Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?

By Devilstower , Daily Kos. Posted November 10, 2009.


A new book points out that the ancient Christians -- and even early Americans -- did not share the blind faith of today's fundamentalists.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If you open Karen Armstrong's new book, The Case for God, expecting to find a list of mysterious cures, scientific curiosities, or certified miracles all pointing toward the physical presence of a divine influence in the world, you will be sorely disappointed.  Armstrong has no interest in, and is in fact completely antithetical to, trying to prove God's existence.  Despite this, her book is positioned -- both in marketing and from its opening pages -- as a direct challenge to books like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. How can you make a defense of God if you've no interest in the existence of God? Quite well, actually, and if you do it as sharply as Armstrong, you can make hundreds of pages of what is basically theological analysis both entertaining and informative.

Armstrong argues for an idea very similar to the "non-overlapping magisteria" that were put forward by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (and in fact, Gould gets several nice mentions in The Case for God).  She refers frequently to the idea that, in the past, people tended to break arguments into two groups for which she uses the Greek terms logos and mythos. Logos reflects practical, immediate reasoning -- how do we build that aqueduct, what can we make from this wood, which crop would grow best in that field?  Mythos is more aimed at the why -- what does it mean that my friend has died, how can I recapture the joy I felt in a moment of pure experience, how can I find meaning and peace among the world's noise and violence? This sort of approach could easily fall into a gooey cheer for "being spiritual," but Armstrong is not talking about having a nice little breathing session now and then.  She focuses on the 3000 year history of monotheism and the great effort that was put into building flexible, thoughtful religions, on how those religions continue to have a meaningful role in the life of millions, and how the recent history of those religions has led to unfortunate developments that are unique over those three millennia.

No civilization of the past thought it could get by without logos. Pyramids were built with extensive use of mathematics and the most advanced technology of the time. The same could be said of the Acropolis and of medieval cathedrals. When we see those past societies as ignorant and driven out of unreasoning "myths" it's because we are the oddities of history. Having acquired so much new data to feed logos over such a short time, we've become completely centered in scientific reasoning and entirely dismissive of mythos -- perversely, that's even true when we talk about fundamentalist religion. We look back on some ritual of the past and dismiss it as mindless following of tradition and superstition. You don't need to plant at midnight, or sacrifice a lamb, or ferry a statue around the town to satisfy some some dumb animal-headed deity. We search for the hint of reasoning that might be behind these rituals, and discount the idea that they served to establish meaning in lives that were just as busy, joyful, tragic, and brief as our own. We've turned "myth" into another word for fantasy, or lie. In doing so:

We lost the art of interpreting the old tales of gods walking the earth, dead men striding out of tombs, or seas parting miraculously. We began to understand concepts such as faith, revelation, myth, mystery, and dogma in a way that would have been very surprising to our ancestors.

In particular, the concept of faith comes in for a close examination. We understand faith today as a kind of blind acceptance -- like Indiana Jones stepping off into space in his quest for the Holy Grail. Religious people cheer this kind of "faith" and many Christians tout this as the one and only qualification to be among Christ's chosen.  But that's not what the word translated as "faith" meant in Biblical times. It's not even what it meant when the Bible was first translated into English.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: religion, jesus, dawkins, faith, christianity, bible, atheism, harris

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Belief! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
mischaracterisation
Posted by: wwittman on Nov 10, 2009 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dawkins doesn't discount god because he finds inconsistencies or lack of science in religious writings.

He rejects god because there is no PROOF or even reasonable evidence to infer that it exists.

This is called: science.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A new religion?
Posted by: beinghuman on Nov 10, 2009 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could it be that Armstrong is postulating a new kind of religion, a religion she would so much like to have; a religion that is really nice and does not bother people too much?
Of course there are many other liberal and nice people also who believe in that kind of religions.
I'm however rather afraid that these people are not the heavyweights or decision makers in any religion. They are however very useful for these religions as shields in deflecting frontal assaults in the liberal western societies, where the angry and demanding original old gods of the religions are often a much harder sell than before.
One can use Armstrong's idealistic model of a ideal (but unfortunately still in real world non-existing outside Unitarianism) religion to deflect criticism against religions, as they continue their often rather harsh earthly rule in the real world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A new religion? Posted by: Bumpas
» RE: A new religion? Posted by: praedor
» RE: A new religion? Posted by: Doubtom43
Listen bunnies it is very simple no one will force you to do it this way.
Posted by: Nitestallion on Nov 10, 2009 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Love God (whatever your concept of that is) above all else.

Love your neighbor as yourself. (As you would treat yours treat his/hers)

Send your preachers and your witchdoctors packing, religionists’ create truth as it suits them not the flock. So just keep on keeping on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is one thing or another...
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Nov 10, 2009 2:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polygamy is one bad thing after another...

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baloney
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Nov 10, 2009 2:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GOD comes from the word GOOD, they just took an O out.

