Let's Outgrow Religious Fairy Tales

[jsw_81]

By James A. Haught

The supernatural spectrum is immense:

Gods, goddesses, devils, demons, angels, heavens, hells, purgatories, limbos, miracles, prophecies, visions, auras, saviors, saints, virgin births, immaculate conceptions, resurrections, bodily ascensions, faith-healings, salvation, redemption, messages from the dead, voices from Atlantis, omens, clairvoyance, spirit-signals, spirit-possession, exorcisms, divine visitations, incarnations, reincarnations, second comings, judgment days, astrology horoscopes, psychic phenomena, psychic surgery, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, second sight, voodoo, fairies, leprechauns, werewolves, vampires, zombies, witches, warlocks, ghosts, wraiths, poltergeists, dopplegangers, incubi, succubi, palmistry, tarot cards, ouija boards, levitation, out-of-body travel, magical transport to UFOs, Elvis on a flying saucer, invisible Lemurians in Mount Shasta, Thetans from a dying planet, etc., etc., etc.

All these magical beliefs have a common denominator: They lack tangible evidence. You can't test supernatural claims; you're supposed to accept them by blind faith. Their only backup is that they were "revealed" by a prophet, guru, astrologer, shaman, mullah, mystic, swami, psychic, soothsayer or "channeler."

That's sufficient proof for billions of people. Most of humanity prays to invisible spirits and envisions mystical realms. Most politicians invoke the deities. Supernaturalism pervades our species, consuming billions of person-hours and trillions of dollars. Millions of prayers to unseen beings are uttered every hour, and millions of rituals performed. This extravaganza requires a vast array of priests and facilities. The cost is astronomical. Americans give $70 billion a year to churches and broadcast ministries - more than the national budgets of many countries. Other investment is enormous: Americans spend $300 million a year on psychic hot-lines. Angel books and end-of-the-world books sell by millions.

Amid this global mishmash, I want to offer a lonely minority view: I think it's all fairy tales. Every last shred of it. The whole mystical array, from Jehovah and Beelzebub to Ramthis and the Lemurians, lacks any type of proof - unless you count weeping statues. My hunch is that every invisible spirit is imaginary. Therefore, the planet-spanning worship is expended on nothing.

I think that most intelligent, educated, scientific-minded people suspect that the spirit world doesn't exist. But they stay silent, because it's rude to question people's faith. However, what about honesty? Aren't conscientious thinkers obliged to speak the truth as they see it? Aren't logical people allowed to ask for evidence?

Some researchers recently concluded that the human species is "wired" for faith, that our DNA includes coding for mystery. Maybe - but what about exceptions like me and similar doubters? Why doesn't our wiring cause us to swallow the supernatural?

Moreover, even ardent believers see absurdity in rival religions. Consider these examples:

Millions of Hindus pray over statues of Shiva's phallus. Ask Presbyterians if they think there's an unseen Shiva who wants his anatomy utilized in worship.

Catholics say that the Virgin Mary makes periodic appearances to the faithful. Ask Muslims if it's true.

Mormons say that Jesus was transported to America after his resurrection. Ask Buddhists if they believe it - or if they even accept the resurrection.

Jehovah's Witnesses say that, any day now, Satan will come out of the earth with an army of demons, and Jesus will come out of the sky with an army of angels, and the Battle of Armageddon will kill everyone except Jehovah's Witnesses. Ask Jews if this is correct.

Florida's Santeria worshipers sacrifice dogs, goats, chickens and the like, tossing their bodies into waterways. Ask Baptists if the Santeria gods want animals to be killed.

Unification Church members say that Jesus visited Master Moon and told him to convert all people as "Moonies." Ask Methodists if this really occurred.

Muslim suicide bombers who sacrifice themselves in Israel are taught that martyrs go instantly to a paradise full of lovely female houri nymphs. Ask Lutherans if past bombers are now in heaven with houris.

Millions of American Pentecostals say that the Holy Ghost causes them to spout "the unknown tongue," a spontaneous outpouring of sounds. Ask Episcopalians if the third member of the Trinity causes this phenomenon.

Scientologists say that every human has a soul which is a "thetan" that came from another planet. Ask Seventh-day Adventists if this is true.

Aztecs sacrificed thousands of victims - cutting out hearts, killing children, skinning maidens - for various gods such as an invisible feathered serpent. Ask any current church if the invisible feathered serpent really existed.

During the witch hunts, inquisitor priests tortured thousands of women into confessing that they flew through the sky, changed into animals, blighted crops, copulated with Satan, etc. Ask any current church if the execution of "witches" was based on reality.

You see, most believers realize that other religions are bogus. Why do they think their own theology is different? I'm calling for the final step to honesty. If some magical spirits obviously are imaginary, it's logical to assume that others are similar.

The western world is turning more rational, more scientific. Education is dispelling superstition. Most advanced nations in Europe are abandoning belief in gods, devils, heavens, hells. Church attendance there has dwindled to a tiny fringe. America remains a bulwark of churchgoing -- but educated Americans don't really expect divine intervention. If their children get pneumonia, they trust penicillin over prayer.

As for the familiar contention that supernatural beliefs make people more moral and humane, do you really think that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are ethically superior to non-religious Americans?

Polls find that the more education people have, the fewer their religious convictions. Therefore, the educated are the natural group to break away from magic. I'd like to see a revolt by the intelligent against myths.

Generally, the educated class laughs at quacko miracle reports, but not at the prevailing majority religion. However, there's no logical reason to consider one supernatural claim superior to another. No matter how much it's cloaked in poetry and allegory, religion consists of worshiping spooks - imaginary ones, in my view.

The time has come for thinking Americans to say, publicly and bluntly: There's no reliable evidence of invisible spirits. Worshiping them is a waste of time and money. Instead, let's use our minds to improve life for people here and now. Fairy tales came from the primitive past, and they have no place in the 21st century.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I totally agree with Mr. Haught. Religion is a harmful, violent force that has enslaved the minds of far too many people throughout history and it's time for those of us who value reason, logic, and science to stand up and oppose it (peacefully). We have been silent for far too long.

Please note that this article is NOT copyrighted, and the author has given permission for anyone to reprint it and/or distribute it on his website.

[Dob Bole]

1. Well, if it makes you feel better (nt)

[hotphlash]

2. Have you ever seen the big bang?

n/t

[DrWeird]

26. Unlike God...

there is tangible evidence for the Big Bang.

Which I believe was the posters point.

[Terwilliger]

44. yeah, but forget all that

All the proof of anything and everything you need is right here:

[Mari333]

51. Yes, and Im the Queen of Sheba.

.

[Birthmark]

48. Yes.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html

[Character Assassin]

3. It's not a question of belief for Buddhists

Mormons say that Jesus was transported to America after his resurrection. Ask Buddhists if they believe it - or if they even accept the resurrection.

If that did or did not happen is utterly irrelevant, as is the resurrection.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Yeah so what. Science gave us mutually assured destruction

That's why I don't delve much into this argument. If I really think there's a Cosmic Muffin and a Santa Claus and I am doing no harm what's the big deal?

Things that have been proven to be TRUE according to science in the past have later proven to be false according to the same agenda that proves them true.


Science has a study called PSYCHOLOGY organized around a part of the body (i.e. THE MIND) that nobody has ever even seen! Yet it makes billions of bucks for drug companies prescribing drugs to mediate seratonin which nobody has even measured.


To blame religion for so much is simply to assign false cause. People will do creepy things out of the innate ability to do so...religion, science ...it doesn't matter.

[rasputin1952]

8. Very well put, NSMA...

I might add, if I may, that all religious doctrine is a code of ethics and baseline morality.

As I stated in another thread, musch the same as this, is that far too many people are intellectually lazy, and allow others to do their religious thinking for them.

