Creation / Evolution Debate and Spiritual Development

[takkaria]

I seem to be the only person here who doesn't mind what he's heard of Dawkins. I've not actually read any of his books, but I've seen plenty of interviews and I watched him reading excerpts from the God Delusion, and what I heard made sense to be.

Dawkins himself is ignorant of Christian theology, but he say something along the lines of: "If you say 'I believe in fairies', and I say that I do not, I do not need to study fairy-ology to talk about my disbelief in fairies." He also seems much more moderate in his interviews than he is in his writing -- I can only assume he wants to make his point forcefully when he writes.

I think Dawkins is very right when he says we should not label children as "Muslim" or "Jewish". I think he makes a good argument when he says it is logically inconsistent to believe that a god created the universe and set it in motion in order for evolution to happen. I also think he's right to hold up at least the Old Testament of the Bible as a bad, bad example of morality.

I also think it's *good* to have a voice at the far side of the debate in favour of science. Any debate has to be balanced, and seeing as fundamentalist thought is becoming normal, if there wasn't a voice that rallied against it from the other side, there'd be something missing. It's all part of a grand debate. Both sides need representing equally. Classical philosophers did this by writing Dialogues, where characters would argue about a theory or a statement, with some for and some against. The point was to represent both sides in a constant objection-reply-objection-reply pattern, and thus provide balance. The two sides bounce off each other, and so having one without the other, I'd say, is positively bad.

[dor]

Originally Posted by takkaria

I think Dawkins is very right when he says we should not label children as "Muslim" or "Jewish".

does dawkins know Jews are jews by birth? that a baptised child is christian? how does he wish to 'enforce' this ?

Originally Posted by takkaria

I think he makes a good argument when he says it is logically inconsistent to believe that a god created the universe and set it in motion in order for evolution to happen. Testament of the Bible as a bad, bad example of morality..

To Dawkins, not to lot of other people. the old testment has lots of very good and helpful insights an proverbs....Ben Franklin was found of using them in Poor Richard's almanac - A merry heart doth make good medicine. .. - how long did it finally take medical science to find that out - and many still don't beleive it!

Originally Posted by takkaria

I also think it's *good* to have a voice at the far side of the debate in favour of science..

No because he turns science into a type of religion and embarrasses a lot of scientist by inflammatory rhetoric, name calling, polarizing people - making a simple either or debate - confusing religion and science ...- in short all the things scientists shouldn't to when talking about science...

Religion isn't science...but what Dawkins and his followers don't get is that Science Isn't Religion.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

No because he turns science into a type of religion and embarrasses a lot of scientist by inflammatory rhetoric, name calling, polarizing people - making a simple either or debate - confusing religion and science ...- in short all the things scientists shouldn't to when talking about science...

Religion isn't science...but what Dawkins and his followers don't get is that Science Isn't Religion.

I agree with dor's response here. Atheism has always struck me badly, because it's literally theism with an explicit inverting prefix attached. The actual content isn't all that useful.

But you guys are getting seriously off-topic.

[takkaria]

A Jew is not a Jew unless they consciously get to consider whether they want to be a Jew or not. A baptised child is not a Christian unless they're old and aware enough to consider their own choices. He doesn't want to enforce anything, he wants people to realise that it's wrong to label children by their parent's beliefs and to automatically assume that they should follow in said beliefs. Anyone brought up "into" a religion who realised it held nothing for them will agree with that stance.

The sanctioned genocide and the jealous god in the Old Testament show it to be of dubious morality. Note that I'm not saying the Old Testament is useless or does contain anything of interest or merit, but merely that it is a poor example of morality. (It contains, for example, the first ever use of the Nuremburg defence from Abraham when asked to sacrifice his son -- "I was just obeying orders.")

I understanding objections to using inflammatory rhetoric and polarising people. It's a fair point; he does use both. But the inflammatory rhetoric only seems as such because we're so used to religion being untouchable. He has strong views; so do lots of people. I've not heard him do any name-calling, mind.

I can't see how he confuses religion and science, really, and I'd appreciate some expansion on that point.

