 |
|
||
|
|
|
 A Critique of the New Religious LeftPosted on May 30, 2006
Editor’s note: In the tradition of Sam Harris, Truthdig introduces secularist radio show host and author Barry Seidman, who argues in this essay that the new religious left could prove to be just as dangerous and divisive to the country as the religious right, because the admonitions of Abrahamic religious texts can never be reconciled with democracy. After nearly 40 years of retreat, the American religious left is once again on the advance. And on the face of it, even secular Americans might have reason to cheer a religious movement focused on alleviating poverty, safeguarding the environment, improving criminal justice and opposition to war—as opposed to the religious right’s obsession with abortion and gay marriage. As the movement’s most prominent leader, Jim Wallis, founder of the leftish Christian evangelical magazine Sojourners, put it in his 2004 book “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It: A New Vision for Faith and Politics in America”: “Promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity [doesn’t] mean you [have] to put faith in God aside….” (1) [See footnotes.] But however much praise Wallis and his followers deserve for joining the good fight against Christo-fascists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and President Bush, the coupling of religion and politics is as dangerous for the left as it is for the right, because absolutism, authoritative supernaturalism and the actual tenets of the Abrahamic religious texts can never be reconciled with democracy and freedom. Central to Wallis’ message is the belief that at the heart of Judaism, Christianity and Islam lays a golden and pristine platonic realm where the ethics of social justice, brotherly love and global peace drive God’s big-brained creation. Wallis points to Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of liberalism and spirituality joining hands to spark major progressive reforms. Wallis argues, “Martin Luther King Jr. ... with his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other ... reminded us all of God’s purposes for justice, for peace….” (2) Advertisement What are the actual tenets of the Abrahamic religions, and can Wallis’ progressive vision be found there? In Hector Avalos’ new book, “Fighting Words: The Origin of Religious Violence” (2005), Avalos examines the Abrahamic religions with an eye toward explaining the kinds of behavior we associate with the Christian right in America, the Jewish right in Israel and the Islamic right in the Middle East. What he discovers will be sure to disturb anyone with a liberal impression of God. Avalos’ main argument is that violence stems from real or perceived scarcities of resources. When we look at the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, we see the very real concern with the dwindling oil reserves on Earth, and how the oil-made members of the administration would risk personal economic disaster if Iraqi oil were to actually serve the Iraqi people. But in addition to real resources, “perceived resources” can also become the focus of violence—and all too often these resources have been created by our religious books. According to Avalos, one of these perceived resources stems from what he calls “group privileging.” For example, the Jewish belief that Israel is the chosen land—and that Jews are a chosen people—necessarily elevates Jews in their own eyes above all other people on Earth. This perceived scarcity—the scarcity of being God’s “favorite”—can be seen in Israel’s current policy toward the Palestinians. Avalos argues:
Avalos contends that the idea of group privileging also sparked religious violence by inculcating the idea among Jews that God helped them destroy other peoples—peoples the Jews saw as a threat, conveniently: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites Canaanites, Jebusites and the modern Palestinians. (In an interesting aside, Avalos argues that “shalom” does not mean peace as is commonly misunderstood. Rather, “shalom” means repayment or retaliation. Avalos argues that “shalom” was a word meaning domination or hegemony of Jews over all, and severe retribution for any who go against the Jewish way of life.) Many liberal-minded Christians, I have found, do not advocate for the angry, retributive God of the Hebrews. Jesus, they argue, revealed a new covenant that superceded the Old Testament. Thus the turning point from the Old to New Testament is then is where Wallis and other liberal religionists begin their arguments for the so-called “Prince of Peace.” But Avalos finds plenty of perceived scarcities directly in the New Testament. One such scarcity is the idea of “sacred space.” In John 2:14-17 we find an account where Jesus whips people in a temple for selling animals and then goes on to wreck the place. Christian apologists have argued that this violence was justified because of blasphemy committed in a house of God. Avalos argues then that “since Jesus is a paradigm of Christian conduct, his actions came to influence some of the violence linked to sacred places we see in later Christian history.” (8) Avalos here is referring to the Crusades, among other historical Christian atrocities. But Jesus did much more than this to ensure the cult-like following he would soon receive. Proclaiming himself the voice of God, he prepared the needy and fearful for future battles they were to endure while spreading Christianity. One such method is most probably the same sort used by Islamic fundamentalists when recruiting suicide terrorists. In Luke 14:26-27, Jesus says, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” Mighty strong words no doubt meant to dedicate his followers to developing an artificial kinship with non-family members who would then fight as blood kin to the death for their perceived resource—God him/her/itself. Even apart from his discussion of religious-created scarcities, Avalos uses a close reading of the Bible to reject the view that Christianity essentially espouses love and peace. He argues that in Romans 12:14 we do not really see an example of Christians loving their enemies at all, though this section is often cited by Christians for this very reason. The section begins, sure enough, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” But what most liberal Christians then ignore is the rest of the section, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads” (Romans 12:20). Heaping burning coals on their heads? Avalos suggests that read as a whole, the commandment to be nice is a way to build up the potential for violence against an enemy. The nicer one is to one’s enemies, the more they will deserve the violence done to them in the end. Avalos understands Christian “love” this way:
So even if the Religious Left has developed a healthier and somewhat more liberal understanding of human society based on compassion, interconnectedness, fairness, and justice, it is just as sure that they did not base these views on actual scripture. They merely attempt to make scripture fit their liberal beliefs, because the Bible is anything but liberal. I call this buffet religiosity—cherry-picking the parts of scripture that conform to their worldview, and discarding the ones that don’t. (How, exactly, one can justify cherry-picking the words of God, is beyond me.) It is my argument, then, that the lure of religion (for both progressives and conservatives) lies in what the humanist philosopher, Dr. Paul Kurtz (12), has referred to as the “transcendental temptation.” Simply put: The marvel of life, the fear of death, and the very real need for spiritual nourishment are perhaps the main reasons people give up or suspend reason for faith. They cannot see the beauty of life, of very existence, as something wonderful unto itself. They instead search for meaning in the universe when there can be meaning only within themselves. They try to eschew a depression rooted in the thought of their own mortality by clinging to thousand-year-old myths of everlasting life. They spend far too much time making believe there really is an afterlife, instead of living their one very real life in the here and now. As I often hear atheists say: This is the one life—here on Earth. This is not a dress rehearsal. Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a “parent figure” lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other people—people with whom they share this life. We are indeed not alone. I take for granted—but not lightly—that adherents of the religious right have a very unhealthy and quite primitive understanding of the universe, and a very narrow, narcissistic interpretation of their role in the human diaspora. And because of this, they have followed the ancient teachings found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam to a fault. Or perhaps, as Avalos might argue, they have this unhealthy and false worldview because they believe in their so-called holy books. But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values. What is our excuse? What we must understand is that while fundamentalists of every shade try to relive the golden years of religious violence here in the 21st century, it is imperative that we do not fail to expose their creation of false scarcities. There is no supernatural realm; there are no gods or angels. Never were. There is no “sacred” land, people or ideas. What there is we can find in the beauty of Earth’s deserts, polar caps, mountain ranges and seas—and inside each one of us. We can enjoy the diversity of life on this planet as the one species capable of contemplating what life actually is. (14) This is the crux of scientific humanism. The left would be making a severe mistake to indulge the “transcendental temptations” of our collective past, for the truly progressive society is the one which has finally put away its childhood toys and vices, and begun to evolve toward a planetary humanism.
(1) http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=about_us.display_staff&staff=wallis (2) http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/2005/pemj0514.htm (3) Bear in mind, by the way, that those traditional conservative values have always been, and are still today, aligned with religious values even when concerning the atheist-right such as Leo Strauss, Joe Stalin, etc. (4) http://www.visionarylead.org/E-Newsletter/Articles/gods_politics.htm (5) Avalos, Hector: “Fighting Words: The Origin of Religious Violence.” Pages 130-131 (6) Ibid., Pages 169-170 (7) Ibid., Pages 164-166 (8) Ibid., Pages 180-181 (9) Ibid., Page 205 (10) Ibid., Page 230 (11) Perhaps the most obvious contradiction in the Bible is between the commandment Thou Shall Not Kill and the plentiful killing that takes place in both testaments (somehow excused by God). (12) http://www.secularhumanism.org (13) Kurtz, Paul: “The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal” (Prometheus Books, 1991). (14) As Carl Sagan understood, humanity is the universe’s first successful attempt to understand itself. Previous item: Stanley Sheinbaum: Support Winograd for Congress Next item: Molly Ivins: Iran Badge Fabricator Goes to Washington Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Obama’s Job Approval Slips Below 50%
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By jan, July 3, 2007 at 7:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
its nonsence i just need prominent people from the ot!!!!
Report thisBy Elisa L. Griffin, September 1, 2006 at 2:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I want to edit something: (sorry) I don’t want any confussion! in the message below I wrote:
To EVERYONE:
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that they are correct.
I should have wrote:
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that I am correct on the meaning.
and also I wrote:
I can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ on anyone!
and I should have wrote:
I can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ or any other belief on anyone else!
Sorry about that! I guess that is what happens when you write so late!!!
God Bless you all!!!
Report thisBy Elisa L. Griffin, August 21, 2006 at 6:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I would just like to comment on what was written about:
In Luke 14:26-27, Jesus says, Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brother and sister, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
People who read this and take it so literally are misunderstanding it’s meaning!
Jesus’ comment here is an example of hyperbole a figure of speech that exaggerates for emphasis!!! Jesus was setting up an extreme contrast to make a point: That our passion for Christ (Jesus) should be strong, and committed that we would put him first before all others!
Matt. 10:37-39 says,
37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
This is the “Youth” version of the message:
34 -37 “Don’t think I’ve come to make life cozy. I’ve come to cutmake a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-lawcut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don’t deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don’t deserve me.
38 -39 “If you don’t go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don’t deserve me. If your first concern is to look after yourself, you’ll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you’ll find both yourself and me.
IF you are a Non-Believer (and even some believers) of Christ It is probably hard for you to understand the Bible. There are many Parables and Hyperboles (Hyperbole is overstatement or exaggerated language that distorts facts by making them much bigger than they are if looked at objectively. The media use it a lot to make stories seem more important or interesting than they really are (an apparently unfair boxing decision was described as the ‘crime of the century’ by one newspaper which seems excessive when compared to murder). It may be used to entertain or more seriously.) that can make it a little confusing or misunderstanding! Even many Christians can misunderstand what the true message is!
To EVERYONE:
If you read something in the Bible and are shocked, confused, or just plain don’t get it, Please research the passage before you form an opinion on it or the WHOLE Bible all together! Not only will you be educating yourself on a subject more but you will not be offending believers or misguiding others from the truth!
I am a Christian and I myself have to research verses further in order to make sure that they are correct. It is better to know that I have my facts straight before I go trying to explain something I know nothing about!
FYI- I believe most Christians
(not including cults that say they are Christians (1 Timothy 3:1)[ Leadership in the Church ] If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he’s talking about, not be overfond of wine, not pushy but gentle, not thin-skinned, not money-hungry. He must handle his own affairs well, attentive to his own children and having their respect. For if someone is unable to handle his own affairs, how can he take care of God’s church? He must not be a new believer, lest the position go to his head and the Devil trip him up. Outsiders must think well of him, or else the Devil will figure out a way to lure him into his trap.)
would agree with me when I say that we are not trying to make everyone “Believers”. In the Bible Jesus tells us that there are people that do not believe;
1 Corinthians 7:15
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
2 Corinthians 4:4:
3 -4 If our Message is obscure to anyone, it’s not because we’re holding back in any way. No, it’s because these other people are looking or going the wrong way and refuse to give it serious attention. All they have eyes for is the fashionable god of darkness. They think he can give them what they want, and that they won’t have to bother believing a Truth they can’t see. They’re stone-blind to the dayspring brightness of the Message that shines with Christ, who gives us the best picture of God we’ll ever get.
Luke 8:12
Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
When Christians talk about Christ in a non argumentative (the way it should always be!) way like an informative speech. It’s because we love Christ and want to share his message! Just like if your Dad where to have built a top notch school for under privileged students and his tuition was free for them you would want to spread the word right? Because your proud of him and because you want to help someone out who may need the assistance. Right? Hey if they don’t want to go then Oh-Well you tried! Well same thing when it comes to God for us!
Report thisI can not force nor should I/or anyone else ever try and force beliefs of Christ on anyone! It needs to be that persons choice! Or how can it be true for sure?
God Bless You All!
Elisa
PS- The Bible needs to be read in entirety to properly be understood. Also if People would learn to communicate effectively and listen effectively we could probably better understand one another’s point of view a little better and respect it!
By Steffie, August 13, 2006 at 5:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
an interesting take on the ethical side of revolutionary politics by Fidel Castro, published by Leonardo Boff this past Friday, 8/11/06. apologies in advance for any formatting problems.
Steffie
————————————————-
Leonardo Boff - Fidel at 80: Confidential Memories
—————————————————-
(Leonardo Boff is the father of Liberation Theology. Frei Betto’s
booklength interview with the Commander-in-Chief, whose title is
FIDEL AND RELIGION [Ocean Press], is dedicated to Leonardo Boff.)
====================================
Fidel at 80: Confidential Memories
Leonardo Boff
Theologian
Earthcharter Commission
What I am going to reveal here will irritate or scandalize those who
do not like Cuba or Fidel Castro. That does not worry me. If you do
not see the light of the star in the darkest night, it is not the
star’s fault; but yours.
Because of my book, Church: Charisma and Power, in 1985, then
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger subjected me to <obsequious silence>. I
accepted the sentence, and quit teaching, writing and speaking in
public. Months later, I was surprised to receive an invitation from
Commandant Fidel Castro, asking me to spend two weeks with him on the
Island, during his vacation. I accepted immediately, because I saw an
opportunity to resume the critiquing dialogues that we had enjoyed
several times previously, together with Frei Betto.
I headed to Cuba, and reported to the Commandant. In my presence, he
immediately called the Apostolic Nuncio with whom he had cordial
relations, and said to him: <Eminence, here is Brother Boff, who will
be my guest for two weeks. As I am disciplined, I will not allow him
to talk with anyone, nor give interviews, this way he will observe
what the Vatican wants of him: obsequious silence. I will see to it
that that is respected.> And so it was.
During those two weeks, whether by car, airplane or ship, he showed
me the whole Island. Simultaneously, with total freedom, we conversed
about a thousand topics: politics, religion, Marxism, revolution and
also critiques of the deficiencies of democracy.
The nights were devoted to long meals, followed by serious
discussions that often lasted into the early morning. Some times
until 6 a.m. Then, he would stand up, stretch, and say:<now I am
going to swim for some 40 minutes; and after that, I will go to
work.> I would write down what we had talked about and then, go to
sleep.
Some topics of our fellowship seem relevant to me. First of all,
Fidel’s persona. He is larger than the Island. His Marxism is more
ethical than political: how to do justice to the poor? Then, there is
his knowledge of the theology of liberation. He has read a mountain
of books, all of them with notes, lists of terms and of doubts that
he would clarify with me. I once told him: <If Cardinal Ratzinger
understood half of what you understand of the Theology of Liberation,
my personal destiny and the future of this theology would be very
different.> And in that context, he confessed: <I am ever more
convinced that no Latin American revolution will be true, popular and
triumphant, if it does not incorporate the religious element.>
Perhaps due to this conviction, he had practically forced Frei Betto
and myself to give successive lessons on religion and Christianity to
the whole second echelon of Government; some times, with all the
ministers present. Those courses were decisive for the Government in
dialoguing and coming to a sort of <reconciliation> with the Catholic
Church and all the other religions in Cuba.
Finally, there was his confession: I was an intern with the Jesuits
for several years; they gave me discipline but did not teach me how
to think. In jail, reading Marx, I learned to think. Due to the
Northamerican pressure I had to make a rapprochement to the Soviet
Union, but if I had had at that time a theology of liberation, I
would most certainly had embraced it and applied it in Cuba. And he
finished: If one day I return to the faith of my childhood, it will
be by the hands of Brother Betto and Brother Boff We reached moments
of such solidarity that we could have easily prayed the Our Father
together.
I had written 4 thick notebooks about our dialogues, but in Rio de
Janeiro my car was attacked, and they took everything. The book I had
imagined can never be written, but I treasure the memory of the
unforgettable experience of a Head of State, worried about the
dignity and the future of the poor.
