As many of you know, Sam Harris is one of my favorite defenders of Reason. Sam is one of the many people that helped me define my current worldview, and I find his speeches to be incredibly lucid. He is honest, engaging, calm and absolutely clear about how we can have transcendent experiences, love, meaning and real humanity without necessitating a God.
The following videos exhibit some of the best speaking on the topic of Faith & Reason available ANYWHERE, and I highly recommend you take the time to watch all five (less than an hour).
If there are specific things Sam says that people find interesting/lacking/inspiring/harmful, please comment and begin some discussion/debate.
Enjoy!
Ben
November 19, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
I watched all of these and the follow-up Q&A session yesterday.
There are just a lot of really interesting points in here, and it’s hard to pick and choose some over others, but a very interesting point I hadn’t considered much was his rebuttal to the point that while there are some horrific and profane actions mandated by God in the old testament, this was just the furthest along the moral path that God could bring people at that time. He points out that we have historical examples from several different cultures from that same era that suggest that humans HAD indeed achieved far more advanced morality than what was being mandated by the god of the Israelites… Greek Philosophers, the Buddah, Mahavira, all show that it was well within the moral compass of humans during those times to understand and insist that people NOT do the same types of heinous acts supposedly mandated by God at that time and dismissed as “What the people of that time needed to hear” or “All they could handle”.
This got me thinking about the “plan” for revelation in general. This is just how I see it, obviously. It’s a call I’m making, so I understand that others might look around and make another call. That said:
Let’s say we do buy the “appropriate for that time period/best they could do” concept. Then there’s the new testament, which also has its moral problems. The New Church, into which I was born, claims that God’s next revelatory move was to inspire Swedenborg to then decipher these ancient texts so as to reveal their hidden “inner” meaning… a clear, appropriate revelation for our time. But then what? That was well over 250 years ago! And today, we STILL have a HUGELY superior number of people on this earth who take the bible literally and a relatively tiny number of people who know about this “inner meaning”. And everyone who doesn’t know about it is, presumably, incorrectly trying to follow it literally.
My problem is that none of this sounds REMOTELY like the kind of success I’d expect to see from a strategy employed by THE GOD OF ALL. What the New Church, (and some other churches) call Divine Providence is usually cited to explain appearances like this with some variation of “Everything is happening exactly how it needs to… God’s plan is hard to see, but it is perfect.” The problem with this explanation is that if you choose to take this assumption on faith ANYTHING will just be a confirmation of it, no matter how horrific. It’s COMPLETELY immune to experience-inspired doubt.
Again… this is just how it all occurs to me through my own perspective. It’s not my intention to mock or “call out” those who believe these concepts, but it’s just so strange for me to see so much stock put in this theory that WHATEVER we witness, regardless of how imperfect, failed, random, etc. it appears, it’s all just part of a perfect, optimal plan, and it’s just what God intends. (OK, oversimplification, but not far off.)
It’s like that scene where Pee-Wee is showing off and crashes his bike and says “I meant to do that.” Except it’s God.
November 19, 2008 at 7:04 pm |
Well, this is a major challenge of the project of religion. It seems to me like a hybrid between the “problem of evil” and “why is revelation so weird”.
Most religions that I am aware of do not consider this world to be God’s optimal plan. They consider it to be a manifestation of the various disasters that are human nature and God’s redemptive work to pull people out of utter destruction.
This explains the chaos. However, it may not be a satifying explanation.
I love revelation.
. One of Emanuel Swedenborg’s books starts with the following statement:
“It is generally agreed that the Word is from God, is divinely inspired, and therefore holy; but hitherto it has remained unknown wherein its divinity resides; for the Word in the Letter appears like common writing in a strange style, lacking the sublimity and brilliance which are apparently features of the literature of the world. For this reason the man who worships nature instead of God, or in preference to God, and who consequently thinks from* himself and his proprium** and not from* heaven from* the Lord, may easily fall into error respecting the Word and into contempt for it, and say within himself as he reads it, What does this mean? What does that mean? Is this Divine? Can God, to whom belongs infinite wisdom, speak in this way? Where is its sanctity, or whence derived but from man’s religious credulity?” Doc Sacred Scripture 1
I like how it is acknowleged at the begining that the Bible seems like a strange book. Not particularly well-written, not particularly Holy.
