[MD] new blog

[Michael Poloukhine]

On 30 Jan 2009 at 19:52, moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org wrote:

> MP said to dmb: 
> I have shown you are molding the meaning of "theism" to make your
> proposition work to fit your bias.
> 
> dmb replies:
> Sorry, but I think it's just plain dishonest to pretend that
> "theism" means anything outside of the inherited cultural forms of
> religion. 
MP: Obviously ;-)

> dmb replies:
> It's simply absurd to suggest that "theism" can
> exist in a vacuum. 
MP: I never said it did.

> dmb replies:> The definition you want to use to discuss it is
> unrealistic in the extreme. 
MP: It is the  definition of the word. If you insist on changing the definitions of 
words to suit your purposes, you can expect people will object to your 
conclusions. Use words more aligned with what you mean (eg:"religion", 
"theology", "cultural context") and I guarantee you will have more success.

> dmb replies:
> Theism is what it is as we find in
> history books, theological schools, the countless churches and such.
> More generally, it is what it is in the actual world. 
MP: No, and emphatically so. That is the *cultural manifestation* of theologies 
with a theistic origin; religion.

> dmb replies:
> That's why
> this whole discussion began with the question, "have you read a
> newspa
>  per lately". 
MP: No. This whole discussion began before you injected that comment.

> dmb replies:
> That hardly seems fair. 
You can't defend your proposition to my mounting challenges (yes, you've 
ignored them) by claiming I'm not being "fair" because I insist on being clear 
about the terms we use. Words are specificallly defined for a reason; clear 
communication. If we are to be fair, using those definitions is *exactly* what we 
should be doing if we are going to do anything remotely aspiring to intellectual 
discourse.

Theism is defined as "the belief in a god or gods." Period. 

What you clearly appear to be against is some level of the worldly manifestation 
of such a belief within a cultural context: theology, religion. But "religion" as 
defined is not contingent on a theistic belief (I have shown this by example) and 
theism is not contingent on having a religion (Khoo noted Ghandi's view and I 
also gave an example.) Theism and religion are not inextricably linked, no 
matter how much you want them to be or how much it helps you make your 
argument. Make your argument based on that claim and your proposition will be 
fundamentally flawed from the outset.

You have a problem with something, you insist it is theism, and I am calling you 
out on what can only be desribed (with respect, I mean that) as intellectual 
laziness or sloppiness. I abhor equally as the you the actions of people you 
have recounted. And I am equally eager to wipe them from the tally of 
humanity's ledger book. I just think we, being intellectual, should be very 
rigorous in our approach to make propositions about how to do it.

I am sure if you applied greater rigor in your "proposition" you would not only be 
able to better focus on what you have found to be the objectionable source of 
the trouble, but would proabably have a really strong proposition in the end. I 
would love nothing more (ok, sex and a well brewed mixture of hops and barley 
rank higher) than to see an intellectually unassailable proposition to abolish 
these ills. Even if in the end it means religion (or even theism!) should end. If its 
unassailable, it is Quality.

Lets take your beloved "read the news; priests molest children":

A RC priest doesn't molest a child because of *theism* (simply because he 
"believes there is a God"); holding the belief that there is a god does not in and 
of itself presuppose or require child molestation (or any other action or belief) to 
be held.  He doesn't molest a child because anything in the religion's *theology* 
(that particular set of cultural myths/practices built around a theistic 
primagenitor to which a church subscribes) tells him to; the beliefs of the church 
in this case preclude it, repudiate it. It is even a stretch to say that the religious 
*context* has any active role in his choosing to molest a child; the religious 
*context* abhors it. And we can take this line of reasoning outward beyond 
religion and still find no source for his decision. Ultimately we find that the priest 
molests the child of his own accord; he would do it in any other context given 
the circumstances. That's why its called a "human *illness.*"

The question before us as it relates to your proposition, him being a priest, what 
role did *theism* play in the unavoidable reality of the act? Best I can find is that 
by requiring celibacy as part of the *practice* of its theology (nb: *not* as a 
result of its theology, and you really should review RC history to see why and 
how it came to be) the RC church set up conditions that would encourage a 
greater likelihood of this priest and others like him to find themselves in a 
position where their illness could manifest itself unseen. It attracted the 
element, it didn't create it. For that, the RC church's practice (not "theism", not 
"theology", not RC's specific theology, not even the religious context in general) 
can arguably be held accountable, but then for *passive* complicity in the 
priest's *personal* violation. The RC church's subsequent covering up the level 
of abuse is also a stain. But again; that cover up was *cultural* not theological, 
or even theistic. In that sense, it is in fact *culture* which holds a greater 
culpability in the RC priest molestation scandal "in the news" than theism; 
culture is what encouraged the RC hierarchy to protect itself by hiding the stain 
rather than cleansing it. Fear of reprisal, fear of loss of power... these things the 
RC church learned from *culture.* But that is *far* removed from the "theism" 
with which we originally started.

So, by my reasoning, your proposition that theism is to blame is fundamentally 
flawed. *Culture* is where the cuplrit resides. Culture is the context in which 
religions are formed around theism, in which people are immersed in sexual 
imagery, exploitation, etc. Given a different culture, we would (and I'd argue 
have and do, but the argument is equally as long as the preceding one) result in 
different actions. And there's no argument I can find that would definitively show 
that those actions would be bad purely based on their ultimately "theistic" 
origins. And, as so, "theism" is cleaned of your proposition.


And, I can with no lack of irony point out you said it yourself:

> dmb replies:
> I mean, these sorts of notions don't just spring from nature, they're cultural.