As you stated, no one has ever "seen" the mind, (or conciousness, if you prefer). For that matter, how can I be sure that I am not the only thing in the universe, and all of this is merely my imagination?
(I must be one sick little monkey if that werre true).

I see no harm in people believing in what they may....until they are guided by others to commit crimes against the rest of humanity, be it individual or en mass.

If it brings comfort, it is generally pretty good stuff.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. All good points

And I know of no religion that denies that God gave us intellect and free will.

I see many people piping off about free will, both believers and non-believers, but when it comes to INTELLECT they count on others to do the grunt work for them.

I'd rather work it out for myself and end up WRONG than post everyone else's thoughts as though I reached their conclusion for myself when I truly didn't because I was too lazy to consider it all.

The place people get tripped up in believing there MUST be an answer for it all...why not wonder about it?

[rasputin1952]

58. Ahhh...hte Joy of Wonder...

I used to lay out on the water tank with my son on cool nights in AZ.
We would spend hours looking, and talking about the wonders of the universe, life and any other subject that came to mind.

When I look in the Hubble Heritage site, I feel like I'm 10 years old again, and am just filled with awe and wonder.

When my son was born, I was filled with the same awe and wonder.

Yes, sometimes, it is just so perfect, to just....wonder.

Thanks.......your post took me back to an amazing part of my life, one I rarely go to any more, but should do so more often.

[papau]

12. Well said - appears we have low self esteem atheists at DU needing approva

I keep saying that our atheist friends should have faith that they are correct. No need to evangelize – going forth among the masses to preach their faith to the unsaved – the unsaved being those with a clear mind because they do not believe in atheism, but instead have a different belief system.

But just as the right wing is plagued by fundy religious believers, the left appears to suffer under a plague of fundy atheists. Everybody has got to get their message out so the rest of us are saved.


:-)

A bit booring and a bit boorish - but it is - for those of us on the left - the cross we have to bear.

:-)

[JanMichael]

39. As a High Self-Esteem Atheist I find your pithy subject line pissy.

Or pissy subject line pithy?

Either way I think the "low Self Esteem" label could be applied to many a Christian Du'er as well.

For every smack on religion there's a "prayer request" or some cock-eyed reference to god in politics. Better yet are the direct attacks on Atheists by some prolific posting posters...

Double edged swords cut both ways, er, that's redundant, but I hope you get my point.

PS~ I'm confidant in my conclusions. Better yet my Provisional Conclusions have something a Dogmatic religion can never have, flexibility:-)

[Terwilliger]

41. Nevermind JM, atheism is a religion

didn't you know? We pray at the altar of our lack of belief :shrug:

[JanMichael]

45. Ai caramba! I forgot.

Actually I sacrifice goats...It serves two purposes...A sweet sacrifice to Nothingness AND great sandwiches later on.

[Blue_Chill]

68. prayer request is like a religious bash?

So you think its the same for someone to post a prayer request as it is for anti-theist to attack some religious group?

Amazing. The very existence of religious persons is a threat to you.

[JanMichael]

80. It's a (admittedly low level) constant evangelising IMHO.

Sorry but that's just the way I see it.

Try focussing on the whole message BC, the point is that I don't like the religious smear fests here and just as many good Christians are as guilty of it as Atheists.

Both sides have their obnoxious types;-)

"Amazing. The very existence of religious persons is a threat to you"

I'll repeat: Both sides have their obnoxious types;-)

Since you get your panties in a wad everytime someone even mentions non-belief I think the same could be said of you.

But please look at my entire first message on this thread. It's an acceptance of these things and a desire to avoid them.

I hope you can be man enough to do the same.

[Blue_Chill]

92. I completely disagree with what you are saying

What you want is a secluar world because all religion is hidden from public view. That disgusts me.

Since you get your panties in a wad everytime someone even mentions non-belief I think the same could be said of you.

Wrong. I show up when attacks are made. I have been in many atheist threads in which no one attacked and I offered answers to questions asked, nothing more.

[leftofthedial]

83. the very existence of religious people is a threat

not just to me (another high-self-esteem atheist), but to the continued survival of our species.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Why?

Because we don't like bigots?

[leftofthedial]

87. bigot?

I have an idea.

Instead of discussing the topic, we can just call each other names.

Weasel.

Your turn.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. You said this

"the very existence of religious people is a threat not just to me (another high-self-esteem atheist), but to the continued survival of our species."

If that ain't a bigoted comment, what is it?

[leftofthedial]

95. a: The "God" of Abraham is the ultimate bigot

b: religion is demonstrably the most destructive force in the history of our species. The worst conflicts on the planet currently are religious at their core.

c: Religion has become increasingly fundamentalist, less tolerant (of other religions and of atheists) and more violent in the last 50 years. It also has become far more political and infringes more and more on a daily basis on the secular world. Look at the Ashcroft Justice Department and the pretend President who believes "God" tells him to kill people.

d: Billions of people have spent the entire history of civilization worshipping a myriad of these fantastical spirits. Despite this being the single most consistent pursuit of all of humanity for all of time, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence that ANY of these spirits exist.

e: In all this myriad of superstitions, none agrees with the other about the nature, intent, purpose, form, number, origin, name or power of these fantastical spirits. They all flatly contradict one another.

f: As a species, we are faced with threats--political, environmental, and economic--that demand the focused rational intent of the entire species to solve. The clock is ticking and instead of solving our problems, we are arguing about how many mythical beings can dance on the margins of a melting glacier.



Me saying that the neoconservative movement is a threat to the survival of our species is not bigotry. It is an arguable hypothesis. The same holds true for my comments about religion. So take your name calling somewhere else.

[Blue_Chill]

97. So you are not a bigot because someone else was a bigot first?

b: religion is demonstrably the most destructive force in the history of our species. The worst conflicts on the planet currently are religious at their core.

The largest mass muders in history took place at the hands of anti-theists. Mao and Stalin.

c: Religion has become increasingly fundamentalist, less tolerant (of other religions and of atheists) and more violent in the last 50 years. It also has become far more political and infringes more and more on a daily basis on the secular world. Look at the Ashcroft Justice Department and the pretend President who believes "God" tells him to kill people.

Incorrect. Religion has become more tolerant. This is why Falwell and his bunch need their own churches to puch their hate. The mainstream (largest) churches don't tolerate such hate mongering.

d: Billions of people have spent the entire history of civilization worshipping a myriad of these fantastical spirits. Despite this being the single most consistent pursuit of all of humanity for all of time, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence that ANY of these spirits exist.

Yet you think you know better then all of them.

e: In all this myriad of superstitions, none agrees with the other about the nature, intent, purpose, form, number, origin, name or power of these fantastical spirits. They all flatly contradict one another.

Much like cultures and goverments disagree, should we get rid of them. Maybe you can tell all of us exactly how we should live?

Me saying that the neoconservative movement is a threat to the survival of our species is not bigotry.

Religion is not a Neo-Con movement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. Laughable

You spout hatred and call it logic. You spout garbage and call it truth. Your truth of course.

A) How do you know that the "God" of Abraham is the ultimate bigot?" After all, since so many here are fond of pointing out, the Bible was written by people, not God.

B) You claim that, "religion is demonstrably the most destructive force in the history of our species." So, the second world war was religious? No. The Jews were the scapegoats of people who thought they were better than everyone else. They wiped out other groups as well and would have done more if they weren't stopped. The same goes for WWI, not religious. Or the many American wars -- revolution, civil, etc.

C) "Religion has become increasingly fundamentalist, less tolerant (of other religions and of atheists) and more violent in the last 50 years." Care to cite evidence and proof of this.

D) Yes, billions worship -- depending on their beliefs. As for proof, some things can't be proven in this life. But we have faith. That's enough.