The reason I say I love revelation is because this is one of the type of puzzles I love. It is a great challenge to work through this ancient text looking for things. Perhaps this is part of the reason I am walking a theist path and some of you are walking atheist paths. I find religion to be an exciting and challenging prospect. It must be a given that, unlike Sam Harris, I do not see religion as a source of evil.
Brian
November 20, 2008 at 12:57 pm |
The paragraph quoted from the Writings of ES illustrates for me the problem that I have with religion. It states that even though the Bible may seem strange, it is divinely inspired. That much is a given. Only people who don’t believe it is divine will find it strange and question it.
Why are we starting from the assumption that it is divine? Because this strangely-written book told us it is? Why do we believe that book over our own reason? I know that this has come up many times in this blog, but I am really seeing that religion isn’t ever asked to make much sense.
I also take issue with the idea that anything from man is evil. Raised in the New Church, I believed that, of myself, I could do nothing good. The words proprium and ego were dirty words. The only good I can do is actually the Lord working through me. I wasn’t taught to love myself just because I am. I was taught to love the Lord in me, because He made me. That mind set feels demeaning, and a recipe for a poor self-esteem.
I’ve been reading Ayn Rand’s novella “Anthem”. I don’t know if she’s intentionally talking about religion in it, but it very clearly describes the experience of leaving my faith and learning to respect my own sense of reason. It’s a short, easy read for anyone interested.
Megan
November 20, 2008 at 1:20 pm |
Thank Megan…I will pick it up next time I am in a book store. I just finished The Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd and I feel like it helped me see, love and respect myself as a woman more fully than I ever have in the new church….for just the reasons you mentioned above about the feelings of low self esteem that are by products of our religious experiences in the new church I believe.
November 20, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
I tend to agree with Megan’s assesment. It seems like, given the Bible and the claims around it, we have two choices. We can either approach it affirmatively or negatively.
In the first case, we start from a belief in God and heaven and try to see the truth in the Bible. In the second case, we start from our sense of reason and try to test whether the Bible seems plausible.
I’d be interested if people think there are other options. I do think they are pretty differeny approaches.
Brian
November 20, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
differeny=different
November 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm |
something that bothers me that I am not allowed to say and that no one i know would think it acceptable for me to say in any way is that women seem less intelligent than men.
i am not talking about what the books of my religion talk about, I am talking about everyday dealings with women.
i see the irrational parts of myself and then i see the intellect part of myself that tempers the irrational
i just do not see this intellect in women
that just get angry extremely easily, it’s ridiculous
they often just seem to believe as well whatever the people around them believe, perhaps whatever the man they are in a relationship believes
i know i’m not allowed to say this. i just don’t understand it and i know i might be torn apart for it, but i don’t mind
if it’s a woman doing the arguing against it, it’s not really going to make sense anyway
(if the moderation for this site would like this comment to be removed((or moved?)), i am fine with that)
i know this doesn’t really fit here, but it doesn’t really fit anywhere
November 20, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
Hi Owen,
While I can’t agree with your assessment at all, I want to be clear in the distinction between disagreeing (emphatically) and thinking you shouldn’t say it. Sometimes it makes me sad that so many opinions are taboo to talk about. Sure… some opinions may sound wrong or even a little lame to the majority of us, but having an experience/impression and not being able to just be frank about how things are occurring to you doesn’t seem like a recipe to having the freedom and opportunity to stick your neck out there and maybe learn another impression or another experience. “Pretend you don’t think that” is just not a very helpful message for society to send us as we learn and grow.
Now, if you decide “I’m right about this assessment, and I’m not willing to learn that I might be wrong” and subsequently begin to act on this conviction (for instance talking down to women because you assume your impression/experience must be reality) then the rest of us are going to jump on that, because you’ve crossed into the realm of disrespectful treatment that we’re not comfortable with. But just observing that you have a certain impression and putting it out there for everyone to see is not something that I want to discourage.