Leonardo Boff
08-11-2006
Free translation from the Spanish sent
Report thisby .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), served by
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address); done at
REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas
By Tony Wicher, July 24, 2006 at 5:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #14941 by Barry F. Seidman on 7/23 at 9:36 am
If there were some way to incorporate this, what could be called “science of the self” as part of science, in fact as the central scientific discipline, then science and relgion do become one, and I see this as the only way out of the mess the world is currently in.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 24, 2006 at 5:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #14941 by Barry F. Seidman on 7/23 at 9:36 am
I had never heard of Susan Blackmore. I checked out her web site and yes, we seem to have a lot in common. Thanks for the suggestion. I will be getting in touch with her. Like her I have studied Buddhist literature, but do not consider myself a “Buddhist”. Like her I believe that psychedelics such as cannabis and psilocybin used with the proper motivation can be beneficial in the exploration of consciousness. A very important part of my background is my scientific upbringing. My father was a theoretical physicist, a real scientist and a great teacher. He was also an unbending atheist, considering that to be the only viewpoint consistent with science. I learned about science at my daddy’s knee. I myself started college majoring in mathematics. In my junior year I switched to philosophy. Why? Because I did not see how science as my father understood it - physics, mathematics, chemistry - was solving or could solve our human problems. Science could not stop war; it could only increase its destructiveness. About this time (1965) I started taking LSD and it opened up a whole ocean, a whole new dimension right inside my head. I realized then that this extra dimension was completely overlooked by my father and his conception of science. My father considered himself to be completely objective, the very embodiment of reason. Indeed he was one of the most rational people you could ever hope to meet, wonderfully tolerant and open-minded.
Report thisUnfortunately, he also had a lot of repressed anger, an ulcer, and other emotions that his self-image as a rational scientist would not admit. At this time I was also introduced by one of my philosophy professors to the work of J. Krishnamurti, whom I subsequently heard speak on many occasions until his death in 1986. He introduced me to meditation as a discipline of self-awareness in daily life. This discipline was just like the discipline of scientific observation, to see things as they are, dispassionately, without preconceptions, without any axe to grind, without judgement or condemnation or justification. To observe oneself in this way, one’s own behavior, thoughts, feelings, in daily life, in relationship - I saw this as a scientific approach to exploring the “beyond within”, this fifth dimension that psychedelics had opened up -which was nothing other than my own brain, my own mind.
By Barry F. Seidman, July 23, 2006 at 12:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony:
Interesting. I think there is some truth to that. Have you read the work of Susan Blackmore?
Barry
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 23, 2006 at 12:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
My hypothesis is that there is a discipline of self-observation that parallels scientific observation of the world. Each of us is conditioned by our past. We are raised to be
Report thisChristians, Muslims, Atheists, or what have you. All our past experience conditions our observation. A Jew sees the world as a Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim. Science says, look without any preconceptions, then you see the world as it actually is. When one is looking at the world as a scientist, one is not looking as a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, etc. but from the standpoint of humanity, as homo sapiens, organisms with minds capable of reason and understanding. My hypothesis is that it is also possible to observe and understand the working of one’s own mind in the same way, and that in so doing the mind disentangles itself from its past. Moreover, in so doing the mind comes to understand not only itself as an individual, but the human mind in general, why it struggles and suffers, why it cannot find peace, outwardly or inwardly. This transforms our relationships with other people. Out of this emerges a universal compassion.
By Barry F. Seidman, July 22, 2006 at 1:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Tony Wicher said:
Science - real science - is not ideology. Science recognizes an objective reality that exists prior to all ideas. Scientific ideas get their meaning and validity from that reality. Therefore science does unite. Of course, there are always different ideas, different theories, but over the course of time, different ideas with respect to this objective truth are resolved and agreement is reached.
My studies indicate that there is something just as objectively real that is at the origin of religion. It is not an idea, any more than the earth and the sky are ideas, but it is within rather than without. To discover this source, this inner reality one must know oneself. This is the ultimate scientific discipline, the ultimate objectivity - the ability to see oneself objectively.
What you call religion is the decay of the discovery of this inward reality into ideology.
======================================
Barry’s reply:
This is very interesting. I agree completely with your understanding of objective reality (as opposed to subjective “reality”), and I also agree that science is the best tool for understanding such reality. And so, science, therefore, can indeed be a uniting “force” as it is non-dogmatic, non-ideological “ism-dry” - a la “Scientific Naturalism” (http://www.naturalism.org).
Atheism can not be an ideology because atheism properly defined is merely non-belief or disbelief (depending on whether or not one is talking about negative or positive atheism), but humanism might be considered an ideology because it is front and foremost a philosphical belief. But as an ideology, humanism - if defined correctly - is the only set of ideas/beliefs I know of based on hard and soft science (a la naturalism, etc); and this perhaps then renders humanism unique to the world of ideas.
If ideology is to be defined as beliefs not necessarily based on science, then humanism should NOT be considered an ideology.. which is why I refer to humanism as I do. I think one day, as people all over come to better understand scientific naturalism, as well as respect good social science (found in anthopology, sociology, psychology, etc), the term humanism may not be needed at all because the securalism, atheism and progressivism of humanism would be inherent in the proper scientific understanding of the human experience - supernaturalism would become extinct and religion would be the same thing as naturalism.
PS: I need further explanation of your “inner self” idea so as to respond to it.
Barry F. Seidman
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, July 21, 2006 at 3:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Reply to Comment #10922 by Barry F. Seidman on 6/01 at 10:04 pm
You said:
Thanks Tony for the clarification! I accept your definition of religion as legitimate, of course, and yes once you eliminate superstition, the paranormal, supernaturalism, and god.. what you are left with might indeed be a political philosophy like humanism.. or it might wind up being the misanthropic Randian Objectivism.
But if it is a political (or apolitical, for that matter) philosophy you are talking about, why use the stereotyped word religion in the first place?
Humanism is a philosophy (some may say ideology) based on scientific naturalism (which does away with the dogma).. where other ideologies may be less scientific (neo-conservatism, postmodernism, Christianity, etc).
Is natural religion, the way you think of it, an ideology? Is it a philosophy? If by religion you really mean spirituality, or a binding system of ethics, then youd have to explain where you get that spirituality or ethical system from (naturally).
I am all for uniting humanity - that is the crux of humanism to me. So, Tony, how do you unite humanity in your words? - BFS
My reply:
Religion (re-ligiere) means to bind together, to unite. But ideologies, “religious” or otherwise have divided humanity, not united it - correct? You believe in your ideas and I believe in mine. Ideology and belief are the same thing, whether it is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Humanist ... ideology is ideology, belief is belief.
Science - real science - is not ideology. Science recognizes an objective reality that exists prior to all ideas. Scientific ideas get their meaning and validity from that reality. Therefore science does unite. Of course, there are always different ideas, different theories, but over the course of time, different ideas with respect to this objective truth are resolved and agreement is reached.
My studies indicate that there is something just as objectively real that is at the origin of religion. It is not an idea, any more than the earth and the sky are ideas, but it is “within” rather than “without”. To discover this source, this inner reality one must know oneself. This is the ultimate scientific discipline, the ultimate objectivity - the ability to see oneself objectively.
What you call “religion” is the decay of the discovery of this inward reality into ideology.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 19, 2006 at 2:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry (OLD): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never attacked Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of religious individuals are the secular humanists best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
Andrea: Well, actually you do attack them on false premises - you say,
Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a parent figure lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other peoplepeople with whom they share this life.
(I find this statement to be totally unsupportable. The liberal Christians I know not only heartily enjoy their relationships with other people, but are very good at them.)
BARRY(NEW) - I may have been unclear here, and a bit unfair. Not all liberal religionists treat their need for supernaturalism as a “parent figure” a la Freud. And they certainly can enjoy their relationships with other people. What I was trying - unsuccessfully, I admit - to say was that to the degree that liberal religionists turn to supernaturalism, and “forces outside their own lives,” for either explanation or support… is to the degree they will fail to see the answers they seek in their actual relationships and in the wonder of life itself.
Andrea: (And you say) But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values.
Here you lump together the Christian left and right and ignore the primary difference between them that the left regards that territorialism that disregards human life and seeks to destroy others based on discrimination of any kind as a spiritual crime. This is truly what separates the left and the right real, humanistic compassion. Yet you seem to have no problem us ... Leftist Christians are not fundamentalist or Catholic most do not believe in the Trinity or necessarily that Christ is the only savior of the world. Their primary belief is of Christ as a teacher of peace and compassion.
Barry (NEW): What I mean by hegemony and domination (which includes territorialism), is that the actual texts BOTH liberal and conservative religionists reference in their belief in Christianity (for instance), are based on hegemony, domination (hierarchy) and territorialism. One cannot get around this no matter where they get their “history” of Christianity - including the so-called words of Jesus - from. I showed this in regard to the real meanings of Jesus’ words as opposed to the dubious leftist interpretation of them (the primary idea of “Christ” as teacher of peace and compassion is untrue as such ‘peace and compassion’ is ONLY reserved for fellow Christians).
Again, yes, leftist Christians may not choose to recognize the roots of their proclaimed faith when they advocate for the so-called ‘kinder Christianity’ you are speaking of, but as long as they use the word “Christian,” and proclaim to BE Christians, they cannot escape the meaning of Christianity no matter how they sugar coat it.
Barry (old): The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and right-wing.
Andrea: This is a great argument against the right. But really how does it relate at all to the left? Leftist Christians are really not that concerned with the Old Testament. They are essentially New Testament followers who, I would guess, dont even have a strong grip on anything but the four gospels. You could certainly claim this about right-wingers but to be fair youd have to say that what theyve gotten correct is the historically sold concept of religion…
Barry (NEW): Christianity is based on a variety of writings (some still around today, some lost or dismissed), as an attempt of the many writers to show that the prophecies of the older Hebrew Bible came true. In this regard, the New Testament is a sequel and FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament (however fabricated). To ignore the old then is to misunderstand the new.
Also, the authors of the New Testament had very little knowledge about how the world really worked.. not much more than did their Old Testament counterparts.
Andrea: It is real wisdom axioms about how life functions and how human existence can be influenced by very real Universal laws, like cause and effect, duality (which can be described as simply every ounce of matter in the universe being made up of both positive and negative elements), and how energy seeks its own level.
Barry (NEW): This sentence is a mix of science and pseudoscience. Yes, there are universal laws, and all is based on cause and effect (which is why many argue that counter-causal “free will” does not exist), but the notions of duality and energy you talk about are nonscientific, New Age silliness. Humans are not to be understood as energy in this way, and their is no ‘energy’ in the universe from which we feed in the “spiritual” sense.
Barry (old): Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Andrea: I guess that is truly what separates some of us in any spiritual tradition. For some of us, it is not reasonable to ignore the supernatural because we have experienced it firsthand for ourselves. Because of that we seek answers ... critical thinking is of no use here. It does not explain what we have experienced or assist us in making sense of it. It is not about whether we believe the experience because we have had it first hand it is about what we can learn of it after it happens and no amount of reason will help you with that. You cannot critically think it away.
Barry (NEW): There is no “for some of us” to be considered here. You are confusing objective reality with subjective opinions. The supernatural does not exist - OBJECTIVELY - no matter who you are. So those who speak of the supernatural as if they have experienced it have indeed experienced something else, and have falsely called it supernatural. There is no confusion regarding this in scientific circles (leftist or rightist).
Thinking critically - scientifically - about this is not ‘thinking it away,’ but explaining what one actually experiences. Science has not “explained away” supernaturalism… it has just shown that supernaturalism is false.. and NEVER existed in the first place.
Barry (old): Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies.
Andrea: My question would be really whats wrong with rescuing these faiths from their rigidity? Whats wrong with people trying to find the good in them that supports their modern way of living? This is essentially how societies develop over time and there is ultimately nothing wrong with people finding positive models in ANYTHING from the past. I have trouble with the practical aspect of what youre advocating here. Are you really saying that these three faiths cannot exist within democracies? That seems to be a bit of an overstatement to me. Are you saying that people in democracies shouldnt be free to practice these faiths, because if you are youre basically advocating stripping people of their religious freedom. Are you trying to convince members of these faiths that they should abandon them? Because thats not going to happen and it shouldnt, unless you can come up with any greater proof of your own perception of the universe than theirs. So what do you really want, Barry? An atheistic democratic society where everyone believes the same thing (which would essentially be only things that are scientifically provable) and therefore lives the same way and abandons their own history, traditions, and family connections. THAT is about the most extremist view I can think of. And it is an absolutely unnecessary response to the complex issues facing people today.
Barry (NEW): I’ll respond to these questions in order.
1) To “rescue” these ‘faiths’ from rigidity would require us to think critically of what these faiths are advocating for in human society. Its not just a matter of understanding the supernaturalistic tenets of these religions are wrong, but that the underlying moral and ethical reasoning the creators of these myths shared are unethical to a modern humanistic society. When someone tries to find the ethical in the unethical, he or she is really changing the meaning(s) the creaters intended for us to obey. If you delete the supernatural from the Abrahamic religions, and also alter the meanings of the text to suit modern sensibilities, you have not “reformed” the religion in question, but changed it into something so different that you no longer can call it by its given name(s).
2) People can have and practice these faiths in a democracy so as long as they ignore the messages and orders these faiths advocate when interacting with others who do not share their faith, or with the government. The problem is that most people understand that one can not be neutral re our behavior in society when one’s core beliefs call for something which is not central to other’s beliefs. This is when the true-believer comes out in all of us.
3) Humanism, based on scientific naturalism, HAS come up with an understanding of the universe far more realistic and awe-inspiring than the Abrahamic religions have.. and far more ethical. Calling for a uniform society is NOT what humanists advocate for. Because people should believe only that which is reasonable and has evidence to back its basic premises does NOT lead a society to uniformity.
Andrea: ...at some point in human history there was no evidence of our evolutionary history. That didnt mean that it didnt exist. Nor did it mean that people shouldnt have theorized about it.
Barry (NEW): Because many people did not know about the evolutionary history of humanity in the past does not mean the notion was true or false in history any more than considering how many people “believe” in it today. There was no reason humans should have thought of themselves as part of nature before this was proven to be so, but there seemed to be less reason for humans to believe in the supernatural, because at least they could SEE the similarities between all life on earth (especially, regarding us, the other primate), and could NEVER see gods or angels.
Of course, over the last 500 years, there is far less reason to believe in supernaturalism than in any time in human hostory as we better understand the laws of the universe… And there is far more reason to believe in evolution and other such scientific theories. There is very little “excuse” to believe in the supernatural in the 21st century.
Andrea: Now many leftist Christians believe in the complexity of evolution and integrate it into their beliefs about creation.
Barry (NEW): They can only do this by keeping their faith somehow separate from reality… I find this dubious at the best.
Andrea: ...there is really only one reason that Christians put all their eggs in their faith and that is community. It is not so much the fear of being alone after death but being alone in life. And you have to admit that when it comes to taking care of each other, the secularist world does not offer much. Do we, as random strangers seek to help each other - feed the hungry, care for the sick and aged, and help the poor? Not really. Particularly in our current setup of hypersensationalized capitalism this is, and always has been, a very dog-eat-dog existence.
Barry (NEW): Sure Andrea, in this society of modern times, people do seem to live a dog-eat-dog lifestyle… But throughout most of human history (99% of it), we have lived a far more peaceful, egalitarian existence (see the work of scientists Douglas Fry or Judith Hand). The forming of the modern state and indeed capitalism has created an UNNATURAL existence for humanity in which it is difficult to find random acts of kindness, altruism and beneficence - especially in the most successful capitalist society all - America.
To this extent, any kindness stemming from any form of religion (no matter how altered the religion itself must be in order to allow for such kindness), is welcomed. However, charity - which is what the religious Left is about here - is not what humanists should seek. Charity is necessary to give to the poor in a way that is very demeaning to the poor. The poor should not be considered as ‘those who have failed in society and need our help,’ but instead those who have been robbed of the wealth they otherwise would have had had not this society been so capitalistic and competitive in the first place.
We do not need charity, we need a complete change in society.
We need to abolish capitalism and understand the real nature of humanity.
