quote:

---

I feel like the goalposts have moved somewhere in this thread. Dawkins et al. do not argue for the end of institutionalized religion. They argue explicitly for an eradication of all religion, of faith in God, of beliefs precipitated by religion, full stop. (Incidentally, it's difficult not to see the Protestant legacy at work here.)

I think the Pope is evil, and I don't even believe in evil. I think the Dalai Lama when he speaks of politics is highly suspect. When people in power abuse the name of God for untoward political ends, I am disgusted--exactly as I am disgusted when people in power abuse concepts of nationhood, solidarity, family, free speech, multiculturalism, and any number of tenets of Western liberal democracy. If Dawkins, and you, unionist, could join me in my disgust, then we could be allies. We are, aren't we?

---

I do not share the views of Dawkins et al that religion is the root of all evil. In saying so, he and others not only threaten freedom of conscience, but more importantly, whitewash the role of imperialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and other structural ills which frequently use and rely upon religion for their perpetuation, but are not grounded in religion.

Religion is often an accomplice, but it is not the cause of the world's ills.

As I have said, many times, religion as a private belief is of no concern to society, and the freedom to believe and practise is and must be guaranteed in any democracy. Likewise, the freedom not to believe and to advocate against it. Having said that, in a democracy, public institutions, education, etc. must be strictly secular. Religion may be studied like other human phenomena, but it must never be advocated, nor can citizens, youth etc. be subject to any civil divisions whatsoever on the basis of their faith or lack of such.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I do not share the views of Dawkins et al that religion is the root of all evil.

---

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To this day, any serious study of religion needs to address at least two key questions:

1) finding the real roots of one or another religious belief or ritual as one of the main goals in studying the history of religion;

2) uncovering how religion has influences and continues to influence art, knowledge, morals, law, social affairs, economics and politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Neither does Dawkins.

---

I realize that, M. Spector, but would you not agree that people like Harris and Hitchens tend to veer to Islamophobia, besides (most glaringly in Hitchens' case) blaming Islam rather than imperialism for various critical situations in the world?

I couldn't finish the Harris book.

.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

As for religion, anyone who lets their science or politics or engineering or cooking or childrearing be dictated by their religious beliefs is headed down the quick slope to catastrophe.

---

quote:

---

Religion…has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is “Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!” If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says “I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday”, you say, “Fine, I respect that.”
…

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy?
….

Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be. - Douglas Adams

---

But that is not the same thing as opting not to use electricity on Saturday, is it? We all have a way of speaking with ourselves, of engaging with the metaphysical. Some people pray, some meditate, some go on hikes, some listen to Aerosmith. In that sense, religion is a metaphysical language, a set of codes for communicating with the self, with immanence. This is surely holy, but what do you want to say about it? There's nothing there to say or not say. It simply is.

Evidently in liu of a substantive arguement that undermines the whole thesis you feel the need to assert the superiority of your own chosen creed by smug derrision which you authorize by appeals to the scientific in detail, when compared to the ignorance of many believing people. This is no more than what a foolish bully does when he substantiates his own self worth by triping up a blind person walking down the street.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

No this is not about freedom of speech. This is about various friends and allies asking you to be more civil in your tone, and you rejecting that appeal.

When I asked that you not compare some believers to "pond scum" I was rewarded with a ridiculous exchange of idiotic barf smilies. Sure once and while an off-the-cuff expression, especially when directed at anti-evolutionists, is fine with me but a campaign of ridicule hardly qualifies as debate.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

My second post is directed at your assertion that I am being derrisive, and that this derrision is unwarranted. This derrision is located in the greater dialogue that Spector re-introduced into this thread.

There is nothing in your first post that is particularly offensive, I think. It is perfectly legitimate. If your appeal to me to turn over a new leaf is also a reconsideration of the approach you have been taking toward this subject as of late, then I certainly would oblige.

But is it such a reconsideration?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Any response to the comments I've made in this thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...I am asking that such discussion go forward with more sensitivity to the personal feelings and attachements that some people find important as part of the makeup of their personal identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
My feelings get hurt almost every day by crap that gets posted on babble - political viewpoints that challenge some of the core beliefs that make up a large part of my personal identity. I get no protection from that, nor do I ask for any. Why should religious beliefs be accorded any greater deference?

---

Perhaps so Spector. But you are not, as far as I can tell, part of a an identifiable minority that is directly under attack, being harassed by various police forces, arrested and detained on security certificates and vilified in the press on a daily basis. Or perhaps you would like to offer me up a list of so-called "evangelical rationalist" doing time at the tax-payers expense.

For you this is relatively safe intellectual exercise, but for Muslim people saying the wrong thing on the internet, can in fact, and has been be part of "evidence" collected as part of establishing their "terrorist" sympathies, if not directly used as an example of organizing illegal conspiracies.

In comparison your complaint is supercilious and reeks of assumed privilege. Even as an intellectual excersize this is certainly not a level playing field.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Millions of my comrades have been persecuted and exterminated for their beliefs.

