[MD] False Messiah

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott said:
...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.

dmb says:
You seem to think that literalism has to be some childish concept of a giant
bearded man in the sky. But as long as one is asserting the actual existence
of a supreme being, which defines a theist, one is being literal. This being
is the object of theology. Even if they are careful not to attribute any
concrete qualities, they are still operating on the assumption that such a
being exists.

Scott:
It's not so simple, much as you would like it to be. The phrase "a supreme 
being" is generally rejected by theologians, since God is not a being among 
beings, supreme or not, but Being (so say some) or beyond being (so say 
others). And as I mentioned in my last post about Sam, they will not all 
simply say "God exists".

Scott also said:
...My point is that you continually attack Christianity, as if they were all
locked into a particular belief system.

dmb says:
Well, yes. Christianity is a particular belief system. Everbody knows that
its not monolithic, but my criticism is aimed at the most basic features of
Christianity, the ones that can more or less be found in all demoninations.
As with the difference between Jerry Falwell's brand and the more
sophisticated theological thinkers, they share some common assumptions.
That's whay it makes sense to use the label "christian" when talking about
Catholics or Baptists. The difference that have created the splits between
the various kinds of christianity are relatively minor. Did you know, for
example, that the founding father of America's contemporary fundamentalism,
especially with its emphasis on the literal return of Christ, was an
Anglican priest? (John Nelson Darby) And the kind of literalism I'm
complaining about is also expressed in the catholic catechism.

Scott:
Anglicans and Catholics especially are all over the map. You've got the gay 
Anglican bishop in New Hampshire, and the violence-fomenting Anglican bishop 
in Nigeria. The writers of the catechism are going to be conservative, since 
the current Catholic hierarchy is dominated by conservatives. Read Garry 
Wills "Papal Sins" if you are interested in how some Catholics think the 
Catholic leaders are out to lunch.

Scott said:
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 says:
OK. As I see it, theisitc religions not only fail to help with spiritual
development and growth, they actually prevent it. Instead of serving human
happiness, cultural evolution or the health of society, theisitic religions
have become a scourge on the earth.

Scott:
Compared to pagans? The non-theist Mongols did a hell of a lot more damage 
to the Middle East than the Islamist Arabs did, in their respective 
conquests. And then there are the oft-mentioned Stalin, etc.

Scott said:
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.

dmb says:
Well, what I'm getting at with this crusade against intellectual unjustified
beliefs is the conflict between social and intellectual values in a process
of cultural evolution and whether you are willing to accept the fact or not,
the anti-intellectuals are presently in charge of everything. The fact that
40% of American christians voted for Kerry sort of glosses over the fact
that 90something percent of Americans believe in God and nearly that many
are christians. This sort of glosses over the fact that an avowed secularist
or atheist could not be elected President in this nation. And if you can't
see that this movement is anti-intellectual from head to toe, I would like
to suggest that you're a bit oblivious to what's going on. In the last
election the american voters had no real choice and in fact they have never
really had a choice in that respect. The US is, by far, the most religious
nation in the West. Presently, global tensions are more or less centered
around Jerusalem, a place that each of the three great Western religions
feels necessary to control for religious reasons. However you wish to
characterize this state of affairs, you can't really deny it. There are
billions of witnesses.

I suppose it goes without saying, but these charges of obliviousness are
based on the assumption that you live on this planet with the rest of us. I
mean, we are talking about the same world, aren't we? The sky in my world is
blue. How about yours?

Scott:
I fail to see how what I said shows an obliviousness over anything. I am 
fully aware of the threat of religious conservatives to intellectual 
freedom, and the dangers they embody politically and socially in this 
country, in the Middle East, and everywhere. What I am seeing is that you 
are hell-bent on treating as enemies those who should be your allies in this 
struggle, namely theists who support intellectual freedom and social 
justice -- and their name is legion. Apparently, anyone who says they have 
"faith in God" has -- for you -- no redeeming social or intellectual role. I 
would call that prejudice, based, like all prejuduce, on severely static 
thinking.

- Scott