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Baloney Posted by: MMarauder
When "Logos" was a Gift of "Mythos"
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 10, 2009 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Fundementalist operate off only the aspects of the physical world and only give thanks for those concrete 'gifts'. The abiliity to reproduce, to conquer their foes,put food on the table.
Yet they seem to be repulsed by the intellectual gifts. Scientific inquiry and Philosphical debate are seen as acts of definance.
Further interesting, is that they seem to despise many emotional responses, seen as a weakness. The most notable assault on this human aspect in recent days has been on empathy.
The ancients considered Logic, inquiry and emotions as traits not only bestowed on us by the gods, but reflections of the 'gods' themselves.
It was not just physical prowess they revered as with the Olympic games, but intellectual challenges as well.
Far more focus is on the manifestations of the Wrath of God in sects of religion. "Why" is dismissed with 'We pissed him off and He feels like it'. Hardly an indepth analysis as to what exactly he's pissed about. Certainly not an exercise in Introspection.Nor is seems a means to rectify the issue.
The ancients explained past events by the idea they had angered the gods,not prognosticated on future events.And when they did they tried to do something to appease them instead.
The fantical religious 'right' of the big 3 have failed to make the agrument as to why their religion would negate harash 'Judgement' on humanity.
They have yet to answer why 'God' is such a sadistic bastard.
These 'fundementalists' are operating on an elementry level. They can only comprehend the 'physical'. Thank god for the food, the Babies and defeating our enemies, but not for the ability to manage agriculture, the innate ability to understand how to care for a defenseless dependent offspring, Not for the ability to make friends out of foes. Or exactly why we should "Love thy neighbor" (empathy) (hint- you are their neighbor as well). "Fundementalists" are just that, at the very lowest level of comprehension, thus committment.The most base of understanding, their physcial needs. The lowest common denominator- elements regarding physical survial.
the Heavy weights of Greek Philosophy are still that to this day.They are the Standing Champions. Their names live on while their contemporary who won the Triathon, is lost to obscurity.
Perhaps they should be the ones called "pagans". They only worship/ praise/ fear/obey the 'gods' for what they can only see and touch, not think or feel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People had closer relationship to nature
Posted by: robchapman on Nov 10, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No civilization of the past thought it could get by without logos. Pyramids were built with extensive use of mathematics and the most advanced technology of the time. The same could be said of the Acropolis and of medieval cathedrals.

This comment refers to the outlook of elite builders and engineers.


The genius of Armstrong's book is that she is still trying to discern a God she can have faith in in our age of bubble gum religiosity.
The common people who built the monuments did not always understand teh cosmos in the way that the building designers did.

They may well have required a massive buy in to the logos of the designers, but it is more likely that they responded in faith to religious ideas that placed man at the center of the universe and as nature's ruler.

Without the idea that man can master nature, the confidence to put rock upon rock in the gravity defying manner of these monumnets would be impossible.

Clearly all concerned had a deep appreciation of the beauty of man's creativity as well as a tangible understanding of the forces that control nature.

People in the ancient societies knew where their food and fuel came from, they understood how their clothes and furnituree were made and they knew about the movements of wind and water that allowed trade and travel.

Today people are much more insulaated from nature. We can fly to Europe, Asia or South America in hours and withour effort. We can expect physicians to cure diseases by poking us with needles or giving us pills and telling us to get better. There are very among us who understand the working even of the ubiquitous computers.

This disconnection from nature and technology lead the common folk to believe things happen without regard to natural law. In an age when technology has reduced nature, and elevated man, it is a short step to believe in a magical God that runs the universe like a giant kitchen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spirituality and evolution of the brain
Posted by: peacelf on Nov 10, 2009 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For many years Science has demonstrated that humans use only about 1/6th of their brains.

This raises the question: How did the brain evolve to its current size, if we only use 1/6th? Because ancient peoples used their whole brain for the Logos and the Mythos.

Like Armstrong, I coil at the literalist interpretations of the Bible by religious and atheist fundamentalists.

I don't blame religious fundamentalists so much, because their limited intellectual skills and lack of critical thinking has lead them to follow a faulty religion. Atheist scientists, however, are supposed to be intelligent. And, they are, as far as science will take them. Their ignorance is in literature and figurative language and allegory, history and anthropology.

Perhaps, if the scientist atheists had been paying more attention to their English Lit teachers, they'd have learned more about how to read poetry, classic allegories like Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible, The Matrix, Job, Jonah, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Very few students of literature unlock the mysteries of allegory, tropes and poetry. After all,

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea, 5
For, hold them, blue to blue,
The one the other will absorb,
As sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
For, lift them, pound for pound, 10
And they will differ, if they do,
As syllable from sound.