You have no right to tell me how sensitive I'm entitled to be about the things I believe in.

In fact, communists are rather being politcally rehabilitated for use as a tool against the new enemy: Islam.

One of the fascinating things about privilege is that it often expressess itself as an outraged cry against opression, when the fundamental right of that privilege is questioned, or when the advantage that privilege provides is pointed out. Again, name the communists languishing in jail in this country, today, because they are communists.

PS: Sorry to hurt your "feelings."

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Cueball: Old hat. No one is rounding up Communists today.

---

You're quite mistaken about that.

Communist Youth Union Dissolved by Czech State

quote:

---

from 2006: The Communist Youth Union (KSM) in the Czech Republic has been "officially dissolved" by the government. As reported in previous issues of People's Voice, the Czech state has been moving towards this step for some time. The KSM is one of the largest youth organizations in the Czech Republic. It is allied with the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM), the third-largest political party in the country....

Across Europe, there is a growing atmosphere of anti-communist witch-hunts and campaigns, including calls for the criminalization of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia.

---

Here's the latest:

quote:

---

On March 19, the trial to determine the legal status of the Czech Communist Youth Union (KSM) began. It ended a day later with the courts upholding an October 2006 decision to ban the organization by the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic.

---

Communist Youth lose appeal.

Communists are illegal in the Czech Republic. How's them apples?

more details here ...

The Czech Communists were instrumental in stopping the establishment of yet another US military base. Payback? Probably. OTOH, the tiny Communist Party in Canada isn't worth making illegal. Let them defy the odds and get bigger, then it's a different story ...

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Cueball: What happens in one country influences another. I'm reminding you of something you already know very well.

In any case, trivializing anti-communism, of the new variety or of the old variety, in no way helps your point that Muslims are specially victimized in today's circumstances.

---

Absolutely it does when communists are trivializing the direct threat to Muslim people posed by the state security aparatus and powerful media institutions that manage public opinion.

I hate to say it, and I don't mean to hurt Spectors feelings any more than is necessary, but he and his creed simply do not pose a real or percieved threat to status quo. Perhaps if communists were to more actively engage the political discourse toward the end of protecting marginalized people, rather than shunning them and denigrating their beliefs, they might be more relevant than they are.

As it is, "some comrades", seem intent on maintaining their position of irrelevant safety.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

unionist, I have nothing to say to your response to my post in the previous thread. In fact, it's quite consonant with my own views. I avoided commenting because frankly, I have no idea how to respond to the polarity and antagonism popping up in these threads, and sometimes I just shy away from comment.

The only thing I might comment on is that the wider enlightenment project to move myth to the margins of society, or to the private sphere (also a continuation of the reformation) is itself historically based. I have a suspicion, rooted in Marxist thought, that by taking metaphysics out of public life, we further the reification strategy of capitalism. I don't know how to respond to this thought, because I certainly don't want to advocate ushering religious teaching back into schools and government, for obvious reasons. But I can't help but suspect that something of the radical secularization project (especially when it comes from the worst kind of liberals, Richard Rorty and Christopher Hitchens) is intrinsically connected to global capitalism.

There is something suspicious about the commercial "atheist niche" that John Gray cynically alludes to.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

I want it to be like bowling. It’s a hobby, something some people will enjoy, that has some virtues to it, that will have its own institutions and its traditions and its own television programming, and that families will enjoy together. It’s not something I want to ban or that should affect hiring and firing decisions, or that interferes with public policy. It will be perfectly harmless as long as we don’t elect our politicians on the basis of their bowling score, or go to war with people who play nine-pin instead of ten-pin, or use folklore about backspin to make decrees about how biology works.

---

quote:

---

I believe the current "boom" in atheist publishing is a consequence of the popular myth that Islam was to blame for 9/11.

---

Rather, I think of Max Weber's words at the end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism:

quote:

---

The Puritan wanted to work in calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production which today determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism, not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt.

Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history. Today the spirit of religious asceticism – whether finally, who knows? – has escaped from the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical foundations, needs its support no longer. The rosy blush of its laughing heir, the Enlightenment, seems also to be irretrievably fading, and the idea of duty in one's calling prowls about in our lives like the ghost of dead religious beliefs. Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all.

---

If Weber wrote it today, he might title his (dull, ponderous, but compelling) book "The Secular Ethic."

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Actually, communists in foreign states have been among the first targets in the capitalist colonial enterprise. Indonesia and Chile spring to mind, but those might be outdated examples. Although I'm still not convinced that political ideology is the same as religious faith. (ETA: Oh, and Beltov provides some nice, more contemporary examples)

---

Ok. I'll give you an example of Communists being rehabilitated in direct support of the war against Islam. I recently went to see a very interesting and engaging movie by an Iranian cartoon animator, Marjane Satrapi. The movie is called Persopolis. This is a really great film and one that I highly recomend anyone go see.

