Raising the Bar on the Conversation About Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/raising-the-bar-on-the-co_b_4256154.html

Rabbi Alan Lurie
Author, 'Five Minutes on Mondays: Finding Unexpected, Purpose, Peace and Fulfillment at Work'

Posted: 11/11/2013 8:58 pm

Anyone interested in religion must ask three essential questions:

1. What is the purpose of religion?
2. What is the meaning of faith?
3. What is the nature of God?

Simple, unchallengeable answers to these questions have been proposed by both critics and defenders of religion. For some critics of religion the answers are as follows:

1. Religion is a collection of archaic superstitions that were created long ago to ease the fear of death and explain natural phenomena not yet understood by science. Religion remains compelling today because people continue to suffer from these ancient insecurities.

2. Faith is the blind acceptance of codified dogma that must be fully adopted and never questioned so that religious authorities can retain control. Believers are deliberately kept from exposure to reason and science, because such exposure would naturally lead to challenge, and the end of faith.

3. God is the name given to a fictitious being created by religious authorities to judge, reward, and punish us for our actions, to enforce religious dogma, and to maintain blind faith. Just as there have been many gods that we now reject as ancient mythology, so should any intelligent individual reject the fictitious deities that are worshipped today.

For some defenders of religion there are also fixed, but apparently very different, answers:

1. There is only one true religion - my religion -, which is the only path to eternal life. All other religions are false, and if one truly cares about the salvation of human souls, believers of these false religions should be shown the truth, and converted.

2. Faith is the submission of individual will in full acceptance of the absolute truth found in the holy books and doctrine, which are the literal and unchangeable word of God as revealed to a select few.

3. God is a being fully described in these holy books alone, Who demands that we follow the commandments and principles found therein, reap the reward, or suffer the consequences, which are eternal and irrevocable.

These two divergent visions of religion, faith, and God dominate much of the debate today, leaving many to believe that one must be absolutely right, and the other absolutely wrong. But are these are only choices? Is any reconciliation possible, or are we faced with a dramatic spilt in humanity between these two extremist sides?

more at link

[trotsky]

1. No wonder you liked this.

It's the same dishonest triangulation you prefer in order to marginalize and dismiss those whose opinions you dislike - and just as you do, the rabbi pretends that an atheist who says "religion is false" is just as extreme and dangerous as the theist who says "my religion is the only true one, and you will suffer in hell for not following it."

I am disappointed to see you continue your strategy of dismissing and dividing, cbayer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. I'd swap the critical explanations of the first two

with minor changes. So:

Faith is a collection of unsupported beliefs, many created long ago, to ease the fear of death and explain natural phenomena not yet understood by science. Faith remains compelling today because people continue to suffer from these ancient insecurities.

Religion is the blind acceptance of codified dogma that must be fully adopted and never questioned so that religious authorities can retain control. Followers are deliberately kept from exposure to reason and science, because such exposure would naturally lead to challenge, and the end of the religious hierarchy.

[cbayer]

4. They are listed as hyperbole and both are pretty dogmatic.

Doesn't making them even more dogmatic kind of miss the point?

[trotsky]

6. As one commenter on the original article notes,

just because you have two "extreme" viewpoints w.r.t. each other, doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

"All people regardless of their skin color are equal."

vs.

"All people who do not share my skin color are lesser than my race."

How would that Hegelian dialectic look? What's the blessed compromise position where we all learn from each other? And will you despise and malign the holders of the first opinion as much as you do some atheists?

Don't worry, I realize you won't answer.

[Jim__]

3. The idea of a Hegelian dialectic is interesting.

His questions and answers are too complex for a Hegelian dialectic though. From wikipedia:

This three stage procedure gives us Hegel’s basic dialectic and his basic (but not his only) dialectical format. Each stage of the typical Hegelian dialectic consists of two concepts. These concepts can usually be stated in one or two words. Each concept of the two-concept antithesis is the opposite of (not just different from) its thesis counterpart. The synthesis, a sort of compromise, borrows one concept from the thesis and one from the antithesis. In the overarching dialectic of Phenomenology, described above, the dialectic’s three stages are these:

• Thesis: unconscious + unity
  
• Antithesis: conscious + separation
  
• Synthesis: conscious + unity

Note four things: First, each stage of the dialectic embodies two concepts. Second, the two antithesis concepts are the opposites of the two thesis concepts. Third, the synthesis borrows one concept from the thesis (the concept “unity”) and one from the antithesis (“conscious”). Fourth, the dialectic displays separation and return: it separates from and returns to unity.

The interesting part of this would be to try to come up with a thesis and antithesis that everyone would agree on - that would get us to the gist of the problem. I think one of the essential disagreements about religion is whether it is ultimately a uniter or divider. I can see the dialectic as being something along the lines of:

• Thesis: uniter + ingroup
  
• Antithesis: divider + outgroup
  
• Synthesis: uniter + outgroup

That thesis and antithesis removes any specific mention of religion from the picture; but I think it is subsumed under the larger topics. I believe the synthesis is what we actually want to reach.