E) Yes, many beliefs contradict one another. So what? Politics is like that as well.

D) I'm not "arguing about how many mythical beings can dance on the margins of a melting glacier." I'm debating someone who seems to hate my belief system.

You didn't say, "that the neoconservative movement is a threat to the survival of our species." You said RELIGION. As for name calling, we only respond in kind.

[Blue_Chill]

93. Look up the word 'bigot'

and then apply it to what you said. If the shoe fits.....

[leftofthedial]

119. my last words on the subject

We all have bigger, more pressing business to attend to: getting Bush out of power.

Blue Chill and muddleoftheroad,

None of you have made the case that I'm a bigot. I do not harbor an irrational hatred of religious people. I do think religion is a destructive institution and that superstition is a danger to our species. I've given reasons why I think that.

b: religion is demonstrably the most destructive force in the history of our species.

The Crusades: Between 5 and 9 million deaths over religion. Part of a religious fundamentalism that perpetuated dark ages in Europe for centuries.

Numerous Inquisitions and witch hunts: Between 1 and 9 million deaths over religion--often the most trivial religious hairsplitting.

Numerous european wars between Protestants and Catholics during the 16th and 17th centuries: as many as 14 million deaths over religion. Also laid the foundation for the geopolitical chaos that brought us two world wars and colonialism.

The Jewish holocaust: at least 6 million deaths because of religion (and ethnicity). The historical basis for European anti-semitism is Christian hatred of Jews.

The Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia: Muslims killing Jews killing Muslims killing Jews and Christians killing Muslims killing Hindus. As many as 5 million deaths over religion in the last two decades alone.

Is there secular violence? Of course, but Pol Pot was an amateurish piker next to a series of Popes.

c: Religion has become increasingly fundamentalist, less tolerant (of other religions and of atheists) and more violent in the last 50 years. It also has become far more political and infringes more and more on a daily basis on the secular world. Look at the Ashcroft Justice Department and the pretend President who believes "God" tells him to kill people.

Incorrect. Religion has become more tolerant.

Is every religious person an intolerant fundamentalist? Of course not. But on a geopolitical scale, Christianity in the latter half of the 20th Century was characterized by a rise in fundamentalist, evangelical sects. Islam clearly has been dominated by the rise of fundamentalism (notably the ascendancy of the Shiite sect). Judaism also has been increasingly led by its most fundamentalist practitioners. Even the Hindus have become more political and rigid. All these groups have also become much more politically active. We have Islamic theocracies throughout the Middle East and South Asia and now in Southeast Asia as well. Israel is arguably now a conservative orthodox Jewish theocracy. The pretend President of the United States has instituted quasi-governmental faith-based (Christian) institutions within the US government. He claims God told him to invade Iraq, dammit. Jerry Falwell has more power than any atheist on the planet. Your dispute of the rise of religious fundamentalism is laughable.

d: Billions of people have spent the entire history of civilization worshipping a myriad of these fantastical spirits. Despite this being the single most consistent pursuit of all of humanity for all of time, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence that ANY of these spirits exist.

Yet you think you know better then all of them.

First, this is a non sequitor. But yes, I think I know something that more accurately describes the Universe than do any of these superstitions.

e: In all this myriad of superstitions, none agrees with the other about the nature, intent, purpose, form, number, origin, name or power of these fantastical spirits. They all flatly contradict one another.

Much like cultures and goverments disagree, should we get rid of them.

You miss the point. Disagreement is not a reason to get rid of anyone. But it is further proof that these beliefs are supersitious hogwash with no basis in reality. If one of them was true, one of them would have demonstrated its preeminent worthiness by now. Instead we have more and more and more flavors of mythology. All I ask is one scrap of proof, one testable hypothesis. Just one. After trillions of person hours of devotion to these superstitions, surely someone would have one by now.

Maybe you can tell all of us exactly how we should live?

Why would I want to do that? Are you not a rational being?

I have to leave now to work one of the three jobs that our faith-based economy requires me to try to hold down so I can support my family.

Peace.

[Maple]

5. I agree

it's time to put the myths and fairy tales behind us, and face reality.

You can 'feel good' on drugs too...it doesn't mean you are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Myth of tolerance

You mean that one?

[TheDonkey]

6. No

I'm a Humanist who follows Unitarian-Universalist and really the decision for someone to believe in God, gods, or whatever is up to them.

I personally think that these things can cloud your mind from rational thinking but we need freedom of religion. I know a few true Christians who are as caring, liberal, and thoughtful as myself. I know some Christians who are bigotted and use the Bible to support whatever they don't want to think about.
But the same goes to Athiest, Wiccans, and Jewish people I know. All groups are diverse and should be allowed to learn and embrace what they truly feel or love about religion (or not).

[brokensymmetry]

7. Ahh, but what, precisely, is it that we know?

Science changes, and often it does so to a considerable extent. Before Einstein, we saw the universe and all it's workings one way - after general and special relativity, we saw it quite differently. And then along came quantum mechanics - which Einstein wasn't at all comfortable with - but which we depend upon for our modern electronics.

Consider a sample of radioactive material - say, tritium. We know that half the sample will decay in 12.3 years - but which half? And why? Why does one atom, seemingly exactly like another, decay - while another does not?

So you see that just because we cannot prove that something exists - i.e., a mechanism for radioactive decay, or a graviton, or whatever - it may either exist...or, provide a useful model for a more interesting reality.

I suspect that in 50 years much of what we believe to be hard science today will be smiled at as being childish fairy tales by folk of that time.

[Maple]

9. Science is meant to change

as we learn new things.

It is not a 'thing' in itself, it's a search for knowledge.

Not a fantasy.

[brokensymmetry]

13. Excellent point.

But I wonder if religion and other such beliefs shouldn't be expected to evolve too?

[leftofthedial]

86. they are evolving

they are becoming more fundamentalist and less tolerant

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Only in your eyes

There have always been intolerant people -- both religious and non-religious.

[papau]

19. Not a fantasy ? - but only if we agree that today's answers are fantasy

as we move on to tomorrows science and tomorrows answers - always appreciating that todays fantasy gives us the best guess procedure for getting the outcome of an experiment correct - while noting that it gives us nothing more.

No answers to why.

No answers to how.

but useful.

Oh, I am sorry - you were about to say why believers in God are "wrong" and you are correct, as you try to convert the heathen believer population on the DU board.

Have had it!

:-)

[Maple]

22. I was about to say

you're probably 'over-refreshed'

[brokensymmetry]

24. Perhaps today's answers really ARE fantasy.

Not so long ago - early 1960's - science textbooks showed electrons going in neat little circles around the nucleus of atoms, like microscopic planets in a tiny solar system. This is recognized now as a complete fiction and an utter fantasy.

We speak of the possibility of the big bang, inflation, and so forth - but there is no proof that inflation occurred in the early universe.

As for trying to convert anyone, I would only say that I believe there is a lot more in the universe than we're aware of - and I am certain that I don't know (and, in fact, cannot know) the merest fraction of it. Your mileage may vary. Standard disclaimers apply. Don't try this at home.

[EAMcClure]

73. Fantasy as a search for answers

Fantasizing is an act of imagination, creative imagination. There is nothing wrong with fantasy, it is how fantasy is applied.

Science is founded on fantasy. The fantasy of the hypothesis. Then the scientist attempts to prove or disprove the fantasy.

Fantasies evolve. The Christian religion has evolved and changed, and Christianity itself is a reformation of Judaism, and prtoestantism was a reformation of Catholocism. Buddhism was a reformation of Hinduism. All of these religions have sects and doctrines, many of which are anything but dogmatic. Belief is flexible.