Basicly it is an autobiogrphical account of a young woman coming of age in revolutionary Iran, and her experience of the Iran/Iraq war. It details many of the gross indignities imposed upon her as a woman, and her as a member of a mostly secular communist family. She and her immediate family manage to escape the claws of Islamic repression and the war but also many of her family are arrested and executed. This is an important story, one that has needed to be told for nearly 20 years, in some fashion or another.

But it has not.

I ask, why is it only now, that we are we allowed to see sympathetic and personal accountings of Communists in Iran? Why is now ok to talk about the terror inflicted on the Tudeh movement in Iran? Why now is this kind of postive portrait being funded by major European studios to be met with popular critical acclaim and a raft of awards and major theatrical distribution?

None of this detracts from the movie, the art or the importance of the story that is told, but there are critical questions that need to be asked about how the legacy of the terror inflicted against Communist in Iran is being used as a tool to further vilify Islam and Muslim people, today, when only a short while ago, "the west" did not give a flying fuck about Marjane Satrapi, a fact which clearly comes across in the movie, by the way.

Released by Sony no less

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[tiptoes to the front to pose a general question for anyone listening ... ]

I have a question for "those more militant than me"; among the books by the "new" atheists, has anyone come across an author "finding the real roots of one or another religious belief or ritual" that was new to them or of general interest? (For example, the practice of baptizing in water precedes Christian practice and has a specific meaning and/or origin ... )

---

Example: In the Torah (Exodus 23:19), God commands (in the KJV):

"The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

This simple sentence evolved into the Orthodox Jewish prohibition against eating meat dishes and dairy dishes (milk products) at the same meal - or, depending on the order of consumption and specific items, less than 6 hours apart.

I not only studied such dogma, but certainly my family practised this prohibition. It meant maintaining two entirely separate sets of dishes, and using a tub within the kitchen sink (we couldn't afford those newfangled double sinks) to keep the dishes separate while washing.

Now, even though the original dictum was the word of God, our teachers and rabbis spared no effort to come up with "explanations" of where and why such customs may have originated - hygiene, breaking with pagan rituals, etc. etc. You see, they thought that rational socio-economic historical explanations wouldn't challenge the divine nature of the injunction at all, but rather bolster it and make it meaningful in modern times.

It's sort of like trying to justify why men should wear ties and suit jackets on formal occasions.

I'll stop there, N.Beltov. Is this what you mean? If so, why does it fall to atheism to explain away the apparent absurdity or arbitrariness of religious practices? Surely that job falls to religion - and if the best it can come up with is, "God told me to behave, or else", then that's unconvincing.

If you meant something else, please try again.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Tokarev: By way of illustration, let us take a look at the origin of Christian baptism in water. Of course, one could maintain that belief in the purifying force of water that washes away original sin is based on the actual quality of water to wash away dirt. However we cannot be satisfied with this explanation if for no other reason that this quality of water is known to all people, but only in the Christian religion did new membership take the form of being bathed in or sprinkled with water. Thus it is necessary to seek the direct source of this ritual. When we look deeper we see that the early Christian communities borrowed the ritual from the Near Eastern Mandaen sects, just as they borrowed other rituals from their predecessors. The worship of water among the Mandaens as a purifying force apparently went back to the ancient Babylonian cult of Ea, the god of water. In short, only by examining a long chain of historical ties can we find the original roots of a given ritual.

---

Tokarev also discusses the Judean and Muslim custom of circumcision as a brutal way to prevent young men from violating sexual taboos, and the Christian dogma of immaculate conception as harking back to a time when, in the period of group marriage, the role of a man in the birth of a child was not recognized at all or only poorly understood.

These are but 3 examples of the roots of a religious belief or ritual. My question earlier was simply ... do the new atheists provide any more examples like these ones?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
ElizaQ: Some of the discussion in this thread, and the previous thread, didn't seem to be all that productive. I was simply suggesting a different line of discussion for atheists on this thread.

Finding the real roots of a religious belief or ritual, even if only one at a time, explains religious views by reference to social history rather than theology. That's how atheists should approach religion, at least in part, in my view. However, I expect that much of this has been lost, or erased, forever. The history of religious ideology is a history of book burning, obliteration of contrary views, and so on.

---

quote:

---

unionist: If so, why does it fall to atheism to explain away the apparent absurdity or arbitrariness of religious practices? Surely that job falls to religion - and if the best it can come up with is, "God told me to behave, or else", then that's unconvincing.

---

Why, because atheists shouldn't sit on their asses and let religion rule the roost. There's a battle of ideas going on, didn't you know? Heheh.

That does tend to debunk textual literalists. But that's not much of a challenge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Why, because atheists shouldn't sit on their asses and let religion rule the roost. There's a battle of ideas going on, didn't you know? Heheh.

---

I told you that our religious teachers spared no effort to find "rational" social and historical explanations - i.e. justifications - for seemingly arbitrary customs.

You are saying that atheists should be doing so.

I am telling you that this pursuit is a way of legitimizing religion as having some scientific or cultural merit. Why would we want to lend credence to superstition?