A scientific humanistic philosophy brings this understanding to us where religions (or dogmatic atheism), do not.
I am not advocating only for a “secularist society,” because secularism only means we should keep church and state separate. In fact, I advocate both against church and most types of states. A society based on atheism is not a society at all because atheism is merely the understanding that there is no god or supernatural world. It is not a philosophy of life. Humanism is.
Report thisBy Andrea, June 16, 2006 at 8:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry,
I appreciate your clarification. I believe I started on the wrong foot in my first response. My responses to your particular points are below:
Barry (NEW): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never attacked Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of religious individuals are the secular humanists best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
Andrea: Well, actually you do attack them on false premises - you say,
Liberal religionists have not been able to mature past the need for a parent figure lest they find themselves alone in the universe. Yet they do this while sometimes never enjoying their own relationships with other peoplepeople with whom they share this life.
(I find this statement to be totally unsupportable. The liberal Christians I know not only heartily enjoy their relationships with other people, but are very good at them.)
And
But members of both the religious right and left subscribe to the same ethics of hegemony and domination as did their ancestors who wrote their unscientific understanding of ethics on papyrus thousands of years ago. Both create just-so stories and impart their beliefs while nurturing insidious territorialism. The ancients did not have the scientific knowledge or the intellectual maturity necessary to live together with all of humanity in mutual respect, free of myths and separatist values.
Here you lump together the Christian left and right and ignore the primary difference between them that the left regards that territorialism that disregards human life and seeks to destroy others based on discrimination of any kind as a spiritual crime. This is truly what separates the left and the right real, humanistic compassion. Yet you seem to have no problem using Christianity as a means to eliminate the differences in their real-life views and practice. Furthermore, you assume that they all (again simply because they are Christian) use the parent figure model of Jesus. None of the leftist Christians I know in both the Agape church and the Universalist would support this view. Leftist Christians are not fundamentalist or Catholic most do not believe in the Trinity or necessarily that Christ is the only savior of the world. Their primary belief is of Christ as a teacher of peace and compassion.
Barry: The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and right-wing.
Andrea: This is a great argument against the right. But really how does it relate at all to the left? Leftist Christians are really not that concerned with the Old Testament. They are essentially New Testament followers who, I would guess, dont even have a strong grip on anything but the four gospels.
You could certainly claim this about right-wingers but to be fair youd have to say that what theyve gotten correct is the historically sold concept of religion real spiritual knowledge is not something that can be changed by humans throughout history. It is real wisdom axioms about how life functions and how human existence can be influenced by very real Universal laws, like cause and effect, duality (which can be described as simply every ounce of matter in the universe being made up of both positive and negative elements), and how energy seeks its own level. These spiritual tenets are timeless and, though usable by people to manipulate others or history or political and economic situations, just are they are neither positive or negative. I personally believe that all spiritual texts contain some of the nuggets of these axioms that the original reason for writing them down was to try to impart these bits of knowledge that particular avatars (i.e, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna) espoused in their lives where they went from there was certainly like the message in the bottle set adrift on the sea of history and human experience. But throwing out the knowledge to get rid of the history is a baby with the bath water approach. And our leftist friends seem to have at least one thing in their favor they are trying to find the positive elements of their faith and strip away some of the historical coloring.
Barry: Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Andrea: I guess that is truly what separates some of us in any spiritual tradition. For some of us, it is not reasonable to ignore the supernatural because we have experienced it firsthand for ourselves. Because of that we seek answers. I believe that most people who write about spirituality somehow fall into this category. So for those who have not had those experience, yes they will need to think critically about it to decide whether they believe in it or not or believe the people talking about it. To others of us, critical thinking is of no use here. It does not explain what we have experienced or assist us in making sense of it. It is not about whether we believe the experience because we have had it first hand it is about what we can learn of it after it happens and no amount of reason will help you with that. You cannot critically think it away. And if you are honest about it, you are often made to feel like a liar, a charlatan, or a lunatic. So then whos honesty is real: yours that denies my experience, or mine that experienced it? And why is it more reasonable to believe in yours?
Barry: Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies.
Andrea: My question would be really whats wrong with rescuing these faiths from their rigidity? Whats wrong with people trying to find the good in them that supports their modern way of living? This is essentially how societies develop over time and there is ultimately nothing wrong with people finding positive models in ANYTHING from the past. I have trouble with the practical aspect of what youre advocating here. Are you really saying that these three faiths cannot exist within democracies? That seems to be a bit of an overstatement to me. Are you saying that people in democracies shouldnt be free to practice these faiths, because if you are youre basically advocating stripping people of their religious freedom. Are you trying to convince members of these faiths that they should abandon them? Because thats not going to happen and it shouldnt, unless you can come up with any greater proof of your own perception of the universe than theirs. So what do you really want, Barry? An atheistic democratic society where everyone believes the same thing (which would essentially be only things that are scientifically provable) and therefore lives the same way and abandons their own history, traditions, and family connections. THAT is about the most extremist view I can think of. And it is an absolutely unnecessary response to the complex issues facing people today.
Barry: What is the industry you are in?
The music industry, a.k.a. The Last Bastion of American Institutionalized Sexism.
Barry: The New Testament was not written by the Jews or Arabs. None of it was even written until more than 5 decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived, and the parts of the Bible we have now were pieces rewritten and altered decade after decade for centuries. There is NO writing outside the Bible that exists which points to ANY of the so-called history in the Bible as being real history ... not the life of Moses, not the exodus from Egypt, not the life of Jesus, nothing.
Andrea: And at some point in human history there was no evidence of our evolutionary history. That didnt mean that it didnt exist. Nor did it mean that people shouldnt have theorized about it. Now many leftist Christians believe in the complexity of evolution and integrate it into their beliefs about creation. Most of Einsteins model of relativity began as an unproved theory. He had trouble with the mathematics. Some scientists today still refute it, even after it has explained many oddities about our universe. What we know about our physical existence is minute compared to the answers. We figure those out not simply by searching scientifically, but by thinking creatively. It is now scientifically acceptable to theoretically believe (since string theory and M theory have not technically been proven) in 11 curled up dimensions in our universe. Millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours of manpower are being used to investigae the theory of invisible dimensions. Not too long ago that would have been considered pure craziness. But someone thought of it first, set out wondering whether there was some proof for it and here we are. I havent heard of any significant archeological source that says because there is only one historical source of something that it proves it didnt happen. If this was the case, most of what we know about ancient kingdoms and people would be disregarded as fairy tales.
Barry: As for Q, they were written by the Cynics who wrote long after the alleged life of Jesus.
Andrea: I believe that the view held by most scholars is that they were written by the Essenes in several dialects of Hebrew. The secondary view held is that they may have been written by the Saducees. Anyone interested in an exhaustive bibliography of the subject might want to visit this page:
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/bibliog.htm
Further regarding this paragraph from your article,
Simply put: The marvel of life, the fear of death, and the very real need for spiritual nourishment are perhaps the main reasons people give up or suspend reason for faith. They cannot see the beauty of life, of very existence, as something wonderful unto itself. They instead search for meaning in the universe when there can be meaning only within themselves. They try to eschew a depression rooted in the thought of their own mortality by clinging to thousand-year-old myths of everlasting life. They spend far too much time making believe there really is an afterlife, instead of living their one very real life in the here and now. As I often hear atheists say: This is the one lifehere on Earth. This is not a dress rehearsal.
Though I do see some of the reasons you listed as part of why people believe in certain spiritual philosophies, having grown up in the Fundentalist Christian tradition, I can tell you that there is really only one reason that Christians put all their eggs in their faith and that is community. It is not so much the fear of being alone after death but being alone in life. And you have to admit that when it comes to taking care of each other, the secularist world does not offer much. Do we, as random strangers seek to help each other - feed the hungry, care for the sick and aged, and help the poor? Not really. Particularly in our current setup of hypersensationalized capitalism this is, and always has been, a very dog-eat-dog existence. And yet survival for most of us depends on relationship and community. Most religious people answer this need in themselves by finding others who believe in that idea many of them are simple in their needs in life and to their credit, this simplicity results in the desire to help other people. I see this even in Fundamentalists who are very rigid in their views. They are strongly committed to the idea of taking care of each other.
I would say (knowing them as intimately as I do) that it is this simplicity that drives them towards faith right and left alike what they do once they get there is a totally different story.
And, since Im a little embarrassed to have gone on so long, I think Ill shut up now. (But then again, there are only 3 of us here, so I dont know whos really going to complain)
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 16, 2006 at 1:17 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for doing me the honor of such a thorough attempt to dismiss my blog post. Ive never received the same fair play from Sam Harris, so major props to you. - WH
I did not try to dismiss, but instead respond to your blog post. Also, though I can’t speak for Sam, of course, my thoughts are that as long as these kinds of discussions are kept in the ivory towers and not talked about among all of us, they are useless. - BFS
If one accepts Robert Kegans (of Harvard) developmental model of human psychology, and Jean Gebsers model of cultural development, one has to understand that each stage arises as a correction to the previous one. Authoritarian, structured religions (the Axial Age) arose as a correction to the egocentric power drives of the previous stage. Threat of hell and a strict moral code were effective controls for the ego. Science (the Enlightenment) arose as a correction to the mythic beliefs of religion. Rational thought could effectively do away with sky gods. - WH
Interesting, I do not know the work of Kegan or Gebser.. so of course I can not comment intelligently on their ideas.. but it does seem to make sense that human society is always improving in how it understands itself.. even if this/we backfire at times such as with Hitler, Stalin and the Neo-Cons in America today. - BFS
...these stages cannot be skipped or eliminated. Within this widely accepted framework, religion is a necessary stage in human development. It cannot be skipped or eliminated, and because all people start at the beginning, we all must pass through some variation of it, as must all cultures. The question then becomes: will it be healthy or unhealthy. The religious left is much more healthy than the right, and it should be encouraged to flourish. - WH
I tend to agree. I do think these stages are natural, and religion - in all its forms - is a natural part of human development (individually and culturally). Scott Atran has some interesting things to say about this in his masterful book, “In Gods we Trust.”
And certainly the regressive “movement” of the religious Right - which must be rejected - is not the same thing as the mindset of the religious Left. And re the religious Left, it is clear that humanity has not outgrown supernaturalism yet, and any forced maturity - a la via the old USSR - is not healthy.
But I must add that the reason the religious Right cannot be thoroughly repressed, and why it always seems to be able to power its’ way into to having ever stronger strangle holds on the American imagination, is because of the general willingness of Americans to accept that any reading of the religious texts are relevant to today’s society (nevermind progressive). As long at people continue to entertain a mindset which ignores reality, and accepts supernaturalism, the path to fundamentalism is always nearby. As long as people continue to attempt to find spiritually in the regressive Abrahamic tribal religions, instead of within naturalistic boundaries, they will continue to be mislead into thinking the Abrahamic religions are anything more than dangerous myths based on immoral allegory and metaphor which leaves the door open for the Right. - BFS
They (religious liberals) may reject prohibitions against birth control, or be tolerant of gays and lesbians, and not believe in a literal heaven and hell, but they believe that Jesus taught love and tolerance. - WH.
I understand, but again, no one knows what Jesus who probably never existed anyway), “taught” .. and the Gnostic Gospels offer very little proof that they had anything to do with a historical Jesus either. - BFS
If you accept the Bible alone as the source of Christianity, you do not have in your hands the authentic teachings of Jesus, as I’m sure you know. - WH
Yes, of course, but if one does not look to the Bible (or related non-historic texts), where else are they getting Christianity from? One cannot practice forms of New Age spiritually, Buddhism or religious humanism and CALL it Christianity because they like some of the made-up stuff about a so-called man-god named Jesus. And there seems to be NO SUCH “authentic teachings,” as I have said. Read the trilogy on Jesus by Robert M. Price. - BFS
By the way, nonduality has nothing to do with the Trinity. Nonduality is the absence of division between God and self. Jesus could claim that I and my father are one because he had experience of nondual awareness. Buddhism is more precise on these teachings than Christianity, but it can also be found in the Christian mystics, especially St. Theresa. Until you can accept the higher, post-rational, stages of human development, youll be missing half the picture. This is where we must look to Eastern religionsthey have mapped the post-rational as well as we have mapped the pre-rational and ratrional stages of development (see Ken Wilbers work for more on this idea, first introduced in The Spectrum of Consciousness).- WH
Several thoughts on this…
1) I am not sure I know what YOU mean by “nonduality,” then.
2) I do not know what you mean by the “higher, post-rational, stages of human development”
3) I consider Wilber (and Andrew Cohen) to be nice guys (the latter was on my radio show twice), and certainly more philosophically evolved then traditional religionists, but they are very supernaturalistic in a sadly New Age manor. They reject scientific naturalism and pretend to know something about the brain/mind which they don’t. I do not see them as credible sources on the human condition. - BFS
In my blog post I was attempting to offer an integral view. Most of my readers follow the integral authors, so they knew the shorthand. Clearly, this is not on your radar yet. - WH
I do not know what you mean by “integral,” but I’d agree that in order to understand anything, one must accept the interconnectedness of everything.. including human qualities. - BFS
Report thisBy William Harryman, June 14, 2006 at 5:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hey Barry,
Thanks for doing me the honor of such a thorough attempt to dimiss my blog post. I’ve never received the same fair play from Sam Harris, so major props to you.
If one accepts Robert Kegan’s (of Harvard) developmental model of human psychology, and Jean Gebser’s model of cultural development, one has to understand that each stage arises as a correction to the previous one. Authoritarian, structured religions (the Axial Age) arose as a correction to the egocentric power drives of the previous stage. Threat of hell and a strict moral code were effective controls for the ego. Science (the Enlightenment) arose as a correction to the mythic beliefs of religion. Rational thought could effectively do away with sky gods.
However, these stages cannot be skipped or eliminated. Within this widely accepted framework, religion is a necessary stage in human development. It cannot be skipped or eliminated, and because all people start at the beginning, we all must pass through some variation of it, as must all cultures. The question then becomes: will it be healthy or unhealthy. The religious left is much more healthy than the right, and it should be encouraged to flourish.
Christian religion is about authoritarian control and obedience to rules, as you clearly point out. But as people move out of that stage, they can still be Christian and not be bound by the Church’s dogma. Witness the number of people who in polls claim to be spiritual but not religious. Yet most of these people identify as Christian. They may reject prohibitions against birth control, or be tolerant of gays and lesbians, and not believe in a literal heaven and hell, but they believe that Jesus taught love and tolerance.
If you accept the Bible alone as the source of Christianity, you do not have in your hands the authentic teachings of Jesus, as I’m sure you know. The Bible has repeatedly been edited to support the control of the Church, especially the “burn in hell” part you loathe so much. Jesus taught reincarnation in the Gnostic Gospels, so it’s no wonder those teachings were not included. Many Christians do not take the Bible literally because these alternate teachings have slowly trickled into the public consciousness.
Your thesis contends that we must take the Bible literally—all of it. However, some of it is clearly allegory, especially the teachings of Jesus. Not being able to separate one from the other demonstrates a lack of literary training. But it also damages your argument in serious ways. If you cannot see that Jesus taught in allegory, perhaps it is not clear that Paul did not. And much of the Church’s dogma is based in the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. Failure to delineate between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul is a major source of fundamentalist thinking.
By the way, nonduality has nothing to do with the Trinity. Nonduality is the absence of division between God and self. Jesus could claim that “I and my father are one” because he had experience of nondual awareness. Buddhism is more precise on these teachings than Christianity, but it can also be found in the Christian mystics, especially St. Theresa. Until you can accept the higher, post-rational, stages of human development, you’ll be missing half the picture. This is where we must look to Eastern religions—they have mapped the post-rational as well as we have mapped the pre-rational and ratrional stages of development (see Ken Wilber’s work for more on this idea, first introduced in The Spectrum of Consciousness).
It’s an integral world, my friend. If you want to really understand anything—and especially religion—it must be seen within the developmental frameworks of psychology, morality, cultures, spirituality, intellect, emotion, and so on. AND it must be seen in its individual and collective elements, as well as its interior and exterior elements. To do anything less can only offer a partial view.
In my blog post I was attempting to offer an integral view. Most of my readers follow the integral authors, so they knew the shorthand. Clearly, this is not on your radar yet.