Religion is also a search for knowledge, although it is often called a search for wisdom. Oneness with God, to imbibe the divine and find eternal peace. Many of the Hindu Yogas have applied means of approaching this cosmic task.

Anyhow, blah blah blah. Imagination is the key to progress, to make imagination real, whether materially, scientifically, or spritually, improves the lot of mankind. Was St. Francis wrong to believe in God? Is St. Francis somehow a worse person than he who created this thread? Go down the list, and you will find that all of our great heroes IMAGINED a greater place for humanity, and their imaginative clay came from religion. From mysticism.

Eric

[ThorsteinVeblen]

14. Response

Ken Wilber / Journal / July 1999
Liberalism and Religion - We Should Talk

Liberalism's objections to mythic forms do not apply to formless awareness. Thus liberalism and authentic spirituality can walk hand in hand.There are two major dialogues in the modern world that I believe must take place, one between science and religion, and then one between religion and liberalism.
The way it is now, the modern world really is divided into two major and warring camps, science and liberalism on the one hand, and religion and conservatism on the other. And the key to getting these two camps together is first, to get religion past science, and then second, to get religion past liberalism, because both science and liberalism are deeply anti-spiritual. And it must occur in that order, because liberalism won’t even listen to spirituality unless it has first passed the scientific test. (Showing how that might happen was a major theme of my book, Sense and Soul.)
In one sense, of course, science and liberalism are right to be anti-spiritual, because most of what has historically served as spirituality is now prerational, magic or mythic, implicitly ethnocentric, fundamentalist dogma. Liberalism traditionally came into existence to fight the tyranny of prerational myth and that is one of its enduring and noble strengths (the freedom, liberty, and equality of individuals in the face of the often hostile or coercive collective). And this is why liberalism was always allied with science against fundamentalist, mythic, prerational religion (and the conservative politics that hung on to that religion).
But neither science nor liberalism is aware that in addition to prerational myth, there is transrational awareness. There are not two camps here: liberalism versus mythic religion. There are three: mythic religion, rational liberalism, and transrational spirituality.
The main strength of liberalism is its emphasis on individual human rights. The major weakness is its rabid fear of Spirit. Modern liberalism came into being, during the Enlightenment, largely as a counterforce to mythic religion, which was fine. But liberalism committed a classic pre/trans fallacy: it thought that all spirituality was nothing but prerational myth, and thus it tossed any and all transrational spirituality as well, which was absolutely catastrophic. (As Ronald Reagan would say, it tossed the baby with the dishes.) Liberalism attempted to kill God and replace transpersonal Spirit with egoic humanism, and as much as I am a liberal in many of my social values, that is its sorry downside, this horror of all things Divine. Liberalism can be rightfully distrustful of prerational myth, and yet still open itself to transrational awareness. Its objections to mythic forms do not apply to formless awareness, and thus liberalism and authentic spirituality can walk hand in hand into a greater tomorrow. If this can be demonstrated to them using terms they find acceptable, then we would have, I believe for the first time, the possibility of a postliberal spirituality, which combines the strengths of conservatism and liberalism but moves beyond both in a transrational, transpersonal integration. The trick is to take the best of both, individual rights plus a spiritual orientation, and to do so by finding liberal humanistic values plugged into a transrational, not prerational, Spirit. This spirituality is transliberal, evolutionary and progressive, not preliberal, reactionary and regressive. It is also political, in the very broadest sense, in that its single major motivation, compassion, is pressed into social action. However, a postconservative, postliberal spirituality is not pressed into service as public policy, transrational spirituality preserves the rational separation of church and state, as well as the liberal demand that the state will neither protect nor promote a favorite version of the good life. Those who would transform the world by having all of us embrace their new paradigm, or particular God or Goddess, or their version of Gaia, or their favorite mythology, these are all, by definition, reactionary and regressive in the worst of ways: preliberal, not transliberal, and thus their particular versions of the witch hunt are never far removed from their global agenda. A truly transliberal spirituality exists instead as a cultural encouragement, a background context that neither prevents nor coerces, but rather allows genuine spirituality to arise.
But one thing is absolutely certain: all the talk of a new spirituality in America is largely a waste of time unless those two central dialogues are engaged and answered. Unless spirituality can pass through the gate of science, then of liberalism, it will never be a significant force in the modern world, but will remain merely as the organizing power for the prerational levels of development around the world.

[nolabels]

72. That's a lot of "ands" "ifs ""or" "buts"

But I understand what is meant, what they is being said (I think) It goes if science cannot accept things, philosophies, believes or ideals that it cannot measure, see or triangulate then it is a dead end in it's self. Clearly laying a gauntlet and flaming hoops for it to jump trough. As a person I object such notions if they are meant to code and steer my understanding of life and consciousness. To the point anybody wants to believe anything or all of it, it just is fine with me.

When one's religion impinges on me, my liberties and my fellow citizens, this is the point where I take up what ever I need to do. Perhaps if some would refrain from such things then such problems would not come about. Religion is what somebody else wants to give out, belief is what is found inside and no one can take or give either because they are both ideals and as such transcends substance I came to this thread to deliver this article for it puts it so much more succinctly than I ever could

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art241.html
Religious zealotry and the crisis of American democracy

The danger of religious fundamentalism has been present in the American political bloodstream since the arrival of the Puritans. Now, with a government of religious conservatives locked in a polarising mindset of us-them and good-evil, the threat it poses is not just to American freedom, but to the world’s.

Khoren Arisian

08/03/03: We cannot understand what is really going on in American politics today without a critical and unblinking examination of its enduring religious basis and the theological presuppositions that support it.

Consider President George W. Bush’s current nominee for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor, Jr., who deems it “acceptable to execute the mentally retarded,” replace the Constitution with the Bible, and asserts that “We derive our rights from God and not from government.”

Since God is more elusive than government, the likelihood of outrageously subjective interpretations of God’s will can only run rampant. This has been amply demonstrated in pronouncements by such divinely-inspired political stalwarts as John Ashcroft and Tom DeLay.

The United States government assuredly doesn’t want an Islamic state in Iraq, yet DeLay has openly stated that God has assigned him to promote “a biblical worldview” as a guide to his political actions as House Majority Leader. Meanwhile, John Ashcroft tells us that “we have no King but Jesus” and Commerce Secretary Don Evans reveals to us that God told George to wage war on Iraq.
(snip)

[WilliamPitt]

15. I've never seen you

but I believe you exist.

faith ; (plural faiths);n

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

[edward]

105. I've never seen Alaska.

But what does believing in God have to do with geography?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

16. Second Response

The Denial of the Universal

"If there is nothing universal-and that is the claim of the extreme postmodernists-then there is nothing genuinely spiritual anywhere in the universe, nor can there ever be."

