Not a full response. Some good things I need to ponder. Some drive-by comments, below.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > I feel that I am rowing out in a little dingy between two huge battle > > ships. I hope they see my white flag. > > We have always had excellent conversations. You take an appropriate amount > of care to build rapport and I respect that. You have also had good > discussions with Judy that I have enjoyed, so good on you for your > communication skills here. > > > > > As part of full disclosure, I am not religious, don't go to or belong to a > > church, though I have, in my simpleton ways, at times constructed > > cathedrals in nature -- in my minds eye -- impressed and stirred by the > > wonder of it all. > > Totally with you. A small thorn, which serves a good purpose to keep trying to solve it, is a distinction between religion as it is (in its sorry state) and what religion could be in all its glory. A sort of natural religion -- based on experience, not channeling celestials -- though that too is an experience -- if it exists. I like Carlin. I like Maher. But both, and others at times boil issues down to a icky gooey mess, then criticize how icky it is. And as Jon Stewart will be the first to point out, they are comedians. Going for the laugh. They are not testifying under oath as to the earnest truthfulness of their views. Their exagerations can bring home a point. Or obscure it. Its like democracy. Its a great system. We ought to try to sometime (attributed to Twain or Will Rogers). In parallel, a true natural religion could be awesome. We (as as society) ought to try it sometime. So I while I can vomit over religion, I still hold out for the possibility of Religion. Not as it is, or has been, but what it could be. And as justified as art or philosophy is -- in that it is not a science -- but provide alternative lens through which to view the world. > > Your post got me thinking (a sign of a good post, IMO). You and George, as > > well as a host of others, Hutchens is my recent foray into the mess, appear > > to take religions literally. > > Not me. I understand that there many ways to take religion. I was too simply equating your views with Carlin's. Your view is clearly more nuanced and textured. > The way I take religious scripture is as any good literature. And I am a fan > and read religious scriptures. My issues with religious people is when they > attempt to make it seem as if the scripture of their religion is the word of > the creator of the universe. I am sure there are people like that, I just don't run into them much. And people learn over time. I have a friend who was set on becoming a minister -- from a young age. Did youth ministering, had scholarships for graduate work in theology paid by his church. But over time, I am not sure of the details, something snapped, he left the program and has no ties to his prior church as far as I can see. Doesn't take his kids to Sunday School. Thusly, someone might take a fundamentalist view, and over time, work it out, mellow it out, reason it up, and keep it more real. >If they think that, even if they don't take every word as literal truth, then >I object. I believe that there is more evidence for man being the source of >scripture and when I read it I don't suppose Moses had an actual interaction >with a burning bush unless he spent some time at Vegas's bunny ranch. (There >are pills for that but it will come back periodically.) Actually, brothels are illegal in Las Vegas. The Bunny Ranch, I am told, is outside Carson City, the capitol, in close proximity to legislators and lobbyists. Better they get well screwed -- than well screwing their constituents. As Cream sang, "Baby, get into my big black car, and let me show you what my politics are." But I hear they (Bunny Ranch) are looking for a good blues player to add atmosphere, so you might be in luck. (Lots of perks -- though perhaps not always pristine perky.) > > <A key premise is that the whole thing, all of the parts of a large > collection of various writers and interpreters must be taken as a whole. None > of this new age, fairfiledlife, take what is useful and drop the rest stuff. > "Man it up, take ownership for every literal word and phrase" is what I am > hearing.> > > Your objection is valid and I would share it, but I don't think that is what > they are saying. That is not my point. Everyone interprets scripture, and > given its often self-contradictory messages, no one can be truly literal > about it even if they claim this. > > The line I draw is the claim that any way of reading it gives a person an > insight into the mind of some creator. I don't see any evidence for that > claim and consider it to be a sign of hubris to claim it. Now I can hear a > person inspired by something in scripture make a great case for some idea > about how the world works. As long as the source of confidence don't boil > down to "cuz God says it in scripture". While I agree, I can see the attraction -- in an uncertain, half-truth, fast changing world -- to cling to something stable, eternal and true. I think that was the draw for many in the SIMS days. "I was so much older then ..." Revealed Truth, a programs for empirical validation -- albeit over sizable time, a solution for all the sticky social problems of war and racism, a smattering of intellectuals and high falutin' mainstream knowledge, funny frontmen, fine European resorts, and good looking California babes. I think there are parallels. Being reborn, I think can sometimes, if not often, a transcendental experience. There is high theatre that takes