Check out Robert Kegan (The Evolving Self), Jean Gebser (The Ever-Present Origin), James Fowler (Stages of Faith), Jean Piaget (The Origins of Intelligence in Children), Lawrence Kohlberg (Essays on Moral Development), and Erik Erikson (Identity and the Life Cycle). From these sources, you’ll begin to see the framework of the integral model.
Finally, thanks for pointing the areas where I was actually wrong. Much appreciated.
Peace,
Report thisWilliam Harryman
By Barry F. Seidman, June 14, 2006 at 4:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry (OLD): Andrea No need for an apology. But that you found it necessary to make claims about the (biblical) source of my argument - Avalos - without even checking, is not fitting of liberalism, which, it could be argued, is a philosophy that advocates for honesty and critical thinking. Your comments, and those which followed - based on your premise that Avalos is not to be taken seriously - reminded me of the tactics used in Coulters new book, Godless.
Andrea: Somehow, that last paragraph still makes me uneasy. So, my actions STILL remind you of Anne Coulter, even though I have heartily apologized. Wow. You might want to do something about that MASSIVE chip on your shoulder.
Barry (NEW): Let me be more clear. YOU do not remind me of Ann Coulter, but the way you approached the subject in your original letter showed signs of tactics used by Coulter and many others on the Right. You are not on the Right, and are not - it seems thus far - anything like Coulter-the-person. But I have found that the types of arguments I get from apologists for religion - from political conservatives or liberals - follow the same tactics as those arguments I get about politics from the Right (albeit, with some postmodernism tossed in when the religious apologist is a liberal).
Andrea: I dont think rebutting someone who is attacking others on false premises of their own (that Christians who are actually advocating love and acceptance in a world full of hatred and anger are actually an enemy of liberalism) means I am creating false premises. Honesty and critical thinking dont really require one to strip others of their own experience of faith, religion, or life. Leftist Christians advocate change, peace, and non-violent forms of solving societal problems. And your answer to those brave actions is to denigrate the reasons they believe in these things? Funny I thought liberalism meant seeing all people as equal, beyond the constraints of religion, class, gender, or sexual orientation. It seems, however, that fellow liberals are continually proving me wrong on this point as they seem more and more interested in forcing their own beliefs on others than actually working towards real social justice.
Barry (NEW): This is more complicated than it may seem. First, I am not attacking anyone based on the false premises you state. This is what I meant by setting up a straw-man to knock down. I never “attacked” Christians who advocate for love and acceptance. In fact, I said these sort of “religious individuals” are the secular humanists’ best friends! I feel much more angst about atheists who advocate for war and aggressive competition.
What I was addressing was supernaturalistic religion as an institution - the sort Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner advocate for - which attempts to cherry-pick and misrepresent the bible(s) and its actual meaning(s)... so as to “save” Judaism or Christianity from the religious conservatives, whom Wallis and Lerner feel have hijacked religion.
The fact is, however, that conservatives have gotten religion correct, because when one studies and understands the non-humanistic connotations and sort of ethical principles - laid out 2-5 thousand years ago, by nomadic tribes we somehow think had any real understanding of human nature whatsoever - one learns that these writings are quite regressive and “right-wing.”
Sure, some of it was written to sound otherwise, like the Orwellian double-speak of the Bush Administration, but any superficial reading of these texts would miss the point.
Honesty and critical thinking does not strip a person of their life, nor their sense of spirituality or interconnectedness with others or with the universe itself - but it SHOULD strip people of the sort of faith(s) based on myth and supernaturalism. If one is honest and really thinking critically, one can no longer accept the supernatural… And yes, that means god(s) as well.
Liberalism IS about equality and fairness, but one can not have either under Christianity, Judaism or Islam… unless they were to make up their own altruistic and democratic meanings for these regressive ideologies. - BFS
Andrea: Being a lesbian musician living in an inner city black neighborhood in one of the largest cities in the U.S., I think Ive come in contact with every personal issue connected to being truly liberal. And no one is more affected by the hateful actions of the real enemies against social justice than I or most of my friends. Personally I applaud the leftist Christians who have had the courage to stand up for what is right human equality. I have personally felt their support in my life. I no longer call myself a Christian, but I know many people who do who have done far more for the plight of inequality than many so-called liberals.
Barry 2: Again, I support the leftist religionists who fought for such social changes such as in the Civil Rights movement, women’s movements, and gay/lesbian movements. And again, if these same people wanted to use the Bible to back their progressive causes, they’d find that only a superficial reading of the texts would allow them to do this. Also, folks like MLK may have been “personally” inspired in this way, but his “work” was purely secular and humanistic. Faith would not have allowed him to see human nature as it really was. - BFS
Andrea: Im a gay woman suffering the abuse of the most sexist industry on the planet, and I have to tell you, Barry from down here where we who really languish under the burden of social inequity live the last enemy on our list is Leftist Christians who are willing to concede some of the Bibles ambiguity for the real work of creating justice.
Barry 2: Again, I agree. I never said leftist Christians were the enemy of humanism, I said Christianity is the enemy of humanism. And the Bible is not ambiguous. It is clearly immoral, fascist, and based on an authoritarian mindset drawn from unscientific, unenlightened peoples.
PS: What is the industry you are in?
Andrea: Is it really this simple? I was under the impression that the original language of the New Testament was still being debated, particularly in light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Q the theoretical source text of the New Testament. What about the theories that it was originally written in dialects of Aramaic and Hebrew?
Barry 2: The New Testament was not written by the Jews or Arabs. None of it was even written until more than 5 decades after Jesus was supposed to have lived, and the parts of the Bible we have now were pieces rewritten and altered decade after decade for centuries. There is NO writing outside the Bible that exists which points to ANY of the so-called history in the Bible as being real history ... not the life of Moses, not the “exodus” from Egypt, not the life of Jesus, nothing.
Again, if you read ANY Biblical Scholar, read Robert M. Price - he has two PhD’s in Theology and was once a Baptist Minister.
As for Q, they were written by the Cynics who wrote long after the alleged life of Jesus.
Report thisBy Andrea, June 12, 2006 at 10:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry: Andrea No need for an apology. But that you found it necessary to make claims about the (biblical) source of my argument - Avalos - without even checking, is not fitting of liberalism, which, it could be argued, is a philosophy that advocates for honesty and critical thinking. Your comments, and those which followed - based on your premise that Avalos is not to be taken seriously - reminded me of the tactics used in Coulters new book, Godless.
Andrea: Somehow, that last paragraph still makes me uneasy. So, my actions STILL remind you of Anne Coulter, even though I have heartily apologized. Wow. You might want to do something about that MASSIVE chip on your shoulder.
Barry: Create arguments based on false premises, and then attack full force the strawman of your own creation.
Andrea: I dont think rebutting someone who is attacking others on false premises of their own (that Christians who are actually advocating love and acceptance in a world full of hatred and anger are actually an enemy of liberalism) means I am creating false premises. Honesty and critical thinking dont really require one to strip others of their own experience of faith, religion, or life. Leftist Christians advocate change, peace, and non-violent forms of solving societal problems. And your answer to those brave actions is to denigrate the reasons they believe in these things? Funny I thought liberalism meant seeing all people as equal, beyond the constraints of religion, class, gender, or sexual orientation. It seems, however, that fellow liberals are continually proving me wrong on this point as they seem more and more interested in forcing their own beliefs on others than actually working towards real social justice.
Being a lesbian musician living in an inner city black neighborhood in one of the largest cities in the U.S., I think Ive come in contact with every personal issue connected to being truly liberal. And no one is more affected by the hateful actions of the real enemies against social justice than I or most of my friends. Personally I applaud the leftist Christians who have had the courage to stand up for what is right human equality. I have personally felt their support in my life. I no longer call myself a Christian, but I know many people who do who have done far more for the plight of inequality than many so-called liberals.
Im a gay woman suffering the abuse of the most sexist industry on the planet, and I have to tell you, Barry from down here where we who really languish under the burden of social inequity live the last enemy on our list is Leftist Christians who are willing to concede some of the Bibles ambiguity for the real work of creating justice.
Barry: As for Luke 14:26, heres Avalos again:
...the Greek word for hate, miseo, never means to love Y more than X, in any biblical text. In fact, miseo is interpreted as the opposite of love everywhere it occurs in Greek biblical texts.
Report thisAndrea: Is it really this simple? I was under the impression that the original language of the New Testament was still being debated, particularly in light of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Q the theoretical source text of the New Testament. What about the theories that it was originally written in dialects of Aramaic and Hebrew?
By Barry F. Seidman, June 12, 2006 at 1:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I stand corrected on Dr. Avalos credentials. For that, I apologize. -A
Andrea… No need for an apology. But that you found it necessary to make claims about the (biblical) source of my argument - Avalos - without even checking, is not fitting of liberalism, which, it could be argued, is a philosophy that advocates for honesty and critical thinking. Your comments, and those which followed - based on your premise that Avalos is not to be taken seriously - reminded me of the tactics used in Coulter’s new book, “Godless.”
Create arguments based on false premises, and then attack full force the strawman of your own creation.
I did not mean you were as rude or, actually, insane, as Coulter obviously is, but that your post took the same path she often does ... and I thought of her, rather than any other number of people who do this sort of thing, because I had just suffered through parts of her new book. -BFS
But, I will stand by my assessment that Avalos does something very unscholarly. Lets take his argument that Luke 14:26 is support that Jesus advocated a violent mindset. Avalos argument assumes that the statement attributed to Jesus is not only proved authentic, but translated correctly. And what word provides us with the filter for violence: hate. This modern English word provides us with one simple understanding in our societal and mental construct. But is it the word with the exact connotations that were present in the orginal scripture? -A
Avalos, as with the other persons I spoke about (Robert Price, Earl Doherty), are more than aware of the many translational problems as the texts in question “moved” from ancient Hebrew though various translations, including the effect of all the arbitrary or erroneous decisions to include this or that passage or story in the final books over many centuries of deliberations in many different countries.
As for Luke 14:26, here’s Avalos again:
“...the Greek word for hate, miseo, never means ‘to love Y more than X,’ in any biblical text. In fact, miseo is interpreted as the opposite of love everywhere it occurs in Greek biblical texts.
Hate + the father + (‘his own’)
There are ... two basic procedures for establishing the meaning of words in any ancient language:
1) seek contrastive expressions involving the word in question, and
2) compare translations into other languages.
In every case, “hate X” means the absence of any love for X, the opposite of love, and/or even hostility toward X. We can (thus) develop a linguistic and semantic rational for our interpretation of miseo in Luke 14:26:
1) Since miseo is interpreted literally as the opposite of love (= hate) EVERYWHERE in the bible, and
2) since there is no other indication that miseo is not literal in Luck 14:26,
3) then miseo probably means the opposite of love in Luke 14:26.
Any grounds for a comparative interpretation probably would have to be moral - for example, (some think) Jesus could not possibly have meant “hate your father,” as that would seem immoral. However, this imposes our morality upon the author, when most Christian interpretations would insist that we derive our morality from the author’s words.
(Moralizing the texts) would change the meaning of all texts we find immoral ... Linguistic meanings must be established on linguistic grounds, not moral grounds.” - Avalos
So, clearly the Jesus, who never existed in the first place, so ” his words” were actually the thoughts of the authors of the bible, meant us to hate our fathers, etc.. and love only him. No form of Christian Apologetics can change that. - BFS
Report thisBy Andrea, June 10, 2006 at 1:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Barry,
I stand corrected on Dr. Avalos’ credentials. For that, I apologize.
But, I will stand by my assessment that Avalos does something very unscholarly. Let’s take his argument that Luke 14:26 is support that Jesus advocated a violent mindset.
Avalos’ argument assumes that the statement attributed to Jesus is not only proved authentic, but translated correctly. And what word provides us with the filter for violence: hate. This modern English word provides us with one simple understanding in our societal and mental construct. But is it the word with the exact connotations that were present in the orginal scripture?
See for yourself how this plays out in context: go to Crosswalk.com and pull up the passage in every English version available. Is it not presented differently according to the version? And isn’t the difference between them somehow important?
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Luke+14:26§ion=0&version=gnt&new=1&oq;=&NavBook=lu&NavGo=14&NavCurrentChapter=14
There are such subtle differences in languages, particularly those from ancient periods, that to argue that a modern English Biblical passage proves the mental state of someone who walked the earth 2000 years ago is just absolutely ridiculous. And any good scholar arguing that is clearly speaking from an emotional place and not a scholarly one. How can anyone know Jesus’ mental state or agenda when all we have to work with is, well - what we have to work with? Aren’t these “scholars” just as bad as Fundamentalist Christians, trying to argue that something is true even though it is obviously just one theory on the text. And if you’d like a really good primer on how Biblical stories have been distorted from their original Hebrew teachings over time, read a book called “The Essential Zohar.”
My best friend is French. Over the past 15 years, there have been too many times to count that she has turned to me and said something like, “What’s the word for THAT kind of knob?” I turn back and say, “What do you mean?” and she’ll say, “In French there is a specific word for that kind of knob, and another for that other knob over there.” I then say to her, “In modern English, it’s “knob.” French is a language so much richer than English that it’s subtleties are completely untranslatable. I would imagine that at least a little of this also exists when it comes to modern texts. And these nuances affect every aspect of our understanding.
Finally, I’m going to just let that Ann Coulter crack slide. If I continue engaging in dialogue here, you’ll likely see for yourself that it is not only untrue, but completely uncalled for. A stern correction would have sufficed.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 9, 2006 at 11:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nothing can be more upsetting than a liberal like Andrea who has no knowledge of what she says ... do I hear Ann Coulter?
Yes, Andrea, Dr. Hector Avalos IS a “religious scholar.” Avalos has a B.A. in Anthropology and classical languages from the University of Arizona, a Master in Theological Studies from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in Biblical History and Semitic Philology also from Harvard University.
Also, if Andrea or anyone else wants to read any really good scholars on the Judaeo-Christian bibles - besides Avalos - they should try Robert M. Price (Deconstructing Jesus; Incredible Shrinking Son of Man), or Earl Doherty (Jesus Puzzle).
Report thisBy Andrea, June 9, 2006 at 8:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Jesus was a “Buddhist.” Which is why his speech was riddled with the idea of freeing the mind from it’s constructs of allegiance to certain people, ways of thinking, and beliefs in old law-based faith (the point of his entire life’s message). The parallels of Jesus’ teachings to Eastern (and Judaic) mystic schools is undeniable. If you cannot see them - you have simply not read enough.
Sadly, the one source quoted in this piece(Avolos’ book) provides nothing but one man’s myopic opinions on a subject that clearly just gets his dander up. Too bad he’s not a religious scholar so you could give the guy even an ounce of credibility.
If you want to go in depth into what the Bible really is, geez - at least read some Biblical historians. Start with “From Jesus to Christ” by Elaine Pagels and continue with “The Gnostic Gospels,” “The Apocrypha”, “When God Was a Woman”, and “The Dead Sea Scrolls.”
AT LEAST get a copy of the red-letter Bible so you can correctly identify what is actually attributed to Jesus and what is questionable due to historic noodling and mistranslation.
The Bible is a complex work of historical content that cannot be oversimplified into a “Jesus said” framework. It has been translated, codified and altered many times over.
The idea that Jesus advocated violence is the stupidest thing I have ever heard - and I don’t say that because I’m a Christian. I say it because I have read enough to know that it is just simply not true.
It seems that the liberal atheists have so much in common with the Christians they so harshly criticize - they look no deeper than the surface for arguments to support their opinions about life. And they rail against anyone who has the audicity in their lifetime to question whether there is something other than there own small view of the universe.
Lastly, there is a really great program on the History Channel right now called, “Who Wrote the Bible” for people who are actually interested in an intelligent coversation of this complex topic.
Report thisBy saul2006, June 7, 2006 at 3:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
While it is religious fundamentalists that are the biggest threat, Bible based religious are all a threat.
Report thisMt web site http://www.religionquestioned.com shows that the God of the Bible is a stupid baby killing liar and Jesus a stupid liar
It also has an offer to shut down so please anyone offended by the above remarks , go and shut the site down or get your lying clergy who are the real problem to do so
By Barry F. Seidman, June 6, 2006 at 4:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Blogger William Harryman of http://integral-options.zaadz.com had this to say about my essay. His comments are tagged -WH. My replies are tagged -BFS.