ETA: I crossposted with Ken, and I agree with his comments. I just don't get where you're going with this, N.Beltov.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Some examples might help shed some light on what I mean here. I use Sergei Tokarev's History of Religion as a source for these examples ...

Tokarev also discusses the Judean and Muslim custom of circumcision as a brutal way to prevent young men from violating sexual taboos, and the Christian dogma of immaculate conception as harking back to a time when, in the period of group marriage, the role of a man in the birth of a child was not recognized at all or only poorly understood.

These are but 3 examples of the roots of a religious belief or ritual. My question earlier was simply ... do the new atheists provide any more examples like these ones?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

quote:

---

ElizaQ: Well he's not an atheist ...

---

Heh. Neither am I.

Edited to add - Harpur, however, is not what we would call a "new" atheist", eh?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The importance to atheists should be obvious.

---

Well, call me thick. I see it as legitimizing religion.

Sure, if someone say: "My people don't eat pork because God came down to earth in 1974 and told my grampa not to" - and you can prove that in fact, the eating of pork was discouraged in that region for hundreds of years because of a legendary outbreak of trichinosis - then you can make that person sound dumb, or perhaps gullible.

But religion easily survives such "exposures". It emerges unscathed, as a natural part of the ethos of a people, the lessons of life handed down from forebears, perhaps not perfect but evolving along with its human believers...

My problem with religion is not that it has odd rituals like trying to drown people or telling them they can't have bacon with their eggs.

My problem is twofold:

1. It offers, indeed enforces, anti-scientific explanations for real phenomena.

2. It divides people and justifies racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, cultural supremacism, and war.

Pecking away at the allegedly divine origin of culinary or like customs is not a worthy or useful preoccupation.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

It's not that simple. What writers like Daniel Dennett does, what exposing the real roots of religious practices does, etc., - all of these contribute to the cause.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What writers like Daniel Dennett does, what exposing the real roots of religious practices does, etc., - all of these contribute to the cause.

---

No kidding. Thanks for the advice as to how to defeat religion. If I disagree with your approach, does that mean I'm lazy?

Something happens to your (normally razor-sharp) argumentative skills when you land in a religion thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

No kidding. Thanks for the advice as to how to defeat religion. If I disagree with your approach, does that mean I'm lazy?

Something happens to your (normally razor-sharp) argumentative skills when you land in a religion thread.

That's one of the best arguments against religion I can think of right now.

---

I guess this last foray more or less answers my previous question in the negative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I have no desire for anyone to change their views on religion.

But seeing as it is a particularly contentious issue, especially given the greater context of the vilification of one religious group specifically by very powerful forces, both secular and religious, I am asking that such discussion go forward with more sensitivity to the personal feelings and attachements that some people find important as part of the makeup of their personal identity.

---

No there will be no discussion of this issue which is not redolent with derrision, in place of reason. "Reason" being the supposed cause in which the derrision is doing service.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Jesus, now who's shuttin' people up?

---

Best: refuting the other person's arguments.

Second-best: shutting the other person up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Well, call me thick. I see it as legitimizing religion.

Sure, if someone say: "My people don't eat pork because God came down to earth in 1974 and told my grampa not to" - and you can prove that in fact, the eating of pork was discouraged in that region for hundreds of years because of a legendary outbreak of trichinosis - then you can make that person sound dumb, or perhaps gullible.

But religion easily survives such "exposures". It emerges unscathed, as a natural part of the ethos of a people, the lessons of life handed down from forebears, perhaps not perfect but evolving along with its human believers...

My problem with religion is not that it has odd rituals like trying to drown people or telling them they can't have bacon with their eggs.

My problem is twofold:

1. It offers, indeed enforces, anti-scientific explanations for real phenomena.

2. It divides people and justifies racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, cultural supremacism, and war.

Pecking away at the allegedly divine origin of culinary or like customs is not a worthy or useful preoccupation.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

I've read a couple of your comments on this and forgive me but I still don't understand the connection between exploring the environmental factors of why as your example of stipulation against pork legitimizes religion. Maybe I'm just not reading clearly but how do the rabbis jump from there to it still being justified as a 'God given law' that still should be practiced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Best: refuting the other person's arguments.

Second-best: shutting the other person up.

Sometimes you have to settle for second-best.

---

And what was this then:

quote:

---

Something happens to your (normally razor-sharp) argumentative skills when you land in a religion thread.

That's one of the best arguments against religion I can think of right now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Heh. Neither am I.

Edited to add - Harpur, however, is not what we would call a "new" atheist", eh?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
Maybe I'm just not reading clearly but how do the rabbis jump from there to it still being justified as a 'God given law' that still should be practiced.

---

They're not stupid. Neither they, nor lay people, believe in the literal truth of some rather strange ancient texts, replete with burnt offerings, miracles, ghastly punishments for silly-sounding offences, etc.