Emily Dickinson

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's absolutely correct!
Posted by: SufiLizard on Nov 10, 2009 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Christian, I have to say I think Armstrong hits the nail on the head. I have said myself that the new, evangelical atheists are using the same faulty reasoning as the new fundamentalists. Armstrong articulates it much better than I have, but I've come to some very similar conclusions.

I've also seen the pure-logos theology infect my own denomination and it creates some pretty serious rifts. Fortunately our denomination has a traditional focus on balancing orthodoxy with orthopraxis which helps counter the trend a bit.

Personally, I think any serious Christian who reads this will find it to be worth thoughtful consideration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: She's absolutely correct! Posted by: mainspark
» RE: She's absolutely correct! Posted by: Doubtom43
Flaw
Posted by: BobKincaid on Nov 10, 2009 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the author is proceeding from a concept that includes "fundamentalist atheists," she is proceeding from a false premise.

To use such a phrase presumes that atheism is a relgion, which it most assuredly is not. As such, it certainly cannot be "fundamentalist" by any stretch.

The insistent attempts by relgionists to define atheism as a "religion" denote their failure to come to grips with atheists' assertion that there is neither proof for nor evidence of the existence of God. The religionists have to see atheism as a religion not because atheism is one, but because religionists can't see outside the mythos realm. Atheists, as I understand them, refuse to live in the mythos world, insofar as it is not susceptible to reason or proof. That's not a bad thing; neither is it a "fundamentalist" or a religious thing.

America's Liberal Voice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Open a dictionary. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Open a dictionary. Posted by: JoeJ
» RE: Open a dictionary. Posted by: Doubtom43
» RE: Flaw Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: "Fundamentalism" Flaw Posted by: peacelf
the invasion of science into the domain of religion
Posted by: drosera on Nov 10, 2009 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be that the religious domain included all kinds of events: getting ill as incurring God's wrath, insanity as being possessed by demons, eclipses and earthquakes as examples of God's power, as well as psychological phenomena such as insight, ecstasy, consciousness, intense passion and more. In the past three hundred years science has been nibbling away at these "religious" elements, explaining them in terms of matter and energy. The "soul"--or sense of self--is on the point of being explained as either nonexistent or a physiological mechanism. Even ethics has a basis in evolutionary biology. The point is that soon religion will have nothing left. It, like the typewriter, has no place in the modern world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mea culpa Posted by: Sojourner
» hey - I like typewriters! Posted by: hurricane hugo
The Church Hates Pot Smokers
Posted by: melpol on Nov 10, 2009 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The purpose of the American church is to support the holy image. It is of a patriotic white family man whose only sin is to guzzle beer while watching the football game. Those that do not support wars, choose to be single, smoke pot instead of beer, and would rather watch a nature video than a football game are suspect of being a heathen. It is no surprise that big business and the military industrial complex honors the church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Logos & Mythos..........
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 10, 2009 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While these Fundamentalists embrace their "Holy Book" as the WORD and accept those tangible things that they believe that he gives them, they are just as quick to dismiss logos - the logic which is also given to them by this same G-d! Its as though "logic and rational" thought are an anathema something that should be feared rather than embraced for what it is a mind able to discern not just right/wrong or good/evil - but to help make the world better for us all! These people are actually quite frightening because of their insistence on clinging to ignorance! That they are now loud and political (thereby being pandered to by politicians that continue to sell them & US out) is to condemn US all to their ignorance!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bulls*#t
Posted by: ronhacker on Nov 10, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter how pretty you write it, making a case for God is bulls*#t.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ramen. Posted by: Karlh
» RE: Ramen. Posted by: Joni50
It's a good book but it isn't as though this information has been hidden
Posted by: goeswithness on Nov 10, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we have in "public" these days is two loud extremes: fundamentalism on one side and a hostility that is equally ignorant and bigoted on the other side. Neither of those has any depth or understanding of the core of Christianity or of what motivates most believers. Fundamentalism is a very young phenomenon, but you could have found that out on Wikipedia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we're not "entirely dismissive of mythos" as postulated
Posted by: Higher Reptile on Nov 10, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after all, mythology - cloaked empiricism - summed how the ancients measured and observed phenomena, albeit, as noted, with insufficient data, thus the many off-mark conclusions of our bronze age forebears.

a 'good defense of god' based on 'informative' 'theological analysis'? please, visit the library! there you will have access to countless peer-reviewed theology papers by renowned academics. in examining the oral traditions, cultures, syncretisms, politics, etc. associated to deist heritage, the common thread is that one must take a 'leap of faith' in embracing the existence of a god, for the discrepancies and downright manufacturing are positively abysmal and clearly point to the opposing conclusion that there is no god.

and, if only the author would really study history, she would learn that blind faith is by no means a modern trait. mankind has always been afflicted by crippling superstition

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pater's Nostrums....
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Nov 10, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just love jumping into this food fight, Religion vs. Science! (Yahweh vs. Einstein in a ten round steel cage match now on pay-per-view for only $49.95. Operators standing by.)