My approach to postmodernism has been that it contains some important but partial truths, and that what needs to be attacked are the extremist versions that take relativism, constructivism and contextualism to be the only truths in existence-at which point they all become self-contradictory and unworthy of respect.
Buried in the postmodern agenda are several noble impulses, I believe; yet in order to salvage them, they must themselves be placed in a larger context, which both limits their claims and completes their aims. The noble impulses are those of freedom, tolerance, aperspectival embrace, and liberation from unnecessary or unfair conventions.
The liberal/postmodern agenda has been to cherish cultural differences and multiple perspectives, including previously marginalized cultures and groups (women, minorities, gays, etc.). That stance-namely, universal pluralism-is a very high developmental achievement, coming into existence only at the worldcentric, postconventional level of growth. The liberal/postmodern stance, at its best, is generated at that high level of consciousness evolution.
But in their zeal to "transgress" and"subvert" conventional levels in favor of postconventional freedom, the extreme liberal/postmodernists ended up championing any and all stances (extreme diversity and multiculturalism), including many stances that are frankly ethnocentric and egocentric (since all stances are to be equally valued). This allowed, and often encouraged, regressive trends, a devolution from worldcentric to ethnocentric to egocentric-to a rampant subjectivism and narcissism, in fact, which then anchored the entire (and at this point completely misguided) agenda. Noble impulses horribly skewed-there is the best that can be said for liberal/postmodernism. The noble vision of universal pluralism was devastated, the universal part was completely ditched or denied, and rampant pluralism, driven by rampant narcissism, came to carry the sad day.
It is against this vulgar pluralism-which actually dissolves and destroys the liberal stance itself, destroys the demand for evolution to the worldcentric, postconventional levels which alone can support and protect the liberal vision-that recent attacks have been directed. Habermas, Nagel, and crew are simply pointing out that the very claim of pluralism has, in fact, a universal component, and unless this universal component is acknowledged and included, the entire liberal/postmodern agenda self-destructs.
I totally agree. But let us not forget the noble impulses hidden in that agenda, and let us not forget that those impulses can be redeemed, and the original liberal/postmodern vision can be fulfilled, if we retire pluralism and return to universal pluralism and unitas multiplex: universal deep features, local surface features. These universal features are accessed by empathy and compassion. And the liberal/postmodern vision itself can be protected only if it includes, in its own agenda, a cultural encouragement that individuals do their best to grow and evolve from egocentric to sociocentric to worldcentric, there to stand open to universal spiritual glories.
Freedom-the core of the liberal values-does not lie in egocentric or ethnocentric realms. Real freedom, true freedom, lies in the vast expanse of worldcentric awareness, which itself opens onto the infinite expanse of pure Spirit and primordial Self, a Self common in and to all sentient beings as such, and therefore a domain in which Freedom radiates in all directions. That is why we must move in a postliberal, not preliberal, fashion.
So it is the irony of ironies that liberal/ postmodernism, in searching for freedom for all, has championed modes of intense unfreedom: the egocentric is not free, for he is a slave to his impulses; the ethnocentric is not free, for he is a slave to his skin color. Only in worldcentric awareness, which sets a mature individuality in the context of all individuals and moves easily in that vastly expanded space, does a real freedom begin to dawn, a freedom that opens onto pure Spirit in a timeless embrace of the All. Let liberalism continue to move in that original direction, of progressive growth and evolution, and cease the self-contradictory and mindless championing of any subjectivist impulse that comes down the pike.
It is the narrow, misguided, narcissistic, relativistic sludge that is being so effectively demolished by critics, and rightly so. Make no mistake: if postmodernism is right, there is and can be no Spirit whatsoever. If Spirit is anything, it is universal. If Spirit is anything, it is all-encompassing. If Spirit is anything, it is the Ground of manifestation everywhere, equally, radiantly. But if there is nothing universal-and that is the claim of the extreme postmodernists- then there is nothing genuinely spiritual anywhere in the universe, nor can there ever be. So while I hold open the noble impulses in the original vision-that of universal pluralism and unitas multiplex-I join in the attack on those who have forgotten the unitas and offer only the multiplex.

Material in this column appears in One Taste: The Journals of Ken Wilber, from Shambhala Publications Inc., Boston. © Ken Wilber 1998.

[TankLV]

59. I really admire and commend you on your energy.

I, lately, could never bring myself to do that.

[devarsi]

17. Science Fairy Tales

Once Upon A Time...

IT Happens

At some point in the past, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Then, for some reason, "IT" happened, whatever "IT" was, and afterwards there was matter, energy, time, and space. Maybe some other interesting bits.

No one knows how "IT" happened, why "IT" happened, what caused "IT" to happen, whether "IT" has happened more than once, and whether "IT" will ever happen again. "IT" just is, or was, or will be. Maybe.

Or this:

STUFF, Everlasting

There has always been "STUFF" (matter, energy, time, space, and maybe some other interesting bits), quite a lot of it, in fact. "STUFF" has no beginning, and no end. For some reason, "STUFF" expands and contracts in a never-ending cycle, again and again, without beginning or end, ad infinitum, to infinity and beyond. Should I repeat that?

Despite certain cause and effect rules which we (a tiny subset of "STUFF" called humanity) have observed regarding the way "STUFF" operates, those rules do not apply to the question of where all this "STUFF" came from to begin with. "STUFF" is eternal.

The End

These are the basic scientific explanations for how we all got here.
Of course, I've reduced them to absurdity, as non-believers often do regarding questions of God. But as I hope I have illustrated, Science requires its own leaps of faith, perhaps even the very same leaps of faith as taken by those who accept the existence of God.

If I left something out, let me know, I'll be happy to reduce it to an absurd level for you as well.

Hmmm...and you thought the idea God was a fairy tale?

[Pepperbelly]

18. an evangelical atheist?

Am I the only one who sees rich irony in this piece?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. Read it often and you'll be healed!

:D

[papau]

21. Smile - sigh - smile :-) n/t

n/t

:-)

[Blue_Chill]

63. There are lots of them but 'anti-theist' better describes them

They preach more then Falwell.

[Maple]

23. You probably picked a poor night

to post this....it being TGIF and all.

Waaay too many people into the sauce to be able to discuss something sensibly.

[sweetheart]

25. respecting freedom of religion

What are you selling?

I am for a separation of church and state, but i stand by the universal human right to freedom of religion. Sometimes people "have to believe" in some nutty things to get them through the day... some day you might. That is your human right, the wisdom of generations who died to protect that right. What is the boggle. If you don't want to participate in a religion, then stay home... but what is it to pick this tiff. You maybe want to learn to respect something you might be very ignorant of. Perhaps religion as you've encountered it has been empty, but to presume that is the rest of the world is a very unscientific study indeed.

Perhaps if one approached religion that it might be authentic, that there is enough evidence to point to that conclusion also.... and in the end, it all matters what your intent is in raising the question. Leave human rights and religion be, and focus on the failure to separate church and state... there ye might make more friends.

[rasputin1952]

107. Excellent post...

but alas, to my chagrin, I come in a lttle late. I hope you bookmarked this thread; I just wanted you to know that your post is a remedy for those that insist their way is the only correct view of the universe.

Tolerance is a gift.

[Mike Niendorff]

27. Maybe it's time to add a "Religion" forum to DU ?

Just a thought.


MDN

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. Agreed

I think it would soon be in 4th place, behind the usual suspects: LBN, GD, and the FA I/P threads.

[Clete]

28. You think all the above is weird?

You have never wandered into the world of quantum physicists. I don't take anyone's word for much, but I do try to keep an open mind that things we don't know about can in fact exist and we haven't gotten the means of discovering them yet.

And, I love myths and all those strange beliefs because they make great stories. I do draw the line at anyone who tries to convert me. I respect the right of everyone to believe what they want to as long as it does no harm (here is a sticky issue, I know) and I expect them to respect my belief in nothing.

[Pobeka]

29. I've never seen an electron

I don't believe in quantum physics, photons, or radio waves, or any of that stuff. And don't even get me started about vector calculus, ok?
---

My larger point here, is that we all make abstract models to help us deal with the reality each of us perceives.

Science, (and mathematical models of the universe), are but one model that describes "reality".

But, at some point, science fails us. We can't explain the sub-sub-sub quark's reason for existence, or why it was created. (Or whatever the next micro-quantum partical is to be discovered). What came before the big bang? There will always be unanswered questions. Religion is the abstract model that helps us cope with unanswered questions, it is just as valid as science in that context.

I am a scientist by training, and I concurrently believe in all those things at the top of this post, as well as a metaphysical reality too. They go hand in hand and help me to have a sense of purpose about my life.

[leftofthedial]

91. scientific models are testable

religious models are dogmatic.

Not the same.