So, they modernize; they adapt; they sex up the file; they elaborate trendy explanations for outmoded beliefs, and they all say, "don't take it literally, look to the spirit". And so, they look for a lease on life among ever smarter, more worldly wise, more skeptical youth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Cueball: You have become boring. Please stop following me and harassing me. Thank you.

---

Hey dude. You seemed to be more than happy to intercede where I was directly responding to Spector, right up in this thread. I guess that doesn't come under "following" and "harrassing." That comes under the right to freely expressing ones views.

Not to mention the fact, that my response was a response to your statement about what I said. What is it now? You want the freedom to indict conflict and argue without counter comment?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

You want the freedom to indict conflict and argue without counter comment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You're both fighting dirty and frankly it's rather ugly. There. I've said it.

---

I agree. However, I made this explicit proposition:

quote:

---

I have no desire for anyone to change their views on religion.

But seeing as it is a particularly contentious issue, especially given the greater context of the vilification of one religious group specifically by very powerful forces, both secular and religious, I am asking that such discussion go forward with more sensitivity to the personal feelings and attachements that some people find important as part of the makeup of their personal identity.

---

quote:

---

Well you seem to have climbed down from the demand that everyone "defend Islamic beliefs from being ridiculed." Now you merely want us to avoid hurting each other's personal religious feelings.

My feelings get hurt almost every day by crap that gets posted on babble - political viewpoints that challenge some of the core beliefs that make up a large part of my personal identity. I get no protection from that, nor do I ask for any. Why should religious beliefs be accorded any greater deference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

They're not stupid. Neither they, nor lay people, believe in the literal truth of some rather strange ancient texts, replete with burnt offerings, miracles, ghastly punishments for silly-sounding offences, etc.

So, they modernize; they adapt; they sex up the file; they elaborate trendy explanations for outmoded beliefs, and they all say, "don't take it literally, look to the spirit". And so, they look for a lease on life among ever smarter, more worldly wise, more skeptical youth.

That's what I meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I was going to respond, but M. Spector beat me to it:

---

I wasn't talking to Spector. My request was put to you point blank, as part of a direct exchange between you and I. In fact, I have far less difficulty with Spector's approach, since he at least favours arguement over straight derrision and mockery.

Spectors points are usually substantive. Unlike this:

quote:

---

Something happens to your (normally razor-sharp) argumentative skills when you land in a religion thread.

That's one of the best arguments against religion I can think of right now.

---

Which is as I said, and insult dressed up in rhetoric.

No. Really what happened is you ducked. Fine by me. Those are the ground rules, and you set them.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

I can get that in a general sense, but beyond getting into a discussion about the 'spirit' of things in a general and overarching way, what is the the specific 'spirit' that they say is inherent in the stipulation against eating certain things like pork?

---

I don't think you're getting it. Not eating pork is stupid. It's arbitrary. So, they find a "logical" explanation, like: It was difficult in quasi-desert conditions without modern refrigeration techniques to keep pork free from contamination. God reveals this prohibition to Moses and through him to the children of Israel, not with scientific detail which the people wouldn't understand, but merely as a test of their faith - and by providing for their health, he concretizes His love for them. So, what appears as an irrational prohibition is in actual fact a sensible public health measure millennia ahead of its time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't think you're getting it. Not eating pork is stupid. It's arbitrary. So, they find a "logical" explanation, like: It was difficult in quasi-desert conditions without modern refrigeration techniques to keep pork free from contamination. God reveals this prohibition to Moses and through him to the children of Israel, not with scientific detail which the people wouldn't understand, but merely as a test of their faith - and by providing for their health, he concretizes His love for them. So, what appears as an irrational prohibition is in actual fact a sensible public health measure millennia ahead of its time.

They're a dime a dozen.

---

Yeah, that's one way of doing it. Then there's the Mary Douglas approach that talks about things that "don't fit" the classification system and are therefore dangerous and impure. Another way is more social and political and talks about social cohesion and pork in the social and economic context. I can't go into any more detail because I've never studied the pork issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Yeah, that's one way of doing it. Then there's the Mary Douglas approach that talks about things that "don't fit" the classification system and are therefore dangerous and impure. Another way is more social and political and talks about social cohesion and pork in the social and economic context. I can't go into any more detail because I've never studied the pork issue.

But I don't think explanations of this kind necessarily (or even usually) justify a religious belief or practice. Sometimes, they make a pretty powerful case that the practice is not only irrational but immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

What is immoral about not eating pork?

---

I can't address the pork question. Probably nothing. (I'm a vegetarian ) But other beliefs and practices can come out of this kind of analysis quite badly.

I had other things in mind - not the pork prohibition, of which I know little.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
But I don't think explanations of this kind necessarily (or even usually) justify a religious belief or practice. Sometimes, they make a pretty powerful case that the practice is not only irrational but immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Oh, I totally agree. When I said that religion tries to find new explanations for old superstitions, I never meant to imply that it was successful. But it doesn't stop them from trying. Look at Margaret Somerville's alleged "pro-children" explications of all the Roman Catholic abominations, from anti-choice to homophobia.

