If this bloke was The Pope, I'd be a Catholic!

[The Atheist]

Marvellous stuff - given whilst debating a bloke named Sam Harris, who is clearly an idiot of the first degree. (Argue that with me elsewhere, if you must)

Quote:

God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust. In Exodus God says, by way of identification, “I am that I am.” It is probably more accurately translated: “I will be what I will be.” God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself. And God is inescapable. It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence. The name of God is laden, thanks to our religious institutions and the numerous tyrants, charlatans and demagogues these institutions produced, with so much baggage and imagery that it is hard for us to see the intent behind the concept. All societies and cultures have struggled to give words to describe these forces. It is why Freud avoided writing about the phenomenon of love.

Whole transcript.


If this is what every christian thought, I'd join up. A 100% sanitised, harmless god-thingy, indistinguishable from Einstein and Dawkins' "merest hint of the possibility of being a miniscule amount of potential" in the concept of an extra-universal-thingy. Not that I'd believe any of it, but it'd be hard to fight against it. More humanist than evangelical.

Coming on the heels of the likes of Bishop Richard Randerson's "Agnostic" essay, I'm wondering whether some of these guys are starting to wake up.

[MelBrooksfan]

I was sort of expecting Clint Eastwood. Lord knows I'd go get confirmed if they made him Pope.

But this guy looks promising, too.

[Apathia]

I love this

Quote:

100% sanitised, harmless god-thingy!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan

I was sort of expecting Clint Eastwood. Lord knows I'd go get confirmed if they made him Pope.

You're just saying that because you want to kiss his ring.

[Soapy Sam]

When I try to follow the OP link, I get this:-
Technical Support

Your request was intercepted by security software which protects the Web site you visited from malicious activity, such as hackers, spam and viruses. We apologize for the inconvenience, but your request matched a profile of suspicious activity. This problem is usually quite easy to fix.
Your computer appears to have sent a request through a proxy server which corrupted the request. Uninstall the proxy server and try again. It is not normally enough to simply disable the proxy server. If you are required to use the proxy server, contact the proxy server administrator for assistance.
This problem may be caused by misconfigured or malfunctioning browser privacy software or personal firewall software. If you use this type of software, turn it off or reconfigure it and try again.
(Example: For Norton Internet Security, you need to disable the Stealth Mode Browsing feature.)

This problem may be caused by viruses or spyware on your computer, or by malicious software that pretends to be anti-virus or anti-spyware software. Ensure that you have REAL anti-virus and anti-spyware software on your computer, that they are kept up-to-date, and that you have run a full system scan using each tool. Once your system is cleaned of viruses and spyware, please try your request again.
The free Google Pack provides trustworthy anti-virus and anti-spyware software. Get essential software with Google Pack.
If the above suggestions fail to resolve the problem, click Back and contact the e-mail address you were given for further assistance.



I don't use proxy servers, unless this refers to my ISP. Any clues?

[l0rca]

This guy sounds like a spiritual atheist...?

Really, I don't understand how what he said is impressive.

Quote:

The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence.

Utter silliness. His suggested inquiry does not come close to representing a symmetrically alternative question, and he's jumping about issues. The question is not if god exists, or what he thinks the question should be: the question is if religion's ideas about god are intellectually bankrupt. And the answer to that is quite simple.

I notice many theologians arguing about ideas of "god" like this against atheists. It's complete stupidity and demonstrates that these men have completely lost touch with what an idea of "god" means. Someone hand him a dictionary! This is what Sam Harris is talking about, when he argues that moderates are providing a buffer for fundamentalists. By switching the issue around -- quite like a thief -- he's giving a non-sequitur argument for others to use and justify their outrageously unequivocal beliefs with. Given, Sam (and Hitchens also it seems) are caught completely off guard by this approach, and hardly realize they're caught in a realm of different definitions. Though I've never thought either of them are particularly intelligent. It's a shame that Dennett isn't around to handle these things. Susan Neiman and Steven Nadler could also wipe the floor with this petty game of switcheroo.

If he wants to bark about this sort of idea of "god," that's fine, but he represents a theologically-contorted version of Christianity so far removed from the religious to render his semantics completely alien to argument. It sounds like an atheist, in debate with this guy, would only find himself arguing over what words mean.

This isn't "Spinoza's god," and honestly, I don't know why he's using the word "god" here at all. He should replace the word with "spirituality".

And give me a break from this rhetoric. Half the crap he's spouting is just pulling heart strings. I almost completely disagree with his spiritual perspective, and I challenge him to rationalize how his ideas, outside of misrepresenting religion, have any sort of empirical grounding. He's pulling poesy out of his ass.

If this guy was the pope, everyone would be confused.

If you guys want to read a similar book worded closely to this, and examining god in such a way, read Truth And Tolerance*. The current pope wrote that one, and the difference between what the books says and what the Pope does excellently shows the difference between what theologians justify as rational faith, and what religious people actually believe.

* http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Toleranc...0396413&sr=8-1

[CapelDodger]

I'd be Catholic if it meant I was Pope. "God has given us the Papacy. Let's enjoy it." (Clement XI, I think, or a Leo, anyhow one of the Medici Popes.) Screw that, give me the Papacy and I'll do what I like with god. Also, and more to the point, the Vatican and a shed-load of patronage. And the Swiss Guard to take hostage. Let's face it, Switzerland's due some trauma, and what true friends does it really have?

'Tis said that Dillinger, when asked by a journalist why he robbed banks, replied "Because that's where the money is". That's the kind of Pope I'd be.

[Solus]

I have nothing intelligent to add as Iorca did so first. I'll merely state that if I was the pope, I'd be catholic.

[MelBrooksfan]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're just saying that because you want to kiss his ring.

I'd feel awfully lucky were I given such an opportunity.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

When I try to follow the OP link, I get this:-
Technical Support


I don't use proxy servers, unless this refers to my ISP. Any clues?

Dunno. I got the link via a christian site and nobody else reports problems. Some geek will know!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by l0rca

If he wants to bark about this sort of idea of "god," that's fine, but he represents a theologically-contorted version of Christianity so far removed from the religious to render his semantics completely alien to argument. It sounds like an atheist, in debate with this guy, would only find himself arguing over what words mean.

Yeah, well that's my point. If this is where they're shifting the goalposts to - and I'm convinced it is, from what I see - they can have it!

Would you even bother arguing against such a pathetically weak god? If they want to continue their altruistic Samaritan status, while believing in a sky-daddy who's nothing but a metaphysical thingy with no power, surely that's an almost ideal result? It's nothing more than John Kehoe on Jesus.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I'd be Catholic if it meant I was Pope.

I have my eye on a perfectly-positioned ex-factory which is crying out to be converted into a place of worship of our Saviour! It would seat about 3000.

I've long considered my oratory skills equal to the task of setting up a church? You can be pope, no worries. I figure 5-600 families, each contributing $50, for $2500 a week. Rent about $800. Nice little earner for a morning's work a week.

[D'rok]

Quote:

God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself.

Pure Hegel. And just as batty.

[l0rca]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, well that's my point. If this is where they're shifting the goalposts to - and I'm convinced it is, from what I see - they can have it!

Would you even bother arguing against such a pathetically weak god? If they want to continue their altruistic Samaritan status, while believing in a sky-daddy who's nothing but a metaphysical thingy with no power, surely that's an almost ideal result? It's nothing more than John Kehoe on Jesus.

Oh, if only.

Like Lacone pointed out, Hegel tried this before; god was a concept of ultimate perfection that we were approaching, using a trinity-like idea of improvement; thesis (father) antithesis (son), synthesis (holy spirit). But Religion doesn't follow this path. For one thing, this conclusion of "god" is not logically implicated at all in any religious text to date. People are raised from the Bible, not some high-end theological institution; they will never buy into the argument, and probably see it as a slight blaspheme of their god. The problem I have is centrally two-fold:

1) His ideas about "god" are still intellectually bankrupt. Theology is just about the silliest thing in the world.
2) Religious people won't conform to this hopeful pseudo-ideal, but will see theological arguments like this as the intellectual justification they need to fashion much more hideous belief systems after.

I don't see people ever coming to terms with his theological ideas. They're not sound ideas in the last, and the sort of doublethink gymnastics required to keep these ideas parallel to accepting one's god is still yet responsible for one of our religious texts is too much for the masses to swallow.

[Beerina]

At one point, this guy says that "faith allows us to trust in human compassion" in the face of a cruel world.

Ummm, Sam Harris' primary point in his recent books is that it's faith that allows humans to be far more cruel than they could possibly be in its absence.

Faith is what lets people blow up a bus of women and children, and feel they're doing the right thing.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Beerina

At one point, this guy says that "faith allows us to trust in human compassion" in the face of a cruel world.

Ummm, Sam Harris' primary point in his recent books is that it's faith that allows humans to be far more cruel than they could possibly be in its absence.

Faith is what lets people blow up a bus of women and children, and feel they're doing the right thing.

Even the fluffy-happy, quasi-theological Hegelian teleological determinism* that this Hedges fellow favours has the same problem. If History is simply the dialectical working out of human perfection and the self-becoming of the Divine on earth, then why not speed this process along with military action?

The Bush administration contains an influential group of true-believers in the Hegelian/Kojevian/Fukuyama End of History doctrine and they are convinced that ideological perfection has been achieved in principle with the American "victory" in the Cold War. All that is left is to actualize that victory in the world of nation-states. This is good for America and the world.

It's like the secular rapture.


*(Sorry 'bout the pretentious verbiage)

[hgc]

Originally Posted by Beerina

At one point, this guy says that "faith allows us to trust in human compassion" in the face of a cruel world.

Ummm, Sam Harris' primary point in his recent books is that it's faith that allows humans to be far more cruel than they could possibly be in its absence.

Faith is what lets people blow up a bus of women and children, and feel they're doing the right thing.

Faith is a multitasker. Get suckered into blowing up a bus; get suckered into opening your tent flap to strangers.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by l0rca

2) Religious people won't conform to this hopeful pseudo-ideal, but will see theological arguments like this as the intellectual justification they need to fashion much more hideous belief systems after.

I think this point is spot on. well done, I0rca.

This definition of god allows is simply an equivocation and gives full permission for people to define this nebulous concept as best they see it, regardless of the actual form it takes.

[D'rok]

I actually agree with some of what the author says here:

Quote:

What he fails to grasp is not simply the meaning of faith—something I will address later—but the supreme importance of the monotheistic traditions in creating the concept of the individual. This individualism—the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe, or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamor of the tribe or the nation—is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths. This sense of individual responsibility is coupled with the constant injunctions in Islam, Judaism and Christianity for a deep altruism. And this laid the foundations for the open society. This individualism is the central doctrine and most important contribution of monotheism. We are enjoined, after all, to love our neighbor, not our tribe. This empowerment of individual conscience is the starting point of the great ethical systems of our civilization. The prophets—and here I would include Jesus—helped institutionalize dissent and criticism. They initiated the separation of powers. They reminded us that culture and society were not the sole prerogative of the powerful, that freedom and indeed the religious life required us to often oppose and defy those in authority. This is a distinctly anti-tribal outlook. Immanuel Kant built his ethics upon this radical individualism. And Kant’s injunction to “always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as mere means” runs in a direct line from the Christian Gospels. Karl Popper rightly pointed out in the first volume of “The Open Society and Its Enemies,” when he writes about this creation of the individual as set against the crowd, that “There is no other thought which has been so powerful in the moral development of man” (P. 102, Vol. 1). These religions set free the critical powers of humankind. They broke with the older Greek and Roman traditions that gods and destiny ruled human fate—a belief that when challenged by Socrates saw him condemned to death. They offered up the possibility that human beings, although limited by circumstances and simple human weaknesses, could shape and give direction to society. And most important, individuals could give direction to their own lives.