The mythical, allegorical, and mystical is just a little too soft and too squishy for the hard nosed realist to accept.

Those who have had experiences that could be called "mystical" or "religious" could no more impart this knowledge to the hard nosed rationalist than he would be able to fully capture and explain the sunset to a person born congenitally blind.

There are no "brownie points" to be won for "rightness". The world is as it presents itself to you - the witness. You understand it in terms that make sense to you.

Scientific models are extremely good at explaining and predicting physical phenomena.

Mythos is extremely good at bringing you into an inner realm of spirituality and heightened awareness.

Both are valuable. Arguing over whether science is superior to myth is like arguing that heads is more valuable than tails. They are different sides of the same coin. The "currency" here is trying to understand ourselves and our existence.

Pax...
Pope Urban XXIII

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion Always the Province of the State
Posted by: edgar_michel on Nov 10, 2009 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as we might want to romanticize about religion, the fact remains that religion has always been the first estate of government whether it be Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu/Buddhist, Greek or Roman/Christian, religion has always been the agent to enforce adherence to the principals of the state; a tool of the ruling classes if you wish.

For whatever else you might imagine, religious writings were the manuscripts for right behavior within the context of the prerogatives of the ruling elites of the day. That doesn't mean that the manuscripts weren't written well, they were, because the moneyed elite of the times wanted these contracts with their people to be unimpugnable, beyond the intellectual grasp of the masses.

If there is poetry involved in the scriptures then it is there because the moneyed elite of the time paid well to have the poets write it.

If there is meaning in the scriptures it is because after so many millennia of adherence to the principals of those contracts we the people have completely internalized our role defined by those scriptures and now find it nurturing and any dissent against its relevancy abrasive.

But we face global catastrophe on a scale never imagined by the moneyed elite of the past. We have to arrive at new paradigms in order to effectively confront this catastrophe of our own making. Global Climate Change is that to which I refer, and I don't think the paradigms of the past will serve us here no matter how romantic or nurturing we may find them.

We have to face the raw facts even though our nerves become abraded and arrive at real solutions to sooth those abraded nerves; nothing else will serve us this time, as all the religions of the past dealt with a completely different reality than the one we face today. Mistakes were tolerable then; they are no longer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And King James I changed it back Posted by: edgar_michel
Fundamentalist Christianity is indeed "modern"
Posted by: vyckie on Nov 10, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I discovered from the writings of Brian McClaren ~ and this was a real eyeopener for me, a total literalist and the strictest sort of fundamentalist:

... I appreciate that ... Christian brothers and sisters of mine are against something worth being against ~ the loss of moral passion and virtue, the loss of vibrant faith, the eclipse of spiritual conviction in a kind of thin relativistic fog. ... maybe in defending our modern idea of absolute truth, we not only align ourselves against something worth being against, but in the bargain find ourselves arguing for things not worth arguing for. ... (Do you wonder what you're missing in those ellipses? Just trust me ~ I'm only sparing you the extraneous stuff.) It's not that I am recommending something less than objectivity ~ to the contrary, I'm recommending something more. I am all for objectivity, absolute truth, and propositions. I'm simply pointing out that ~ after 500 years of objectifying everything, and de-subjectifying ourselves, and pursuing absolute truth whether scientific or religious ~ we now see modernity for what it is: simultaneously a blessing ... and a curse.

All of which means this: that we as Christians can no longer approach the Bible as if we were in a laboratory, seeking for abstract, universal principles devoid of contexts and environments, believing we can approach the text objectively ... Impossible. We cannot help but approach the Bible as subjects encountering a subject, with our background, prejudices, assumptions, biases, needs, misunderstandings, experiences ~ in a word, our subjectivities ~ intact. And with our respect for the subjectivities of the writers intact, too.

And more: we Christians can acknowledge that our subjectivity in approaching the Bible is not a bad thing, it does not compromise our spirituality or our understanding of the Bible or our orthodoxy. Such subjectivity is actually necessary ~ it is a reality that even the Bible itself assumes, for it is a premodern text and therefore less addicted to objectivity. Any attempts of ours to read the Bible objectively are actually modern invasions into our reading. So we need to become a new kind of post-objective, intersubjective Christian ...