---

This time, it is "how much pork in a barrel?"

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

I was trying to get back to Beltov's point about these kinds of arguments.

---

I understand. I do not agree with Beltov's point, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Is there an example of a religious practice which appears virtuous and holy, but after socio-historical analysis, is shown to be immoral?

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

A convincing explanation, for example, an explanation of some belief or practice as legitimating some social structure, can radically alter your perceptions of not only of that belief or practice but of others.

I have seen these things draw blood. And some of it has been mine!

---

Sure, but what comes first the chicken or the egg, is the religious institution generating the social constructed moral universe or is the religious institution reflecting the socially constructed moral universe?

What about:

quote:

---

originally posted by Coyote:
Like all human institutions - the state, the family, etc. - religion will always be contested space, where the dominant strata will seek to impose their will; but as in all other human institutions there will be challenges to that dominant strata. In some locales those who resist the dominant ideology will be succesful; in others, they will fail; in others, there will be small gains and small losses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

A convincing explanation, for example, an explanation of some belief or practice as legitimating some social structure, can radically alter your perceptions of not only of that belief or practice but of others.

I have seen these things draw blood. And some of it has been mine!

---

All right, one more comment:

Yes, I agree! That's exactly what I'm talking about - showing people the consequences for life today of religious precepts. How Catholic prohibition of divorce perpetuates patriarchy. How the doctrine of "ours is the one true faith" perpetuates hatred and justifies wars. How "saving souls" justifies and facilitates colonial conquest and cultural annihilation. How God's "promises" to the Israelites are used to justify aggression, occupation, and dehumanization. How the creation myths are used to attack scientific education and give the preachers a toehold in education - which by rights they should have lost during the Industrial Revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
By the way, Cueball, I just wanted to mention that you got unionist's remark, addressed to me, all wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

When a religion puts so much emphasis on their rituals and beliefs then it seems just sensible to investigate this stuff to the nth degree.

---

I don't have any trouble myself with the idea that washing rituals, for example, or meal rituals have pre-Christian roots. I don't know if a lot of people would. But if the resurrection story turned out to be "derivative", that would be a different matter.
(A lot of this would depend on how you interpreted the resurrection story - I don't think it's about "renewal" or the cycle of death and life or anything like that.)

The kinds of arguments that have influenced me strongly are explanations of religious beliefs and practices as legitimating certain social arrangements or practices. And maybe other sorts of arguments, too - more "cultural" than "political", perhaps. (What I'd call "conceptual scheme" arguments.)

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

unionist: But explaining some 2000-year-old ritual by showing where it originated and how it was used at the time - why, except for anthropologists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
By the way, Cueball, I just wanted to mention that you got unionist's remark, addressed to me, all wrong. It wasn't an insult dressed up in rhetoric. It was a disagreement dressed up as a compliment. It was a 3 dressed up as a 9.

Heheh heh he.

---

Well, turning the other cheek is a Christian failing I can accept, however, I am not bound by such admonishments.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

The kinds of arguments that have influenced my strongly are explanations of religious beliefs and practices as legitimating certain social arrangements or practices. And other sorts of arguments, too - more "cultural" than "political", perhaps.

---

Again what about this...

quote:

---

originally posted by Coyote:
Like all human institutions - the state, the family, etc. - religion will always be contested space, where the dominant strata will seek to impose their will; but as in all other human institutions there will be challenges to that dominant strata. In some locales those who resist the dominant ideology will be succesful; in others, they will fail; in others, there will be small gains and small losses.

---

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Well, if membership in the particular church or religion turns on this or that belief, this or that ritual or practice, ...

---

Because it doesn't. Because you're wrong. Because people's religions are inherited from their parents, in case you hadn't noticed, except for the tiny minority who go searching around, or the social cataclysms where one culture conquers and crushes another. People don't go around saying, "oh, they get to drink the wine during communion, as opposed to just the priest - that's the church I've been looking for!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It's a waste of time and energy to debunk these things.

---

ETA: I'm boycotting those Olympics.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't think you're getting it. Not eating pork is stupid. It's arbitrary. So, they find a "logical" explanation, like: It was difficult in quasi-desert conditions without modern refrigeration techniques to keep pork free from contamination. God reveals this prohibition to Moses and through him to the children of Israel, not with scientific detail which the people wouldn't understand, but merely as a test of their faith - and by providing for their health, he concretizes His love for them. So, what appears as an irrational prohibition is in actual fact a sensible public health measure millennia ahead of its time.

They're a dime a dozen.

---

As far for understanding that's why I'm asking questions. I totally get the initial health and environmental explanation part. There was also possibly another factor that pigs need a lot of water resources to raise. I wrote a paper on it years and years ago in an ecological anthropology class. There are many other examples of not just Jewish things that were likely no more then environmental in origin, that for the context of the time and region made sense and got elevated into something holy and religious. The same pattern happens with secular social beliefs as well. Something about human nature in this imo.