Barry Seidman, writing for Truthdig, says (liberal religiosity is not compatible with democratic values), and he bases his argument on the book by Hector Avalos, “Fighting Words: The Origin if Religions Violence.” Avalos main argument is that violence stems from real or perceived scarcities of resources. Seidman’s restatement of Avalos’ argument (demonstrates) how elevated teachings can be terribly misunderstood by those who see the world through more limited viewpoints. (One example is the Heaping of Coals argument.) The heaping of burning coals is not meant as a literal image, as Avalos argues. Jesus is making a point about the suffering of guilt and wrongdoing. If you love thy enemy you are purifying your own heart, but the enemy will feel ashamed and guilty for his actions, which to Jesus is equivalent to burning in hell. There is no intent to inflict physical pain in Jesus’ words. WH
Though I addressed this already on this website, it should be reiterated that this is not the only place in the New Testament where violent phrases appear. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html. Its not that any phrase can or cant be interpreted out of context separate from the Bible as a whole as mere metaphor (as in this one, supposedly about guilt), but rather than these lines very much match the under- and overtones of the nature of the Hebrew God of which Jesus is supposed to be an offspring. One must ask why employ such vicious metaphors when instead the authors of these texts could have simply talked about guilt straight-up? There must have been a precedence for violence which of course is the case in much of the history of Christianity for the authors to feel it was OK to use such violent metaphors to refer to far more benign subjects. In what context, then, should we find ethical the many, many references to (and the support of) violence in the Bible? And, by the way, the burning in Hell part of the Bible is indeed the most viciously violent concept Christianity ever dreamt up, and the religion should itself be rendered immoral (and abusive to children) on this concept alone! - BFS
Further, Avalos talks about Jesus telling his followers they must hate their families to truly be his disciples. He is not preparing them to sacrifice their lives for the cause (and here Avalos sounds like one of the Islamic Imans he seems to oppose), but rather is advocating nonattachment as the only way to approach the nonduality with God the Father that Jesus himself experienced. WH
What is Harryman saying here? He seems to miss the point that Jesus, in the words used in these texts, was indeed recruiting foot soldiers just as the Islamic terrorists do today, by creating false-kinship among strangers (whether they were asked at the time to sacrifice their lives as they would be asked in the centuries to come, or asked to convert as many people as they could to their cult). And, what is nonattachment as the only way to approach nonduelity? That Jesus is said to be part of a trinity that the father, son and holy ghost are one and the same and yet different, is perhaps the worst attempt in human history to reconcile reality with the false notion of duality. It is clear that the mind and body are the same thing, as the mind is the result of what the brain does. There is no duality in nature. A being that is three and one at the same time does not represent a unity of nature but a major schism in nature of schizophrenic proportions. Anyway, what does misunderstanding the nonsensical concept of the Trinity have to do with Jesus asking that his followers hate all the people he or she knows and only love him? BFS
Based on what little is cited here by Seidman, I have to think that Avalos’ book is deeply flawed in that he is incapable of anything other than a literalist reading of the Bible. Even Jesus’ followers 2,000 years ago were capable of understanding allegory - WH.
Again, it is easy to say the entire Bible was just allegory and should be seen as mere metaphor (for what kind of ethic, I am not sure). But why should an all powerful, all knowing being be so obtuse? Why cant such a being be straight about what he wants his children to write in his name? And if Harryman is saying that the authors of the Bible were not merely stenographers for God, but writing what they understood (how they understood, one can only guess), to be Gods will, why then did THEY write the most important books on Earth in such chaotic fashion? Were they writing history or dime store novels? It seems possible at least, that the authors (who wrote these stories decades or longer after the alleged events written about are said to have taken place), knew they were writing fairy tales based on then ancient pagan myths and legends. And perhaps, these same authors had no idea that their musings would ever be taken as factual, anymore than science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard might have thought when he crafted his own fairy tale, Dianetics. Anyway, one need not be a literalist to comprehend the horrors advocated for in the Bible whether metaphoric or not and how the will to believe in the absurd even among the Left can lead us down dubious paths to peace. - BFS
Truthdig promotes Seidman as being in the tradition of Sam Harris, and I guess by that they mean that he is a scientific humanist. However, he seems, like Harris, to also be a flatlander someone who views the world only through the exterior reality lens, specifically the exterior individual (science). Both men reject much of the interior individual (self and consciousness) as nothing more than subjective experience that cannot be validated, and they reject the interior collective (culture and worldview) as dangerous and superstitious. Both men also reject any form of developmental progression of worldviews, and therefore feel safe in a wholesale rejection of religion as dangerous and unnecessary. WH
I know for sure Harris does not reject the inner self. Indeed, he advocates for a naturalistic mysticism in the last segments of his book The End of Faith which borders on New Age spirituality. As I see it, one can be spiritual and yet not accept the absurdity of supernaturalism. But more than this, Harryman seems to be confusing subjective reality with objective reality. He is correct to point out that there is a profound difference between the two, but objective (actual, real for all of us such as evolution theory), does not mean we cant or shouldnt internalize it (as is implied in naturalistic spirituality), anymore than subjective (personal, opinion as in religion), ought to be pretended to be objective. Science helps us understand what is actual. Religion, as opinion and quite often anti-scientific, can only tell us about what to believe despite the evidence, in fact. - BFS
We should be supporting liberal Christians. Theirs is a much healthier version of the religion than is found on the religious right. When Christianity moves beyond authoritarianism and becomes more liberal and progressive, it sheds much of its violent baggage. This is the healthier version of Christianity that I have repeatedly suggested is an antidote to Sam Harris’ view that all of Christianity is dangerous.
I agree with Harryman here as I said in my essay. The Left NEEDS its believers to counteract the current Christo-fascists, Islamic Fundamentalists, and fundamentalist Zionists. But still I wonder how far Christianity can move from authoritarianism - even if the Pope and the Vatican is finally recognized as authoritarianism supreme - for the core of being a Christian is to obey and/or follow Jesus/God in areas of ethics and polity, and to pray to an authoritative being and his absurd resurrection for salvation. It seems to me that any philosophy which rewards believers and condemns non-believers is inherently authoritarian. It seems that if one is beholden in any way to a father-figure (because he gave his son to die for the supposed sin of knowledge, knowledge which would prove there are no gods), then he or she has already surrendered him or herself to not only an authority, but a pretend one at that. - BFS
Scientific humanism is as dangerous to humanity as fundamentalism, and is, in fact, a kind of fundamentalism. It is as extreme in its hatred of religion as the religious fundamentalists are in their hatred of the scientific and the secular. If we were to do away with religion as the scientific humanists propose, the results would be far more catastrophic than anything a bunch of religious fundamentalists could ever accomplish. WH
Let me make clear that HUMANISM is not mere atheism. Yes, many atheists DO want to do away with religion which is impossible if we understand religion to be more than about mere supernaturalism. Now, supernaturalism will eventually disappear as science progresss because there wont be any room for such nonsense, but the need for spirituality, interconnectedness, and other elements of religion are indeed very human and necessary. Humanists do, or should, understand this and not advocate for anti-religious ideals but instead for redirecting religion from supernaturalism to naturalism. Some religions (such as forms of Buddhism), are already naturalistic! Also, the argument that humanism is a religion is a misleading one. Even among humanists, lies this debate. But if humanism is a religion, it is inherently a naturalistic one based on science and therefore non-dogmatic, non-authoritarian, and non-fundamentalist by nature. Does that mean some people are not dogmatic or fundamentalist about science? No, but they, then, are misrepresenting science as much as the religious Left is misrepresenting Monotheism. - BFS
When liberals decided that religion was an oppressive institution back in the sixties, they worked to remove faith-based community centers and to reduce the influence of churches in our inner cities. The result was the breakdown of authoritarian structure and the unleashing of ego-driven power drives (the rise of urban gangs).
This is nonsense. What has led to gangs and other such problems in society is racism, capitalism, nationalism, and the authoritarianism and regressive polity of the Republican party. BFS
Now imagine the same loss of religious control and structure on a global scale. Imagine the African continent without Islam or Catholicism. Imagine the Middle East and India/Pakistan without solid religious structures to maintain some semblance of order.
I can imagine these countries without religion and they would be far more peaceful then! The major problem in these countries is not the threat of humanism, but centuries of European and/or American colonialism, imperialism and now, world capitalism.- BFS
Now Seidman and Harris might argue that the same control could be maintained with a secular system. Maybe, but the only variations we’ve ever seen on a wide scale were fascism and communism. They weren’t so pretty.- WH
Fascism, by the way, relies heavily on religion to control the masses as did Hitler and his partnership with the Catholic Church, and Bush with his connection to the Christian Right. Communism under Stalin and Mao had problems because of centralization and authoritarianism born from their corruption of socialistic values, not from humanism. Indeed, there was very little humanism of any kind under Stalin or Mao. As for the USSR and China, post these leaders, we had state capitalism disguised as socialism, and we already know how capitalism and religion go hand in hand. The truth is we need religion, but need to outgrow supernaturalism. We also need some integrated form of socialism, democracy and anarchism and we need to do away with old-styled communism, and any sort of capitalism, as well as the neo-fascism of the new Republicans in America. Truth is, we need planetary humanism! - BFS
Report thisBy Jay Luna, June 6, 2006 at 3:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The problem with this whole theory is that it takes the very flawed (and poorly translated) bible as the only source. Secondly, there is a case that just about every major social advance in the past century has been brought about by the religious left. Really, the final straw is that your ideas are like communism: yea it would be a great idea if it really worked, but trying to deny rank and file humanity of a higher truth is like trying to deny greed (as in comnunist thought). It just doens’t work.
The liberal left is just an integral part of the world as the secular right, or the secular left. No one part should rule over the others entirely, as corruption tends to spread (and correct) any human imbalance. So, yes the liberal left would be a divisive force if given unchecked power, but so would secular humanism, as regardless of the presence of a deity, power corrupts.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 5, 2006 at 3:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Roberto:
Obviously I meant to type Richard. My apologies. Go back in enyoy your high
BFS
Report thisBy Roberto, June 5, 2006 at 1:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To Mr. Seidman:
Report thisWhat the hell are you talking about? I’ll assume you’re refering to me since there is no Robert here, unless you meant to write Richard instead. Maybe you need to read my comments again. I never say that you don’t know what you’re talking about (i actually agree and enjoyed your article) and there is no air of “emotional upsetness” in my comments.
And I do know what I am talking about, enough to rationally debunk any supernatural/religious/faith based claims espoused by even the “well read” believer. Of course I’ll be using facts and reason and that person will be using a religious text and his/her feelings as proof and we’ll get no where but at least that person will be convinced that reason and science cannot be used to support any supernatural/religious/faith claims.
There are no contradictions in this world.
And my name is Roberto. Get it right if you’re trying to blast me, Barry. Cause now I am “emotionally upset” since you messed up my high (the best way to read truthdig).
And no,I don’t want to read your friend Avalos’ book. Why would I want to scratch the surface when I’m already at the bottom of the dig?
By Buddhist Jihad, June 4, 2006 at 3:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Religious left = Abrahmic religions only need apply?
Thanks, guy.
What century were you living in?
Report thisBy truly yours, June 3, 2006 at 9:21 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
How do we unite humanity?
Through all of us working together to build a world that’s truly of, for and by the people, that’s how.
Report thisBy yours truly, June 3, 2006 at 5:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
That explains it. Why the religious right has singled-out Secular Humanism as its mortal enemy. And an insight as to what must give them the terrible feeling, should secular humanism really catch-on, that they’ll be out in the cold. What’s beneath this is the knowledge that , in a fair match-up, reality trumps the supernatural and, when that happens, what’ll become of them?
Report thisBy Evan, June 3, 2006 at 5:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You know, not every Christian believes that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Report thisBy yours truly, June 3, 2006 at 3:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It couldn’t be clearer. Either we put down this pie in the sky nonsense or it’ll be our own undoing, and permanently . This means, of course, no falling back upon “This is the way it is because the bible tells me so”, no matter how convenient and handy such beliefs may be; and none of this cherry-picking of one’s favorite few “chosen words”. What then is one to hold on to? Oneself, of course, along with one’s family, friends, tribe, nation and universe, because that’s what’ it’s going to take (all of us pulling together) to build a world to match the greatness of each and every one of us. . .
Report thisBy Barrie Johnson, June 3, 2006 at 8:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Religion, especially as practiced by the extreme right of any religion, is merely a mental disease. This is demonstrated daily by believers who, having created their god in their own image, need to recreate god as necessary to fit their changing circumstances and beliefs. after all, your god believes in the same things you do, or you could not believe in him, thus necessitating his ongoing recreation. that group from a Kansas church that goes to military funerals and derides the mourners because “God allowed them to be killed because of American homosexuality”, obviously has nothing to do with any religion or god. It is merely the creation of a deficient mind and assigned to the god they created in order to further their own agenda. Religion is the most terrible thing the human race has done to itself. a WMD indeed.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 2, 2006 at 4:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I had responses lined up for Robert, Michael and Wally.. But my computer crashed and I lost 90 minutes of work!
So, instead of writing all that over again, may I suggest to Robert (and Jeff) that he (they) read Avalos’ book before he (they) continue to argue that neither I nor Avalos know what we are talking about.
Robert is clearly just emotionally upset, and has not done any research.
Michael: I hate to bother you this way, but though both of us are looking for peace to prevail, you won’t find out how to bring this about in the Bible. Check out this website: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
And Wally ... though Carter is certainly someone humanists should work with against the American Christo-fascists… on his notion (and yours?) of a “personal God,” lets hope he (and you) is/are only speaking TO such a god, and not receiving answers!
Also, Einstein was indeed an atheist:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. The idea of a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible.” - Albert Einstein
Wally does make several interesting points. He understands that death is final, and that many philosophers who have understood this have had a pretty glum idea about humanity ... but it is a powerful reality to grasp, especially for a species which has fooled itself about immorality for so many centuries. But, as I have said on this board before, I do not advocate for atheism as a philosphy of life (though I do defend it as an idea). Atheism is merely the understanding that God does not and cannot exist.
Also, science is not based on atheism, Wally is correct. Newton and other scientists of the past (and a few even today) were (are) profoundly religious (though of course, that does not make them right about being so). But their WORK was profoundly atheistic in that God was never needed to understand the universe.. And still isn’t. Indeed, the more our science helps us understand, the more we learn that supernaturalism is at best wishful thinking, and at worst, a weopen of mass destruction.
As for Lenin and Stalin being atheists.. Again, this is irrelevant to my essay. Why? Because I was NOT coming from the argument from atheism, but from humanism. Atheists can be reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, Neo-Cons, fascists, communists, capitalists, etc. This is because the understanding that there is no God does not naturally lead to a healthy understanding of human nature. Many atheists never take that step.
Progressive Humanism, however, is a real philosophy. It just so happens that, AS PART OF HUMANISM, atheism is a vital bit of understanding because of the inherent danger of supernaturalism - particular in the hands of the Abrahamic religions - which was the point of my essay. Humanists can be supernaturalists and still act humanistically for the most part (a la King, etc)... But until the last bits of supernaturalism is disappeared from human polity, the irrational ‘will to believe’ the absurd, will lead to absurd behavior.
In short, I am an agnostic atheist (prove to me God or supernartual realms exist, and I will believe in them), and a humanist (progressive politics based on a proper scientific understanding of human nature) .. But I am not against naturalistic spirituality.
My current definition of Secular Humanism is ‘a sociopolitical philosophy - informed by scientific naturalism - which advocates for a democratic, non-hierarchal society, and promotes individual freedom, economic and social equality, human cooperation and planetary peace.’
As for a humanistic approach which is better than capitalism, read Michael Albert’s book, “Parecon.” Chomkly is in agreement with Albert on Paracon, by the way.
BFS
Report thisBy Roberto, June 2, 2006 at 12:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Jeffrey Ellis, you give up so easily. I give you the answer to your question and you dismiss it by talking about another philosopher. Have you even read any Rand? If you’re so opposed to her for whatever reason then try the books Mr. Seidman suggested. All good reads. And if you wanna go way back get a hold of C.F. Volney’s “Ruins of Empires”
Since you mentioned Bertrand Russell here’s a quote relevant to all bloggers here: “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
Report thisI’d substitute “instincts” with beliefs.
