This topic contains 67 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
David Hayward 1 year, 6 months ago.
-
Posts
-
Anonymous@john the way I see it there is so much material for comedy in everyday human conduct. I see everyone as bein an little ridiculous sometimes and a little pretentious sometimes. And I see a link between comedy and the prophetic. I like Eddy Izzard’s tak on religion and what someone else put up with what was it John Hicks? I love Billy Connely’s making fun out of Chritian rock (nooffense to fans of Christian Rock).
In the research I am doing i am looking at Goldingday’s article in the Evangelical Quarterly “Are they comic acts” http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1997-2_099.pdf Thougth you might enjoy reading that?
Here is what the Jewish scholar, Heschel wrote:
“I honor, as inspired, any comic that makes me think or laugh. A smile can be an act of faith, and a comedian a prophet.”
AnonymousI see so, you would see such events that you and i have expereinced as “fractal geometry”, the order of the univerese. I would put what i was expereincing down to an intervening God because i was praying at the time to that God.
I hear Dawkinds spek similarlty in that he can be in awe of a beautiful landscape and it be the same as someone with a faith in the Judaic / Christian / Islamid monotheistic God becauuse the same brain activity, release of seratonin etc happens. And of the natural inclination of humans to belive in God in such way because or the inclination to create order. I would argue that this is no kind of God at all. To belive in a “god” of human creation is no god and doesn’t make sense. It is a golden calf, might as well be a piece of wood that is being worshipped. For me it has to be the creator God of the bible or no such God exists. And if no such God exists, no judement exists, and I don’t have hope for all the abuses that have happened to have consequences. When i appeal to God for justice, I appeal to what I believe is God that will bring justice and that is what I have faith in.
“I act from faith because it makes no sense to act from fear. I don’t know that everything is going to work out, but I engage in life as if it will.”
I remeber my mother speaking one time when I was going throgh difficulty to “have faith”. It was a comfort to me at the time because she was walking the road with me and empathising in what I was expereincing. So i get where you are coming from with what you say about faith. And there is perhaps an illustion to what teh church can do by putting people in fear or as Hitchins would call the “thought police” om that. Well, when I see scripture that talks of perfectl love casting out fear i cannot condone what the church does when it puts people in fear. I also cannot have faith in something that is anything other than the God of scripture and at the same time believe everything is going to turn out to be OK for the reason I have mentioned about judgement. Because of that judgement, I have faith that there will be justice for all at some point maybe not now but certainly in the future and that is what gives me hope. It gives me hope for me and humanity including Elizabeth Fritzl thought I know with my littel mind I cannt comprehend how it it going to all work out and I often misunderstand and get angry about injustices and what seems to me to be the unnecessary suffering that goes on in the world.
I remeber chatting sometime with an aitheis who said that we are never going to agree because for me it is about faith. And I said you are absolutely right. He was noever goign to convince me the God does not exist or that if he exists he is evil and that I was never going to convince him that God does evist and he loves him and wants the best for him. We had a great conversation, with mutual respect. And i feel this conversation is going similarlly.
Good to chat with you Richard.
Good interview. I love the part where he says that “we choose what we believe” rather than it being a sole result of reasoning enough or being presented with certain evidence. I think that’s a really important observation.
This might be a subtle point, but I have not found that I choose what I believe. I may choose what I tell people I believe, but to know what I really believe only happens within the context of real life. It is at those points of decision where I face real consequences that I find out what I really believe.
I hear Dawkinds spek similarlty in that he can be in awe of a beautiful landscape and it be the same as someone with a faith in the Judaic / Christian / Islamid monotheistic God becauuse the same brain activity, release of seratonin etc happens. And of the natural inclination of humans to belive in God in such way because or the inclination to create order. I would argue that this is no kind of God at all.
I think that’s the point of atheism. There is no god.
@Adam-JuliansIt is a golden calf, might as well be a piece of wood that is being worshipped. For me it has to be the creator God of the bible or no such God exists. And if no such God exists, no judement exists, and I don’t have hope for all the abuses that have happened to have consequences. When i appeal to God for justice, I appeal to what I believe is God that will bring justice and that is what I have faith in.