[cbayer]

5. Interesting take on this, Jim.

I like it. I would agree that synthesis is what "we" would actually want to reach.

I like his concept of acknowledging that others are seeing or experiencing something that one may not be able to realize. That can be applied to both theists and atheists. Both often feel liberated by the way they experience the world and those that see it differently may not be able to share that experience. However, acknowledging that others truly do seems a good first step.

So, if I am reading you right, the synthesis in this case would be the believer who supports the non-believer and vice versa.

[Jim__]

7. Yes, recognizing that we are all trying to understand.

And that we may be able to learn something from each other. Like the article says:

This process begins with the willingness to accept that those with whom we disagree or whose position we don't understand may have something to teach us.

[cbayer]

8. Wonderful advice and difficult to follow.

It's one of those things that you have to make a habit.

Too often we are formulating our response and stop listening before the other person even finishes.

The internet actual helps with that, I think.

[pinto]

9. "leaving many to believe that one must be absolutely right, and the other absolutely wrong"

Agree with that point. It's not an either / or situation in real life, imo. I don't see it as a win / lose situation either.

Is there a coherent middle ground? I don't know. Yet simply recognizing that there is a range of views, experiences and perceptions seems to be a place to start. That's the reality, why not recognize it and go from there?

Absolutes sometimes help define the big picture or dismiss it altogether. Most folks realize that absolutes are not the norm. They are essentially hyperbole.

Hyperbole is a tricky thing, often misconstrued. A construct used in debates and discussions. Done well, it can open debate and discussion, though.

Extremism is simpler, clearer, more dismissive and limiting. It can stifle debate and discussion.

[cbayer]

10. Yes, recognizing the differences in POV and experience is

an important first step.

Those that feel they "know" and that everyone else are wrong are generally not even worth opening the discussion with.

You have experienced things that I haven't. It may be that I can't, even if I wanted to.

We could be in the exact same place, seeing the exact same thing and come away with completely different perceptions about what just happened.

Is one of us wrong and one of us right? I tend to think not. It all goes through our individual filters before it gets to where we lay it down as a memory.

Really well said, my friend.

[pinto]

11. I've read about expanding those filters as a piece of better understanding. A little less conflict.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/1110/Why-US-veterans-are-returning-to-Vietnam

It's a good read.

[cbayer]

12. Thanks. Will definitely read that later.

One of my favorite movies is Rashomon.

It's about an event which is experienced by a number of different people.

There is a trial and everyone testifies as to what they saw.

If you assume that no one is lying, who is to say whose experience is correct and whose is not?

In the end, my conclusion was that they were all correct (or all incorrect).

[pinto]

13. I've seen it. And agree, they were all correct in their experiences, in context. Good film.

And, in this forum's framework, it exemplifies agnosticism. There is no either / or.

[trotsky]

16. Is Fred Phelps correct?

How about Pat Robertson?

[pinto]

30. In their perceptions, I assume they feel they are. Or they're simply opportunistic charlatans.

I think where they fail in a general sense is total lack of consideration or even recognition of another point of view. In Mr. Phelp's situation there's obviously more going on than a simple atheist / theist dichotomy, in this layman's pov.

[trotsky]

34. You didn't answer my question.

Would you like to try again?

[pinto]

35. In their perceptions, I assume they feel they are.

[trotsky]

36. Repeating your non-answer doesn't make it an answer.

It just makes it a reply. It is too bad no one who adores this fluff seems to take any time to actually think about what they're saying.

[pinto]

38. In my personal opinion, no.

I took this as a discussion on individual perceptions, not who's right or wrong. Correct or incorrect.

I don't think they're correct. Yet - in their perceptions, I assume they feel they are. That was the point of my response.

[trotsky]

39. Well then, what is the response to someone like Phelps?

After all, it's just your opinion that his viewpoint is wrong. How dare you (or anyone else) speak out against what he does or says?

Of COURSE Fred Phelps thinks he's right - that's hardly deep or any kind of new information. Everyone thinks they are right. It's how we go about deciding who is MOST right that allows us to proceed with real life interaction in the form of policy and law. That's what every single one of these "we need to accept everyone's viewpoint" discussions completely ignores.

[pinto]

40. I don't accept his viewpoint. I recognize it for what I think we all recognize - it's extremist.

What allows us to proceed with real life interaction in the form of policy and law are those that want to proceed with real life interactions. He doesn't.

Outside of separation of church / state issues and his deplorable public acting out, I ignore him.

[trotsky]

41. Phelps doesn't think he's an extremist, so therefore he isn't.

After all, his viewpoint is valid within his experience - and yours is not. And historically, his viewpoint wasn't extremist in the least. (Worse, it's still shared by a significant percentage of the world's population.)

