[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
Why should any attempt by a religion to modify its position 
intellectually be seen as pathetic ?

[Arlo]
I have no problem with "religion" modifying its position. None 
whatsoever. What I have problems with the claim by "religion" that IT 
brought about the freedoms and rights of man and not the period of 
secular enlightenment this is easily traceable to. Up until this 
point, "religion" had no interest in proclaiming man's freedom, 
especially through the articulated rights of western secular enlightenment.

So it can change, it SHOULD change, and it SHOULD grow, but it should 
be honest about the outside forces that caused those changes. In this 
case, Christianity did not give the world "freedom", as is so often 
trumpeted, but rather it evolved by embracing a secular idea. And, 
historically, it did not do so without first struggling to suppress 
and stem off this idea.

IMO, the next "reformation" will have to be a Campbellian 
reformation. I have mixed thoughts about how ready we as a people are 
for this, as the rise of fundamentalism demonstrates that man does 
not want to "think", man wants to be "told" (and to "tell" others, of 
course). That politicos in this nation are forced to pander to this 
ideology is saddening. I can't imagine a presidential candidate 
saying to a group of fundamentalist Christians, "All this is just an 
analogy". And maybe its not their "place" to do so, but its a ongoing 
shame it is an impossibility.

[Ian]
When dogma fails, try intellect. Surely it's to be encouraged ?

[Arlo]
Absolutely. The trouble is that dogma has been denying this, claiming 
instead that it and NOT intellect is responsible for the 
"self-evident" truths of the enlightenment. And as such is not really 
moving forward, but trying to regress movement or control it. And 
that I find immoral.

Does this clarify my position?