This is a classic Rob Bell approach. He uses the metaphors of the Bible to create a mythology of philosophy. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. It is very creative and compelling. I have been burned so many times that I like to really bring things to the test before I embrace them. What I look for in any statement of truth is the assumptions. We have several assumptions. The idea of justice is an assumption and the idea that it has to be the God of the Bible or no god at all. These may be your preference, but they are assumptions just the same. When we add the idea of god to the equation we have an additional assumption that often clouds the issue.
What I am presenting is not so much a defense of a particular position, but the problems that present themselves when trying to keep the god of the Bible intact. Let’s take the idea of justice. We are often asked to imagine a big court in the sky where god is judging the world and developing the plan of salvation to place everything right within the context of the law of god. These are very human ideas and when we understand why they were created in the first place they don’t seem so godly. Laws are needed when you have to organize and control large civilizations. They were originally created for the benefit of the ruling class. Justice is an arbitrary eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth type of idea.
Let me give an example. In the case of Elizabeth Fritzl she was raped multiple times, physically assaulted, and imprisoned by her father for 24 years. She birthed a number of children during those years who were also imprisoned.
It was revealed that Elisabeth and her children were more traumatized than previously thought. During captivity, Kerstin tore out her hair in clumps, and was reported to have shredded her dresses before stuffing them in the toilet. Stefan could not walk properly, due to his height of 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in), forced to stoop in the 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in)-high cellar. It has also been revealed that normal everyday occurrences, such as the dimming of lights or the closing of doors, plunge Kerstin and Stefan into anxiety and panic attacks. The other three of Elisabeth’s children who were raised by their father are being treated for anger and resentment at the events.
How is justice going to restore what was lost? Even if her father is given the death penalty or was forced to go through the same trauma he inflicted, how is that going to restore what has already been suffered? How is Jesus being crucified on the cross going to regain what was lost or provide any comfort when the time to act has already past? This makes no sense to me empathetically or logically.
Now Jesus does provide some rational ways to move forward. Either Jesus himself or the author of the various passages that refer to these ideas were likely influenced by Buddhist ideas. There is good evidence that Buddhist missionaries were in the Middle east during this time and Buddhists are atheists. In my understanding justice is simply sanctioned revenge. In other areas of the Lasting Supper we have discussed forgiveness and the benefits it gives the forgiver. It frees the person wronged from needing to punish, because this need to punish will never be quenched and will be a source of further suffering. It does not reconcile because that takes both parties.
If I believed in the god of the Bible I would require his apology and amends before I could be reconciled with him. I can forgive god for my benefit, but reconciliation requires god to explain why he commits so many sins of omission. Why does god stand by when he has the power to stop it? Why do we respect the free will of cruel people? How is that justice? Too many Christian apologist just gloss over these questions with some form of we can’t understand god’s mysterious ways. At what point does mysterious ways simply become a dodge? At what point does mysterious ways become nonsense?
@Adam-JuliansI hear Dawkinds spek similarlty in that he can be in awe of a beautiful landscape and it be the same as someone with a faith in the Judaic / Christian / Islamid monotheistic God becauuse the same brain activity, release of seratonin etc happens. And of the natural inclination of humans to belive in God in such way because or the inclination to create order.
I think what you are having a problem with here is the presentation of a mechanistic universe by Dawkins. This is not only a denial of god, it is a denial of consciousness. And Rob Bell does a good job of describing this conflict. He presents it as a denial of god, but I see it as a denial of consciousness.
And this only becomes a problem if you have an ego. To me, god is a way to deflect our desire for recognition away from the ego onto a god who loves us so much that he recognizes us. Buddhism provides a number of tools to keep the ego from completely taking over in the form of fear. And Christianity has its tools as well. The reason we hang on to these so tightly is because, as you describe here, your ego is left with this simplistic serotonin driven being who only thinks it has conscious choices.
Just as Dawkins analysis of humanity is too simplistic, so is the Bible’s description of an all powerful god. They are essentially the same problem. What I have noticed is that the god people worship looks strangely like themselves.
I have tried to construct a god who fits with all that I observe in reality and I can’t come up with one. And since I don’t know how to determine if there is a god I have to say that I don’t know, if I am to stay true to my commitment to be honest with myself.