Stop for a moment and actually consider his viewpoint - he strongly believes there are behaviors that his god doesn't like. He believes that those who engage in the behaviors are in danger of eternal punishment. He believes that his god will judge our country if we condone those behaviors. So, is he "right" or "correct" about any of that? Yes or no?

[pinto]

42. Trotsky, I answered. No, he's not.

We all are watching his extremism fade from the larger public discourse. He'll be a blip on the historical time line. Regardless of how he perceives his position.

I think recognizing and countering his extremism helps move us all forward. We will all leave him behind. Suggest you do so as well.

[trotsky]

43. Still unanswered.

Without understanding why his position was once mainstream, and without having a mechanism by which we can deal with it (other than - oh just sit back and wait, it'll pass), it could become so again.

I'm not going to ignore Phelps - he's still a problem, as are the millions around the world who share his views on homosexuality.

[pinto]

44. We have the legal mechanisms, we have the understanding and the support of most Americans.

Not saying we should sit back and wait. We aren't. Phelps is a sideshow in the big picture. A problem, yeah. An effective impediment to more progressive legislation, hardly.

[trotsky]

50. Yeah, you did just say to forget about him, sit back and wait.

I'm not going to. I'll oppose religious extremism and the enabling of it via this postmodern nonsense. You are free to proclaim yourself above the fray of having to deal with the problems of how your philosophy translates into the real world, but let the record show you still haven't answered.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I think each one sees it through their insecurities.

Is that where you want to go for a basis of religious experience?

[trotsky]

18. I wish I could say this discussion is all about learning from each other.

But it appears far too many people take this topic as an opportunity to proclaim themselves far more tolerant than, and therefore superior to, anyone holding a contrary opinion.

In other words, it's time for this again:

http://xkcd.com/774/

[pinto]

33. People address insecurities in numerous ways. Security for me is being grounded yet aware

of the lack of absolutes and the absence of certainty. To each his own.

[dimbear]

14. Notice he doesn't actually answer question #1. He answers a different question each time.

Luckily, I have the answer right here. (Surprise!)
Q1. Purpose religion?
A1. Crowd control.

[cbayer]

19. It seems you missed the point entirely, dimbear.

Way too simple, narrow and reflective only of your very personal POV.

[trotsky]

20. Did it occur to you that dimbear was making a joke?

Or are you just so ecstatic for the opportunity to scold and belittle someone that you skipped right over that possibility?

[Goblinmonger]

21. So, wait,

we're supposed to respect eveyone's POV (a la Rashomon discussion above) but not when you disagree with it?

There's way too many variations on the rules (read: goalposts are being moved).

[trotsky]

23. Some opinions are more equal than others. n/t

[dimbear]

48. A good and useful example to see the justice of my remark is this: what is the purpose of IHOP?

If you guessed anything other than 'to make profits for the owners of IHOP' you are simply not correct.
IHOP serves tasty meals as an adjunct to its purpose, as a ways and means. Its food and its purpose are not in any way the same.
It is very useful to know the history of religions to judge their purpose. Obvious recent examples: Mormonism and Scientology. I don't imagine the older ones arose for any different reason.

See how many more words that takes?

[hrmjustin]

15. My personal faith is this;

I believe there is a God. I believe he sent his son to give us a better way. We would not listen and he was killed, but he was raised again to redeem us. I believe all of humanity is saved through this act whether we believe it or not.

I also do not believe in a literal place called hell. Those that God does not let in heaven I believe that they no longer exist after death. I do believe there is a satan character or devil but I think he is somewhat different then we think of him. I do believe there is evil and satan may have something to do with it, but I look at him as the accuser as the bible states.

Others have different thoughts on what the divine is and I respect that and do not call it false. I believe they experience the divine just like Christians do.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Lipstick on a tone troll, if you will

Yet, this is the kind of stuff HuffPo trades in... right next to their celebrity wardrobe malfunctions and their Deepak Chopra columns.

Still, compared the Young Earth Creationist they featured a few weeks prior, this is a markedly more palatable read. But still..

Through this process we climb the ladder of consciousness and arrive at continually higher truths.

That line alone rates about a nine on my Woo-O-Meter.

The author's line of reasoning isn't much better.

If one man says 2+2=5, and another says 2+2=5,000, are they both equally wrong? Does the truth lie somewhere in between? Should we consider the possibility every digit between 5 and 5,000 could potentially be the answer?

I don't think we should. I think we should consider the answers which are most directly supported and applicable. Furthermore, I think we should challenge and question dubious conclusions. It seems to me that would be a more assured path to "continually higher truths" than pretending anyone and everyone's explanation for given event, however cockamamie and half-assed, is equally valid.

The suggestion that we all place nice and never question anyone's beliefs or principals sounds really sweet when applied to lofty, abstract ideas like religion or God, but take note of how "intolerant" people can become when the topic of conversation has more concrete consequences. Should we meet medical doctors and Jenny McCarthy half-way on the topic of vaccines? Should we meet climatologists and Big Oil half-way on global climate change? Should we have met the Republicans half-way on Obamacare?