Scientific models are used to describe and illuminate observed phenomena.

Religious models pretend to describe "the unknowable."

Again, not the same.

[Pobeka]

115. You missed the gist of my post

It's not that a model is testable or not, it's that a model helps us explain (or act on and react to) the reality we perceive.

Scientific models help explain a lot, but they are often shown to be wrong (which is the power of having testable models, in that they can be objectively improved).

But there is sooooo much that can't be explained by any scientific model. There is always a point where it breaks down. It doesn't make the scientific model useless, it just means at some point we also have to take those models on faith, saying that's the "best we can do for now". I completely agree with that approach.

And, at least for me, my personal "spiritual models" of reality have evolved too, and expect they will continue to evolve. But the testing of my spiritual models don't, and can't have well defined controls.

There are areas of small overlap however. Look up Robert Morris' Out of Body experience books, he attempted to be very objective about his "para-normal" experiences.

[Skittles]

30. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

I realized a long time ago I would have to put up with the fact that the majority of people have the NEED to believe in this stuff. It's annoying but it's a fact of life.

[devarsi]

32. Why is it annoying?

Ok, proselytizing is annoying, even to me, and I'm a confirmed, card carrying believer in God. But why is our simple existence so grating on your nerves?

[Sterling]

34. Because it seems to get in the way of real progress

If religious people were satisfied with the freedom to believe as they choose and stopped preaching at the rest of us I would be less annoyed.

Some religios people seem to think the only people with a right to believe as they choose are others who think like them.

And by now most people should be evolved enough to see that what is in the bible and other doctrines are just stories made up by men that had no answers to some very big questions and just decided to fill in the blanks to make themselves feel better, and have power over others.

Believe what you like about the spiritual world or lack of but keep it out of our schools and government.

[Blue_Chill]

70. Hey pot this is kettle you are BLACK!

Look at this thread, who is preaching to who?

[EAMcClure]

77. Blah

"And by now most people should be evolved enough to see that what is in the bible and other doctrines are just stories made up by men that had no answers to some very big questions and just decided to fill in the blanks to make themselves feel better, and have power over others."

Someone else who equates evolution with atheism. What is with you social darwinists?

The above paragraph is intolerance. Rebuke it. This kind of intolerance has no place in an EVOLVED being's ideology. If we are really evolving as a species, then it is high time to drop this holier than thou charade.

Eric

[Nikia]

31. There is more than meets the eye

There are certain things that can be taken as real by all people because there is evidence that most people can perceive through their natural senses. We believe that there are cows, for example, because we can see, hear, and taste them. We believe in gravity because we see falling objects. Some things like subatomic particles have been theorized by science but no one hads ever seen them. Before Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix, we knew that things reproduced, but we did not know how. No one believed that DNA existed. Many people have had spiritual experiences that cannot be explained by science (I am not talking about just a few prophets and gurus.). Although there are many religions, religious and spiritual experiences are common. Just because these experiences cannot be explained by what humans can perceive through their normal senses does not mean that they do not exist. As far as you and others seeming not to have any capacity for spirituality, severely depressed people do not seem to have any capacity for happiness either. It is the same sort of thing.

[Astarho]

35. Yes, people like to be told what to believe

Whether it's by a bearded Imam, a robed priest, or someone with a PhD on their wall.

Yes, definitely a violent harmful force sparked the creation of this:

[Terwilliger]

49. come on

so, god is responsible for this? or a thinking, rational human being with a belief in the stories?

And how much inequity existed at the time this painting was written? You think these god-folks were all love and light and brotherhood? Not hardly likely. And I'll bet those who were responsible for the government that ruled at that time were religious as well. I'm sure they justified their belief AND their corruption because of their beliefs.

Religion is simply a focus for people while they're waiting to die. Governments love religion...it keeps the masses from asking tough questions.

[Astarho]

78. Well

I never said God was responsible for this. I said religion (the stories themselves) itself was an inspiration for it.

And how much inequity existed at the time this painting was written?
How much inequality exists now?

And I'll bet those who were responsible for the government that ruled at that time were religious as well. I'm sure they justified their belief AND their corruption because of their beliefs.
In our history there has been plenty of corruption in the government without the use of religion to justify it.

Religion, like everything else in the world, has it's positive and negative aspects. To blame religion for all the worlds ills is simplistic. Religion is more often used as an excuse for the evils of the world rather then a cause of them.

[edward]

94. So Picasso's "Guernica" painting(horse heads, etc) shows that

the slaughter of people is good because a beautiful painting came out of it?

[Astarho]

104. The slaughter of Gernika was one event.

Religion is many events over thousands of years, some good some bad.

BTW the slaughter of Gernika was to demonstrate superiority of German science and technology.

[edward]

106. By the way, I was talking about the painting.

You asserted(implied)that since a good painting had a religious theme(or religiously inspired) that proved something good came out of religion.
My point is that art is independent of religion and has many different inspirations. By the way, who do you think was paying for those paintings? The church. Get what you pay for.

[Astarho]

112. Reply

You asserted(implied)that since a good painting had a religious theme(or religiously inspired) that proved something good came out of religion.

Do you disagree with this? I'm not saying it proves religion is all good, but it proves that religion is not all bad either.

My point is that art is independent of religion and has many different inspirations.

I see your point, and art is as independant of religion as it is from the rest of the world (art is created by human beings afterall, like religion, systems of government, etc.). And I agree art has many different inspiriations, with religion being one of them.

By the way, who do you think was paying for those paintings? The church. Get what you pay for.

Most of the time it was noble families, that commisioned the artists (not that the church did not pay for some), which is why there were many paintings with pagan themes.

[edward]

113. OK, sounds like we're cool.

It is more fleshed out now. I thought you were saying that if a good painting was produced, therefore religion must be good. My Guernica example was to show that something bad can produce a good painting also. Neutral.
Actually, if you look as some "religious" paintings from the Renaissance, some are quite sexy. (Titian's "Mary" has erect nipple's pushing through her blouse).

[Astarho]

114. Yeah, we're cool

I offered the painting to show that religion was not all bad.

Titian was one of my favorite Renasissance painters with Da Vinci and Botticelli. Although, Caraveggio's Danae is one of the sexiest paintings ever done IMO.

Check out Titian's (had to be satirical) Pope Paul II and his nephews The family that comissioned it was not happy.
:crazy:

[Sterling]

36. Science vs religion

Science is an honest objective search for the truth. It is imperfect but allows for change as new information becomes available and does not resist the truth. Religion is the opposite. It needs to be defended from objective scrutiny.

I seriously can't respect the point of view that they are compairable and deserve equal standing in serious political or social discourse.

On edit in response to the notion that the only means of proff in science is visual conformation is below 3rd grade level in it's lack of understanding of basic science and those who have used this silly defense of religion should be ashamed of either their undertanding of science or their willingness to ignore reality to make an arguement.

[WoodrowFan]

37. I'll keep my fairy tales thank you

I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution, I don't believe in psychics, visions of the Virgin on the sides of oil tanks or on pastries, I don't believe in faith healing, and if I read my fortune in a fortune cookie it's for fun, not guidance. Yet because I have faith in a loving God who knows me and sacrificed his son to relieve the world of its sins, you dismiss me as a nut or a fool. I am sorry but the only reason the non-religious have less blood on their hands than do the faithful is because there are fewer of them. The racists who used religion to defend their racism also believed that science "proved" one race was superior above all others, and such logical, rational people led the eugenics movement because they felt they were not encumber by "illogical" or "unscientific" feelings.

I'll keep my fairy tales thank you because they tell me that I am part of something bigger and so I am responsible for the well-being other people as well as myself, even if it is not "logical" to do so.