That said, hopefully you are open to considering some other viewpoints and some other thoughts about why you may have this impression. When I notice that my impression of reality is markedly different than what others report, the first thing I do is try to come up with a good explanation for why this might be. Why do SO many others… the vast majority of our society, I’d say, not report getting that impression? One explanation would be that all men listen to women and think they sound less intelligent, but they all pretend otherwise. You don’t have to take my word for it, but I’m going assert that that’s not it. Another explanation is that what you identify as “intelligence” or “intellect” is a more narrow definition than what other people hold. You say “less” so clearly you see that women have some intelligence. And I’d be surprised if you’d say that you think ALL women are less intelligent than EVERY man. So I’d guess that what we’re probably talking about here is a trend that certain types or presentations of intelligence, which you detect or value more strongly than others, might tend to run more intensely in men than women.
Most people will acknowledge that men and women are different in some fundamental ways. Plenty of those ways are due to or at least enhanced by societal affects or “nurture,” but there are also physical, chemical, hormonal, etc. differences that effect cognition.
Your statement that “they often just seem to believe as well whatever the people around them believe,” — while as a married man I can ASSURE you is not true all of the time
— could be another trend… the immediacy of sympathetic/empathetic response, or being able to identify with others more readily would be described by many as “emotional intelligence” which is every bit as valuable and necessary, albeit different from, say, logic. It could be that emotional intelligence, and the by product of sympathizing with the opinions of others, tends to run more strongly in women.
As a guy, perhaps YOU value or understand some forms of intelligence less than others, but it’s usually a good idea, when you know your perspective is limited, to avoid drawing conclusions about your type being “more” and the other type “less” … if you can avoid placing yourself in the position of “score-keeper” or “value-decider” and just observe some differences, I actually don’t think you’ll run into too many people who will disagree, let alone “tear you apart” for thinking so.
November 21, 2008 at 10:46 am |
I don’t really value ‘emotional intelligence’, at least not as much as I value objective intelligence, which is what I am saying, in my opinion, women seem to lack a lot more often than men.
I don’t really feel like women often can’t stand there ground on a lot of issues either. In general women seem to me to be much more willing to be ‘friends’ than to make a point, even if the point is fairly important.
I know I’m completely wrong in my attitude here. I just don’t understand anything.
November 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
Hi Owen,
I absolutely disagree with your assessment of women & intelligence. That said, I don’t feel the need to ‘tear you apart’ or remove your comments (as you suggested), because this IS your perspective, no matter how misguided it may seem to 99% of readers.
Part of the reason I started CCD was to encourage many different points of view to share their opinions. I knew from the outset that we’d encounter some that, as you say, ‘don’t really fit anywhere’. That’s cool with me. However, it seems like several of your comments were quite inflammatory, as if the intent of the comment was to incite CCD readers (“if it’s a woman doing the arguing against it, it’s not really going to make sense anyway”). I hope that in the future, if you have a strong opinion on something that pertains to the natural world, you’ll share it, and offer evidence and reasoning to back your point. That last part is crucial.
A couple questions, though. Do you think your opinion on female intelligence has been strongly guided by the doctrine you were brought up in? I know you said that you were just talking about ‘daily interactions’, but do you think your daily interactions have been tainted by the NC perspective on the ‘role of the sexes’ and particularly the teachings on love & wisdom? Also, What are you basing all this on? Do you feel you have the necessary life experience to make seemingly blanket statements about female intelligence? Have you been travelling the world documenting these claims and testing them, trying to accurately determine what REAL intelligence is, and where women seem to lack it, or are you just saying that they don’t seem to ‘get it’, in the way that you ‘get it’? Strictly out of curiousity, Owen, what issues do you fell like women cannot stand their ground on?
If you are interested, my opinion is that your perspective seems to be WAY off, and many people have noted (in private) that they disagree wholeheartedly with your statements. Most folks recognize that there are documented differences in men and women, but the idea that women just aren’t as capable, intellectually, is a dubious one, especially if you don’t produce evidence, or REALLY make an effort to engage women on a number of different levels and study, without experimental bias, the intelligence of the sexes. Having said that, I encourage you to reply, and hope that an interesting discussion can arise from this sensitive topic.