About atheism... maybe the resulting content isn't useful, but it's a required term anyway -- people would still believe that there was supernatural higher power. If it wasn't called atheism it'd just be called something else.

And it all a bit off-topic, but a) is it worth creating a new thread just to finish off this bit of debate? and b) it always happens when people talk about evolution and creationism.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by takkaria

A Jew is not a Jew unless they consciously get to consider whether they want to be a Jew or not.

A Talmudic Jew is, by definition, one whose mother was Jewish. To be Jewish is not a religion, nor a set of beliefs. It is an ethnicity. This is why anti-Semitism is a form of racism, not a theological quibble.

Originally Posted by takkaria

And it all a bit off-topic, but a) is it worth creating a new thread just to finish off this bit of debate? and b) it always happens when people talk about evolution and creationism.

By the mods' standards, the fact that we're willing to continue the debate makes it on-topic. However, the issue of Dawkins in particular and religion vs. atheism in general is technically tangential to the issue of evolutionism versus creationism. I'd rather move it to another thread, but I'm also not going to do it because I'm in a purely responsive mode on the subject at the moment.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A Talmudic Jew is, by definition, one whose mother was Jewish. To be Jewish is not a religion, nor a set of beliefs. It is an ethnicity. This is why anti-Semitism is a form of racism, not a theological quibble.

Michael, from what I understand that's an on-going debate with people who are jewish, since you also can convert- but if their religion believes that it i think we should respect it - it is also theological if you're born jewish to observant parents you will start the learn and do the things practicing jews do (same with christians and any other religion ) and practice is what also makes christians and jews - - as a side note I think anti semitism, like racism is a fairly useless and overused term. I don't think either mean much of anything anymore...

He doesn't want to enforce anything, he wants people to realise that it's wrong to label children by their parent's beliefs and to automatically assume that they should follow in said beliefs. Anyone brought up "into" a religion who realised it held nothing for them will agree with that stance.

takkaria is a child born of English parents English? does he 'decide' when he gets older? If they actively disavow it whenever, that's fine but a lot of religious practices are also deeply intertwined with cultural practices - western art for example is inexerably intertwined with religion (Gothic architect, nearly all high renaissance art, and so on) and a lot of these very complex believes are passed on through tradition and learning from the family.

.

I can't see how he confuses religion and science, really, and I'd appreciate some expansion on that point..

He treats evolution like a fundementalist believe - that it can solve all problems- many scientists have said for example his views of the universe are ...well faith based- he has such a strong, emotional believe in his evolution as god theory that he willfully ignores reality and becomes unscientific -for example he constantly uses wars where people are of different religions to say religion= violence anyone even mildy familiar with northern ireland (an example he uses) or the middle east conflict (s) will realizes the shawlloness an inaccuracy of those claims.
the fact that he writes off thousands of years of insight, spirtuality, philosophy that make up religous texts as superstition sounds like the comments of a remarkably ignorant man.

[Megan]

By dor, Yesterday, 07:44 PM

He has an ideology - he applies it to reality, it becomes how you frame reality... ideology IMHOP becomes, the hammer which you apply to every nail -in your reality....so everyone starts talking about 'memes' as if it is an absolute....[emphasis mine--Megan]

He is presenting himself as rational - but twists reality to suit his idealogy - and we have clear examples of that - so he is a best deceptive...

Well, I am not an atheist, I am a Christian. The fact that I think memes are a yeasty idea is not involuntarily "framing an atheist reality" for me, which I will then "apply to every nail in my reality" willy-nilly as I slide down the slippery slope into perdition.

I think only Michael and I spoke of memes, and we are not "everyone" and I don't recall talking about them as an "absolute."

Edit: Dawkins quote:

I became a little alarmed at the number of my readers who took the meme more positively as a theory of human culture in its own right -- either to criticize it (unfairly, given my original modest intention) or to carry it far beyond the limits of what I then thought justified. This was why I may have seemed to backtrack.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations

Trying to discredit the idea by discrediting the man is not an effective way to advance your cause, IMO, as I said, and not a clean way to debate.