Anonymous“I think that’s the point of atheism. There is no god.” There is a distinction as I understand it between atheism, and non-theism. Athiesm says there is no God. Anti-theism argues polemically for the non-existance of the monotheistic God of the Judaic / Christian / Isalmis tradition. Dawkins in his book “The God Delusion” in chapter 4 argues for 7 categories of evidential proof of the existance of something. In which he says in 6 1/2 ot of 7 of those the God of these religious traditions does not exisit. Therefore in his poster campaign the sound bite was “There probably is no God”.
For you to say there is no god (note the lower case g) as in a god of human creation therefor is what I would be in agreement with you on Richard. Whether there is the existance of God is a debatable matter. For reasons already debated Sir, the faith you describe youself as having is stronger than mine. I am too weak to live in this world and have faith that everything will work out OK. When I look at the history of humanity and the wrold today I see a lot of things that are definately not OK nor ar they ever likely to be OK. The best predictor of the future is the relevant past. I need to beleive in the God the bible talks of of justice to make everything OK with his fair judgement dnoe in love whether that judgement be in the present or at some point in the future. For me to just “have faith” as my mother would have had me do or like th guy you mentioned who got sliced up by a boat propellor saying everything is going to be OK doesn’t work for me. It might help in the moment in a psychological way to help myself into keep going. But the reality is that not everythign is OK all the time and to say things are OK when they are not is a delusion. I need somthing more than that otherwise I look out at life and I don’t have hope for justice – there is so much evidence in the world that justice does not happen. When I read the bible, I read the words of Jesus saying “blessed are those who thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled”. This gives me something to hold on to for hope. To “have faith” doesn’t do that for me.
“I have been burned so many times that I like to really bring things to the test before I embrace them.” Waht you are describing there is a biblical principle of testing everything which to my mind gives evidence of one occasion in the usefulness of interpreting and applying scripture.
“the metaphors of the Bible to create a mythology of philosophy.” This is a classic kind of polemic that non-theists use to argue. Calling something “mythology” is an attempt to discredit the viability thier being the Judaic / Christian / Isalmic God. Other variants on that are to talk about an “invisible freind” or no more beliving in God that leprechauns or the tooth fairy. It is amusing rhetoric but ineffectual in creting a credible argument for the truth of one proposal and the falsity of another. Classic lampooney happend in newspapers where Spurgeon was protrayed as a deluded fool. Conversly the Dawin was lampooned as being portrayed as a an ape that didn’t have anythign worthwhile to communicate to humans. Truth is both had their merits and that none of us can claim to know all there is to know and have any credibility if we were to attempt to do so. Those that thnk they know it all inevitably head for a fall.
I am not claimg to know how God would bring about justice and your argument about justice restoring what is lost adds another element. As I say, my little brain doesn’t have the capacity to know everything. The more I learn, the more I realise how littel I do know and how much there is out there that is to be know that I don’t know.
Was Jesus influenced by Bhuddists? You make a compelling argument for that. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. Chances are he was influences by a lot of different worldviews. Perhaps you are more knoweldgable that I am about Bhuddism and it’s influence in the middel east at the time of Jesus.
You ask some interesting questions about Jesus and the cross. I can’t promise to give you answers that would be satisfactory to you. Again what I see with Jesus on the cross is God who did not distance himself from suffering which he could have done and in the measure he is willing to go to for humanitiy. I see Jesus weeping over Jeruaslem. And on the cross I see Jesus suffering at the hands of evil, from both religious and seccular powers. I see him having overcome death in the story of the resurrection. And I have hope. This works for me. I can see it doesn’t work for you. It’s OK to have disagreement on this. I would affirm you in what you wrote about testing everything. Like I say, it is a good biblical principle to do so.
“If I believed in the god of the Bible I would require his apology and amends” Well that’s not something I can answer. I like I say, don’t understand a lot of things and I get angry with God about some things.
“Why does god stand by when he has the power to stop it?” I agree and this is a question i ask myself, the Psalms are full of this kind fo question and rehtoric about God.