My question was directly about the jump to modern times as to why something that likely was good public health measure as well as generally good environmentally for the time which is not necessarily the case now would still be warranted in a theological sense, which you seemed to have answered here. I'm not trying to justify it one way or another, just asking for the modern reasoning so I can better understand it.

As I said before, in my experience I've actually seen such explanations as having quite the opposite effect with people in their 'religious' life. Whether it was "God" who said it as an expression of love or just simply a cultural thing that morphed into coming from "God" it's becomes something that was part of that time and simply not relevant now. So I suppose then it really depends on the person or people listening to it now.

[This is a little like dodging a peashooter.]

ElizaQ, that's an example, there are lots like that. Please understand that the Jewish approach to biblical texts is a lot less "spiritual" than the Protestant approach to the Gospels. So perhaps I left a wrong nuance by using the word "spirit". For us Jews, even spirit is quite material. Jesus emphasized faith over works, as his counterpoint to the Jewish orthodoxy of the time. Jews don't negate faith, but its role is far lower on the salvation totem pole. Learning, faith, and deeds are the keys to heaven.

Again what about this ...

quote:

---

originally posted by Coyote:
Like all human institutions - the state, the family, etc. - religion will always be contested space, where the dominant strata will seek to impose their will; but as in all other human institutions there will be challenges to that dominant strata. In some locales those who resist the dominant ideology will be succesful; in others, they will fail; in others, there will be small gains and small losses.

---

Not having seen the Coyote quote in context, I can't be sure of its meaning but I probably agree with it, more or less. I think religion is almost always a legitimation of social arrangements and projects. But sometimes it's a fierce critic; sometimes it advocates a different world. My beliefs are pinned on those times.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
Originally posted by cueball:

Not having seen the Coyote quote in context, I can't be sure of its meaning but I probably agree with it, more or less. I think religion is almost always a legitimation of social arrangements and projects. But sometimes it's a fierce critic; sometimes it advocates a different world. My beliefs are pinned on those times.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

---

It can be reviewed in the last thread, in full. Not much more to it than that, but it was a good point.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

That's not really consistent with a more moderated approach to religion that Cue has been defending here.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

I would for example point to the rather peculiar convolutions that resulted in the creation of modern Turkey as an example of this process. Much of the state structure was modified from within. Much of the English "revolution" seems in hindsight to have been evolutionary, and also managed by forces already existent in the state, and among the elite.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

Not trying to shoot anything here.

---

quote:

---

Cueball: Well, I am not really a state smasher type.

---

It was more of a question if you were a "fundamental change" type.

quote:

---

Cuball: I would for example point to the rather peculiar convolutions that resulted in the creation of modern Turkey as an example of this process. Much of the state structure was modified from within.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

All right, one more comment:

Yes, I agree! That's exactly what I'm talking about - showing people the consequences for life today of religious precepts. How Catholic prohibition of divorce perpetuates patriarchy. How the doctrine of "ours is the one true faith" perpetuates hatred and justifies wars. How "saving souls" justifies and facilitates colonial conquest and cultural annihilation. How God's "promises" to the Israelites are used to justify aggression, occupation, and dehumanization. How the creation myths are used to attack scientific education and give the preachers a toehold in education - which by rights they should have lost during the Industrial Revolution.

But explaining some 2000-year-old ritual by showing where it originated and how it was used at the time - why, except for anthropologists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

In some cases questioning the small things can lead to questioning or at least being more open to questioning the bigger things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You know, it would be kind of an interesting study to survey everyone who has contributed to this thread and ask them: "How many people have you convinced to change their fundamental views on religion?"

I suspect that we'd get back to Engels' and Cueball's argument that it's a secondary concern in a big hurry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You know, it would be kind of an interesting study to survey everyone who has contributed to this thread and ask them: "How many people have you convinced to change their fundamental views on religion?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You know, it would be kind of an interesting study to survey everyone who has contributed to this thread and ask them: "How many people have you convinced to change their fundamental views on religion?"

I suspect that we'd get back to Engels' and Cueball's argument that it's a secondary concern in a big hurry.

---

Turns out I was right on that.

Speaking of "state smashing" that is another thing that is so fascinating about that bit from Engels Anti-Durhing, I like to quote:

quote:

---

Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life. Wherever we turn, we find specifically Prussian socialism.

---

Remind was quite right to point out that Engels is really not specific on what the "social act" was to be. Where is the "state smashing" here? I find the way the "material" condition is presented as so fundamental to defining the human conceptions of the world really fascinating, because it implies a motivational conundrum.

Myself, I think, if materialists are going to argue that religion is definintive, they naturally have to drop the purely materialist conception presented here by Engels, and start analysing how ideas have agency in the discourse. But then that would require abandoning a purely materialist method, and then as a consequence, remobilize the metaphyscial forces they seek to squelch.

Its a toughie no doubt.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I'm just sayin' ...

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
unionist: Well, it just makes sense to understand what it takes for people to change their views. I mean, if we discovered that rational arguments didn't count for shit, and that other factors were more important, then, wouldn't we downplay rational arguments in favor of some other, more effective approach?

