[MD] False Messiah

[David M]

Scott/DMB

I wonder if DMBs motivation & prejudice here is largely political
and the way left/right cuts up in the US.

In the UK very many religious people are closer to sea of faith
than fundamentalism and the left rather than the right politically.

In the US the left & pluralists & anti-authoritarians feel themselves in a 
sticky postion,
but things always change.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


> DMB,
>
> Scott said:
> ..Another source for improvement is that all theologians, other than
> fundamentalists, recognize that God-talk is necessarily metaphorical. Only
> fundamentalists and anti-theists take it literally, and their problem is 
> to
> privilege the literal over the metaphorical. In this regard, religious
> thinking is ahead of, say, the scientific materialists, in questioning the
> value of "being literal".
>
> dmb says:
> Only fundamentalists and anti-theists take it literally? First of all I 
> have
> to say that this is a re-phrasing of a Joseph Cambellism I've posted here
> several times over the years. The problem is that you've re-phrased badly.
> Campbell's idea is that theists and atheists both take it literally, and
> they're both wrong. Your change gets theists off the hook, so long as
> they're not fundamentalists. I think the difference is just a matter of
> degree. And the switch from atheism to anti-theism is equally uncool. 
> These
> two terms are not entirely interchangable. Roughly, the atheist doesn't
> believe in God, while the anti-theist doesn't believe in religion. The
> anti-theist is not making a metaphysical claim. She's only critical of
> theology and the churches. Sure, one could be both at the same time, but 
> the
> distinction remains.
>
> Scott:
> I would say it is a difference in definitions. I would call a 'theist'
> anybody who says they have faith in God. Since theologians, all of whom 
> call
> themselves theists, have consistently pointed out that talk about God must
> be taken analogically, symbolically, and so forth, I don't know where 
> you're
> getting the idea that theists take God-talk literally. Even saying "God is
> Love", as you complained about in another post, must be taken 
> symbolically,
> since we have no idea what that could mean literally.
>
> On definitions, I would call an atheist someone who would not say they 
> have
> faith in God, while I would call an anti-theist someone who spends a lot 
> of
> time trying to convince theists that they are wrong. Such people tend to
> assume that theists take God-talk as literal truth. Many do, of course, 
> but
> not those who think about it.
>
> Scott said:
> There is, of course, a huge difference between theory and practice in this
> regard. But things are changing. Even among evangelical Christians, there 
> is
> movement, as a search on "emergent Christianity" will tell you. Also see 
> the
> Sea of Faith stuff (www.sofn.org.uk). Among intellectuals, there are 
> various
> post-modern or post-secular thinkers of interest, such as Gianni Vattimo 
> and
> John Caputo ("The Prayers and Tears of Jacque Derrida: Religion without
> Religion"). There is a book called Religion After Metaphysics, which
> contains essays by these two and others, which might be of interest. 
> Whether
> such ideas ever get into the mainstream is, to be sure, not foreseeable --
> not soon, at any rate. ...In short, there is much of the Dynamic going on 
> in
> religion, or at least in
> Christianity in developed countries.
>
> dmb says:
> I took a quick look to see what you were getting at here. As you admit,
> these people and organizations aren't exactly mainstream. These figures
> describe themselves variously as postmodern humanists, Radical 
> theologians,
> non-theologians, continental philsophers and Vattimo is a gay, Catholic
> politician, among other things. My point? I think its rather disengenuous 
> to
> suggest that these people represent theism or to use them in defense of 
> it.
>
> Scott:
> I didn't say they "represent theism". I said they are working to change
> Christianity. And some of them would like to change it to something more
> non-theistic than theistic. My point is that you continually attack
> Christianity, as if they were all locked into a particular belief system.
>
> DMB continued:
> Don't you think it would be more accurate to characterize them as people 
> who
> are thinking about the death of god, the collaspe of a belief system? I 
> do.
>
> Scott:
> Some of them, yes. And I think that's a good thing. It's my personal 
> opinion
> that a spell of secularism is good for people, and for religion in
> general -- but only if one goes back to religion, though now fully purged 
> of
> superstition and such.
>
> DMB said:
> In any case, I'd much rather you bring some specific thoughts to the table
> because the actual content strikes me as pretty damn interesting. Instead,
> you seem to be side-stepping the problem with theism (even when it isn't
> crude fundamentalism) and faith-based beliefs in general. I mean, don't 
> you
> keep up with current events? Surely you can see that there is a huge
> conflict between the secular world and the religious one? You do realize
> that we're fighting fundamentalism at home and abroad. With your defense 
> of
> theism, faith and your attack on Darwinism, well... I think Pat Robertson
> would approve.
>
> Scott:
> You say there is a huge conflict between the secular world and "the
> religious one". There isn't. There is a huge conflict between those whose
> religion leads to suppression of individuality, freedom, and so forth, and
> those who don't like that. On the "don't like it" side are many religious
> people. Yet here you are lumping them with the Pat Robertson's. Remember,
> over 40% of American Christian voters voted for Kerry in 2004. These are
> people who dislike the neo-cons and the Christian Right as much as you do.
> Yet you would alienate them to preserve your prejudice against theists. 
> Not
> very politically astute, in my opinion.
>
> - Scott
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>