Scientists don't treat each other's theories with deference and respect. They tear each other apart, and science is all the better for it.

I think the difference between atheists and believers of the author's stripe is that one of us is in a serious state of denial where the concrete consequences of religious belief are concerned. If faith in an unseen, unproven deity had no adverse ramifications on society, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. But it does have adverse consequences, and I'm not going to beat around the bush and try to "explain" those consequences away as "human nature", or some other diversionary excuse.

[trotsky]

24. BPotT

Best Post of the Thread.

And what about the woman who comes along and says "you guys are both wrong, 2+2=4 and I am certain of it!" - do we criticize her as a rigid fundamentalist who needs to listen to the music of the other guys so she can better appreciate their truth?

It's funny going back and reading more of the comments posted at HuffPo - much like here in this group, anyone who has an opinion other than "This is wonderful and splendiferous!" is ignored and dismissed as "angry" or a sign of the problem.

So much for wanting to listen to everyone's POV. Hollow, meaningless pablum.

[cbayer]

25. Actually, as much as I dislike most of Huffpo, I think their Religion section

has some of the best articles on the net. They often lead to some very interesting discussion here, tend to be free of woo and are generally civil and adult takes on what is generally a contentious issue.

I don't think he is suggesting that everyone's explanation has equal validity. But for those areas where neither party has the ability to say that they have the answer, he is suggesting that those POV's may have equal validity. So, for arguments regarding creationism and the rejection of evolution, clearly scientific evidence is on the side of the evolutionist and against the creationist. But when it comes to the existence or lack of existence of a god or gods, then no one is in the position to claim that they hold the truth.

I also don't think he is suggesting that Jenny McCarthy, climate change deniers, etc. be included.

If you think believers are "in a serious state of denial", then I can understand why this article would not appeal to you and assume you really have no interest in trying to understand where they are coming from or how they got there. And if you limit your rejection to those whose beliefs cause harm to themselves or others, I think you have a case.

But when you have people on your side who support the same things you do, but differ in that they hold religious beliefs, his ideas about how to raise the bar when having discussions with them might prove very useful.

[trotsky]

37. My Koresh, it is just jaw-dropping how little you've thought this through, cbayer.

I don't think he is suggesting that everyone's explanation has equal validity.

Yes he is, as are you, and as is pinto above. Everyone's viewpoint is valid "within their own experience." What does that actually mean? Please THINK about that and how it applies to the real world where we actually have to agree that ONLY one viewpoint is valid, for instance when we are making laws. There are people who think raping children is OK, but the rest of us have decided that they are absolutely and certainly wrong. Are they still right within their own experience?

I also don't think he is suggesting that Jenny McCarthy, climate change deniers, etc. be included.

Why not? Their viewpoints are just as valid as anyone else's! How dare you take the absolutist position that they're wrong? Can you personally PROVE that vaccines don't cause autism? If you can't, then how are you justified excluding Jenny McCarthy from the vaccine discussion?

...if you limit your rejection to those whose beliefs cause harm to themselves or others, I think you have a case.

And right here we come to the red-light-flashing, fireworks-exploding, sirens-blaring hypocrisy. On the one hand, you want to say all views are valid but you reserve the right to declare views that "cause harm" to be invalid. I've asked you this many times, and never gotten an answer, and I certainly don't expect one now since you've declared me to be an enemy who does not deserve interaction, but who exactly gets to define what "causes harm?" Aren't you using YOUR limited perspective to make that judgment? When you just got done berating and insulting someone for doing the same thing?

The irony here is that if you could begin to realize the gaping holes in this faulty appeal for "raising the bar," you *might* just actually approach the understanding of others you claim to seek. But given your actions, I don't think that's really what you want.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. You're setting your sights too low on this one

I don't think he is suggesting that everyone's explanation has equal validity. But for those areas where neither party has the ability to say that they have the answer, he is suggesting that those POV's may have equal validity. So, for arguments regarding creationism and the rejection of evolution, clearly scientific evidence is on the side of the evolutionist and against the creationist. But when it comes to the existence or lack of existence of a god or gods, then no one is in the position to claim that they hold the truth.

It isn't just a problem viewpoints, cbayer. It is a problem of epistemology. There is one method of acquiring knowledge which is self-correcting and reliably predictive, and that is science. I cannot concede that praying, dancing, burning incense, or self-flagellation are equally valid epistemological methods. They just aren't. In fact, they have been scientifically proven not to work.

If you believe in social justice because you think that's what god wants, then why is not sufficient that we just agree social justice is a good thing? Why must I give lip service to what is a demonstrably flawed epistemology?

Because disagreeing with you hurts your feelings? Why?