By wally, June 2, 2006 at 3:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
EMBRACING YOUR DIALECTICAL MATERIALIST ROOTS?
OK, the atheists have had their fun delineating the historical and philosophical roots of religion, now I would like to expose theirs, from a not particularly Christian perspective.
They are typically not “non-religious,” but are “non-monotheist,” or more typically non-Christian, as I have yet to see an informed discussion (or either definition) of Eastern Religion outside wikipedia. It certainly does not exist on this message board at the moment. No, Buddhism is not atheist. Look it up. That’s just a selling point developed for disaffected Christian drop outs in the last 60-70 years. Being raised in the relatively new Judaic-Christian western mind set, I don’t blame their difficulty in getting their head around a sense of the cosmos that simply does not subscribe to any of the same basic assumptions that deeply affect both atheists and Christians.
Atheists in their war against right wing intolerance tend to use the same method of Biblical literalism that (non mainstream) fundamentalist evangelicals adhere to, rather than take the scripture as a totality of sentiment, not a collection of verses meant to be a coherent civil law code. There is also the tendency to demand one position of unchanging, authoritative “truth,” like the fundamentalists, rather than encourage intellectual curiosity and toleration and thoughtful consideration of other views as we expand our own. Jesus is recorded as speaking in what are called “parables” and “metaphors,” often with the intent of making the listener draw his own conclusions. Jimmy Carter describes the roots of his own faith as being based in a personal relationship to God rather than pushing one size fits all answers. This is why he was so disturbed when right wing zealots with a political agenda took over the Southern Baptists, a very large denomination. Einstein, not an atheist, would be the first to caution against unproved “truths” cooked up in the mind of a humble human. In the “God” vs. “No God” war, no wonder the atheists and fundamentalists are often seen as two sides of the same coin, and once again religious people of good faith who preach good works and toleration are derided by both sides as either stupid, gullible, or just plain wrong and/or satanic. As FDR once said, “A pox on both your houses.”
Liberal believers are merely called by their faith to take action to fight hunger, poverty, injustice, and inequality. You can’t just say “Oh yeah, there was this Martin Luther King Jr. guy, but whatever…” From what I hear, he accomplished quite a bit. Ever heard of Ghandi? I think he did a few things too. This tradition of religious activists have always stood fast on separating church and state, and preaching tolerance rather than hate. Name two men that have done that much social good in the last century that were atheist. Go ahead. Take your time. Bertrand Russel, an inspiration to the small circle of the academic elite, has made his ripples, but more on war issues than religion. Anyone else? Take your time—Who were the great atheists of the 20th century that did something great for the huddled masses that rarely had anywhere to turn BUT the church for some kind of comfort?
So, that brings me to science, the poor, and atheists…
The rise of science in the age of reason and the enlightenment was not an “atheist” movement, and anyone that thinks so should go back to school. These men, Issac Newton for example, were actually firmly convinced that the laws of nature were proof made manifest of a divine force that transcended and governed men. This is not the source of atheism.
If we are discussing science, how about Albert Einstein? This is certainly not a man you can put in the atheist column. In fact, he was a Jew that fled a state that pushed the idea that all men needed was a rational scientific mind, and the “Strength of Will.” The gas canisters that killed millions are a testament to man’s unbounded faith in science unbound by morality, and the German Catholics (in Germany, not Rome) are one of the few group on record that successfully resisted the Nazis, particularly the “scientific” program of euthanasia of the elderly and disabled.
OK, here are the intellectual roots of atheism, time to embrace it: Dialectical Materialism. The absolute faith in man’s ability as a rational creature to understand the forces of history and nature, and become their master. You want Christians to embrace the inhumanity to man done in God’s name? Sure, fair game. Now do the same yourself. Dialectical Materialism. Hmmm. Gee. What did that produce in the 20th Century? Lenin was an atheist with great confidence in man’s rationality, Stalin was an atheist with great confidence in his own rationality, and then there was Mao… are you getting my point yet? Burn the churches, arrest the religious, and turn the state over to a “scientific” bureaucratic elite whose only faith is in numbers and science.
If you want Christians to embrace their history, then embrace the roots of atheists that have come before you and still exist, running systems of terrible oppression. Is it any wonder that a tyrannical theocratic state like Iran can see a tyrannical atheistic materialist state like China as a perfect model for governance?
I think this is the part where someone famous said something about “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Let’s me be clear: I am not in any way accusing a single ‘soul” on this blog of being either a totalitarian communist or fascist, or someone who thinks science needs to shed the ethics it developed from the traditionally religious ethic that all life is sacrosanct before God. Even Noam Chomsky, the best person around who articulates a coherent critique of our present economic system in the best Marxist tradition deserves tremendous credit. Yet when it comes to the question of, “so then what?” as in after either death or the fall of Capitalism, what do we get? Nothing. Chomsky can list all the true evils of Capitalism, but he still can’t come up with an alternative to what Lenin did. “Death is a certainty.” What a concept. So where is your rant without hope leading us to? Believe you me, history is filled with tyrannical forces that delight in liberals that kill hope.
Finally, where are we?
Someone wrote, “Politics is the art of compromise. We had sure better welcome people of faith who want to join us or we of the liberal persuasion are surely finished.” Another person mentioned that the vast majority of Americans are Christian, and both comments are wonderful whistles in the wind on this website. Far too often atheists are too wrapped up in academic parlour debates that mean nothing in the real world to real people. Their academic and literary circles are far beyond the economic suffering of devout Christians across the U.S. Bible Belt or the sectarian strife in Iraq. Their solution? “Just everyone go atheist and all will be well.” If that is your solution, then here is my suggestion to you: get down and pray hard for a a supernatural miracle, but don’t hold your breath. Meanwhile, the fundamentalist have conned the Christians to vote against their own best interests because we wrote them off as “mere hillbillies” and “red necks.”
Difficult problems require engagement and toleration. I think the number one problem for atheists is how to keep their dominant position on internet blog discussion boards going to the exclusion of more pressing problems. The Da Vinci code is a pop movie folks, you’re not that special. None of us are.
Just my two cents worth.
Report thisBy Michael, June 2, 2006 at 2:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ok at first this whole article and collection of comments angered me slightly. It lit a fire inside of me. But as I came towards the end I felt pity. I mean I’m just a high-school student who believes in Jesus Christ. What I believe is that your “RELIGION” will kill you but your “FAITH” will save you. I personaly like what July Canute had to say on all of this, and wish she would reconsider her beliefs about God. But that is why God gave us the gift of choice. We can choose to believe in Jesus or not. Now the reason I feel pitty for all of most of you is because of your ignorance. Those of you who loosely use the term “christians” as broadly as you do should become more social. Not every christian is a “cherry-picker”. I personaly resent that. I came on here to stand up for us teen and adult christians who do not “cherry-pick” the Bible contents. Some of the scriptures posted on this comment board were “cherry-picked”. One in mind is , Roman 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. , and If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads (Romans 12:20). To the man who wrote this you whom I do not know. You did not think about this enough. Either that or you thought to much in a biased opinion. Either way you scewed the meaning of this text to go along with your point of view. I feel that when it says you will heap burning coals apon their head it refers to a little thing called guilt. If you were to follow the text before and be kind they may feel guilty for being meen to you. In this they may feel the need for forgiveness in this moment those of us who realy do believe can show them the one that they realy need to beg for forgiveness from. That person is Jesus. Wether you believe this or not I do not know. I do wish though, for you to think deeper. Not actualy knowing what “shalom” realy meant before reading this I usualy just use the English (American style) counterpart to this word….Peace, I just like you to know that I do want you all to go out in peace and find prosperity.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 2, 2006 at 2:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Suggesting Ayn Rand as a source for universal human principles only illustrates my arguement in favor of theology and faith in a universal higher power. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell never truly address the source of the principles they espousenature is a pretty cruel jumping off point for human behavior, as if we lived by natural law alone, most of us would be dead shortly after birth. I believe my premise still standsperhaps with the qualification that I should have acknowledged that earnest attempts have been made to develop non-theologically based universal morality and ethics, just none that have done so successfully. Irt eventually comes down to a leap of faith.- Jeffrey Ellis
I don’t think its a matter of faith, Jeff. There are so many non-religious (and non religiously inspired) texts on human ethics that I am shocked you can make such a claim with a straight face
For starters, read Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen or Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism by Richard Carrier - BFS
Consulting Noam Chomsky on the history of Zionism is laughableif youre going to critique a political movement and want to present yourself as knowledgeable, I would suggest going to the quite abundant source material, or at least reading the works of scholars who have truly studied the primary sources.
As for Zionism, I “consult” Chomsky (not your brand of scholar, I suppose?), Michael Neumann, Norman Finkelstein, Steve Shalom, Norman Mezvinsky… the list goes on and on. Neumann’s book is really a good one! Who do you consult, pseudo-scholars David Horowitz? Alan Dershowitz? Let’s hope not. - BFS
As for Mr. Seidmans accusation that my correction of his misuse of the term of The Chosen People is revisionist, this is simply a lie. It comes right from the Bible, and has no basis in racial or national superiorityrather a role that Abraham and his descendents obliged were to carry out in making God known to the world. Mr. Seidman has no idea what he is writing about ... What amazes me is the remarkable ignorance Mr Seidman demonstrates about that which he criticizes in a published article. I am surprised Truthdig would publish such a weakly supported thesis.- Jeff
OK, back to Avalos (there are, of course, more folks to consult than Avalos on this, but since I included him in my essay…
Avalos addresses the notion that Jews - based on the Bible - consider themselves the Chosen People. And yes, I was brought up Jewish, and this was what Jews indeed tell each other with a straight face.. and not as a reaction to anti-Semitism.
Avalos uses the scarce resource argument using the term, “Group Privileging.” He sites many passages in the Bible to point to how the Jews identified each other. Some are Gen. 24:3-4, Deut. 23:3-6 and Duet. 32:8-9.
One telling passage is out of Deut. 7:6 ... ‘For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured procession.’
Avalos:
“...Sometimes texts that endorse group privileging have been misunderstood to mean something more inclusive and “universal” (even the one above). Sometimes those texts even are used to support pacifism ... Leviticus 19:18 (for instance), reads in whole: ‘You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any or your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.’ However, as Harry Orlindky, the prominent scholar of Hebrew, has deftly noted, the Hebrew term re ‘eka (thought by some to be ‘your neighbor’), is actually best understood as “your fellow Israelite.”
Similarity misunderstood is Malachi 2:10, which says: ‘Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the convenanf of our ancestors?’ However, the terms ‘we’ and ‘us’ refer to Hebrews, not to everyone else.”
Avalos then goes on to explain about the violence resulting from group privileging in the Bible, “...Group privileging, based on genealogy, can be seen as related to the genocidal policies in Deuterogamy 7 and 20, among other places.”
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 2, 2006 at 1:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As I define religion, your scientific humanism is a religion, like Buddhism is a religion although in its purest form it is quite atheistic and even rejects all theological and metaphysical speculation as irrelevant to the only thing the Buddha was concerned with - suffering and how to end it.
Once you discard all the sacred texts, all the traditions and superstitions coming down to us from the past, you are left with something that is very real and common to all humanity. Traditions and supersitions divide humanity, just as you say, but natural (or true) religion unites all humanity. That is the proper meaning of the word. - Tony Wicher
—————————————————-
Thanks Tony for the clarification! I accept your definition of religion as legitimate, of course, and yes… once you eliminate superstition, the paranormal, supernaturalism, and god.. what you are left with might indeed be a political philosophy like humanism.. or it might wind up being the misanthropic Randian Objectivism.
But if it is a political (or apolitical, for that matter) philosophy you are talking about, why use the stereotyped word ‘religion’ in the first place?
Humanism is a philosophy (some may say ideology) based on scientific naturalism (which does away with the dogma).. where other ideologies may be less scientific (neo-conservatism, postmodernism, Christianity, etc).
Is “natural religion,” the way you think of it, an ideology? Is it a philosophy? If by religion you really mean spirituality, or a binding system of ethics, then you’d have to explain where you get that spirituality or ethical system from (naturally).
I am all for uniting humanity - that is the crux of humanism to me. So, Tony, how do you unite humanity in your words? - BFS
Report thisBy Richard Silverstein, June 2, 2006 at 12:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Seidman, you are one sorry-assed person to say something as absolutely insanely stupid as that. I am a student of Hebrew Literature. I’ve studied not only my own Jewish tradition but the literature of other cultures as well. And the Bible is one of the great treasures of literature. Just because you’re such a dumb-ass that you don’t recognize that doesn’t mean that you can foist all yr prejudices on your readers & expect us to nod approvingly.
I second the commenter who asked what Robert Scheer was thinking when he decided that this tripe should see the light of day at Truthdig.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 1, 2006 at 9:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
As I define religion, your “scientific humanism” is a religion, like Buddhism is a religion although in its purest form it is quite atheistic and even rejects all theological and metaphysical speculation as irrelevant to the only thing the Buddha was concerned with - suffering and how to end it.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 1, 2006 at 4:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In Comment #10870 by Barry F. Seidman he says:
4) I think Tony Wicher is using an overly broad definition of religion. In his sense, if religion is about spirituality alone, then yes.. an atheist can be spiritual (as humanists no doubt are). But I use the term relgion as interchangable with supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is about what is beyond the natural universe.. but as far as we know, there is no such beyond to speak of. That is why I say there is nothing supernatural, period. But that does not, again, preclude us from being naturalisticly spiritual! “
Here is my reply:
Once you discard all the sacred texts, all the traditions and superstitions coming down to us from the past, you are left with something that is very real and common to all humanity. Traditions and supersitions divide humanity, just as you say, but natural (or true) religion unites all humanity. That is the proper meaning of the word.
Report thisBy BigRedOne, June 1, 2006 at 3:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Somehow i’m reminded of the old P.J. O’Rourke quote “The Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?”
Deal with it.
Report thisDon’t feel too bad you’ll always have those weekly nightly meetings at the local unitarian universalist church to look forward to.
By Jeffrey Ellis, June 1, 2006 at 2:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Suggesting Ayn Rand as a source for universal human principles only illustrates my arguement in favor of theology and faith in a universal higher power. Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell never truly address the source of the principles they espouse—“nature” is a pretty cruel jumping off point for human behavior, as if we lived by natural law alone, most of us would be dead shortly after birth. I believe my premise still stands—perhaps with the qualification that I should have acknowledged that earnest attempts have been made to develop non-theologically based universal morality and ethics, just none that have done so successfully. Irt eventually comes down to a leap of faith.
Consulting Noam Chomsky on the history of Zionism is laughable—if you’re going to critique a political movement and want to present yourself as knowledgeable, I would suggest going to the quite abundant source material, or at least reading the works of scholars who have truly studied the primary sources.
As for Mr. Seidman’s accusation that my correction of his misuse of the term of “The Chosen People” is “revisionist”, this is simply a lie. It comes right from the Bible, and has no basis in racial or national superiority—rather a role that Abraham and his descendents obliged were to carry out in making God known to the world. Mr. Seidman has no idea what he is writing about; the “revisionist” interpretation of the term “Chosen People” can, however, be found in such publications as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which referred to a conspiracy by Jews to take over the world. As a matter of fact, on prominent moderen Rabbi advocating dropping the use of the term “Chosen People” due to its misappropriation for those who would misuse the term to ascribe notions of racial superiority.
Clearly, Mr. Seidman has no knowledge of the evolution of religion, particularly Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism (all contemporary Judaism) utilizes an evolving traditon of commentary and interpretation of the Bible based on education, open discussion and enlightened analysis. That is why there are some many views held by the various movements within Judaism. I can not speak about Christianity or Islam in great detail, but I suspect that similar principles apply to them as well.
What amazes me is the remarkable ignorance Mr Seidman demonstrates about that which he criticizes in a published article. I am surprised Truthdig would publish such a weakly supported thesis.
Report thisBy Jeffrey Ellis, June 1, 2006 at 2:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. Ittner may have mis-read my statement that secularists have never created a “universal system of law, morality and ethics based on non-theological principles” (or perhaps I was not clear enough). I did not intend (nor do I believe I implied so) to exclude “non-Euroupean” and/or “pre-Christian” religions. If I had done so, I would also have excluded Judaism.