one out of the mundane, (puja perhaps is a parallel to TM), a deep letting go, and a type of "bliss" and tranquility that can follow. "I get it" the sinner says upon being reborn -- "I experienced a direct connection with all goodness and love." They see their Lord Jesus Christ, and union with him, as the source of that bliss. And by golly, its all predicted in the Bible. So if that was true, then perhaps the rest is true. Not unlike TM. The experience is real, trotted out scriptures talk a lot about the experience, it all connects, and it feels so good to be certain, why not just take the whole shabang as truth and gospel. And the concept and calls for Faith -- which tamper down the rational mind, again leading to more transcendence, it all feels good, Faith, Experinatial contact with the Lord of the Universe, and a big impressive book that explains it all. (Gosh, its beginning to sound good all over again. :) ) >I will evaluate the claims like any other. I think scripture has a lot of >insight into human nature and much to teach. > > > > > But thats not how I typically roll -- at least with films, literature, > > music, people, non-fiction and all. What if religious texts are some > > collectively written compendium, in the traditions of Joyce, Proust, Henry > > Miller, Scorsese, Bergman, TS Elliot, Neruda, Homer, Picasso surreal > > symbolic type of panorama of the mind and heart, from many perspectives, > > from many authors. > > > > Sort of a compendium of altered states, longings, life lessons, allegories, > > debates, inner (and outer) conflicts and attempts at their resolution. I > > may not love every scene in a film, but I often walk away with the memory > > of at least a few great scenes. Do I have to own and revere the lesser > > parts too? > > > > If I find the Psalms, or descriptions of altered states in the Gita, or the > > ponderings of Lao Zhu or Rumi, ethical issues dissected and parsed -- do I > > need to take the battle scenes to heart -- as real o of significance. I > > usually fast forward long battle scenes as well as car chases, in films. > > They don't speak to me, while other parts of the film do. Why should I > > treat religious literature differently? > > I think you are a brother from another mother! I agree and enjoyed how you > phrased it. We may or may not draw different lines of belief but we are using > a similar appreciation based evaluation of what scriptures offer. > > One of the straw men arguments about the criticisms against religion that > guys like Sam Harris make is that he is only talking about fundamentalist. > That he is ignoring really educated people who have watered down the claims > of religion with reason and common sense which is how a lot of intelligent > people actually deal with religious claims. Which I thought was your point from an earlier post that its inconsistent to cherry pick one's scriptures. Accept on part and you gotta accept it all. I probably misunderstood you, but actually I liked that argument. It at least got me thinking that if I accept "like a candle in a windless place" I gotta accept the whole battle, avatars, gory parts too. And there is the corollary that if one rejects one part, then one has to reject the whole thing. IF its all from God (not my claim), then it must all be correct, or all false. You can't cherry pick. And if its just a compendium of blatherings across generations, including the family whacko Uncle Charlie (but hes family so we gotta stick him in the family history), then its not necessarily worthy or a lot of attention. > But I think this is a misunderstanding about his point concerning the claims > of religion. It kind of boils down to how far they are willing to go to give > up the claims of religion. One one end you have Jesus as a human teacher > whose words have been imperfectly reflected in the Bible as one example. On > the other side we have people who believe in the myth as literal fact that he > died for our sins on the cross,that believing this ensures your eternal > condition after death, and that we know this as a fact because of the > irrefutable nature of the Bible. A book which unlike other books is an > accurate description of the mind of God and what he wants. (Hint: it may > involve some of my favorite foods being icky.) > > Religious people are on on a continuum of beliefs which is natural. But the > first step is a doozy when it comes to evaluating the confidence we should > have in the claim. So the difference in how much other stuff they have > included once they have based a claim on authority of scripture between the > ends of this spectrum is not that significant. How much irrationally > assumptive beliefs do we accept in our knowledge is really the question for > me. > > And this challenge has already played out with so many beliefs that have been > with man since early times. We now as a society object to the ideas that > women are inferior to a man or that a person's birth status defines their > life and on and on. We have systematically challenged these assumptions > about how the world works and rejected them. I'm just a cheerleader saying > "keep it up we are not done yet by a long shot!" That will never mean that > no one will believe in one of the many Gods, but it might just turn the > political tide a bit so that we don't have so many people claiming that the > other side is absolutely wrong about some complex ethical topic because they > got a text message from the almighty and he votes no. > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy and I had been having a discussion about religious beliefs and the > > > various ways to deal with it in society. Judy proposed that going after > > > egregious specific behavior was the best way. Although she does not > > > explain how convincing someone their behavior is wrong is so much easier > > > than convincing them that their belief is wrong. Usually this is a > > > matter for legal force. > > > > > > I proposed that it would be the views of the general society that had to > > > change concerning beliefs based on faith just as they already have in > > > many areas of human knowledge that used to be dominated by faith. In > > > many areas of knowledge we now have more solid evidence. (As an aside > > > Judy used the peculiar term "transcendiing epistemology" to describe > > > faith which is an odd concept that she will have to define for herself. > > > But faith does not go beyond epistemology, they have a folder for it > > > titled "Poor basis to be confident about knowledge." > > > > > > But as is often the case the discussion followed the relentlessly > > > predictable gravitational arch for Judy where every discussion is used as > > > evidence for me being a flawed person in some way. In this case whereas > > > I believe satire has a huge place in shifting public opinion (Sarah > > > Palin/Tina Fey) Judy believes that my use of it is "mean." Now this is a > > > relational term whose meaning is used in context because it relies on a > > > subjective judgment call of a specific person. Judy was not claiming > > > that I was being mean to her specifically but in general. This is a > > > convenient misuse of the term that allows the person's personal judgment > > > to assume the status of a universal. Now in the past I have been shamed > > > by Judy for pretending to be nice and not being real. So she has set up > > > a convenient double bind that allows her to make her case that I am a bad > > > person no matter how I interact with her. Sophist bullshit 101. I know > > > what I am dealing with and enter into any discussion knowing where it > > > will end up so I am not blaming her for being her. (think frog and > > > scorpion story) > > > > > > Then she shifted the argument to claim that the problem with my satire > > > was that not only was it "mean" but it was not funny. Her example for > > > nice religious mockery was George Carlin. Now being told that I am not > > > as funny as George Carlin is like saying I don't play guitar as well as > > > Jimi Hendrix. I take the compliment and move on. > > > > > > But in this case it is very revealing about Judy's intentions in our > > > discussions here. Her specific objections were around me referring to > > > religion as having tribal superstitions. (Somewhat odd since some of them > > > literally deal with tribes of people and their beliefs.) She also felt > > > that my statement that religions make ridiculously inflated claims was > > > out of line and objected to my advising people to point their finger at > > > religious claims and say "bullshit!" She also claimed I was being > > > demeaning to religious people for claiming that they were speaking with > > > an invisible, imaginary friend." These were way out of line according to > > > Judy and not funny and un-mean like her chosen example George Carlin. > > > > > > > > > OK Judy. Here is your man. I'll just go with a "what he said" for the > > > following: > > > > > > > > > George Carlin: > > > > > > # When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have > > > to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and > > > exaggerated claims, religion. [George Carlin, from "You Are All > > > Diseased".] > > > > > > > > > # Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about > > > it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE > > > MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of > > > every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he > > > does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a > > > special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish > > > where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and > > > cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you. [George > > > Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased"] > > > > > > I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy > > > nailed to two pieces of wood. [George Carlin, from the album "A Place For > > > My Stuff"] > > > > > > # > > > > > > > > > # Here's another question I've been pondering- What is all this shit > > > about Angels? Have you herd this? 3 out of 4 people belive in Angels. Are > > > you FUCKING STUPID? Has everybody lost their mind? You know what I think > > > it is? I think it's a massive, collective, psychotic chemical flashback > > > for all the drugs smoked, swallowed, shot, and obsorbed rectally by all > > > Americans from 1960 to 1990. 30 years of street drugs will get you some > > > fucking Angels my friend! [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".] > > > > > > # What about Goblins, huh? Doesn't anybody belive in Goblins? You never > > > hear about this.. Except on Halloween and then it's all negative shit. > > > And what about Zombies? You never hear from Zombies! That's the trouble > > > with Zombies, they're unreliable! I say if you're going to go for the > > > Angel bullshit you might as well go for the Zombie package as well.. > > > [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".] > > > > > > > > > I look forward to hearing how what I said was so different from what he > > > is saying here. Why my views constitute "meanness" and his are the > > > "good" kind of religious belief mockery. > > > > > >