If it is because these beliefs are deeply-held, to use the parlance of the forum, then you're diving deep into the realm of the subjective. Some people--many people here, on the DU forums--deeply believe GMO foods will give you cancer, that 9/11 was an inside job, or, as we've stated, that vaccines will give you autism. Yet, you claim these beliefs are not above criticism.

Your justification for that, I am afraid, is also flawed. God has not been proved not to exist. Neither have GMOs been proved not to cause cancer, or vaccines not to cause autism, or that 9/11 was not an inside job. You're falling into the all-to-common trap of expecting proof of a negative premise. It is unscientific, and it is illogical. We hold--with increasing certainty--that GMOs do not cause cancer because no one has reliably proven that they do. The same applies to vaccines and 9/11, and, frankly, god.

I think, therefore, my belief that unscientific thinking is inherently harmful is sound, and, consequently, I will not encourage it. Belief in extraterrestrials, conspiracy theories, alternative "medicine", and the supernatural all arise from the same manner of unscientific, or outright anti-scientific, thinking. To claim it is your right to claim the existence of god without the expectation of critical examination, yet refuse to extend that right to other beliefs derived by the same epistemological methods, is nothing short of special pleading.

Aside from the philosophical hoopla, the biggest problem I have here is the whole notion of "the bar" needing to be raised. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you have a very specific idea of what that means, the kind of tone and direction you would prefer to hear in the discourse. To many of us, what that seems to be is this: believers should be free to tout their beliefs whenever, wherever they so choose, but atheists--unless they are the self-hating kind often featured upon the hallowed pages of Salon, Slate, and the HuffPo--need to stay quiet.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't see this as "raising the bar". I see this as the status quo throughout much of human history. We are expected to keep our traps shut as not to disturb very sensitive world views. But what about us? If we are on the same team, should not the same courtesy be extended our way? If we're expected to keep our opinions on the supernatural to ourselves, shouldn't believers, by rights, do the same?

[cbayer]

46. You make many assumptions about me that are not rooted in any evidence

and are actually incorrect.

You talk about "we", but you only represent yourself. Then you broad brush believers and sweep me into that group.

When I see the kinds of descriptions that make this into a team sport, with winners and losers, I recognize that we are not going to get very far.

That's ok. There are many non-believers and believers who post here who are interested in increasing understanding, finding common ground and establishing coalitions.

The ones who are not do not really interest me much.

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. I did no such thing.

And if you are intent upon making such allegations, the least you could do is back them up. I find quotes very useful in this regard.

[cleanhippie]

52. The assumptions made about you come from the years of posts and interactions with you right here.

Do any of us have a relationship outside of DU from which to draw a different conclusion?

Nah, that assessment is spot on. Spot. On.

But you can BE the change you want to see, cbayer. BE the change.

[trotsky]

54. It is very telling that you don't address any of the points made,

but instead launch into personal attacks and passive-aggressive bullying. This is why I don't believe you actually want discussion - you want a sterile forum in which views are not challenged, and opposing viewpoints not allowed. Now that's a recipe for stagnation and boredom - just go check out your precious Interfaith group, which even you have abandoned.

[Heddi]

61. Why do you keep bringing up discussion in this group as "teams"?

You do it a whole lot and you're the only person who refers to different opinions regarding religion as "teams" or "team sports"

why?

Oh, and here's proof of the times you use the word "team" to describe people on the other side of religious arguments. Why do you accuse others who hold different opinions as being on a different "team" or engaging in "team" sports, when the reality is that YOU are the only person who uses the word "team" to describe the discussions regarding religion.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=70949
Yay team!! This isn't a team sport, you know.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=90704
Some see it as a team sport.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=94636
When I first started posting in this group, the team sport aspect ruled. There were literally posts that would say "SCORE!!" or "One for the team!!"

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=84086
this is not a team sport

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=85908
I'm not interested in teams

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=84946
It's not a team

[pinto]

62. What time's the lynching?

I've got some errands to run tomorrow morning, but my afternoon is open. Clear all day on Saturday.

[Heddi]

66. I quote you when I say "Come on pinto, no one here on DU is lynching cbayer. Step back a bit.

It's a discussion, not a trial. For anyone involved"


If Cbayer can repeatedly accuse atheists of participating in "team sports," then I have a right to ask why she's seemingly the only person obsessed with teams, instead of discussion.

She's the only person in this forum that routinely puts other posters into camps and teams of them vs us. No one else but her.

Why?

And why can't she be held to the same standards of "explain yourself" like she asks of so many others?

This isn't a lynching. Or bullying, or stalking or harassing or any of those other words that are completely inappropriate to use in this setting. It's a discussion forum, but only one person here feels that they are above reproach and have no need to answer the type of questions they routinely ask of others.

[pinto]

67. LOL. I said -

Come on trotsky, no one here on DU is equating you with Phelps. Step back a bit. It's a discussion, not a trial. For anyone involved.