CCD,
Ben
November 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm |
I’ll agree with Thor – just because a topic is seen as taboo, doesn’t mean that a person should feel that they can’t be honest about their opinions. Some of the most interesting and groundbreaking ideas throughout history weren’t necessarily seen as popular. That said, I think it’s wise to take the next step and consider WHY those opinions may not be particularly well-received. In this case, perhaps it’s because those opinions reflect an antiquated perception of gender roles and reveal a simple lack of exposure to a very intellectual population of women. I promise you Owen, it does exist.
I don’t want to put you on the spot (in fact, it is my hope that this line of questioning induces some sort of personal reflection), but may I ask what sort of women you interact with in your daily life? What is the purpose of those interactions? Would you describe them as well-educated women? Are you actively seeking out both men and women with whom you may discuss the important issues facing our global community? The fact that you couldn’t quite place Mohammed Atta should have been an early clue that you were a bit out of touch with modern America. That said, I think participating in this forum is a GREAT start! I really hope you continue to mull over many of the ideas that have been presented for discussion.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you haven’t really been exposed to much (on many levels) – particularly with respect to the intellectual capabilities of women. I’ve had very limited exposure to the academic community of Bryn Athyn, but it is particularly terrifying to me that it has produced a perspective that is so blind to reality. Were you home schooled? I know nothing of your education, or your current profession, or your upbringing but I actually feel a deep sense of pity for you, as I feel like you have/are currently missing out on so much this world has to offer. Someone, somewhere, at some point in your impressionable young life (actually, I suspect there are SEVERAL people to blame) brainwashed you with a certain religious ideology, which I believe has contributed to this delusional view of the world. I don’t think you can really separate your perception of women and the misogynistic indoctrination that has been engrained in your psyche as the ‘word of God’. As Robin Williams said in Good Will Hunting – “it’s not your fault”; however, the onus is on you to wise up.
I’ve been very lucky in life, mostly thanks to my parents, and was given the tools to succeed. I’ve been surrounded by strong, intelligent women my whole life – most notably during my four years at Yale University, and so it’s truly hard for me to imagine an environment where a man could feel justified in the expression of such opinions. I’m quite intrigued actually. I’m certainly not going to fly off the handle because an admitted introvert from an insular little town in Pennsylvania, with a very limited view of the world, who self-admittedly ‘doesn’t like people’, thinks that he’s smarter than women. It’s laughable, and a bit sad, but not worthy of great uproar. I find it particularly interesting that, in your experience “women can’t often stand their ground” – while, if anything, I have been criticized for being too strong-willed and opinionated. So, I will concede – we obviously come from VERY different places, so it is difficult for me to understand your perception of women. Best of luck to you Owen.
November 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
D’oh – I apologize for the somewhat duplicative line of questioning. Ben and I obviously spend way too much time together…
November 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
And – since we’re just throwing out random thoughts – I would like to take this opportunity to applaud President-elect Barack Obama’s nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. As a long-time Hillary supporter, I’m just thrilled!
-Meghan
November 21, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
Sorry about my grammar, is terrible.
Sam Harris videos … his speeches are very logical. I spend some time of my early years in a very fanatic religion been one of the “rebel” child. Today I don’t believe in any religion.
These videos really help me to see and understand better my current worldview.
SokiGuchi
November 21, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
I don’t really feel like responding to these responses. I don’t really feel like my opinion was given much consideration, which I don’t mind. It just doesn’t really make me eager to respond. I don’t really want to prove anything.
This isn’t really something I got from my religion. With all these statements about not agreeing whatsoever, I don’t really see a point in going much more into it.
I will say that this opinion, which I’m not really that adamant about(I really just like seeing reactions to some degree), arose from personal experiences with females. It also has a lot to do with the way females talk on this site as well.
I’m not even sure what I was saying and people don’t really seem to be effectively arguing against it anyway. You’re just saying I’m wrong and haven’t experienced the real world. That’s not a good enough argument for me, at all. When people don’t even acknowledge where I am coming from to some degree, I tend to think they are hiding something and I am actually correct.
I guess what I would really be thinking is that women communicate completely different than man in my opinion, so completely different. And I personally do not understand where they are coming from a lot of the time. I was fairly inflammatory in my first post and I wasn’t really very honest in it, but I do believe what I just said in this paragraph.