I am admittedly not familiar with all of the philosophers cited by Mr. Ittmer. However, to I don’t beleive that Plato, Lao-Tze, Buddha and Confucius would be considered secularists. Confucius referred to Heaven and the Supreme Being, Plato was a Hellenist, etc.
Also, in keeping with the spirit of the article on which we are commenting, I would point out that none of the above philosophers, as far as I am aware could be cited as having particularly “democratic” leanings; Plato certainly did not. I do believe that monotheism has lead directly to the democratic principles we value today—at least in Western culture—based on the concept of every individual being of equal value and worth in the eyes of God, and therefore, under the law.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 1, 2006 at 1:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The problem with Mr. Seidman and most secularists (isnt secularist this just another term for atheist, sort of like intelligent design just a retooled version of creationism?), is that their knowledge and understanding of the theology they criticize is very superficial. -
Jeffrey Ellis
No, secularism means a government free from religion and vice-verser. Atheism means without belief in God. Naturalism is about understanding the universe as fully natural and denies the possibility of supernaturalism. - BFS
The Jewish Bible does not exist frozen in time, but has been interpreted and shaped over the ages just as humanity itself has evolved. I doubt any of the criticisms of Judaism voiced in this article are based on knowledge of the Talmudic and more contemporary commentaries which bear much more relevance on contemporary Judaism than some casually chosen phrase from the Bible (usually quoted out of context). -Jeffrey Ellis
If there are indeed new translations of the Old Testament ... radical translations which shows how human understanding of the universe and human nature has become more scientific (and this claim needs to be proven to me), then why reprint the Bible as we do in the first place? Why not just rewrite it or write it with numerous recants? Even if the Bible is seen by some as literature (and pretty bad literature at that), why is the Bible NOT then seen as old-fashioned horrible artistry as the D.W. Griffith film “The Birth of a Nation” is?
This is partly because the Bible is NOT seen as a history book or a work of fiction which should be open to revision or critique, but as the “Word of God” which is absolute. How does one separate the absolutist word of God from the literature/history argument? These two concepts do not seem to gel, and yet the believers of either version hold AS FACT that their interpretation is the correct one. Fact is, the Bible (both Testaments) are God’s literature and history, and herein lies the problem. - BFS
The main concept of monotheism as articulated in Judaism is that God is inclusive, and that Gods laws must be equally applied to all human beings. -Jeffrey Ellis
Really? So if God is inclusive, doesn’t that mean that Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc., all ought to get along? Doesn’t this mean that God’s laws need to be universalized by all three Abraham religions? This does not seem, however, to gel with either the texts of three “holy” books in question, nor with the actual behavior of clerics and believers across the planet. That all three religions generally contradict each other (and include numerous self-contradictions as well), seems to point to the fact that these texts were written by men of various concerns according to society at the time of the drafting of these texts, and not by any supernatural “lawgiver.”
But, even IF all three religions found a way to get along, the “laws” that would be applied based on the patriarchal pre-scientific, and murderous nature of the texts (unless the texts become “officially” obsolete, are draconian and barbaric and not worthy of modern society anymore than the laws of the Neo-cons, Stalin, Hitler, etc. - BFS
The idea of Jews being the chosen people was not an elite or smug concept, but a solemn obligation to uphold the highest ideals of monotheism, which included being a light unto the nations. -Jeffrey Ellis
This is Ellis’s revisionist reading of the text(s), and bares no resemblance to reality. - BFS
Also, while a small element of early Zionism emerged out of a religious yearning to return to the land of the Bible, the main thrust came out of attempts to establish a flouishing cultural center for Jewish life (Ahad Haam) and political efforts to find a safe haven for persecuted Jews (Theodore Herzl). Mr. Avalos, whom Seidman quotes, has no idea what hes talking about when it comes to this subject. -Jeffrey Ellis
Both Avalos and I have consulted other resources on Zionism, and any pro-Zionist viewpoint is highly antithetical to humanism. For more read the works of Noam Chomsky, Steve Shalom, and Michael Neumann. - BFS
I have yet to read or hear of any secularist who has developed any universal system of law, morality and ethics based on non-theological principles. -Jeffrey Ellis
As another writer mentioned, Ellis had obviously not read his philosophy history. Nor has he read modern ideas along these lines from Michael Albert to Paul Kurtz to Betrand Russell to Douglas Krueger to Kai Nielson, to Richard Carrier, etc, etc, etc. Indeed, the monotheistic religions were attempts to rework pagan ideas of law, morality and ethics.. and have done this quite poorly at that. Monotheism was a giant step backwards for human political philosophy, and may be single-handedly holding humanity back from a true planetary humanism today! - BFS
Report thisBy Jason Platt, June 1, 2006 at 1:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Roberto’s comment (#10864)on Ayn Rand. I agree with him with his explanation of her philosophy. However, I strongly disagree with celebrating her philosophy although people have a right to know about it. Her philosophy is the opposite of secular humanism which is an altruisic philosophy where you care about other people. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, objectivism, is one that celebrates and strongly encourages selfishness and disregards the interests of other people and other life forms. That’s definitely NOT the philosophy for me!
Report thisBy Jason Platt, June 1, 2006 at 1:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What an excellent article. Thank you, Mr. Scheer for posting this and Mr. Seidman for authoring it. I also want to add a point that has been hinted at but hasn’t really been made yet to my knowledge. I believe this organized effort to publicize religious liberalism will ultimately be the impetus for the end of Christianity and other Western religions as we think of them today because more people will see that the religious liberals ARE cherry-picking the bible and people will start to examine the bible more closely. Once they do this, they will see how mean-spirited the bible is and they will no longer have faith in that book. I think secular humanism is the wave of the future—hopefully I will live long enough to see it become the majority viewpoint of society.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, June 1, 2006 at 12:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am sorry for the misspelled version of my responses going on this board. My bad!
Here are the relevant parts again:
1) Self-serving translations are mostly responsible for representing the Hebrew shalom as peace in many instances in the Hebrew Bible. The root shalom had been studied quite thoroughly by Gillis Gerleman .. The overwhelming meaning, whether as a verb or as a noun, is usually repayment, reward or retaliation (Gerleman). The hegemonic aspect of shalom can be seen .. clearly here: When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you as forced labor (Deut. 20:10-11). - Hector Avalos
2) I think Tony Wicher is using an overly broad definition of religion. In his sense, if religion is about spirituality alone, then yes.. an atheist can be spiritual (as humanists no doubt are). But I use the term religion as interchangeable with supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is about what is beyond the natural universe.. but as far as we know, there is no such beyond to speak of. That is why I say there is nothing supernatural, period. But that does not, again, preclude us from being naturalistically spiritual!
3) W7421 is correct in that separation of church and state is a must. But also, it is clear that morality does not need religion to exist in humans, nor does a belief in the impossible lead one to a better understanding of who we are as humans and what we can do toward achieving peace. In fact, belief in god(s) may soothe us as long as we remind ourselves that it is a fantasy for our own personal psychology.. but once we begin to believe in god(s) for real, we can then believe in anything without evidence.. like we all believed Iraq had WMDs or that capitalism leads to human freedom.
Report thisBy Sylvia Maria Valls, June 1, 2006 at 12:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You would do well to go beyond words to what can not be held by them. A great political analyst of the 20th century, as much to the left as it is possible to go and a Jewess of Christian persuasion (to the benefit of people like myself who would otherwise be in the same situation as you seem to me to be…) is Simone Weil, whose work is much to be recommended, whether you are an atheist, a Christian, or a Muslim… The real danger of a religious left, taking her persuasions as guideline, is not for humanity but for those whose design on this world simply comes directly from Hell. Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Dachau? Etc… etc… etc… It is not possible to remain humane when everything has been deprived of a certain sacrality… Ultimately, you make a choice for or against God since ultimately reason/language (every day syntax) has little to do with the “reality beyond.” For her, “Beauty is the smile of tenderness that Christ sends to the creature through the material world”. This statement does not necessarity make me believe in the Biblical Christ, but it almost makes me accept being a Christian, on her terms. You should read her sometime. Yours sincerely, Sylvia María de Jesús Valls (my given names), Valle de Bravo, Mexico… (And the Virgin of Guadalupe, would you believe it, actually communicates from some sphere or level of understanding I would never have conceived possible when I was growing up an atheist in a so-called Christian land…)
Report thisBy Roberto, June 1, 2006 at 12:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To Jeffrey Ellis comment #10827:
Report this“I have yet to read or hear of any secularist who has developed any universal system of law, morality and ethics based on non-theological principles.”
Read Ayn Rand’s ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’. She divised a system of ethics (actually an entire philosophical system called Objectivism -ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, politics, etc.) based entirely on Reason and Man’s life here on Earth. To get a true sense of her philosophy in action read her momumental novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
You wont be dissapointed. Actually every blogger in this site should read Ayn Rand. It would give everyone insight on the root of the problem (any and all problems, scandals, etc. discussed in this site) b/c they all boil down to the same thing.
She was a true champion of Reason and Atheism and probably the most articulate of them all.
It is said that anything worth saying was said first and best by the Greeks; well, Miss Rand came to fill in the blanks. Actually, I can’t believe no one mentions her in this site.
By Richard, June 1, 2006 at 11:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why do we hate you, Jefferson?
Report thisWe don’t. What we hate is people shoving their religious beliefs in our face without our consent or in violation of the U.S. Constitution. As a Christianist, you should understand the concept of “hating the sin but not the sinner.” (Yeah, right.)
By Kevin Ittner, June 1, 2006 at 10:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mr. Ellis is evidently unaware of the works of Plato, Epicurus, Buddha, Confuscius, Lao-tze, Marcus Aurelius, Xeno, Chuang-tze, Mencius, or much else of non-European pre-Christian literature.
In regards to culture, I would argue that the arts flourish when released from religious bondage (but I’ll admit that’s a matter of taste).
K in MN
Report thisBy candide, June 1, 2006 at 9:53 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Religion—doesn’t matter which—is a serious form of mental derangement.
Report thisBy jefferson, June 1, 2006 at 3:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
why do you hate us?
Report thisBy Beeta, June 1, 2006 at 2:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Has anyone read a book called ” The Red Queen”?
Report thisOr even heard of it?
It is not a political or religous book. It is a scientific book. More precisely a book about “genetics”. You may ask why I would bring it up. Let me explain. All religions try to give a guidline to their believers of the correct way to live and conduct themselves. And then every religion promises that if the rules are followed, the believer will be given eternal life and happiness.
The Red Queen after much scientific research and other “goobledegook” and explanations of sexual paterns of different species and ...........some other scientific “stuff” finally gets to the point. The point is that all Human beings are at any given moment face to face with death and destruction. This threat comes in many different ways, including the environment, war, violence, famin and…...but non more deadly and potentially devestating than disease.
Human beings are threatened by “virusus” and other mutating whatevers more so than any other threat, because no matter how advanced and how technologicaly capable we become, “virusus” seem to mutate and keep a step ahead of us.
Human beings through reproduction (genetic matches) try to keep pace with virusus. The book likens genetic matches to combination locks. Everytime there is a new combination lock it gets hacked and a new combination is needed.
How does that have anything to do with religion?
Examine any one of the ten commandments and wonder what it has to do with the “gene pool”.
Another words, eternal life and happiness is providing an environment that promotes a healthy “gene pool”. No individual lives forever, but his genes can under the right conditions.
Having said all that, I am not a Christian or adhere to any other religion. I think organized religion has always been hijacked by egotistical, pompus asses who have exploited the fear of destruction.
The essence of religion, however; is eternal life and happiness through giving our genes a chance to win.
We humans, however; could self destruct with no help from “viruses”.
By Jeffrey Ellis, June 1, 2006 at 1:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The problem with Mr. Seidman and most “secularists” (isn’t “secularist” this just another term for “atheist”, sort of like “intelligent design” just a retooled version of “creationism”?),is that their knowledge and understanding of the theology they criticize is very superficial.
The Jewish Bible does not exist frozen in time, but has been interpreted and shaped over the ages just as humanity itself has evolved. I doubt any of the criticisms of Judaism voiced in this article are based on knowledge of the Talmudic and more contemporary commentaries which bear much more relevance on contemporary Judaism than some casually chosen phrase from the Bible (usually quoted out of context).
The main concept of monotheism as articulated in Judaism is that God is inclusive, and that God’s laws must be equally applied to all human beings. This idea contrasted starkly with polytheistic religions, which generally posited that individuals were more favored by certain gods than others, and subject to different moral, ethical and legal obligations. As mandated in the Bible, for example, the Sabbath was deemed to be a day of rest for all people (and working animals as well), not just the wealthy and powerful. The idea of Jews being the “chosen people” was not an elite or smug concept, but a solemn obligation to uphold the highest ideals of monotheism, which included being a “light unto the nations”. Judaism strictly required that non-Jews be treated with the same respect and accorded the same rights as Jews themselves—no special taxes, punishments ,etc.
Also, while a small element of early Zionism emerged out of a religious yearning to return to the land of the Bible, the main thrust came out of attempts to establish a flouishing cultural center for Jewish life (Ahad Ha’am) and political efforts to find a safe haven for persecuted Jews (Theodore Herzl). Mr. Avalos, whom Seidman quotes, has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to this subject.
I have yet to read or hear of any “secularist” who has developed any universal system of law, morality and ethics based on non-theological principles. There have been many human beings who have manipulated religion out of greed, avarice and/or prejudice, yet the most enduring achievments in the world of art, literature and humanity have been accomplished by those who have believed in a higher power than the indivdual, and a fundamental understanding of what we call the human soul.
Report thisBy Barry F. Seidman, May 31, 2006 at 10:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Some responses:
1) “Self-serving translations are mostly responsible for representing the Hebrew shalom as “peace” in many instances in teh Hebrew Bible. The root chalom had been stuydied quite thorouglky by Gillis Gerleman .. ‘The overhelming meaning, whether as a verb or as a noun, is usually repayment, reward or retaliation” (Gerleman). The hegomonic aspect of shalom can be seen .. clearly here: “When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you as forcec labor (Deut. 20:10-11). - Hector Avalos
2) Is July Canute for real?
3) Thanks to Stephanie Ferrera!
4) I think Tony Wicher is using an overly broad definition of religion. In his sense, if religion is about spirituality alone, then yes.. an atheist can be spiritual (as humanists no doubt are). But I use the term relgion as interchangable with supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is about what is beyond the natural universe.. but as far as we know, there is no such “beyond” to speak of. That is why I say there is nothing supernatural, period. But that does not, again, preclude us from being naturalisticly spiritual!
5) W7421 is correct in that seperation of church and state is a must. But also, it is clear that morality does not need religion to exist in humans, nor does a belief in the impossible lead one to a better understanding of who we are as humans and what we can do toward achieving peace. In fact, belief in god(s) may sooth us as long as we remind outselves that it is a fantasy for our own personal psychology.. but once we begin to believe in god(s) for real, we can then beleive in anything without evidence.. like we all believed Iraq had WMD’s or that capitalism leads to human freedom.
6) “Politicians are our employees. We should look to them to earn their salary and do the job they have agreed to do. Instead, once elected they decide they want to be preachers and bagmen.” - NABNYC.
I can’t add more to that!
Report thisBy policy analyst, May 31, 2006 at 6:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
(1)Politics is the art of compromise. We had sure better welcome people of faith who want to join us or we of the liberal persuasion are surely finished.
Report this(2)Apparently nobody on the left or right actually reads the Bible carefully for understanding. For example, The Book of Job very clearly tells us that Satan is a faithful employee of God. It is a high teaching on how to handle adversity. (Satan means adversary in Hebrew). There is no devil in rebellion from God trying to tempt us into wrongdoing.
In Chapter 2 of Genesis, Adam and eve are kicked out of the garden for partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What is this fruit? Judging of this and that to be “Good” and “Evil”. Once they do they JUDGE their nakedness to be shameful and thus betray themselves. In real life Death follows such judgements, just as the Book says, since that which we declare to be “Evil” is dehumanized and must then be exterminated.