Not that I have any patience for Christianity in any form these days. Having seen and experienced fundamentalism in its most destructive, mind-warping form, I am not at all apologetic about going from one extreme to the other: I have Thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOD and JESUS
Posted by: Birdland on Nov 10, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God and Jesus would have nothing to do with many religions. Somehow, I can't see Jesus hugging the fundie that shot a doctor coming out of church or those who bomb doctors offices. I am not religious and think of religious dogma as creations of people who need to control and instill fear in others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GOD and JESUS Posted by: factbased
» RE: GOD and JESUS Posted by: Joni50
Hope does not prove existence
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 10, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably every human who ever lived has hoped for a pleasant afterlife. But a universal hope does not indicate that there is a creator or a heaven. Skeptics shoot holes in our hupes and myths.
Severely reducing the probability of the creation theory in Genesis is a result of evolutionary biological, anthropological, geological and other scientific studies. But developing a theory that there is no god of the Mid-East (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) can be arrived at in a number of other ways: historical research invalidating the cited events in the scriptures of the various religions, showing that the "revealed" truth in many scriptures has previous existence in nearby cultures, observations of the actual moral behavior of professed believers varies considerably from their stated beliefs, etc. Such evidence is expanded in Book 4 (Atheism and Agnosticism chapters) in the popular free ebook series "And Gulliver Returns" --In Search of Utopia--at http://andgulliverreturns or at the Kindle site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well this article
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 10, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
certainly has me thinking. We as Christians were taught that we are saved by grace, in other words, belief or faith in the Saviour, Jesus Christ and not by good works. This article seems to imply that being "saved" is in fact totally related to good works. The other thing that comes to my mind when reading this article is the belief by fundamentalists in the literal wording of the scriptures. I find it difficult to reconcile this belief in literalism with the inability of such fringe groups to apply that belief to everyday life. For instance if you look at the terrible tragedy at the army base in Texas you might be reminded of the Biblical admonition that "those that live by the sword will die by the sword". Certainly an army base in a nation that spends as much per year as the whole rest of the world, on armaments and military expenditures would qualify in my mind at least as "living by the sword". Those poor men were killed by gunfire which in today's parlance is dying by the "sword". Do you get the connection? But mention that to literalist fundamentalists and they would never out the two together in their minds. It simply is outside their ability to reason. Why is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have a problem. Posted by: Karlh
» RE: I have a problem. Posted by: Archie1954
» What sword? Posted by: LightningJoe
I like Mythos
Posted by: k_pr on Nov 10, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a good tasting Greek beer.

Opa!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real proof of the mythology of scripture
Posted by: rugger on Nov 10, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can be found in comparative religion analysis.

If one considers the history of how the religions were adapted, adopted and reinterpreted to suit a particular population's idiom, then the only logical conclusion is that it is all a myth.

There are numerous antecedents for almost every Bibilical narrative, including old and new testaments. Thomas Callahan goes in to this in great detail in his book "The Secret Origins of the Bible."

That to me is the strongest argument for atheism.

Oh, and BTW, Hitchens, Dawkins et al. are correct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cranky but not fundamentalists
Posted by: jareilly on Nov 10, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would describe Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens (who is particularly cranky). The author may not have correctly re-stated Karen Armstrong's position, but if so, she's off the mark. As somebody posted already, you can't be a "fundamentalist atheist". There is no "belief" system at work in atheism; only a lack of a religious belief system. Also, if Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens critique actual fundamentalists on the fundamentalist's own terms, i.e., biblical literalism, that doesn't make Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens fundamentalists. It doesn't mean they don't get the allegorical purpose of scriptural stories. They aren't talking about that, although Harris sort of broaches the subject in "The End of Faith". Anyway, atheism has no institutions, no seat at the government table, no voice in the media. How could the comments of atheists have anywhere near the tangible impact that biblical literalists have in all those venues? By attacking "fundamentalist atheists", religionists, reveal the weakness, not the strength in their own "case". I'm not gloating. I am very fond of Karen Armstrong. Read several of her books and learned a tremendous amount. For a believer, she is a great humanist. I think she's wrong about atheism though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Charter for Compassion
Posted by: mollymorph on Nov 10, 2009 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In just two days, on 12 November, Karen Armstrong's TED Prize project, The Charter for Compassion, will be unveiled.

The Charter for Compassion

I'm a great admirer of Armstrong and was thrilled to be at her book signing of The Case for God in Portland, Oregon, this past September. I've been following the progress of the Charter for Compassion ever since I found out about it last Spring when she was on Bill Moyers Journal.

Leaving aside this rather tiresome argument of atheists vs theists, most of the world does believe in something and always has ... she has used her "wish" from the TED Prize to bring the one thing that all believers ... even non-believers ... seem to have no quarrel with: Armstrong fondly calls it The Golden Rule and she's gotten a great deal of peace activists world-wide to join in.

(An interesting factoid I picked up reading some of Armstrong's earlier books is that the Christian version of the Golden Rule is the only one that is couched in the positive, that is, it takes the position that we should do to others as we would have them to do us ... all the other versions are in the negative, do not do to others, etc. etc. To me this means that we should not wait to see how others treat us first and then act, but to take the initiative and demonstrate in good faith that others will follow our example.)

I don't know what I expect will happen as a result of the Charter for Compassion ... but I'm going to keep a close watch and if there's something I can do to help, I will. Too late I discovered that there are no organized observances of the Charter's unveiling in Portland ... she spoke to a packed house of over 500 people here, so I was surprised to not see any listings here in the Metro Area. (If I had known earlier, that would have been something I could have done.)