I may not write anymore about it, as I didn’t really open it up in a healthy way and I don’t think I left much room for common ground, which I usually like a little bit.
always trying new and inflammatory things I am,,,
I actually don’t appreciate the tone of many of these responses, but I don’t appreciate the tone of my first comment either so I don’t really have a lot to stand on.
If anyone has anything interesting to say, that would be cool, but if it’s just gonna be more of, ‘well, i don’t see where you’re coming from’, then I guess I’m not that interested. Sorry for bringing it up. perhaps back to actually discussing the videos
November 22, 2008 at 7:44 am |
Owen — You are right. Your initial post on this was a bit inflammatory. And it lacked anything in the way of actual “handles” for followup discussion.
It would be a bit like me walking into a room and saying “You know what? I think that the sky is brown.” Everyone around me would disagree with me, but since it was stated as “I think…” there’s not much to say to that other than “Well, it’s always been blue or gray or sometimes bright pinkish colors to me. I’ve never seen what I would call a brown sky.”
It doesn’t fundamentally address the point, but that’s because the reality that I would be reporting is not shared by everyone else. Maybe even by anyone else.
Now, to your actual statements, it would be fair to say that, in general, women communicate differently than men. It has been shown in studies that women are more verbal than men, though if you narrow your studies to individuals you will find plenty of very verbal men and non-verbal women, so it isn’t a point to can apply to the entire population.
But when you assert that somehow women are less intelligent than men, you really would need to give f’rinstances or something to back that up. And I would wager that what you are reacting to is not that they are less intelligent, but that they communicate differently than you are accustomed to. (I could be wrong. But for the sake of the rest of this comment, I am running with that.)
Communication (if I may jump up on my soap box a moment) consists of four elements — sender, receiver, message, and interference. And of course the message has to be delivered using a common protocol — the English language, morse code, sign language, whatever. And what I am proposing is that the protocol employed by the women you interact with here or in life is not the same as the protocol that you like to employ.
Fair enough.
But a little friendly advise from someone who knows next to nothing about you — you would benefit greatly from learning how to communicate with women better. Many women, in my experience, are tremendously intelligent and have amazingly valuable things to contribute. They may not phrase it the way you would like, and they may talk about it differently than you would, but that does not make their contributions less valid or valuable than yours or mine.
Another piece of friendly advise — if you’re going to drop a bombshell like the one you did, it is somewhat disingenuous of you to follow up with “I don’t think you’re agreeing with me so I don’t want to talk about it anymore.” I don’t have a problem with controversial topics being brought up and dragged out to the light to look at. In the words of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The corrolary to this, not stated, is that if I disagree or disapprove, I will tell you where I think that you are mis-thinking, and will not accept your assertion as fact. That seems to be the whole theme of CCD. And the rest of us are likely to do that, even if that’s not the way you want to interact.
Then again, I could be wrong. It has happened at least once before.
November 22, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
Pos, that whole thing isn’t interesting to me. I said say something interesting. You completely disregarded that.
I’m just kidding and I know you might not think it’s funny.
Rather than risk another boring comment on the topic, how bout I just go that way and you guys all go talk about something else.
(The nerve of me!)
really, i’m leaving because you guys are boring, except for Thor
November 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
Meh.
I was interested in it. And in life if I pander to the masses for their adoration, I dilute my essence.
And if “boring” is as bad as the insults get, I think I can take it. I’ve been called (and dare say I have deserved) much worse.
November 23, 2008 at 12:00 am |
All, I’m fine with moving on, but I do think we’ll need to start a ‘Women & Religion’ thread soon. Obviously there are some POV’s out there that desperately need to be addressed.
Thor, I think we should re-visit what you said in your first post.
‘Everything is happening exactly how it needs to… God’s plan is hard to see, but it is perfect.’ and then ‘The problem with this explanation is that if you choose to take this assumption on faith ANYTHING will just be a confirmation of it, no matter how horrific. It’s COMPLETELY immune to experience-inspired doubt.’
I think this is an awesome observation and one that often gets passed over (as it sort of did here, due to distractions). Personally, I think the level & number of excuses that people make for their God’s are laughable. There’s a big difference between ‘we must make the best out of this’ vs. ‘this is for the best’, if you know what I mean. What do people think?
