their purpose. People on the left and in the political centre are more likely to emphasise the love and charity bits, while the further right you go, the more rules and obedience feature. It is the rules insisted on by religious conservatives that make them so easy to exploit by political conservatives and such a pain in the arse for the rest of us. Just as you do, thedoc, conservatives blame reform.

[abepat]

The problem is with the radicals who miss the essence or spirit of any religion and insist on the peripherals of dogmas, beliefs and rituals.

[Skip]

Yes, and those radicals invariably become the rulers. Because:
- They're the craziest. They want power over others, while sane people of equal competence don't.
- They know how to exploit the insecurities, anxieties and uncertainties of the majority.
- They do not treat dogma, belief and ritual as peripherals, but represent those things as essential and conflate them with the spirit - which they then marginalize or even exclude.
- As long as they can convince people of their own exclusive access to the invisible power-source, they can control a population that doesn't even understand the original intent or spirit of the doctrine they're following. Indeed, the laity is often prevented from reading or studying the original texts and depend on the ordained representatives of the rulers for interpretation.
- Dogma can be enforced by indoctrination from birth onward, as well as through coercion.
- Ritual has been a unifying force in human communities from the earliest tribal times - indeed, you an see it in great apes. It's the single easiest tool of mass mind control. "Righteousness" is a close second. Tell people that having this dogma rather than that one makes them better than other people and thus entitled to push those other people around and take their stuff - and they'll follow you, torches and pitchforks at the ready, no questions.