Members don't have any say on what you are allowed to ask. I guess comments that bring up community standards issues are a point. Yet those go to an anonymous, randomly called member jury for review. And hopefully are reviewed objectively. Few posts are juried here, from what I've seen.

I appreciate the discussions. Follow them a lot. Don't post much. And I'm leery of stepping in to a long series of back and forth.

(Which I've just done, duh.) Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I think we both made our points. I'm good with that.

It was about my discussion with trotsky. Not cbayer or anyone else. He made some points as did I. All good. If you have an issue with cbayer take it up with her. No one speaks for her, trotsky, pinto or Heddi.

We all speak for ourselves. And, imho, this sort of personalizing a discussion is toxic. Does no one well. Nor does it promote discussion here.

Statement of Purpose

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

[trotsky]

68. LOL

If you have an issue with cbayer take it up with her. No one speaks for her, trotsky, pinto or Heddi.

She did take it up with cbayer. You interjected. Let cbayer speak for herself. Step back a bit, pinto. Follow your own advice.

[pinto]

69. Good point and I will. All here can speak for themselves.

[trotsky]

70. It's a page out of the Republican/FAUX playbook, and it's pathetic to see it here.

"Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth."

Problem is, the average DUer is smarter than the average FAUX viewer, so no one is buying it. Good job documenting, Heddi.

[cleanhippie]

53. +1000000000000000.

Awesome post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Imagine if everyone actually accepted no one is in the position to claim that they hold the truth

Take another question about a fundamental aspect of existence: are there 11 or 26 dimensions? This is a question that most of us will never have the faintest chance of understanding a debate about, let alone of deciding on a conclusion. We have no idea what the implications are. We really are agnostic about it.

And so the result is that we never discuss it. We take no side, and we don't offer any further alternatives. We see no reason to consider it. If everyone were truly agnostic about the existence of a god or gods, it would be the end of all religion. The rabbi would be out of a job. HuffPost wouldn't have a religion section, this group wouldn't exist, and no-one would have books of scripture, or believe in resurrections, reincarnation, heavens, or supernatural punishment, because those would be taking a stance. We'd get on with life, just as we get on without debating the number of dimensions. We'd "stop worrying and enjoy our life", as a bus slogan once put it.

I urge everyone to do this.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. Right on. Great post n/t

[trotsky]

73. Well put as usual, m_v. n/t

[cbayer]

74. What an interesting way to think about this.

If everyone agreed that no one really knew, there could be a significant reduction in conflict.

It's embracing the notion that I've got it and everyone else is wrong that causes the strife.

But in light of the rise of organized atheist/secular organizations and "churches", I would argue that we would soon develop new "rabbis" and a section on Huffpost called something else.

In your example about string theory, you bring in something that some people will feel they have some expertise in and, therefore, the right to discuss. This would spread, imo.

In the end, Muriel, you make the argument for atheism, not agnosticism. Your urging everyone to do this is similar to proselytizing, no? You are essentially embracing the the notion that you have got it and everyone should be like you.

It could be said that you countered your own argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. My point is that if nearly everyone agrees they can't know about a subject, they drop it

And if absolutely everyone thought that way, as you urge, then we would all drop it. Religion would become a non-subject. Yes, a few people are well versed in mathematics and physics, and can follow and make the arguments about dimensions. But the vast majority of us will never understand it, and we'll never care. And if everyone admitted we'd all never understand a subject, none of us would care about it.

There is no practical difference between a society completely agnostic about a subject, and a society that has no belief.

" You are essentially embracing the the notion that you have got it and everyone should be like you"

I'm saying you should think your suggestion through to completion.

[cbayer]

78. Then you need a different example than String Theory.

Not everyone agrees that they can't know about that. Some would consider them experts. Others might know a little about it. Anyone of a certain ability could learn something about it. If you wanted to know more about it, you would seek out those who do understand.

Doesn't that sound something like religion? The difference between string theory and religion is exactly what you say - people don't really care about string theory. That will never be true of religion, imo.

You really are making the argument for everyone to be an atheist and to agree that there is nothing there to even try and understand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. I'm using string theory to show that people who say "we can't know about this" stop talking about it

That already applies to the vast majority of humans. If, as you suggest, we all took the "we'll never know" viewpoint, whether on string theory or gods, we'd all just ignore the subject.

If you want a different theory that is almost totally ignored, try the extreme form of solipsism - that absolutely nothing outside of your own mind (eg DU, me, or your own body) actually exists. This is a philosophical position which says, about anything that appears real to you, "for all you know, you invented that idea in you own existence, which could be completely different from what you imagine is your existence, a moment ago". There is no way of proving or disproving this. But the amount of attention it gets from most people is minuscule. We have no way of showing evidence for it one way or the other, so we ignore it, for our normal lives.

