[MD] Theism

[MarshaV]

Ah Michael,

You remind me of the pope.  He wants to change history.  You want to 
change the language.  What's YOUR position in this game?  What's at 
stake for you?

You do have an Abott&Costello thing going for you.  But it's not 
terribly amusing.


Marsha



At 09:42 PM 2/11/2009, you wrote:
> > Martha wrote:
> >
> > Too much!
> >
> > http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/europe/letter.1-426599.php

>MP: For someone with no interest in the niceties of the meaning of 
>theism, you
>sure do spend a lot of time on the subject ... ;-)
>
>
>
> > dmb wrote:
> > It speaks volumes about where we're at culturally, you know? In a
> > less dramatic form, without Hitler or the Pope, we can see the same
> > basic alignment in our own politics. Religiosity and nationalism
> > pretty well define right-wing politics regardless of the particular
> > religion or nation in question. Tradition is in a reactionary mode
> > for historical reasons. This kind of religion is hostile to science
> > and the intellect and yet loves certainty and conviction. This is
> > what makes it reactionary, it's a social level reaction to
> > modernity. Far from being dynamic and fostering an openness, these
> > kinds of religions cling quite desperately to long-held certainties
> > whether they make any sense or not. I mean, this is the kind of
> > place to find people with diabolically emphatic beliefs about good
> > and evil, but not too many mystics. The mega-churches and radio
> > stations yelp about God 24-7. Both parties cater to it and one is
> > dominated by it. It's loud and muscular and demanding. They've got
> >  the numbers, big time. And yet everybody knows the jig is up, the
> > party's over and God has left the building. As I see it, if you're a
> > relatively educated contemporary Westerner religion is something to
> > be understood with the help of the sciences and humanities, not
> > something we believe in or accept on faith. It's part of our
> > history, culture. language and our psychological makeup. It's the
> > symbolic language of myth that attracts psychotics and those with
> > lesser illnesses like Williamson. There is a psychological resonance
> > for everyone, but at the lower levels this resonance only works to
> > harden conviction and nail down the dogma. I think this is why we
> > see not just conservative stasis but the repeal of previous
> > innovations, a march backward. Up with Latin and down with pants.
> > Yea, that'll help. Thanks, Pope.
>
>MP:
>And not a *single* mention of theism; all "religion." Kudos, David. I seem to
>have had some effect.  ;-)
>
>And while I should note that I am by no means a fan of the RC church (things
>like this just chaff my ___) I do still wonder to what degree it is 
>detrimental to
>ignore your underlying presumption above that the reactionary nature of what
>we see here is driven by religion rather than it being the other way 'round;
>religion being driven by reactionary cultural forces.
>
>Examples abound to support this notion; plenty of religions being completely
>non-reactionary in this day and age, liberal in fact, and plenty of 
>reactionary
>examples in a non-religious context. Religion it seems is more along 
>for the ride
>that the driver.
>
>While this may not be a justification to "save the theists" it 
>certainly is advice
>worth heading if we are to act in anyway to try to mitigate what we see to be
>damaging forces in society. Best we be aiming the guns in the right 
>direction, I
>think.
>
>
>
>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/

.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.