You could start a thread called something like, "Richard Dawkins: at best deceptive" and discuss him there, but it's usually considered logically fallacious to try to discredit an idea by discrediting a person.

I don't disagree that Dawkins is evangelical about his atheism, I just don't see what that has to do with a discussion about memes. It's possible to benefit from someone's ideas with whom you don't agree totally. If it isn't, then none of us can learn from anyone else.

I agree with takkaria that, "I also think it's *good* to have a voice at the far side of the debate in favour of science."

The far sides of a polarized debate mirror each other quite amazingly, I think, as the confrontation between Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard demonstrated, IMO.

The fact that he may not be thinking at his clearest about religion doesn't mean Dawkins' thinking should be universally anathematized.

I still think memes are interesting, e.g., the generosity meme:

The Generosity Game: spread random acts of kindness

[Angela]

Religion is a set of beliefs. A cultural mileu often forms among the people who share those beliefs, and those people are often anxious for more and more folks to join the ranks of their ilk. In addition to proselytizing, another way swell the ranks is to declare your offspring to be officially "one of us." But a baby or small child is not able to make an informed, thoughtful decision as to whether or not to hold the belief, particularly since there is often a lot of pressure and intimidation put on the child to consider itself "one of us" which gets in the way of real, free choice.

Dawkins doesn't rally against the cultural traditions and wisdom of religious groups. He rallies against superstition. He writes (and I strongly agree) that it is abusive to label and force belief on a child. Religious education rarely provides a child with real freedom to choose.

"Born English" is a faulty analogy to "Born Christian" when seen in terms of belief as opposed to culture. And society in general has gotten used to collapsing belief and culture. Two different things, Dawkins points out. I suspect that many of his harshest critics are basing their rancor on second-hand information, rather than their first-account readings of his books.

[Megan]

By Angela, Today 09:27 AM

Dawkins doesn't rally against the cultural traditions and wisdom of religious groups. He rallies against superstition.

Angela, the "cultural traditions" are the fount of the "superstition" Dawkins rails against. I don't think you can separate the traditions from the wisdom that grew out of them, so it's very difficult to defend the wisdom.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations

That seems like a pretty global dismissal of religion to me, and I understand why feelings run high among religious people about Dawkins.

I see him as having an understandable and even necessary moral reaction against religion, so I don't react to him so much.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

Angela, the "cultural traditions" are the fount of the "superstition" Dawkins rails against. I don't think you can separate the traditions from the wisdom that grew out of them, so it's very difficult to defend the wisdom.

good morning, Megan. I'm not so sure of that. It seems more likely to me that the superstition came first, and the cultural traditions grew thence. And I am sure that it's possible to separate the superstition and the tradition. For example, Dawkins puts up a christmas tree. So does my Jewish boss. I attend a christmas eve party with my family every year, even though none of us believes that the christian god exists.

Originally Posted by Megan

That seems like a pretty global dismissal of religion to me, and I understand why feelings run high among religious people about Dawkins. I see him as having an understandable and even necessary moral reaction against religion, so I don't react to him so much.

Yes, Dawkins globally dismisses (well, more than that - he would like to see it eradicated) religion. I don't think religion is likely to go away soon, any more likely than that I would convince anyone not to believe in god (which I'm not trying to do.) I see him as kind of an Abby Hoffman figure -- or the flamboyant, in-your-face media-friendly gay activists -- someone who takes an extreme stance and serves as a dynamic springboard for social change. He writes clearly and beautifully, and he's funny as hell.

Have you read "The Selfish Gene"? I see you refer to memes often ... that is the fascinating book in which he coined the term.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Megan

That seems like a pretty global dismissal of religion to me,

I agree. but many critics feel he is pushing an ideology - and a fanatic one at that - and masking it as 'reason' and 'science' . There is a pretty brutal track record from people who have embraced 'anti religion' - 1789, France, Bolshevik Russia, to name two notorious examples. Yes people have done the same thing in the name of religion. I am wary of both. One author, supported by many atheists- Richard Harris - actually thinks that people can be killed for embracing what he feels are fanatical religious beliefs. That fact that he has 200+ positive reviews, on amazon is disturbing.