Ya see, that's the trick, folks ... talk is cheap ... whatcha gonna DO about it, that's what I wanna know!

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Armstrong on Compassion Posted by: mollymorph
Quoi? There's a chimpanzee in that tree... death or cake?
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 10, 2009 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Armstrong's work on the "history" of religions appears to be about as well-cited as Eddie Izzard... only Izzard is significantly more entertaining and quite possible substantially more accurate...

Perhaps the claim the religious fundies are akin to "fundie" atheists, or two sides of the same coin is better explained in terms of what type of consciousness is being employed by whom, but the more I hear the rationale behind such claims the more I'm convinced those making such claims have zero comprehension about what's going on at all.

It's a tough sell for me either way. Having come out from amongst the fundies and their destructive path, gone into the progressive religious Lefties and then realized I just don't have anything in common with any of them anymore because of the intellectual dishonesty involved, I just don't buy shallow arguments about who is preferrable to whom and why.

Logos and Mythos have entirely different contextual histories than Armstrong's claims would suggest. Further starting with "the Greeks" is a jettisoning of two thirds of human history that predates the damned Greeks. I wonder what's behind such a conscious choice to ignore the bulk of human experience in explaining a modernist conflict. It's insufficient to ignore what we now know (from science and anthropology as well as myth and story telling) and try to claim that if we just go back to some nostalgic better time we can resolve the angst du jour. Puhleez. Been there done that.

What's more relevant is the recognition of what's the burr in one's bonnet really all about and the ownership of that burr. If new atheists are pissing you off, what's that about for you? If the religious fundies are buggering you off, where's that coming from in you?

For me, I see Imperial consciousness at work in both camps, although amongst the hard core of my atheist comrades I do see glimpses of at least a socialized consciousness whereas I do NOT see that in religious fundamentalists. The argument that atheists are merely the flipside of the fundie coin is pretty loose... like arguing that a billiard ball is all white underneath like the cue-ball simply because it's also a billiard ball. How absurd. The answer is, "not necessarily." But that doesn't sit well if you have a vested interest in defending your own identity turf (imperial and socialized consciousness does this, the former much more so than the latter).

The other thing about "practices" that Armstrong fails to comprehend shows up when she claims mechanical rote precedes passion. Clearly she's not a musician. Those of us who are understand that both are always present, that mechanical rote is actually muscle conditioning until muscle memory becomes unconscious. That allows that "passion" to run in focused tidal flood rather than competing with conscious muscle memory.

Religion and praxis: it's more complex than she presents. For centuries western Europeans insisted that there was only one way to practice or show prowess in music. Africans taught them there are hundreds of ways not one. Counterpoint may still be useful, but it merely one tool amongst many and not even the basis upon which all else is built.

Following Armstrong's distorted premise, only religion and religious people can become whole humans. Nonsense. Clearly whole humans can emerge from a wide variety of mechanics and passion, not merely one.

The bottom line really should be: We humans mostly make shit up. When we do that we need to own what we make up and keep an open mind about it. Fundies are in denial about that and Atheists piss 'em off because they tend to call fundies on their shit they've made up.

Time to grow up and quit pissin' on the road and claiming it was hurricane, or "god's" leftovers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not to pick at nits, but ... Posted by: mollymorph
Stay tuned for scenes of the next
Posted by: willymack on Nov 10, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Ninnies are Forever".
It hardly matters if and how "fundamentalist", "fanatic", or hopelessly mind-fucked people were, in the past, as opposed to now.
There were and ARE ninnies who are suckers for every con game in the book, no matter how preposterous they may be.
Just look at the loonie fringe spinoffs of an already loonie belief system here, for instance.
Of course, their proponents are always RIGHT, and never WRONG, and they'll go on Crusades, perform Inquisitions, and burn "witches" at the stake to prove it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God Is . . .
Posted by: garyfee on Nov 10, 2009 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God is just a synonym for the first-person singular used by people who cannot construct a single rational argument for why they are right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: God Is . . . Posted by: Richardsievert
"Greatness is seen' and heard'
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 10, 2009 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason Jesus Christ could walk on water is enlivenment to the faith of a man' His father put him above the water, Above the mountains, that' Satin tempted him, With and everything that there is on this earth. The only reason we are not like Christ is because of our sin. I no this is a "fact I have tested it myself '
Please just hold your two hands close to one another and pray ' When you do this you can feel the energy that is there it is not something you can see but only feel unless your like him '
I pray we all are soon' Because there is a war coming and he needs soldiers that will stand up and be tested tried in truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundamentalism is not modern at all...
Posted by: Smartcookie on Nov 10, 2009 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if you study the statements of faith of various christian denominations over the centuries the closer you get to early AD the more fundamentalist the statements of faith, quite frankly what passes for mainstream christianity is the popular bastardizations of the text itself. The real christians were always fundamentalist.