[cbayer]

81. But you love to talk about it, don't you?

So, while in theory your idea might be nice, it's just not close to what is actually happening or likely to happen in the future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. I talk about the effect religions, and religious beliefs, have upon society

I don't talk about solipsism, or similar suggestions such as "we are all in a simulation in what would seem like a computer to us", because no-one I talk to thinks they are the true reality. I talk very little about Hinduism because, although it's the world's third most popular religion, it has very little effect on me.

"just not close to what is actually happening or likely to happen in the future." - well, remember that what I was doing was taking seriously your suggestion that everyone should say they can't know about gods. I agree that it's incredibly unlikely to happen. But it would be highly desirable, because the world it produced would be called 'atheist' by most Americans now.

[cbayer]

83. That's what most people here talk about.

It's also what most articles in the Huffpo religious section are about.

I see very little "There is a God" or "There is no god" here. The only place I see much of that is on sites that claim to have the truth and are written by both believers and non-believers.

I did not say that everyone should say they can't know about gods. I said that no one can say they absolutely know or don't know.

Again, your suggestion seems to be that everyone take your position and that is exemplified by your final statement.

If everyone were just like me, the world would be a better place. I hear that from believers and non-believers.

I don't think that would be desirable at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. We see an awful lot of "there is a god" in the USA

63% completely agree they never doubt the existence of God.

[cbayer]

85. So what?

I think there are reasons to be concerned about this when their beliefs are imposed on government, but to say they are wrong is to pursue the path you are arguing against.

I would rather have this than a government whose monarch is also the head of a specific church and has no 1st amendment that addresses separation issues.

But that's another topic.

I think we agree that discussions about the existence of a god or gods are pretty fruitless and I don't engage in them.

[trotsky]

80. What's there to understand, cbayer?

You've made it perfectly clear that you think no one should be allowed to state their beliefs with any certainty whatsoever. So there can be no understanding, only speculation.

As muriel suggests, you really need to think things through on this. Your thoughts so far are, as the saying goes, a mile wide and an inch deep.

[cleanhippie]

87. Best. Post. Ever.

[immoderate]

26. I feel I should point out we DID meet the Republicans half-way on Obamacare.

And look what that did for us.

I'm also curious about a position that's halfway between believing in god and not believing in god. What does tha look like?

--imm

[cbayer]

27. It could be true agnosticism or apatheism, but I don't think that's his point.

I think the point is that since neither nor believers nor non-believers really have the upper hand here (in terms of truth), the important thing is to recognize that each position is valid in it's own right.

If one takes the position that the other has reached their conclusions based on their own unique experiences and perspective, then it may be possible to live harmoniously and even work together.

It may be possible for an atheist to experience a kind of liberating freedom that a religious believer not only does not know, but can not know. And the same could be said for the converse.

OTOH, if one takes the position that the other is just plain wrong, deluded, in denial, close minded, lacking in morality and all the other things that atheists and theists sometimes throw at each other, it becomes very difficult to have a civil and productive discussion (let alone working relationship).

[immoderate]

28. I can be civil, and work with anybody (if they are.)

But that doesn't present a compromise position on whether there is a god.

--imm

[cbayer]

29. Again, I don't think he is suggesting a compromise position

on whether there is a god.

I think he is suggesting that individuals recognize that other hold a different position and that that position is as valid as your own.

[immoderate]

31. That puts validity up against reality.

It does not make a lot of sense to say "all religious views are equally valid."

Nevertheless, that does not preclude civility.

--imm

[cbayer]

32. Only if you take the position that only atheism represent reality.

Which you really can't say with any certainty, can you?

I think that the premise that all religious views are equally valid, unless they are used to justify harming others, is not an unreasonable position to take.

But I totally agree with you - no matter what your view, it does not have to preclude civility.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. But that seems like judging religious beliefs on how nice they seem to you, not how real they are

We'd agree that a religious belief that homosexuality is 'evil' harms others. But to someone like Phelps, or, it seems, the average Ugandan politician, it is evil, and it harms others, and our acceptance of it harms others. But I'd say that their belief can be dismissed, because it proceeds from a claim about 'God' about whom they have no evidence, just as I'd dismiss it if they had said "I'll throw a die, and if it comes up less than 4, I'll be homophobic - oh, look, it's 3". But if it had been a 5, and they'd decided to be non-discriminatory, it wouldn't make make it a 'valid view'; and neither is it a valid view just because someone says "God says love your neighbour, and that means everyone".

[cbayer]

75. I don't disagree with that.

What is wrong with judging them based on how nice they seem to me?

If someone's religious beliefs promote civil rights, social justice and leads to taking care of those most in need, I'm for that.

If someone's religious beliefs lead to intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, hatred, I'm not for that.

I feel the same about someone's lack of beliefs.

Why is that a problem?

I'm certainly not in a position to make a determination as to whether they are "real" or not, nor do I care to.