Born English, is not an 'faulty analogy" , a child can renounce citizenship, adapt another culture. Culture and religion are inexorably woven into one another - the art of the Islamic world reflects a taboo on human representation for example.

perhaps the "rancor" comes getting tired of uninformed assements and ignorant attacks on religion to begin with - Dawkins doesn't know what he is talking - he is willfully ignorant of theology but still choses to attack it distorts reality to fit ideology, as the examples of northern ireland show -

I don't know much about, say zorastism - it would be absurd for me to cherry pick quotes from critics of it, make gross assements of it without first understanding it. That's the difference between not knowing about something - and being ignorant of it, in my opinion. and the way so many of these 'questions' about, say Christianity are phrased show no serious effort to first understand it.

someone on another thread asked in essence 'Doesn't christ say follow me or go to hell".
I tried to explain via analogy - assuming people here understand I-M -
If someone came up to you and said - so you're saying if you don't follow I-M you're going to have crappy life- or you're telling people that if they get cancer it's their fault because they aren't following your Intention manifestation theories.
well that's 'kind of right' but it is phrased in such a hostile way that one can't really answer it because its a self-answering question. I-M isn't about wanting people to die or get cancer its about wanting them to live fully. Same goes for all religions I know of. the question and attitude filter what you find . For example there is a wonderful group of scientists-ministers including physicists, moleculear biologists and such who write wonderful, reasoned essays and books about the relationship of religion and science John Polkinghorn, Arthur Peacock are among them.

Scientist-turned-cleric wins Templeton Prize in religion | csmonitor.com
Scientist-turned-cleric wins Templeton Prize in religion
By Lynette Wilson
Like many successful professionals, John Polkinghorne didn't think he had time to cram one more thing into his busy schedule. But his wife persuaded him to attend a Bible class near their home in Cambridge, England.
It was a decision that changed his life. He ended up resigning his post teaching mathematical physics at Cambridge University in 1979 and becoming an Anglican priest.

religion haters tend to focus on the most extreme and ignore anything positive or anything that might get in their 'religion sucks' theory. That's just as blind as fanatic fundementalism they purport to detest. In doing so, in my opinion, they cut themselves off from some of the most beautiful thoughts about man and the universe.

[Angela]

The man's name is Sam Harris, not Richard, and there is no evidence of him advocating the death penalty for embracing any belief.

[Megan]

Yeah, I see the distinction you're making between cultural traditions such as Christmas trees and superstitions such as...well...I'll leave it at that. Point taken.

And I quite agree that Richard Dawkins "takes an extreme stance and serves as a dynamic springboard for social change." In that he just serves as a quality mirror and balance for the opposite extreme stance, I think.

I think he is an interesting figure, and quite harmless, believing as I do that religion and science serve as evolutionary drivers of one another, and that, as that wise old sage, Anonymous said, "God is pressure."

I haven't read The Selfish Gene, but you and Michael have both suggested it, so it's now on my list--thanks!

Dor, I respond to your post in my next post.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

The man's name is Sam Harris, not Richard, and there is no evidence of him advocating the death penalty for embracing any belief.

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Reason Magazine - Among the Non-Believers
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. "This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely ...
Reason Magazine - Among the Non-Believers
Harris makes it clear that the fault for this state of affairs resides entirely with the believers he thinks we may have to kill. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

The faithful, meanwhile, take some understandable offense at this broad caricature of their mental capacity and ability to face life's harder truths. So each side retreats to its corner, more convinced than ever that the other is trafficking in pure, self-infatuated delusion for the basest of reasons: Believers accuse skeptics and unbelievers of thoughtless hedonism and nihilism; the secular set accuses the believoisie of superstition and antiscientific senselessness.

oh and by the way Richard Dawkins has repeatedly praised him. The book and his theories (and his supporters) are a perfect example of what I am talking about - idealogy or theory - or hatred masked as either - woefully distort their view reality. Anyone with even a rudimentry knowledge of history would laugh at their analysis as a scientist would flat earth theory.
Why do 'smart' people support it? Because the belief advances an agenda and it doesn't matter if the facts don't support it.