Brian, going back to your original comment. I like that you enjoy the puzzle of religion. I do too. But is that really it? I mean, I’m tremendously puzzled by religion, and love looking into why revelation/doctrine seems to be so weird (as you say), and what it COULD possibly mean, but that just seems like a reason why someone should be interested in the phenomenon of religion/revelation, not a reason for BEING a theist. Would you agree? Or is there more you meant to say?
Also, do you think that any religion is categorically not a source of evil? Or do just some religions qualify? What is your response to the problem of evil, and why God created a system where this world is a “manifestation of the various disasters that are human nature”.
Because the problem of evil is (at least) unresolved, I find it odd to add this unknown to SO MANY oddities and murkiness about revelation that offer no clear answers, and then to add THAT to the trend we observe of TONS of revelations that have been shown to be factually innacurate as our understanding of the ACTUAL world (natural world) advances… and then to arrive at “revelation makes sense and religion is not evil”, instead of “revelation is very interesting to study and it appears that it produces a mixed bag”.
Thoughts folks?
CCD,
Ben
November 24, 2008 at 9:32 am |
Hmm. I can’t view these videos at work, so I’ll have to comment on them when I can.
As far as what Owen is saying, it just sounds like a bunch of self-centered naval gazing. The ironic thing is, Owen, you don’t seem open to objective fact, just your own personal feelings/experience on the subject.
For one, ‘willing to be “friends”‘ over ‘making a point’ plays out much better in real life than on paper. I would say that you could substitute “well-balanced, social creatures” for “women” and “sociopaths” for “men” and come to the same conclusions. Because, chances are, on average, of the people you’ve met, women are better at taking more issues into account instead of simply “making a point”.
Sure, you may not care, as long as you’re “objective”. This doesn’t mean that someone who ‘cares’ is less intelligent.
I do remember reading about a study that showed that, in the standard deviation of most things (not just intelligence), it is men that will be on both the high and the low ends. So, Owen, if you happen to be one of the men on the higher end of intelligence (as you seem to think of yourself), you’ll meet a lot of less intelligent people : men and women. On average men and women are the same, but it appears that men hit extremes much more often.
I can’t imagine that some of this is not interesting to you, but, I suppose that would require you to quit being so emotional about your opinions (Should be easy right?).
Ben,
Re: your last two paragraphs,
I’m not sure what you mean by
“do you think that any religion is categorically not a source of evil?”
Do you mean to ask whether there is a religion where no evil has shown to issue forth? Or whether there is a religion that is only a source of good?
As I believe that humanity is a source of evil, most of their institutions will suffer from evil, at best, intermittently.
I won’t get into (i.e. provide a solution to) ‘the problem of evil’ too much, other than to point out that, without God, there is no ‘problem of evil’ – because there is nothing ‘wrong’ with the world – it is as it is – it is not ‘good’, it is not ‘evil’. And that brings into focus the ‘problem of religion’. Is there anything wrong with human nature? If so, what? And depending on what – how is that problem resolved?
As far as my understanding goes, the Christian ‘religion’ offers an answer to that. As far as “TONS of revelations that have been shown to be factually inaccurate”, I wouldn’t say it’s TONS. I would say that a “fundamentalist, literalist, reading” of, say, the Bible, is in trouble – especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis. (Though that is an interesting topic of study).
But, from my experience, Sam Harris usually hits up the fundamentalist strawman as universal among ‘religionists’. I think he’s a very intelligent man, but one who’s looking to find evidence for his conclusions.
November 24, 2008 at 11:33 pm |
okay, you’re kind of confusing me. I can’t tell if you’re trying to mock me or if you’re actually trying to communicate something.
personal experience is all we have. what else is so solid? i may be defining words(like objective) differently then you, and that’s not to say my definition is better either.
i agree with you that women would be better at taking more things into account than men. i’ve personally seen that women are better at multitasking than men.
i just like to push things in myself and in other people. i was getting the impression that many people thought women were similar to men in nature around here and that is just not how i see it at all.
i’m actually not really sure why i wrote it in the first place. my brain is going. perhaps i should be disposed of as my usefulness is waning(joking!).
i think you’re right in your words not necessarily in your apparent impression of me though
because of course i would never describe what i do as self-centered naval gazing. i like to look at people.
November 25, 2008 at 8:08 am |
Personally I think that religion cannot be assigned “good” or “bad” status, It is when religion and its dogma is used as a reason for…a good or evil purposes that problems begin and respect for others points of view are forgotten
personally I don’t like organised religion.. in the religion I grew up in…people always gave lip service to this saying…”remember the people and the church/religion are two different things”…however, I think you don’t have a church without people so from what I have seen,that whole thought process becomes skewed… the line is so thinly drawn that people have a difficult time seeing the difference anymore.
Religion has been used as a sword for centuries.
No matter what the topic I think there is always differing opinions and nothing fuels the fire of violence more effectively than the need to be right….and time after time history has shown us that religion has been at the heart of many a war…just an observation.
obviously gives some a feeling of peace to know that this is only a training ground or bootcamp for something they believe is even better…however, I just do not ascribe to that thinking anymore.
November 25, 2008 at 8:17 am |
last paragraph of my post should not have even made it up there…I thought I had erased it…but obviously it didnt get erased…its not even a complete thought…so ignore it please.
thanks
November 25, 2008 at 8:36 am |
I was outside pulling weeds and thought…wait aminute…if wrote that I don’t think one can assign good or bad status to religion…when in fact…what I said showed that I actually DO have RELIGION in an unfavorable category myself…there might be small little groups of people worshiping in their churches and living a useful kind life…that are not harming anyone by what they are doing and not indoctrinating their children to be militant about their views.,…they must exist somewhere…I just haven’t seen them. which is why I do not like to assign the good or bad status…I want people to have the freedom to live life the way they want to with out causing harm to others or trying to make others believe! as they do because they think they are RIGHT…and that is the crux of the problem I suppose. The harm done in the name of religion…so as I said…just observing…
November 25, 2008 at 8:48 am |
Hey Owen,
Yeah, I probably came across a little strong.
I was trying to say that our feelings don’t determine the objective truth of something.
I agree with you that there men and women are different.
I shouldn’t have used the words “self-centered naval gazing”. Perhaps it was metaphorical. Most selfish people will spend most of their time comparing themselves to others – for no reason but to appear better in their own eyes. We’re all pretty self-centered though.
November 25, 2008 at 11:02 am |
i don’t refrain myself from appearing very self-centered at times, like my initial comment here. i find the quickest way to be rid of an ignorant point of view is to talk about it ignorantly.
i don’t seem to take into account what this will do to other people though. i hope people can hold their own.
although i know a lot of people who are not able to hold their own. i’m gonna have to think about that.
April 5, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
oh my God!
this guy surely knows how to entertain his audience.
i kind of like some things he said, but i have second thoughts about man judging man, and worst, man justifing his own right to put anothers under his own biased perspective to prove himself wiser, and making comedy for the sake of persuading. Reminded me of hitler at times.
The afro guy he uses to make his point, happens to have lots of books published, and i find pretty low, mostly if you are carrying the flag of REASON, to resort to hairstyles to raise the laugh of the idiots and completely ignoring the point.
Arrogance and rethoric made dangerous mix in the hands of intelligent man. I do expected much more than intolerance, and ignorance.
how come a super smart guy had to use comedy to clear his way to understanding?
having read some of the books from sai baba, tough i’m not a follower, i found that this men treacherously avoids the guru, body of written knowledge in favor of some funny dismisal.
if people fall for this kind of speech, again, i guess they deserve to be modeled after their rethorically superior peers. as it is indeed.
Are the viral atheist dogma and any other negative group just incapable of live and let live? Yes. because they need to replicate to find sense. they just can stand people doing whatever they want to.
Anybody who makes a living feeding from ignorance always presents himself as the TRUTH. Provides a code of values, and takes the crusade to free those who just don’t care about he talks about. and this guy is just replicating and evolving the indoctrination model used in churches, governments, and every one hierarchically organization in this earth.
I think words are the prostitutes of arrogance, given birth from ignorance, in the religious doctrine, and in the reason, atheist, scientific, etc. doctrines as well. And of course in this commnent though, because they serve my point of view.
It is said that the money from the books of sai baba build hospitals in india. who are the money from the books this guy writes serving?
A truth that does not include all versions of it, is not but a pretty small truth indeed.
Be well