[uriel1972]

49. Just one point...

Question Zero.1: Is there a God?
Question Zero.2: What is your evidence?
These must be answered before you can discuss the nature of God, the true nature of religion and faith as anything but daydream hypothetical.

[trotsky]

51. We aren't allowed to ask those questions.

To do so is to proclaim yourself to be an extremist atheist and according to the article in the OP (and in the opinion of several people on this thread), be deemed unworthy of interaction. By asking those questions we are just as bad as the Fred Phelpses of the world.

[Act_of_Reparation]

55. "Extremist Atheists"

That part of the article got my goat, too. I didn't bring it up because the myriad other fails were so much more glaring, but that kind of shameless well-poisoning pisses me off.

Extremist theists kill innocent people for no reason, and want to subjugate any and all to their nonsensical worldview. Extremist atheists ask uncomfortable questions.

With that kind of knack for drawing false equivalencies, this guy could get a job sitting in for David Gregory.

[pinto]

56. Come on trotsky, no one here on DU is equating you with Phelps. Step back a bit. It's a discussion,

not a trial. For anyone involved.

Members don't have any say on what you are allowed to ask. I guess comments that bring up community standards issues are a point. Yet those go to an anonymous, randomly called member jury for review. And hopefully are reviewed objectively. Few posts are juried here, from what I've seen.

I appreciate the discussions. Follow them a lot. Don't post much. And I'm leery of stepping in to a long series of back and forth.

(Which I've just done, duh.) Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I think we both made our points. I'm good with that.

[trotsky]

58. Oh, I'm pretty sure there are some who would beg to differ.

I would invite you to engage and lecture cbayer, who has made hurtful claims that those of us who question and challenge religious beliefs are "carrying water for Republicans" by working to divide Democrats. In an anonymous Internet discussion group designated for discussing religious beliefs (and the lack thereof)!

That to me is a pretty nasty accusation, yet she stands by it to this day. Tell me what I'm supposed to think, then, when instead of defending or justifying her attacks (which she again did in this thread), she just stops responding to requests to do so.

[cbayer]

57. I someone answers thusly:

"I believe there is a God. I have no evidence to support that there is a God, just my belief."

how does that preclude any discussion of the nature of God, religion or faith.

If anything, it would seem to make the discussion even more interesting.

If you feel you can only discuss things for which you have evidence, you have limited yourself greatly, haven't you?

All scientific hypotheses start out without evidence. Does that mean they are nothing but daydreams? That they don't merit discussion?

[uriel1972]

59. Hmm... Yes without evidence any theory is hypothetical...

Without evidence, evolution was hypothetical, without evidence nuclear physics is hypothetical and so on. Until there is evidence any discussion is into the true nature of religion, faith and God is hamstrung.

We can discuss the nature of religion, faith and God until the cow comes home, but we will get no closer to the truth of the matter as long as there is no evidence. May as well discuss the true nature of faeries at the bottom of the garden, it will be as fruitful.

[cbayer]

60. I agree about the futility in trying to resolve the fundamental questions, but

the questions of why some are religious and some aren't, what faith means to different people and how it impacts their lives or what role religion plays on both individual and larger scales are questions that can be answered to some extent.

And, imho, they are issues worth discussing.

Religion is a powerful force that has been around for a very long time. Understanding it could be very useful.

And one can't understand either belief or lack of belief unless one is willing to listen to and try to understand those that hold those POV's.

If one rejects them because one simply disagrees, you are unlikely to learn anything.

[uriel1972]

71. To some extent...

As I said the discussion is hamstrung. You can discuss what religion, faith and God means to people, but not their true nature. The true nature of religion, faith and God are entirely different if God exists or not.

[cbayer]

76. I think we totally agree.

[dimbear]

63. The purpose of Scientology is remarkably well documented. Use imagination for other religions:

(All quotes from L Ron Hubbard)

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

Response to a question from the audience during a meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association on (7 November 1948), as quoted in a 1994 affidavit by Sam Moskowitz.
This statement is similar or identical to several statements Hubbard is reported to have made to various individuals or groups in the 1940s. Variants include:
The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall — but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"
L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd A. Eshbach, in 1949; as quoted by Eshbach in his autobiography Over My Shoulder: Reflections On A Science Fiction Era (1983) ISBN 1-880418-11-8
Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!
As reported to Mike Jittlov by Theodore Sturgeon as a statement Hubbard made while at the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society clubhouse in the 1940s.
Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.
As quoted in the Los Angeles Times (27 August 1978)
Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion.
As quoted in the article "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult" by Eugene H. Methvin. Reader's Digest (May 1980)
I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money — he used to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult.
Sam Merwin, Editor of Thrilling Science Fiction magazine Winter of 1946-47; quoted in Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard (1987) by Russell Miller
...................and so on. All stolen from Wikiquotes.

It would be so so revealing to have similar admissions from Joseph Smith.

Think human nature has changed much in the last couple of thousand years? I doubt it.

[gopiscrap]

86. interesting