By Roberto, May 31, 2006 at 5:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To W7421:
Report thisStop pretending that you’re xtian. If you truly were then you’d know that you and your idolater “friends” are not the same at all b/c you have accepted Jesus as your “Lord & Saviour” and they have not. This means they will burn in hell and you’ll be up in heaven playing harps w/ the angels and all that good shit. If you care about them you’d try your hardest to convert them to your religion (and if you say u are a xtian then you do follow a religion, one which has it’s own tenets and doctrines different from all the others). I mean, your Buddist friend doesn’t even belive that he actually exists! and that this is all an illusion and pain and sufferring are the only things we’ll find in this world and in our bodies. I’m not even going to get into what your Muslim friend should be doing to all you infidels. My point is this: if you’re a xtian then do and belive what your “holy” text tells you to do, don’t try to use your mind and reason and cherry pick what to believe. Just do as your told, that’s what god really wants every one to do.
And you’re not getting away w/ this fashioning of xtianity to make it easier to practice w/o excluding others; I’m telling your pastor on you.
By H. Rechteger, May 31, 2006 at 3:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Avalos’s egregious statements are a misinterpretation of Jewish beliefs that are misinformed at best, anti-Semitic at worst and taken out of context, without any thought to Rabbinic and Talmudic Judaism that informs Jewish thought for the past 2,000 years. As an atheist Jew, I nevertheless have respect for the moral codes of my people given not by God but by fallible men, interpreted and improved over time. I am surprised and appalled that Scheer, a man I greatly respect, would put this drivel on his website. Shame on you!
Report thisBy Saul2006, May 31, 2006 at 3:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Richard Silverstein says he know more Hebrew then some others so I will ask this well informed person about an oft said prayer during the High Holy Days in Orthodox and Conservative synagogues that not only says that during God chooses who is going to die in the coming year but the method of their demise- who by fire, stoning, strangulation.
Report thisIf God decides not only who dies but how, then one must believe that the suicide bombers and Hitler were only meting out the decision God made if you are foolish enough to believe in Rabbinical Judaism.
If you have a problem with this please go to http://www.religionquestioned.com which shows you that the rabbis of rabbinical Judaism are a bunch of liars who are more concerned with what they think then the bible
By Walter L Battaglia, May 31, 2006 at 3:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have a slightly different take on religion, of whatever political persuasion.
In my book, The Graduate Student’s Question (about the philosophical distinction of Left and Right), I disallowed discussion of metaphysical and religious ideas from the start. I think putative explanations and facts which are outside any human experience cannot be admitted into sensible discussions. Perhaps I made that discrimination because I am unable to get up any interest whatsoever in religion or spiritualism. I am constantly amazed at the amount of bile aroused by religious controversies.
I do think religion is essentially cultural (tribal) in nature, agreeing with a previous commentator. It is worthy of study from an anthropological point of view, but not as a valid philosophical or scientific belief system.
I also think any religious morality is inherently Conservative (of the Right), not Utopian (of the Left), simply because it requires adherence or obedience to command, which is necessarily authoritarian. Authority is always Conservative in my scheme of things (because it arises in and defends the past).
Thus, my interpretation of the so-called “religious left” is that its adherents agree on some presently stated Utopian (Left) ideals or goals, but arrive at those conclusions from an entirely different set of premises. Those premises are necessarily unreliable, as they are not founded on any science or empirical knowledge (“naturalism” in your terms).
Since my main interest is ethics, I am considering a follow-up book which hopes to put ethical principles and morality on solid Darwinian terra firma. [That, despite Hume’s admonition that an ‘ought’ cannot be dervied from an ‘is.’ Maybe we need a different concept of ‘ought.’]
Report thisBy Farakon, May 31, 2006 at 2:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
In reading the articles on this fine website (and the responses to them) I have become convinced of two things.
1. We must, as a species, turn our back on irrational superstitions in order to survive; and
2. We are not going to do that.
I just hope I die before something really horrible happens.
Face it, we’re boned.
Report thisBy Dan Noel, May 31, 2006 at 2:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
We all know that the bible is not a scientific treatise; as such, it lends itself to diametrically opposed interpretations: slavery is holy/horrible, Jews have to be killed/loved, abortion is murder/sacrament, etc.
The most appropriate interpretation of the bible may be the one that uses the scientific method: instead of cherry-picking whatever fits the reader’s ideology, a concise set of accurate and objective rules is used. The results are remarkable: myths such as hell and the trinity evaporate, the doors of ministry open to women, the sacred texts of other religions get on par with the bible, etc. Of course, many theological answers are still left open to the individual Christian.
Some Christian denominations have embarked on this journey, with more or less consciousness, enthusiasm and success; the most prominent of them may be the Unitarian Universalist Association, which preaches an unmatched theology of tolerance and inclusion…
Report thisBy Steve, May 31, 2006 at 1:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am an atheist. While I find Seidman and Harris’ attacks on religion entertaining to read, I fear that ultimately they are futile at best and destructive at worst. Beliefs don’t improve things or make them worse. Actions do. If Christian liberals are out there trying to make our world a better place, I don’t care what their motivation might be. I say to Jim Wallis, keep up the good work.
Report thisBy NABNYC, May 31, 2006 at 1:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
What people want to believe in their personal lives is their own business.
The only legitimate authority of the government is to take care of civil responsibilities that the people of the country have agreed to share. We have agreed that we will share the costs of roads, bridges, dams; schools; police, fire, military; and some social responsibilities such as assistance for the poor, sick, elderly or people unable to work.
The authority of the government comes from the people. The government has no business ever involving itself in religion. They have no right to preach, or to tell the citizens to pray or not to pray. They need to spend their time, as our employees, doing their job: making sure the road is built, making sure the bridges and dams are kept in good repair.
In making decisions, the government should limit itself to addressing the question of what is in the best interests of the working men and women in this country. Do we need another school and, if so, who is the best contractor for the job. The government should never consider the religion, faith, or souls of citizens in making decisions.
If the people want religion, they can go to church.
Jim Wallace is an inspiring person, and he can provide solace and hope to many. But his views should never become the basis by which our government makes decisions. Jerry Falwell is a hate-preaching pig who conveniently overlooked the commandment about gluttony. His views should never become the basis by which our government makes decisions.
Politicians are our employees. We should look to them to earn their salary and do the job they have agreed to do. Instead, once elected they decide they want to be preachers and bagmen.
The Constitution got it right. The federal government should stay out of religion entirely. They should not attack it, and should not promote it. And the opposite is also true. Religion should stay out of politics. The intertwining of the two has always led to war and mass murder.
Report thisBy PamAlonia McCrary, May 31, 2006 at 1:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Really, the book to read is “The Sins of Scripture” by John Shelby Spong. I recommend it to all. He advocates a breaking free from this religious hegemony in favor all the sacredness that flows through all of life, and he’s a former bishop. Unfortunately, web searches seem to indicate that the religious left is not wildly on his side as it should be. I am currently seeking a dialogue of Spong’s revolutionary, heretical work here:
http://www.godisajoke.com/2006/05/26/fundamentalism/the-sins-of-scripture-by-john-shelby-spong/
Report thisBy Lisa W., May 31, 2006 at 1:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There was (and are) religious tenets that were peaceful/non-violent which continues to be overlooked. The ancient hebrews/levites were methodical about supressing the Goddess religion which has carried through to present day ideology. The ‘prehistorical’ Goddess religions gave us agriculture, domestication of animals, and the beginnings of written communication, to name a few. These societies were, by and large, benevolent. Throughout history, by virtue of monotheistic, patriarchal violence has this information been demonized and/or eradicated.
It is also important to understand how religious ideology has served in the human endeavor; it attempted to provide understanding of natural phenomenon that couldn’t be readily explained.
The unfortunate aspect of the human psyche is that we cling to irrational concepts long after a phenomenon has been logically explained. The human’s greatest asset and most debilitating liability is imagination. Without our conscious effort to reason, our own creative process is abused to our detriment.
We are also a species that practices to a high degree of accuracy self-fulfulling prophecy. Granted, Armeggedon will not be of a supernatural initiation (because ‘supernatural’ in itself is an illusion), it will most likely occur because the group think believes it will happen and make it so.
It may be that in this ‘final’ discourse, the ultimate blessing will be the eradication of the human cancer which may allow nature/earth to recover and resume life and evolution without human’s devestating intrusion.
Report thisBy W7421, May 31, 2006 at 12:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Do you think that at the end of this seemingly endless stream of subjective opinion, we as a nation will finally come to understand the wisdom of our founders in keeping a clear boundary between religion and government?
How may dialogues like this are going on? How pointless are they?
The world is changing. I have friends who are Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Bhuddist. (I do!) We are compatible. Morally compatible. We share values. We see the world the same way - morally and ethically. But we see the world through the different eyes of how God speaks to us. We are the same. We are not moral relativists.
Values and Government are not incompatible and Religions (or moral systems) inform those values. But religions and governments are incompatible.
We must have both but they must be kept apart - “Render To Ceaser the Things that are Ceaser’s and to God, the things that are God.”
This is not a duality. Our moral systems are the same whether or not we veiw them through the lens of religion or government - UNLESS we live in a theocracy.
History is filled with examples of immoral theocracies - dating back to the Catholic Church under Pope Julian, to the Facsist Imams of today.
Do we need better proof than the cruel anti-modern theocracies of the Middle East to understand how not just foolish but wrong (immoral) this unholy marriage of religion and government is?
Who preaches less tolerance of others than religion? I am a practicing Christian, who NEVER lost his faith; but I pray that God will one day spare us from religions. They stand in our way. They stand between us and God.
And God is so beuatiful.
Report thisBy Scott, May 31, 2006 at 12:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
On scarcity - when the waterhole gets smaller, the animals get meaner.
Unfortunately most people won’t know what they really need until they have figured out what they don’t, usually the hard way.
When we come out the otherside of the ecological bottleneck our biosphere is racing towards humanity may get the opportunity to learn something, or not. Myself, I suspect that the religious capacity to suspend disbelief is our evolutionary Achille’s heel. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most other self-aware beings throughout times and space, assuming there were/are any, have faced similar challenges.
Given the lack of any success in our SETI its possible none have learned a thing.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, May 31, 2006 at 11:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m a spiritual leftist. I believe that there is such a thing as natural religion which is just as objective and real as science. It exists independently of any organized religion. It is beyond all words and doctrines. Such natural religion is the foundation of human civilization. Organized religions - all of them -have misled man and turned him from a free being into brainwashed sheep.
Atheism is nothing but an understandable reaction to organized religion. Atheists themselves are naturally religious. If they are distressed by human suffering, if they have compassion for the poor, this is because they are naturally religious, because something inside them is telling them that they should care, something without which they would not be human. That is true religion; it has nothing to do with beliefs and dogmas and supersitions, but it is basic to our human nature.
Report thisBy John Earl, May 31, 2006 at 11:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Most religions are essentially fertility cults. Hey, we need to keep the human race going. I can’t begrudge the religious for whatever beliefs lead to romance. It’s just too bad that a little murder and mayhem get thrown into the mix.
Jared Diamond’s book The Third Chimpanzee has an interesting chapter on how we choose our mates. Humans gravitate toward other humans like them. I wonder where secular humanists hook up?
Report thisBy Wintermute, May 31, 2006 at 10:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I made a similar point during the cartoons hubbub in Graven Images.
Report thisBy shirley Braverman, May 31, 2006 at 10:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I do not believe in any supernationalisms, but the message of Buddah and Jesus were enlightenments for the human race. Christians read their bible wrong and exclude the parts you want to ignore. Martin Luther Kings Jesus was the God of liberation, freedom and non-violence. He was on the side of the oppressed, not on the side of the Empire. Jesus had a radical mission. To bring a new consciousness: to free his people from identifying with the goals of the Roman Empire. To feed the hungry: he believed that a systemic redistribution of resources was not charity, but economic justice; and, to set the prisoners free, recognizing that the Empire/government used/uses law and order as tools of oppression. To this God each person was equal and there was no spiritual calculus which made some people more worthy than others. Demonizing, dehumanizing or stereotyping others was not allowed as love conquered hate and fear.
Report thisPlus, Jesus said love your enemies, not just other christians. He said the law of the prophets was updated with his Golden Rule. He was humble and condemned no one. Even poor Paul finally got it -after a lifetime of condeming this and that in Galatians he finally said that (chap 5) Live in the spirit and don’t be entangled in the old laws, In 18 he says “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Later he said, in the world of the spirit there is, “neither man nor woman, slave or master, Greek or Roman. All are equal in the eyes of the Lord.” Jesus and Buddah taught in parables—When he said I am the way, the truth and the light—he didn’t mean he was a light. He was talking about philosophy—his way which was the way of peace and love. Let’s not throw out the philosophy with the many translated, many censored, much missing words.
By Stephanie Ferrera, May 31, 2006 at 9:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This reminds me of a statement Edward O. Wilson made at the Georgetown University Bicentennial in 1989:
Report this“I submit that humans are exhalted not because we have risen so far above the other species, but because understanding them very well elevates our very concept of life.” Seidman captures precisely the position that I have been trying to define that I call “naturalistic spirituality.” Thank you!
By July Canute, May 31, 2006 at 8:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have said all along that the constant liberal attacks upon Christians were not about the Christian right. Thank you for proving me correct!!!
Now you attack Jim Wallis even though he is a Democrat and could rally millions of Christians to our party rather than driving them away as liberals do.
It was never about the Christian right. These people are waging a campaign against Christianty. I knew it! Now what do all you democrats say! Will you continue to go along with the destruction of your heritage and traditions and culture?
If you are going to overthrow something that has played such a crucial role and been so significant in our government, culture, traditions, heritage and history you had better think about what will be put in its place.
Never under estimate the power of propaganda. To this day 85% of Americans claim to be believers. Yet we are being sold a proposition that the very people who built this nation are now a threat to it!
I am dumbfounded by the campaign of attacks upon Christianity by Jews and liberals. Thats why you read about Christians everyday on the liberal internet. They are waging a campaign and you are fools if you fall for it.
Back when we first invaded Iraq liberals blamed Christians and scapegoated them for our middle east policy. Now that people know better they have switched to another tactic in their constant attacks upon them.
They never wanted a seperation of chruch and state. They want to seperate us from our state while they bring about the Israelization of the United States which they never complain about even though terrorism is brought to our shores because of our god-awful policies toward Israel which is the biggest threat we face.
White people who built this nation have been so maligned that now we have multi-culturalism which means that the interests of Mexico and Israel are on a par with the interests of the United States and their leaders have more say in our government than we do. We don’t have anything that we can rally around any more and we don’t even know what it means to be American.
If you wish Christianity to go the same way that traditional American culture has gone you better be certain you will like what takes it place.
When these new elites wish to destroy some part of American heritage like when they malign white people, they never come out and say they are destroying our heritage, they always offer a “value” such as seperation of church and state. Before you know it christianity will be in the same dust bin as “white Europeans” and will be considered to be evil.
I am not a Christian and I am not a believer but I will not join liberals in the destruction of my own heritage and traditions because I see too clearly to think they have something better to put in its place.
Its not Christians we should be worrying about and it is not their policies that are destroying us. They are not evil any more than white people are.
Remember it was never about the Christian right, it was always about undermining Christianity. They would drop 500 pound bombs on Christians the way they do Muslims if they could.
Report thisBy Stephen Tracy, May 31, 2006 at 8:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is more awe and amazement in a good book of molecular cell biology than in the Old Testament. Just ribosomes could keep a person busy for a life time of study and enchantment. Thanks for articulating the obvious but seldom stated.
Report thisBy A.A. Murphy, May 31, 2006 at 7:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have come to the sad conclusion that religion is merely tribalism dressed up in Sunday finery.
As such, religion is more akin to a mass neurosis than a belief system. Maybe that’s why it has proved almost impossible for humanity to overcome.
Recently, after several online conversations with people on the religious left and right, I’ve come to another disturbing conclusion: Deep down, these folks don’t really care whether their beliefs reflect reality. They have chosen to believe these things mainly because believing makes them feel better and gets them through the day.
How do we fight that kind of intellectual cowardice? I don’t know, but exposing the comforting fallacies of the religious left is a good place to start.
Report thisBy Richard Silverstein, May 31, 2006 at 5:49 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What a load of crap! Lord preserve us from Hebrew ‘scholars’ who don’t know s*%t from shinola when it comes to understanding a word as simple as “shalom.” I know a damn sight more Hebrew than either Avalos of Seidman & they’re both way off the mark—and not just about the meaning of “shalom.”
This article is about as informative as something out of the Enquirer. Hello, is there an editor here? You’re supposed to separate the wheat fr. the chaff.
Report this