---

quote:

---

Cueball: Remind was quite right to point out that Engels is really not specific on what the "social act" was to be. Where is the "state smashing" here?

---

If Engels wrote after Marx's analysis of the Paris Commune, in which Marx came to the conclusion that the working class couldn't simply "take control" of the old, bourgeois state apparatus but had to, rather, "smash" it and create a new state, then I think he just assumed the conclusions of his friend without actually spelling them out.

quote:

---

Cueball: Myself, I think, if materialists are going to argue that religion is definitive, they naturally have to drop the purely materialist conception presented here by Engels, and start analyzing how ideas have agency in the discourse. But then that would require abandoning a purely materialist method, and then as a consequence, remobilize the metaphysical forces they seek to squelch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

That's a pretty rigid version of materialism there. I don't think that's a fair representation of the mature views of Marx and Engels.

---

On the face of it, religion did not just wither away, nor is it any less present today, regardless of the appearance of rationalism.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

unionist: Arguing over the Scriptures.

---

Those guys were some of the most outstanding philosophical materialists in history. Their views are still worth looking at. So are the views of my own personal hero, Georgi Plekhanov, who rejected a mechanistic or economic deterministic Marxism and could write about French sculpture, painting and literature with the same skillfulness as he could write about the development of capitalism in Russia, the history of philosophy, or the revolutionary democrats. ETA: read the Wikipedia write-up on Plekhanov, most of which I wrote.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Those guys were some of the most outstanding philosophical materialists in history. Their views are still worth looking at. So are the views of my own personal hero, Georgi Plekhanov, who rejected a mechanistic or economic deterministic Marxism and could write about French sculpture, painting and literature with the same skillfulness as he could write about the development of capitalism in Russia, the history of philosophy, or the revolutionary democrats. ETA: read the Wikipedia write-up on Plekhanov, most of which I wrote.

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Cueball: Well that warrants some ball scratching that is for sure, but still a more detailed outline of his philosophical point of view would be useful in that article. It is mostly historical, and could be filled out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I've said this before - and I'm open to being convinced - but I really need at least one convincing example of what you mean. I've tried to give several examples of how I approach the effects of religion (as contrasted with its origins).

---

I'll give you an example. First though please not that I'm not saying that your approach is inherently wrong, just different. Also to state I am what you would consider 'religious' I have beliefs but that I am quite critical when not looking at my own beliefs but also of the consequences of certains beliefs examples of which you laid out in the previous post. I also don't have any problem whatsoever in considering other peoples including atheiests viewpoint. Read a lot of them.

Anyways for this example this person was quite dogmatic and literalist in many of their beliefs. Namely that homosexuality was wrong because God said so in the texts. Something that I believe is totally and absolutely wrong. This example took place over a period of time during a bible study.
The way I see it is there are several approaches one can take depending on how the person reads the texts. Pyschology is involved, critical thinking skills are involved etc etc. In this case there wasn't even any point in addressing the texts in question directly or even the 'consequences' directly. It was just to big and to engrained.
It was just me involved so I will use 'we'. The process started with discussion about small things, like food and other prohibitions. Things that this person already didn't have a problem with. Instead of using the argument 'Well the bible says you should be doing this and this, why don't you follow all of things things but choose to follow these things?' That's a common and imo quite a sensible argument/question for most people. Instead we talked about the reasons why these things might have been said and yes we used the example of pork among many other things.

During those discussions the whole concept of the social context of the times being talked about and history had the ability to be introduced in a very 'safe' way.

Without getting into great detail, I'd have to write an essay things went from there and very slowly larger issues were addressed within the same sort of context and way of discussion. It didn't happen overnight by any means but in the end we broached some of the really big stuff. You could actually see the person struggling as it went. When the topic of homosexuality came up it was looked at it in the same way that we had been looking at everything else. You could tell it was very upsetting to this person...hit the nerve so to speak. Well after that session, this person didn't show up for several weeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Rosa, if you've been following the discussion that Cue and I have been having, you'd see that the best analysis of religion includes both an historical approach to religion - which I have tried to draw attention to in this thread - as well as an approach that takes account of the relative independence of something like religion ( or art,etc.).

---

That's kind of my position (speaking as a marxist and a christian)

There's a remark Gramsci made that I can't locate right now - something to the effect that anyone who thinks the Trinitarian controversies in the early church - the arguments over 'homoousious' versus 'homoiousious' - had an economic basis is out of his (or possibly her) mind!

But I'm still working on all this, obviously ....

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

[ 27 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:

I'll give you an example. First though please not that I'm not saying that your approach is inherently wrong, just different.

[SNIP]

It's only one approach but I just don't think that it's fair to say that it's completely worthless and not useful.

---

Good for you! Just wanted you to know that I read through all this, and while I don't have a lot to say on this point, except to say it sounds like you are engaged in some very positive work in your community.

Just thought I'd post, since writing long personal posts like that can be frustrating, especially when you think no one is reading them.