The liberal christian has a problem if the bible is allegory and 100% myth then there is no reason nor purpose for the christian faith at all.

This is always lost on liberal christian denominations.

Even the bible says so:

1 Corinthians 15:14

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Even a liberal christian cannot escape the inescapable - that there is NO POINT in the christian religion if the stories of christ are not history, it's quite obvious that the stories were written and preached as history.

A confused morass perhaps, but our ancestors were not the sharpest knives in the drawer and before modern technology and mass transportation and mass communication communities were often more isolated and physical distance meant and the length of time to send and broadcast different points of view was quite limited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Believe Whatever You Like.....
Posted by: armorypk on Nov 10, 2009 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But please, keep it to yourself. Keep it out of government, classrooms and bedrooms.

The late George Carlin said it best,

"If people want to say 'God bless America,' that's their business; I don't care. But here's what I don't understand. If they say 'God bless America,' presumably, they believe in God. And if they do, they must have heard God loved everyone. That's what he said; He loved everyone and loved them equally. So why would these people ask God to do something that went against his own teachings? You know what these 'God bless America' people oughta do? They oughta check with that Jesus fella they're so crazy about. They're always talking about 'What would Jesus do? What would Jesus do?' They don't wanna know so they can do it; they just wanna know so they can tell other people to do it. Well, I'll tell you what Jesus would have done. I'll tell you what Jesus would have done. He would have got up on top of the Empire State Building and said, 'God bless everyone around the world forever and ever until the end of time.' That's what Jesus would have done and that's what these people should do, or else they should admit that 'God bless America' is really just some sort of an empty slogan with no real meaning except for something vague like, 'Good luck! Good luck America your on your own' Which is more closer to the truth."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion. What does the word mean?
Posted by: wisegalah on Nov 11, 2009 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coes from two words;
re = again, to do again etc' and,
ligare = to bind, tie together.

So it is about rejoining something.

Well, rejoining what?

All of us feel splintered and in pieces, just watch the chaos which is your conscious mind. Don't kid yourself that that is in one piece or whole and a coherent entity. That chaos is the experience of all but a handful of human kind.

So what we are to rebind religate religion is ourselves to make ourselves 'whole' or 'holy'.

This is what the great spiritual leaders were talking about. What they have left has been corrupted totally by the priests, mullahs, rabbis and other blind or unprincipled power seekers and power brokers.

All of the religious movements, belief systems, including atheism, organised churches, mosques, synagogues are full of nonsense, deceit, manipulation, perversion, criminality, etc.

The real spiritual seeker walks alone and in silence.

Away with all of this other dog droppings!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fundamentalist knowledge test .....
Posted by: yirrp on Nov 11, 2009 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A worthwhile two question knowledge test to challenge any fundamentalist or evangelical Christian.

Q1. According to the Gospels what happened to the man of peace five days after physically throwing the money changers from the Temple?

Q2. What part of the city of New Orleans was the least affected by God's judgement dished out by cyclone Katrina?

Answers:

Q1. He was dead

Q.2. The red light district

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From progressive to regressive
Posted by: kedikat on Nov 11, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most religions start out as a cutting edge change in ideas and mores. Most early adopters are free thinkers, imaginative, questioning. They usually are challenging the status quo.

As they grow and become formalized, regimented and hierarchical they begin to attract the mediocre, the herd types. Once it is an established thing with some power, it stagnates. It attracts stagnant people. People looking for comfort, not challenge. Acceptance for what they are, faults and all, instead of striving for change and a new world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TOD2
Posted by: TOD2 on Nov 11, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Belief in God, or what we have been trained to call God/Yahweh/Allah/Brahma/Spirit, etc. is not the problem. The Universe is approximately 15 million years old and Man, in his present state of evolution (homo sapien) is about 130,000 years young, so for man to sense there is something beyond himself in the cosmic order seems reasonable. Since man has been walking upright he has been striving to understand and commune with whatever this Universal Intelligence is or may be. This seems natural and even perhaps evolutionary. Man has evolved from worshipping animals to worshipping elements of nature, a pantheon of gods and eventually to a monotheistic concept.

The difficulty lies with religion. That certain enlightened and advanced people came along with an ability to conceptualize and articulate this Intelligence should not prevent man from evolving in understanding. These original depositors of thought (Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.) spoke contemporaneously of their idea of truth using the only tool available - human language which is anything but "universal". Unfortunately, these original depositors in many cases were made into deities themselves and the religions formed in their honor points man toward the messenger and not the portion of truth that may be found within the message.

Before writing was invented, man's beliefs about the divine evolved quite naturally. Once these "theologies" were tacked to paper they became doctrinized and then defended by large intolerant institutions that claimed their interpretation of truth was absolute and others were false and/or evil.