“Why do we respect the free will of cruel people?” Who is the “we” you are talking about? I don’t accept it as being OK for someone who chooses to rape and murder to do so for example. Who are these “cruel people”? Seems to me everybody has good and cruelty in them. I know I have. An important part of Jesus’ teachings was to say to those who would throw stones “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
“How is that justice?”Yup – how is it that I get away with some things that I hide from others because I present a “good person” to people. Seems to me it is an act of grace and mercy that though I do wrong at times, I am loved and I have people who love me in spite of my warts. I can’t help but love them back when they show me such grace in spite of my fallibilities. Fro me that is what Jesus does. Not only that, he pays the price for my wrong doing. And because of him I am counted right with God., not out of my own efforts but because of what he has done has covered me.
I undertand this doesn’t work for you Richard, like I say, I am weaker than you are. I need this otherwise I don’t have hope. I actually envy you a little that you can have the strength that I don’t, to keep going in this world without this. I know I coundn’t. But that’s just me.
Anonymous“I think what you are having a problem with here is the presentation of a mechanistic universe by Dawkins… And this only becomes a problem if you have an ego…your ego is left with this simplistic serotonin driven being who only thinks it has conscious choices.”
Where did I say or give an indication of having a problem with what I wrote about Dawkins and the human created “god”? Again, I am in agreement with you Richard a human created “god” is no God at all. And Dawkins is right – he can be just as much in awe of a beautiful landscape and expereince the same experiential awe without having to atrribute that to God as someone say looks at a rainbow and reads that as an indication of God’s love. Awe is expereinced in both cases, releace od seretonin, snese of peace etc. Either I have not communicated that well or you have misunderstood me resulting in you thinking I have a problem with that.
I am curious as to what you are wanting to make out with the personal comments you make about me problem and ego. Are you trying to make it appear that I have an issue with my ego either explicitly or impicitly and therefore am conducting dialogue in some way that is demeaning to you or your sensibilities?
I have enjoyed our conversation so far wrestlign with some important issues, I think debated intelligently and engagingly. I would hate things to descend into personal comments that represent a slur on either of our character. I think we are both articulate thougthful and loving guys! Woudln’t it be a shame to descend int mud slinging about character?
Adams-Julians
When I use the term ego, that is based on the assumption that we all have one. It is a technical term, not a personal one.
The same with the term mythology. This is a neutral reference to all religious morality tales. The term is not intended to be a reference to the literal truth of same tale.
I did not mean the term ego to be a reference to your ego specifically or that having an ego is a bad thing.
I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have defined my terms more specifically.
Richard
In terms of the free will argument I would ask why god respects the free will of cruel people by not intervening? The suggestion of why bad things happen is because god respects free will. As you have pointed out, this doesn’t explain natural disasters or disease.
To clarify my position I would say that I don’t introduce things into my world view without evidence.
When I say that I have faith or trust that things will work out in specific instances in my own life, it is based on reason.
It makes no sense to pursue something if you don’t think it’s going to work out. In this case faith is the default position, because to not have it guarantees failure.
Anonymous@richard – I hope you can see how calling something “mythology” about anythign that someone else holds to by true same for “tales” can be put in the same context as fairy tales or leprachans as rhetoric in an attempt to discredit someone elses view of what is true. Amusing as it is, it doesn’t make one argument more convincing than another in the use of such terminology.
Taking that a step further and gettgin personal which no-theists often do Dawkins has described my freind David Robertson as a “thick as pig shit moronic retard” and “a nasty litttle Scottish prebyterina minister who isn’t even a proper clergyman”. As mentieond ealier Hitchings used similar rhetoric and personal comments about Kissenger to say “if he had an enema there woudn’t be enought of him left to fit into a machbox”.
So when you talk about your impression of me having a problem and then use the word “you” and ego” shortly after, though I now unserstand from what you say, you were meaning “you” generically, it can appear to be presonal. And combinging that with me and a problem, the most likely was of anyone undersatnding what you were articulating could be to make it personal to me. Again, as indicated, I didn’t have a problem I agreed with Dawkins and with what you said about a human created “god”.
Thak you for your clarification on what your intentions were in what you wrote. I hear and I take very serisoulty what you have said about being burned in the past. I hope you can accept that simlar has happened in my expreince for me from both religious and seccular corners of society and that we can continue to enjoy like discusssions on these importan subjects or ohter subjects in a spirit of mutual appreciation and respect.
Kind Regards
Adam
I can see how you would take the term mythology as a reference to fairy tales. The term myth is used in a much more serious way in the study of mythology as a guru. There is good evidence that many ancient cultures didn’t take their myths literally, but used the interactions within the tale to reveal a truth that couldn’t be explained in a linear way. What Rob Bell does is a perfect example of this way of teaching.
For example the story of Samson doesn’t have to be literally true to understand it’s exploration of the weakness of power alone. This is the draw of such literature as comics. Stan Lee has done an excellent job of giving his super heroes interesting flaws. Star Trek and Star Wars have these same types of mythic morality tales. In fact George Lucas studied Joseph Campbell and used the classic heroes journey to provide a frame work for Star Wars.
In technical terms ego is essential to have consciousness. What Richard Dawkins does is present a mechanistic and deterministic universe. This would be a universe without ego. I don’t believe in that type of universe because of the subjective experience of being alive. I understand his reasons for doing so. He is simply applying the tools of science to human experience and these tools are very good at discovering certain kinds of truths.
In many ways I agree with him, but I am more interested than he in exploring the subjective aspects of being human.
Anonymous@richard – “I would ask why god respects the free will of cruel people by not intervening?… As you have pointed out, this doesn’t explain natural disasters or disease.”
“god” as in lower case “g” is something of human creation, So “god” is a delision – a fary tale, a leprachaun a tooth fairy. So doesen’t exist, so doesn’t exsit to have respect or not have respect for free will for people to choose over good or cruelty including good or cruelty in you and I. As I say – pointing the finger at others cruely is often used as a distraction for thoes that wish to ppresent themselves to others as “good”. Again not everytgthin about me is good, somethings i hide from others and people who show love grace and mercy to me in spite of my fallibilities and warts are people who naturally I am inclined to love.
“To clarify my position I would say that I don’t introduce things into my world view without evidence.” OK and I take that to be in keeping with what you say about testing everything. A principle advocated in scripture.
“When I say that I have faith or trust that things will work out in specific instances in my own life, it is based on reason.” Good for you – I’m happy for you. For me whaen someone has said “have faith” it hasn’t worked out for me. Is it reasnable to have faith in a doctor – yup. And this would be one instance in whaich someone has said to have faith for me in someone that was difficult in my life. The doctor however turned out to be wrong. I see for you that having faith and trusting things will work out for you with reason has worde for you. Fro me taking that kind of approach with human reasoning, and faith that things will work out in the exmple I show didn’t work out. To be fair there are times when it has word out with taking that approach too. For the guy yu mentioned that got sliced by a boat propeller and said everythign was going to be OK benefitted in the moment in saying and believing that. But taking that approach doesn’t automatically mean things are going to be OK. And it is deluded to think everythign is going to be OK when is tisn’t which is often the case, even if there are benefits to being deluded in the here and now.
I think you are assuming that once I have placed my faith in a particular outcome I can’t change my mind as new information comes along. I am fully aware that things don’t work out the way I expect, but I have accepted that possibility. I intelligently reduce my risk as I find out more information. I don’t rely on faith alone. Faith is only one tool in the human experience.
I am very pragmatic. It makes little sense to me to grieve over things that don’t work out. I may indulge for a bit, but I would rather place my energy into learning from those experiences and trying something different.
Anonymousi hear what you are saying about mythology and ego. It seems to me that you are more researched and have greated knowledge than I do with these terms in the context in which you are using them. I would be more inclined to gain understaning fomr them in their common usage and would maintain ordinarility that myths are linked to fary tales not truth and ego is linked to say winning an argment over someone else or being demeaning to someone else or being self – centred in the common use of these terms.
I understand in a different context, perhaps an academinc contexts how these terms could have the mensings you describe.
Perhaps you are familiar with Derrider, his theories of desconstruction and language in the unreliablility of language and confusion resulting? It seems to me that our conversation gives an example of this. You are North Amercan? Well the word “fanny” might be in common use where you are. I’d recoomend if you ever come to the UK of thinking ver carefully before you use the worf “fanny” here ! LOL
some interesing poiens you make about Samason and heroes with flaws etc. I’ve always found people (heroes or otherwise) to be more beliveable if they have on or two flaws :). Love the way comics cut through the pretense and opression of those in power. Did you see the thread I started on comics and prophets? I love what Davivd does with making fun of pretentiousness and opressive power in his cartoons.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.