"I have seen all my life the arguments against (religion) without ever having been moved by them....There are people who believe only so far as they understand...that seems to me presumptuous and sets their understanding as the standard of the universe....I am sorry for such people." Woodrow Wilson, January 3, 1915. (emphasis in the original)

[Liberator_Rev]

38. Let's declare war on WATER !

There have been many excellent replies to James Haught's article, so I won't go over the same ground.
ONE of his points that appears not to have been addressed is "Americans give $70 billion a year to churches and broadcast ministries."

None of that comes to "Liberals Like Christ" because our site tells them, at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/llcclub.htm :
"1. We don't want your Money.( There's no good cause that an abundance of money can't corrupt.)
2. If you have wealth to share, then we recommend, as Jesus did, that you share it with the needy, not with us. "
But I heard the other day that Americans spend some fantastic amount like that on bottled water on the unfounded belief that it is safer than public water. In many instances, it's actually less safe or the self-same tap water.

So, when the supposedly Liberal anti-theists types take over our government, their "faith police" will need to enforce "science" on the believers in bottled water (and in many other physical objects) as well as on the believers in the supernatural.

P.S. Since Haught and his true-believers are aware of so many differences among religion, I trust they know that the scientific law of logic that state's that one of the most difficult things to prove is a "negative", when applied to religion means that proving that "There is NO valid religion" would require that they study every last version of religion and prove conclusively that each and every one is false. Good luck, Mr. Haught.

From my knowledge of Science and Religion, I don't know which has had to correct the most mistakes, but Science has had to admit many mistakes already and there's no reason to believe it won't continue to do so in the future.

[Clete]

40. Hi Rev.

As long as religion admits their mistakes too. This is sort of my problem with religion. Science seems to be able to change with discoveries that debunk some cherished theories and prove others. When religion can do that then I feel everyone is on the same page.

[Terwilliger]

43. Have you proved god yet?

No.

The only proof of anything is that there's a black book that has a set of doctrines that you're supposed to follow.

And here's someone who hates the Catholic church and makes no bones about it :eyes:

[Liberator_Rev]

53. And you hate America, Terwilliger!

Assuming that you hate George W. Bush and John Ascroft and the rest of their administration, aren't you sick enough of being told that you HATE AMERICA, by people who can't distinguish between a country and its adminisration, not to make the same mistake about others ?

Saying about me "here's someone who hates the Catholic church and makes no bones about it." is making the very same kind of erroneous statement. How many times do I have to point out that it the CATHOLIC HIEARARCHY that we Liberals should have problems with : the POPES, the BISHOPS, the VATICAN CURIA, not the vast of peons in the pews who have no say as to what their church says or does about anything.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you just made that erroneous statement because you were going on what undiscriminating Catholics say about me, in which case I would urge you to "consider the source" next time.

[Terwilliger]

61. Yes I do!

America is cheapened and denigrated everytime some child is forced to utter the phrase "under God"

As for Catholics and their papacy...why would they be bad? They believe in the same savior, right? They're doing what they're supposed to do according to church precepts. And church precepts must be under the rule of god, right? They all believe in your God don't they?

So, you're saying that millions of people around the world are being deceived by a bunch of power and control freaks in the Vatican? Why does this deception continue? Becaue of a stupid and irrational attachment to some belief structure that warrants church authority and obeisance. And that same belief leads you to think that they need to be saved from this horrible fraud perpetrated by Christ. How surreal does it have to be before you start to see that the whole thing is a farce?

[Blue_Chill]

75. Don't bother arguing with Ter

He obviously has some trauma and he'll misdirect your arguments towards something else...like the catholic church when this thread and your firt post had nothing to do with it.

[Blue_Chill]

71. Good post Rev

seriously well said.

[Individualist]

42. I have a better idea

Let's outgrow intolerance of DUer's beliefs/opinions. One can disagree without being intolerant.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. The spirit world is as real as our imaginations

The spirit world is as real as our imaginations, dreams, hopes and fears. Even it these things have no reality outside of our minds, they are still real. Saying God doesn't exist because you can't prove it is like saying honesty doesn't exist cuz you can't prove it.

[maggrwaggr]

56. I've had firsthand experience with the supernatural

And the first time it happened it blew my mind. Changed my whole way of looking at the world.

I knew then that there's a WHOLE LOT going on that we just don't know about.

I wouldn't rule out a multi-dimensional explanation for all of it, but even so, it's SOOO far over our heads scientifically speaking that it can only be described as supernatural.

[Blue_Chill]

64. So have I

Can I stick what I saw in a test tube or control it? No. So all I got is what I know.

Good enough for me.

[shrike]

100. my husband has, too, and he's agnostic

He says he's still not sure what's out there, but will keep an open mind. Personally, I think religion, or lack of religion, wouldn't matter a bit if everyone would just mind their own damn business.

[scarletwoman]

47. Mr. Haught's essay reads like something a junior high student would write.

Contrast this simplistic and superficial "religion bad, science good" screed with the thoughtful analysis by Ken Wilber posted elsewhere in this thread.

A proselytizing atheist -- how droll...

sw

[Terwilliger]

50. yep...sophomoric drivel

Aren't conscientious thinkers obliged to speak the truth as they see it? Aren't logical people allowed to ask for evidence?

Who does he think he is?!?!

[scarletwoman]

52. Sure, "ask for evidence" -- no problem.

But don't assume that ONLY people who are prepared to agree with your p.o.v. are "conscientious" and "logical" -- that's authoritarian.

"Think like ME! *I* know the "truth"!"

As I said, I find proselytizing atheists to be quite droll.

sw

[Terwilliger]

57. you mean, like a political party?

is that the way I should treat the Democratic party dogma?

[Blue_Chill]

74. Who cares?

You have said over and over again you don't like the democratic party. So treat it however you wish, you aren't a Dem.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Let's Outgrow Anti-religion bigotry

What the hell, it might be worth a try.

[Blue_Chill]

76. I think its time we realised that

Stalins mindset for destroying religion is alive and well. These people are more then just bigots, they have a fixation and I am starting to believe they would force their beliefs on us all if they had a chance. I see them much like I see Osama and Falwell they are not satisfied to believe what they wish, all must do the same or their quest continues.

[Forkboy]

55. We should be so lucky

[LibertarianLurker]

60. I thought just like you...

...till I experienced the sacred mushroom.

Get past the fairy tales, which is your own personnel hangup, look past the illusion of materiality and seek God for yourself. :)

[Terwilliger]

62. or....not

is that ok?

[LibertarianLurker]

67. It Is

:)

"The entire weight of American education is engineered to crush the religious impulse." - Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D.

[EAMcClure]

65. Imagination as religion

I wanted to preface where I am about to head with the golden rule: tolerance. Please tolerate your fellow man's beliefs, no matter how wrong-headed or primitive they appear to you. Tolerance and respect, especially in the face of another's intolerance and disrespect, is the key to peace of earth. And that is a belief, one of my many "religious" beliefs.

"Amid this global mishmash, I want to offer a lonely minority view: I think it's all fairy tales. Every last shred of it. The whole mystical array, from Jehovah and Beelzebub to Ramthis and the Lemurians, lacks any type of proof - unless you count weeping statues. My hunch is that every invisible spirit is imaginary. Therefore, the planet-spanning worship is expended on nothing."

I find this paragraph the most illuminating in his screed.... a screed whose underlying meaning is one of global hegemony, a doctrine of mechanics and Mephistopheles (see Goethe, a poor soul who suffered from delusions of religous faith). The very notion that this learned gentlemen (I am assuming on faith he's learned) bases this whole essay on a "hunch" is IRONIC. A hunch is nothing more than an intuitive rationale... he is exercising a kind of sixth sense, a clairvoyance, and using his hunch (i.e., faith) to discount spiritual faith is a cardinal example of INTOLERANCE. The whole mystical array lacks objective proof... of course, what proof is he seeking? What counts as proof to someone who has staked precious words on a hunch?