It may very well be true that religious practice has benefit to the individual practitioner, but is it also possible that the generic institution of religion, or the "industry" of religion has stymied mankind from evolving in understanding. Isn't it possible, just maybe that formal religion has kept man (or many men) locked into antiquity for understanding of God/Yahweh/Allah/Brahma/Spirit/Intelligence, etc.?

Religion and science, even though neither side would admit it today, are attempting to answer the same question man has been striving to answer since he became self aware: Where did I come from? Where am I going? And, what is the purpose/meaning of life?

Soon theology, philosophy and science will merge into a "theology of reality" and the distance and mistrust between them that has existed for thousands of years will embarrass mankind in a way that discovering the world isn't really flat has in the past.

As Frank Sheed said many years ago, "to overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity, like overlooking anything else that is actually there." It would be like seeing a coat hanging on a wall and not realizing it is being held up by a hook, but rather believe it exists in a fantasy world in which coats ignore gravity and cling to walls by their own power.

The existence of "something" is obvious even if the "something" isn't visible or yet understanbable to man. To cling to ancient deposits of the concept of this "something" is counterintuitive to the evolutionary nature of our species and the physical plane in which we exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Misplaced decimal alert! Posted by: LightningJoe
» The best post I've read today. Posted by: Rasplanet
» RE: TOD2 Posted by: Basenjis
You will never win an argument with a Christian
Posted by: tuckerdognc on Nov 11, 2009 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no point. You can't change their skygod beliefs. Some people think they can pray for touchdowns, some don't. Some think they are actually not talking to themselves when they pray, others do. And the argument is always ALWAYS supported by quotes from the bible. When I talk to Christians I like to quote from "Gone with the Wind," and then point out that my book is just as good a story as theirs. That usually ends it. But, then, I don't have a church on every corner, so I lose to the overwhelming majority that tends to feel they're oppressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get them off of their soapboxes, and I'm fine...
Posted by: LightningJoe on Nov 11, 2009 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I have reservations about accepting a review of a book on religious philosophy, by someone who calls him(?)self 'Devilstower,' His portrayal of the author's positions strikes a resonance with my experience. The Christianity I see through the too-respectful lens of the media these days does indeed seem to have some of its concepts reversed, to a philosophical dead end.

Fundamentalism's very fundamentalism is what I find so objectionable, when it intersects with my life. People who could not 'rectify' the inconsistancies in the Bible if their lives -- much less their souls -- depended on such rectifications, nevertheless will and do try to tell the rest of us how and what to think. With force, and with seemingly unfaulting dedication to the end that all others will believe as they do. This effort in itself is what raises my hair about Christians. Now I don't mind Catholics or Lutherans, because their ruminations by and large never leave their churches, where I deem they belong. It's the Mormons, Witnesses, and Evangelicals that I object to, because they chase me and my soul out into the public places, AND routinely misrepresent themselves, in their quest to trick me into considering their brand of crazy talk.

This is in my opinion a misuse of public space, to use that space to intrude on others who do not intrude on you. Religionists use the reluctance the rest of us have, as Americans, to pollute the free space we all share with our own personal doctrines. I happen to believe that we as a people foolishly take for granted the gifts nature has given us, spending them freely in the face of the obvious need of future generations for those very resources. I think we are spending our children's inheritance as if it were ours only, and wasting it thereby. But I don't go out preaching this philosophy on the street corners, trying to convert people -- though perhaps I should do some such thing.

Instead, in the public square, we are treated to the sight and sound of people expounding an ultimate expression of individuality -- a comfortable hole called faith, in which to hide from the world. It's not only their intrusion on my own space that I object to, but the incipent blindness that their efforts show, toward the more immediately important issues of conservation and responsible stewardship of the planet,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wishful thinking amd misunderstandings
Posted by: troy on Nov 12, 2009 8:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Armstrong uses the contemporary slander "atheist fundamentalism" like a mindless Christian soldier. Weak arguments always need mischaracterizations to stand on. Sorry, most atheists do not have to "believe" in the non-existence of god. It's a difficult concept for these folks like Armstrong - to come to a rational opinion (not immutable dogma) about religion and decide that it's not the way to go.
That people of reason have a growing courage to confront the absurdities that comprise so much of the monotheistic religions is the real sin here. You can kill for god, cheat for god, make lots of money for god, you can even work for the destruction of the human species (end of days wackos that exist like a disease throughout our society and government), but try and rise above the license for lunacy and you are really in the cross hairs. The disintegration of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will be long and very painful to the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wishful thinkers: define "Athiest fundamentalism"
Posted by: troy on Nov 12, 2009 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please. Proove to us that those of you who bandy about this phrase do not have a reasoning disorder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hi
Posted by: somavelina on Nov 13, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a great place------- Cougarmatching.com ------- It's a premiere cougar dating community for older women seeking younger men and young men seeking cougars. Come in, post a message, a picture of yourself and check out the hot photo galleries. You will find someone you like here...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement