--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > This topic interests me.
Me, too, and I think we might more of a handle on the phenomenon -- having watched similar stuff go down on FFL and other Internet forums for some time now -- than the general public would. > It is a dilemma for non believers. The challenge of staying > in rapport while being true to your own position, which is > by definition, a negation of someone else's POV. Which only becomes an issue or a problem when *either* side becomes *attached* to their POV, their opinion, and confuses that with "Truth." I've seen this on both sides of the God/atheist discussion. It often *isn't* a discussion -- more of a debate -- because one or both sides is *heavily* invested in their opinion as if it were Truth. I think that the chaplain in the article has a point with his diatribe, because I, too, found all three of the recently-published and recently-active atheists to be primarily interested in polemic and argument, and in some instances even more attached to their POVs than the theists they were debating. > Right now there are a few books out that aren't pulling > any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to believers. I believe that some of them are *intentionally* caustic, and that the cause of this may fall in lap of literary agents and publishers as much as it does the authors. Controversy *sells*, and so chances are each of these authors has five or six people whispering in their ears *telling them* to be more caustic, because the whisperers get a slice of the action. > I keep reading criticisms of these books that focus on their > disrespectful tone and a claim that the authors are unfairly > lumping together fundamentalists believers with people the > reviewers consider more thoughtful,(themselves). Chuckle. Well said. > Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as rudely dismissive > of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. People who get off on putdowns don't really *care* who they're putting down, just as long as they're superior to them. Sadly, in some circles this has become almost the definition of a "reviewer." :-) > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about mine". Very true, as I pointed out myself in what I hope was a fairly civil atheist/believer discussion here on FFL with Edg. There *is* a strong tendency among believers in God to avoid defining what they consider God to be, probably because many of the believers themselves realize the impossibility of the task. *That*, in my opinion, is one reason that many believers act all affronted and "attacked" when they come face to face with atheists. If they act outraged enough, they can bluster on and avoid *ever* having to define what they think God is. That said, there is more than enough bluster to go around. Some of the atheists in question have a far higher regard for the inherent value of their words than I (basically an atheist) have. Whereas the believers fill themselves with thoughts of God, it seems to me that many of these atheist writers fill themselves with self, with ego. > Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his debate > with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > Then my God is puppies). > > In philosophy people are trained how to argue points so that > it doesn't become a personal attack. This is difficult to > pull off in real life outside an academic setting. I would suggest that this isn't necessarily a truism. And I can offer 230 to 500 *million* examples of why I think this. There are that many Buddhists in the world, very few of whom believe in a sentient, interventionist God. With the exception of a few crazy fundamentalist Hindus and Christians, very few people get all reactive when they encounter a Buddhist. Now admittedly, most Americans are so stupid and uneducated that they don't even *know* that, on the whole, Buddhism has no need in its belief system for a God. But if they did, they probably wouldn't feel as "threatened" or "attacked" by the Buddhists' lack of belief in a God as they are by people they consider "atheists." Why? IMO, partly because the word "atheist" has been systematically "loaded" over the years to mean something BAD. The poll numbers quoted in the article about how only 3% of the US population would vote for an atheist are interesting. I'd like to see a similar poll in which the same people were asked if they would vote for a Buddhist. I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would be much higher, and that most people would vote for a Buddhist. Why? Because Buddhism hasn't been as stigmatized as atheism. The word "Buddhist" has not been systematically "loaded" such that when most people hear it, they think "Bad!" And, most Buddhists that one runs into *are* nice. They rarely get as ego-bound and confrontational and preachy as these atheist/egomaniac authors we're talking about. They *don't* go out of their way to "push buttons." They rarely even evangelize Buddhism. Compare and contrast to the authors in question, who seem to be *definitely* evangelizing atheism. > I find it is a rare person who can discuss their spiritual > beliefs without taking it personally and getting upset. It's rare to find people who haven't *identified* with their spiritual beliefs to the extent that a challenge to them is seen as an "attack," that's all. IMO, those who get reactive CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE between what they believe and what they are. > When it works here on this board I am really impressed, > it can be done. It takes practice I think, and a > commitment to mutual respect. I agree. I don't know how Edg feels about it, but I thought we did fairly well at keeping our discussion of "God stuff" civil and mutually respectful. > It is possible to believe you are right about your perspective > while allowing that someone else may benefit from seeing it > differently. It would be intellectually disingenuous for me > to say that they just have a different truth. I would be comfortable saying that they have a different POV or opinion. I don't believe that either the assertion that God exists *or* that God doesn't exist can *ever* qualify as "truth." > I think it is OK to believe that someone is wrong about > something while respecting their right to believe what they > want. It helps to have an awareness of all the times in the > past that I have been wrong about things and the fact that > it is hard to figure out the things I am wrong about right > now, but passionately believe. There may be a bigger category > of different versions of "right". I have a slightly different version of this. I assume that I'm wrong about pretty much *everything*. :-) All of my beliefs are just opinions, things that I play with for the fun of it. All of them are "wrong" when seen from one SOC/POV, and "right" when seen from another SOC/POV. So what's to "defend," *except* for fun? > I think FFL is helping me improve the ability to discuss ideas > in a respectful way. Me, too, although you might get some different feedback from others as to my "improvement." :-) > It helps that many posters are mature in their own spirituality > so my skepticism doesn't stir more than a light breeze. That's by far the most refreshing thing about FFL. One person like that makes up for twenty fundamentalists. > It often feels safe to be honest here about what I believe > and don't believe and the larger area of "I don't know". > There are rough patches here, but we are all works in > progress and this project isn't the easiest to pull off > gracefully. And yet, some manage. > I guess the bottom line is that the balance is to be true to > your own perspective without being a dick about it. Sometimes > that is a fine line, and sometimes it is pretty obvious. I > know my limitations, I may never be able to gain this balance > with certain posters. But watching the process unfold between > different people is fascinating. I'm a fan of what goes on > here. Me, too. It's funny that you brought this subject up, because I was thinking of doing so earlier today. It's just such a *pleasure* to see or participate in a mutually-respectful interchange of ideas that I really don't see the *payoff* for those who habitually have to turn them into a "clash" of ideas. I don't understand what they *get* from such clashes. In the context of the "defending one's spiritual teacher" act that goes on here a lot, I just don't understand WHY these folks feel this need to "defend" the teacher. How does what someone else believes about the teacher affect their lives *in any way*? Maybe it's because it's been almost 30 years since I considered Maharishi my spiritual teacher, and almost 12 years since I considered *anyone* my spiritual teacher. Maybe I've lost the "edge." I dunno. But, like you, I sometimes get all Rodney King about the histrionics that arise out of spiritual debates over "I believe in God/I don't" or "I believe in my teacher/I don't." Why can't we all just get along? > Kumbaya baby! Pass the s'more's, dude.