[Angela]

Much like the hyperventilating, corded-neck reviewer you quote from, you are indeed "cherry-picking" quotes out of context from Mr. Harris' intent -- which described possible scenarios and their inevitable outcome. Again, Mr. Harris never advocated the death penalty for beliefs.

[Megan]

By dor, Today, 11:23 AM

...many critics feel he [Dawkins] is pushing an ideology - and a fanatic one at that - and masking it as 'reason' and 'science' .

Yes, I agree with the "critics," and Dawkins was one of the zealots I had in mind here:

By Megan, 01-11-2007 02:56 PM

Science is based on philosophical and methodological materialism (not that that is a bad thing, you understand), and, by definition, cannot answer metaphysical questions.

That, of course, doesn't keep some zealots from crossing the line into metaphysics, but you basically can't get there from here, IMO.

I'm not disputing that Dawkins is pushing an ideology and masking it as 'reason' and 'science,' and that that is "just as blind as the fanatic fundamentalism they purport to detest."

I'm just pointing out that, as you know (if I am understanding you correctly), some strains of religion do the same thing, so it just seems like two sides of the same psychological coin to me.

But, as I see it, the deeper issue is:

Are we to return to a medieval book-banning mentality? Or can we allow people we don't agree with to speak and actually consider what they have to say, without demonizing their ideas via character assassination?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

Much like the hyperventilating, corded-neck reviewer you quote from, you are indeed "cherry-picking" quotes out of context from Mr. Harris' intent -- which described possible scenarios and their inevitable outcome. Again, Mr. Harris never advocated the death penalty for beliefs.

do you agree or disagree that harris said this:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.

"This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people."

yes or no?

Who said anything about the death penalty? I said he advocates killing them. Provide me with some 'possible scenarios'..i am curious....

It's not cherry picking. Even a casual examination of his and dawkin's assessments of conflicts, as i have repeated ad nausuem, show a clear distortion and lack of understanding of those conflicts - Northern Ireland is a glaring example. the conflict(s) in the middle east are others.- and as the reviewer points out (as have many others) atheistic idelogical movements - like Bolshivik Russia and first republic France - are some of the bloodiest episodes in human history.

Originally Posted by Megan

I'm just pointing out that, as you know (if I am understanding you correctly), some strains of religion does the same thing, so it just seems like two sides of the same psychological coin to me.

agree 100%.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

I said he advocates killing them.

And I disagree. Granted, I have read his book, and understand his comments in context. How about you?

Since you've been so careful to point out that you must take in context the bible's imperative to kill your child if he talks back to you (remember? love thy neighbor overrode that?), I'm sure you'll agree that a volume of written work is best read in full in order to achieve complete understanding.

[Megan]

They are two sides of a potentially very dangerous psychological coin, if the implications are considered literally...and considering things literally is what fundamentalists of the religious and scientific stripes specialize in.

Quick, Angela, gimme some context for "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" !

Edit: I'm a Christian, and I'll give you some context for killing your child if he talks back: tribal religions exhibit barbaric traits; more evolved forms of the tribal religions self-correct over time. Christian ministers vigorously defended slavery from the Scriptures in the 19th century, but they mostly don't do that anymore. The Reconstructionists...they're another story....

How are we to escape a New Edition of the Spanish Inquisition, or alternatively, The Reign of Terror?

That may not be as off-topic as it sounds, as polarized as the creation-evolution debate has become.

"Kill the dangerous people" functions equally well as a religious or secular meme, I must point out.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

Provide me with some 'possible scenarios'..i am curious....

You've edited. As I recall, Mr. Harris was speculating about Muslim extremists who planned terrorist activities. Their belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the murder of non-believers made them people who "there's no talking to." He didn't say, "they should be killed." He said there may be an ethical case for taking them out before they're able to commit murder. He went on to say that if that happened, it's possible that there would be retribution, counter-retribution, and eventual annihilation. Obviously, he's not advocating eventual annihilation.

[Angela]

Dor, I think you posted that before you had the chance to read my last post. Whoops, where did Dor's post go??

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

You've edited. As I recall, Mr. Harris was speculating about Muslim extremists who planned terrorist activities. Their belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the murder of non-believers made them people who "there's no talking to." .

and this demonstrates to me a lack of understanding about suicide terrorism. "mr" harris conveniently forgets, or never knew the number one suicide terrorists in the world are secular marxists (tamil tigers , sri lanka - who invented the suicide vest). or the reasons behind 9-11. he's imposing his views of religion and their motivation. are you saying that he thinks the religious belief in the afterlife is justification to "pre-kill" them?

"bible's imperative to kill your child " once again there is a self-evident distortion bias- the 'bible' doesn't have an 'imperative'.

Angela - I deleted it when I saw your post because this repsonse was more appropriate (and temperate )

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

...the number one suicide terrorists in the world are secular marxists (tamil tigers , sri lanka - who invented the suicide vest). or the reasons behind 9-11. he's imposing his views of religion and their motivation. are you saying that he thinks the religious belief in the afterlife is justification to "pre-kill" them?

Debatable assumption, irrelevant to what I was speaking of (reading for context), and no, I'm not saying that he thinks the religious belief is justification to "pre-kill." I'm saying he was speculating about possible ethical considerations. He made no mandates or recommendations. Which a reader of the book would realize.

Originally Posted by dor

"bible's imperative to kill your child " once again there is a self-evident distortion bias- the 'bible' doesn't have an 'imperative'.
Angela - I deleted it when I saw your post because this repsonse was more appropriate (and temperate )

It's designated in the bible as a "law". What's a law if not an imperative?

Yeah, boy, we get ourselves worked up, don't we!? Dor, I don't mean to appear disrespectful to you, and this subject sure gets het up, but please know that I enjoy our exchanges. (I just hope the moderators don't close us down for our passion!) Thanks for letting me know about the deletion -- I thought I was hallucinating.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by dor

religion haters tend to focus on the most extreme and ignore anything positive or anything that might get in their 'religion sucks' theory. That's just as blind as fanatic fundementalism they purport to detest. In doing so, in my opinion, they cut themselves off from some of the most beautiful thoughts about man and the universe.

As a religion-hater, I find myself defending religion more often than I have the opportunity to denounce it. This said, it's a grand presumption that religion is a required conduit to seeing beautiful thoughts about man and the universe.

Most religious persons are equally, if not more, ignorant of other religions. How many Jews are enthusiasts of the Greek mythos? How many Buddhists have studied the Kabbalah? How many Christians have investigated Tantrism? They're all missing some "beautiful thoughts": why do you not consider the blind, too?

Originally Posted by dor

are you saying that he thinks the religious belief in the afterlife is justification to "pre-kill" them?

Scenario: someone is holding a gun to your head. Is it ethical to kill them? Every instance of jurisprudence I know of, excepting pacifist religions like Jainism, say yes.

[Megan]

It little matters that ethnic/religious cleansing just creates more generations of violence and solves nothing.

It little matters, IMO, because we need enemies to keep our psychological balance.

And the Bible has imperatives alright--ask the Christian Reconstructionists.

While many Christians believe that biblical law is a guide to morality and public ethics, when interpreted in faith, Reconstructionism is unique in advocating that civil law should be derived from and limited by biblical law.

Christian Reconstructionists make no pretense of subscribing to the pluralistic ideals of religious tolerance (derided as "Political Polytheism", by author Gary North, in a book of that name), because this would require them to accept a non-Biblical source of ethical standards.

They envision a future in which opponents to Jesus Christ will eventually be relatively few in number and surrender the public square to his rule. In principle they are opposed to bringing this about through martial or political means.

Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're talking stoning people: homosexuals; adulterers; children who talk back; Sabbath breakers.

Angela, Mr. Harris may not have made "recommendations" but he FLOATED THE IDEA.

The idea of torture was floated years before it became part of the American vernacular as it is now. I was hooted down at the time for pointing out that the idea of torture was being floated, preparatory to normalizing it. Everyone was sure America--our wonderful country--would never advocate torture.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Megan

we need enemies to keep our psychological balance.