I think there is some truth to the idea that Liberal Democracy is in some sense secularized Christianity. But all this really means is that we have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hedges is desperately trying to maintain his tenuous grip on the chaff in the light of the success of secular reason. Let it go, Chris...let it go.

But this does not mean that the Liberal Democratic State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth and should be actualized Universally and Homogeneously like the neo-Hegelians want to. They need to let go as well.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Marvellous stuff - given whilst debating a bloke named Sam Harris, who is clearly an idiot of the first degree. (Argue that with me elsewhere, if you must)



Whole transcript.


If this is what every christian thought, I'd join up. A 100% sanitised, harmless god-thingy, indistinguishable from Einstein and Dawkins' "merest hint of the possibility of being a miniscule amount of potential" in the concept of an extra-universal-thingy. Not that I'd believe any of it, but it'd be hard to fight against it. More humanist than evangelical.

Coming on the heels of the likes of Bishop Richard Randerson's "Agnostic" essay, I'm wondering whether some of these guys are starting to wake up.

This guy sounds like a masochist -- all foreplay and then intellectual detumescence as he stops short of giving in to the thrill of it all.

Wanker.

M.

[l0rca]

Quote:

The prophets—and here I would include Jesus—helped institutionalize dissent and criticism. They initiated the separation of powers. They reminded us that culture and society were not the sole prerogative of the powerful, that freedom and indeed the religious life required us to often oppose and defy those in authority. This is a distinctly anti-tribal outlook.

The earliest idea three three ideas of individuals (off the top of my head) standing up are:

1) Prometheus stealing the fire from the Gods.
2) Socrates going to death for his conviction that the Gods do not prescribe morality.
3) Gospel story where biblical character talks God out of killing innocent people.

Only one of them is monotheistic, and this last I think we find ignored. Christians teach that their god is never wrong.

When this guy is on this rant, I think he seems to append this idea of goodness to monotheism, leaving the implications of that open, without being specific enough. It was the folk philosophy of individuals, inside these faiths, that brought about change, many times in spite of its own dogmatism. And I think it's evident that (much to the irony of him simply passing over the story of Socrates as seemingly ineffective in defiance) this sense of individualism came well before Christianity. I would append this individualism chiefly to philosophers like Socrates, whose ethical nature -- the one this man implores -- did not emerge in Christian thought until his and other philosopher's ideas were rediscovered as the world became more secular.

I think to test his idea we need only look at a time when monotheism was completely dominant, without any non-Christian influence, in the Western world, the Middle Ages. Where is this great anti-dogmatism here?

It was philosophers who pulled us out of this complete ethical silliness. Men who were mostly secular who inspired eventual changes.

Maybe I'm missing something here about what sort of evidence we have -- historical evidence -- that shows monotheism as an isolated source for the celebration of man as he sees it. Maybe I read the wrong books.

[D'rok]

Quote:

Maybe I'm missing something here about what sort of evidence we have -- historical evidence -- that shows monotheism as an isolated source for the celebration of man as he sees it. Maybe I read the wrong books.

He definitely stretches the point too far. Nonetheless, I'm comfortable including Jesus in the same category of political radical as Socrates. I agree that it was the secularization of Christian ideals that drew out the benefits. And I think the key point is that secularized Christianity fostered equality as well as individual ethics and this is an important factor in the development of classical Liberalism.

[Gregory]

Well, Hedges is better than Harris the torture-apologist, but I can't quite figure out what his beliefs are even after reading that. He quotes the Gospels, but he doesn't sound like the average salvation-by-faith type Christian.

I would become a Catholic if they made Batman Pope.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Gregory

Well, Hedges is better than Harris the torture-apologist,...

Bullseye!

Originally Posted by Gregory

... but I can't quite figure out what his beliefs are even after reading that. He quotes the Gospels, but he doesn't sound like the average salvation-by-faith type Christian.

Liberal Anglican. I have no idea where he hails from, but he speaks exactly like a liberal Pom. Anyone seen Clingford lately?

[l0rca]

Huh? Sam Harris supports torture?

[Gregory]

Yes. Vocally.