That which lacks proof is unproveable, therefore UNREAL. That which is UNREAL can not be BELIEVED IN. One must only believe in what is REAL. The standards of what is real is established by SCIENCE, through inductive and deductive method... anyone who chooses to believe in the unproveable is engaging in primitive harmful behaviour that wastes MONEY and RESOURCES.

"You see, most believers realize that other religions are bogus. Why do they think their own theology is different? I'm calling for the final step to honesty. If some magical spirits obviously are imaginary, it's logical to assume that others are similar."

If you talked to a learned guru or rabbi or clergyman or high priestess or crone or witch doctor or jesuit or yogi or monk or whathaveyou, they would profess a PERSONAl faith in their religion, and most would refrain from denying others their right to their own faith without disparaging or falsifying it. There are parables in most, if not all, the world's wisdom teachings which accept that many roads lead to one divine source. Buddha said "be a lamp unto yourself; words from others do not edify." Those who seek to convert are zealots... and zealots are cut from the same cloth, be they politicians, criminals, and yes atheists (Madelyn O'Hare, Ayn Rand).

What I find most repugnant about those who choose not to believe in a religious system is their insistence that their belief reflect the natural order of things, and that their belief is progress... evolution. That somehow all those aeons of religious belief are a bridge to enlightened atheism. Posting this absurd claptrap on a public forum and say:

"I totally agree with Mr. Haught. Religion is a harmful, violent force that has enslaved the minds of far too many people throughout history and it's time for those of us who value reason, logic, and science to stand up and oppose it (peacefully). We have been silent for far too long."

You are no better than a fanatic. I rebuke you, and I especially rebuke your daddy mindset. If you are going to oppose something, oppose the common denominator of human existence: SUFFERING. That is an endeavor worth assuming. None of this. This fanatacism which masquerades behind simple logic is disgusting and disrespectful. Religion is no more a harmful, violent force than those who choose to exploit it. Humans are the masters of their consciousness and it is time we took credit for it and quit BLAMING words. Religion is no more harmful than water, you can drink it, drown in it, boil it and pour it over people's heads... but the common factor is human action and volition, not the water itself. Not the religion.

I have more to say in other posts on this thread. Kick kick kick.

Eric

[Blue_Chill]

66. I wonder how many DUers agree with Stalins

killing of the religious. I bet it's more then a few.

[edward]

96. It is probably everyone.

Good point. Well reasoned.

[Blue_Chill]

99. Religion is a threat to the human race

That is a common statement here on DU. What does one do to a threat to the human race? Sit down and chat?

[edward]

101. Isn't that what we are doing right now?

nt

[Blue_Chill]

102. two coments on that

1- Most people aren't chatting, they are making falwell like declarations that religions are a threat.

2- No anti-theist is yet in a position to do anything about it. Do you think Stalin ran about killing priests before he was in power? Nope. But once put in a position where he could.....

[edward]

103. Are you seriously asserting that a "Stalin" is on the horizon in America?

Certainly you know his primary concern was not the "religious."
And the "we're(christians)being persecuted" is not a good way to defend what is clearly a majority institution.

[Blue_Chill]

108. I never said any of that

Are you seriously asserting that a "Stalin" is on the horizon in America?

I have never said such a thing. What I have said is those that most likely agree with his methods are here on this board.

Certainly you know his primary concern was not the "religious."

Not primary but he certainly didn't forget about them.

And the "we're(christians)being persecuted" is not a good way to defend what is clearly a majority institution

- I never said we were being persecuted. I clearly stated that religious persons of all kinds are on the target list of the DU anti-theist.

- Majority does not mean you can't be the target of hate speech.

[edward]

110. You will not find one person on this board who will say that

religious people should be killed. This "stalin" thing is strange.

[Ouabache]

69. I guess Mr. Haught never read CG Jung

n/t

[QC]

79. Let's outgrow trolling,

That would do wonders for the quality of the discussions here.

[JVS]

81. Could we just have a war between Athiests and Theists once and for all

to determine which side is right. As someone who really doesn't care, I'd like this shit to be done with soon.

[leftofthedial]

82. OUT you evil spirit! Out I say!

In the name of Cheeeeeeebuz I command you to leave this person and open his mind to the power of the Hoa-leeee Espirit-uh!

Rise and be healed!

And now fellow lambs in the flock of the one true lamb, Cheeeeebuz-uh Kuh-rist-uh, our brothers and sisters are passing among you with buckets. Please give generously that we might continue with the holy work of our Looooorrrrrd-uh, Cheebuz amen. Please dig deeply and fill these buckets with the green and jingle of your love offerings, for Cheeeebuz is one thirsty lamb.




I'm glad I could help clear this up.

[aquart]

85. Sweetie, what's a fairy tale?

Anyway, we can't give up religion. It's wired into our brain storage functions. Religion is in the same place as poetry: it's associative logic. Which is how Jesus can be both shepherd and lamb. And fisher of souls. Astarte is desire and the milkpail and the place of milk which is why she's always pictured offering her breasts. But a pail of course is a container and like the womb so the fluid in both places is a nurturing sacred substance...

It's okay if you don't get it. Really.

But you might want to find out a little more about what a fairytale is.

[Perky]

90. I am a democrat and I love Jesus

We do exist you know.

[rasputin1952]

111. And thank God for that...

elsewise, the fundies would truly be a problem.

I have always held to the notion that Christ was a Liberal anyway.

Equality, Love, Compassion, Forgiveness, Mercy, Honesty; pretty darn liberal to me. I see NOTHING of conservatism in those values.

Tolerance is a gift, and God does not squander gifts on the foolish.

[nolabels]

118. Was Jesus a Liberal too ?

http://funnydog.ezthemes.com/pcenhance/wp/spotlight.phtml?sunsets

What were once considered great works by Michael Angelo and other artists of many generations past are now considered smut by many evangelicals and fundamentalists of today. Alice in wonderland is stepped into world we live in. What I was led to believe about a liberal philosophy is that things of the temporal or here and now, were but passage points into different realms or consciousness or enlightenment.

I see many things today being pushed away, but not from a point of them not being an unnecessary thing, but more from a point of fear. Once one decides not to understand, they become locked into an emotion or feeling that cannot leave that from that thought until they eventually do understand it. This very constriction that the English language gives even for the simple word "Love", renders our means to communicate all of our emotions and feelings into a handicapped position. Many things are being tarnished and trampled from narrow mindedness.

When one person has their one correct answer and path that is fine for them or maybe many, but that same thing might be a road block for another having to traverse it or work ones way around. I decided to try and be many things long ago and maybe not none at all also, not for a sense of belonging, but for a sense that is who I am. If Jesus is your companion and your love, that is Beautiful and something I also will try to understand. Surly harmony can found somewhere there, wouldn’t you think?

To exist and not to flourish is a crime that should not be

[karlschneider]

109. AMEN! ......oops, Freudian slip, that...

:D
:eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

116. I think we should all grow up and stop worrying about what our

neighbors believe. Some of us believe in God, some of us don't. So what? There's no need to argue about it. There's no need to ask people of one religion why they don't believe the same things as people of another.

Mr. Haugt doesn't make his case very well. Note this sentence, for example:

"No matter how much it's cloaked in poetry and allegory, religion consists of worshiping spooks - imaginary ones, in my view."

The implication is that some, but not all, "spooks" are imaginary, which leaves room for believers' faith in the "spooks" (spirits, gods) that are NOT imaginary.

[hippywife]

117. You can do whatever you wish...

and I will do likewise. If I choose to believe, that's my choice. I know it has only wrought good in my own life. :)

Peace!