That's a provocative statement, Megan. What do you mean?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

r, I don't mean to appear disrespectful to you, and this subject sure gets het up, but please know that I enjoy our exchanges. (I just hope the moderators don't close us down for our passion!) Thanks for letting me know about the deletion -- I thought I was hallucinating.

likewise, though I wonder if getting heated up about it is good -I was just thinking (when i get into these kind of passionate debates - answers to points tend to pop up when i am thinking of other stuff - what you focus on you get more of-- how did i do this to myself on a productivity/self improvement forum.
its easy to mis read joke, sarcasm, humor (especially subtle) on forums ...and there can be a spiral of inflammatory rhetoric ...i am reminded of a line from agony and exctasy (a movie about micheangleo's tempestous relation with the pope and sistine chapel" when rex harrison as the pope says "do you see how well we understand one another when we don't shout'

Michael Chui -holding a gun to ones head is one think, thinking someone might be thinking of holding a gun to one's head and why is another.

"Most religious persons are equally, if not more, ignorant of other religions. How many Jews are enthusiasts of the Greek mythos? How many Buddhists have studied the Kabbalah? How many Christians have investigated Tantrism? They're all missing some "beautiful thoughts": why do you not consider the blind, too?"
how do you know most "religious persons" are?
probably some do as I have tried to say i find both forms of fanaticism abohorrent - if the dismiss them simply because they are ...on the other hand if it is something to do with belief- for example a muslim artist not wanting to depict the God, i can understand it. personally I think religion provides a wonderful framework, cultural and folk memory and 'wisdom of the ages' in which to explore other things...

[Megan]

By Angela

That's a provocative statement, Megan. What do you mean?

Well, let's ask Dawkins why he hates religion, shall we? Does anyone suppose that is a natural intellectual result of studying science? Why not dispassionately work to spread scientific understanding--why actively oppose religion, creating drama that just compounds the issues a thousand-fold?

Why do we hate anything? Why do we make anything "other?"

I think it's a provisional stance to project things outside ourselves that are too hot to handle internally.

Nothing is going to ultimately save us from our enemies but looking inside and finding them there. Not some secular or religious Jihad, not some Deus Ex Machina Second Coming.

But, OK, Michael, I did say we might have to shoot some cougars to keep our kids safe, didn't I?

This is not simple, and I can't take responsibility for making it simple.

But perhaps we could make a start at looking inside and finding our enemies there, whether they are religious or secular (or feline)...that's all I'm saying.

[Angela]

Dor - yup. My brother said something funny: "the madder you are, the wronger you probably are." Thanks for stopping me in my emotional tracks.

Regarding the ethical consideration of self-defense (a gun held to your head) as pertains to the belief in the gunman's head: Imagine a person has declared that his dedication to god demands that he murder thousands of innocent people on your country's soil as a means of worshiping that god, and that he fully intends to carry out his martyr's mission and nothing will stop him. You are unable to jail or curtail him, but you have an opportunity to snipe him in his own domain. Do you take that opportunity and kill him? Or do you let him go and hope everything works out all right? Would offing him be "self-defense" even thought there's no immediate and urgent threat, such as exists with the gun-to-the-head? I think the "would you go back in time and kill Adolf in 1930" question has been debated to no end.

From my reading of Sam Harris, I understand he is speculating about that ethical question. He's not advocating that we kill in that instance, any more than I am by writing it above.

[Megan]

By Angela, Today 01:29 PM

From my reading of Sam Harris, I understand he is speculating about that ethical question. He's not advocating that we kill in that instance, any more than I am by writing it above.

Angela, I don't know if you read my edit above, so I'll re-post it:

Angela, Mr. Harris may not have made "recommendations" but he FLOATED THE IDEA.

The idea of torture was floated years before it became part of the American vernacular as it is now. I was hooted down at the time for pointing out that the idea of torture was being floated, preparatory to normalizing it. Everyone was sure America--our wonderful country--would never advocate torture.