GRITtv-- Frank Schaeffer: Fears of Fundamentalism
By Heather Sunday Nov 08, 2009 7:00amFrom GRITtv:
In Max Blumenthal’s book Republican Gomorrah and in his GRITtv appearance, he introduced us to Francis Schaeffer, one of the important figures in the anti-choice and religious right movements in the United States. Frank Schaeffer, Francis’s son, wrote a book about growing up in the religious right, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back.
Schaeffer has a new book now, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism), and in it he takes on both the “incipient fascism” of the religious right and what he called “proselytizing” atheism of Richard Dawkins and others. He joins Laura on GRITtv for a fascinating interview about his own journey, and how people, religious or irreligious, are all looking for answers to the same questions.
Login or Register to post comments.
is alive and well that's obvious.
Is just mythology.
Believers are just willing dupes who try to work through their personal irrational fears by imposing irrational standards on others.
Kind of sounds like the wealthy clowns behind this Health Care Reform bill when you really think about it.
What a great post and comment! Schaeffer said, "The Repubs don't represent conservatives anymore...they are their own cult!"
Thank you for that information. I'll purchase books and DVD's from other sources from now on.
I have been following comments and interviews Frank Scaeffer has done over the past year and it is refreshing to hear a Republican analyze right and wrong in the framework of what this country stands for. Speak up against lies when you hear them no matter who tells them and start speaking to our better angels. This man has immense credibility in my eyes because he once was blind but now he sees! The Republican "Cult" party is the Anti-Christ party. They are for religion but against the teachings of Christ or anything that is decent and honest. This is America's defining moment and if you love this country and it's Constitution then you better start challenging these nut jobs or they will destroy us from within. I intend to buy Mr Schaeffer's book.
Schaeffer has a new book now, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism), and in it he takes on both the “incipient fascism” of the religious right and what he called “proselytizing” atheism of Richard Dawkins and others.
The difference of course is that Dawkins has reality on his side, while the Religious have fairy tales.
There is a difference between knowledge and belief.
I can look outside at the blue sky and say "The sky is blue". I don't need to believe the sky is blue - it simply is.
The Theory of Evolution requires no belief, any more than Newton's Theory of Gravity or Einstein's Theory of Relativity require belief or faith. They are modern technological discoveries about the natural universe, not some mumbo jumbo made up nonsense from ancient goat herders.
Dawkins' "Proselytizing" is simply him stating the obvious, constantly. For those who have already figured it out, or don't like having their fairy tales busted, it sounds like a broken record or "proselytizing", hence the reaction to Dawkins.
Schaeffer was on stronger ground when he kept his aim on the lunatics in the Republican Party.
"There is a difference between knowledge and belief."
But it take a little knowledge to know it.
:)
discovering things that already exist isn't it?
Science reveals so each discovery is just a better understanding of reality.
It's like saying Newton discovered gravity - he only observed gravity and defined it.
. .
Mass.
PERFECT!
The answer to the question "Who created gravity?" is the same as the answer to the question "Who created evolution?"
Science reveals the elegance of God's Creation.
What is this god? A being? An energy field? A machine?
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/181194/det...
If you travel at instant speed to cross one trillion light year distant from Earth you are still not 1/10th across the universe. Where did this god obtain the energy to create such a massive expanse? And with the expense of energy to create this massive production there is waste. Where is the waste that this god expended?
fantastic video, thank you
That was the point I was making. Your (well reasoned) comment is an entirely different discussion.
Neither of us knows "what came before". I'm open to new thinking on this.
A little further down is a comment by "Tom Servo", "Relgious fundies and athiests are 2 sides of the same coin" which might be worth a read.
Science and faith are not only incompatible they are diametrically opposed.
Science is either hypothetic theory or experimental proven reality. It is physical, measurable, visible/invisible, mathematically sound and ever developing.
Faith is whatever reality the individual creates. Faith is nebulous, dogma based,transmitted/learned by rote to be instilled through fear or promise of false reward and has absolutely no grounding in reality.
Or, really, Tom Servo's.
There is a certain amount of "Faith" in Science... In fact I've heard/read many Scientists discussing their ideas... most of them are theories... which are basically beliefs based on logical architecture leading to a logical conclusion.
As Science has proven over the millennia, these theories change and grow with each new discovery. Things that could only be described as magic become mathematical equations... but... in every Generation of Scientists, there are the ones who think that their reasoning is better than (fill in the blank).
Gravity was once thought to be something akin to centrical force... then most scientists said it was more related to mass... "Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity, in which gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects."
It's hubris to think one has "The" answer.
it evolved as a matter of physical evolution. Did you miss something called school by any chance?
This entire thread is evidence of why Dawkins' may be right, but his approach has been wrong. He seems to have toned it down a bit in his latest, thankfully. It isn't really even possible to have a reasoned debate when one side rejects the notion of reason as superior to faith and the other rejects faith as a form of mental illness. Under those circumstances, coming in guns blazing, even if they are blazing with facts, is pointless and counterproductive and liable only to cause more argument. I have to agree with Tom Servo on this. Preaching your belief system--either way--is annoying and ugly behavior.
"The difference of course is that Dawkins has reality on his side, while the Religious have fairy tales."
I'm not religious, and while I'll agree with you, I will concede that the many atheists and the radical religious fundies are the same when it comes to intollerance of the opposing view. They are 2 sides of the same coin..Both sides lack any respect for those on the opposing side to believe differently. Christian fundies insist atheists as being Hellbound, and atheists mock anyone who believes in a higher being...
Neither side will ever let the other side believe their beliefs without resorting to insults or ridicule..I'm not complaining about that fact of life, I'm stating it as a fact- My problem with the Christian right is that many of them prefer death to life, and want the 'end times' so they can be with Jesus. How can I respect that view?
What I don't understand is why atheists like Christopher Hitchens spends all his time talking about his atheism, to the point of preaching atheism. Is he still promoting his book? I get it Christopher, your an atheist. move on...I don't beleive in UFOs or space aliens, but I don't talk about that all day long....
He is starting to sound like some one who wants to believe in something..
preacher.
Rick Moranis is my favorite preacher! (of course I am a follower of ghoser)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjzZhTS_xa0
I mostly agree. The zeal with which some atheists try to cram their beliefs down everybody's throats is no less offensive than those with "religion" who try to cram their beliefs into everything else. Not believing in something that can't be proven strikes me being just as ridiculous as believing in it. Seems like a little tolerance would go a long way on both sides.
It would sure be nice if folks could just keep their dang beliefs to themselves, but no, we gotta go looking for an audience to justify our beliefs.
And here I thought the lack of wanting to impose a theocracy would leave atheists at least heads-and-shoulders above the competition. After all, how many man-made catastrophes were created in the name of atheism?
While assholes certainly exist in every walk of life, we typically don't hold those people against the larger group as a whole (otherwise, Americans would be screwed and their country not viewed as the best in the world right now). But this is not the case with atheism. Why is that? I think it's because a kneejerk reaction to the arguments, moral and otherwise, levelled by atheists has been made and popularized by defencive Christians and others who seek to create a meme--an urban legend--that atheists 'are just as bad,' so instead of looking at the valid arguments put forth that could help to take us out of these new dark ages, we are marginalized as big, smelly jerks instead.
There's a BIG difference in not wanting to impose a theocracy and not wanting anybody to believe in god(s). I'm bitching about atheists who *know* there's no god so nobody should believe in one/them. Period. To me, that's as intolerant as any fundie out there, xtian, muslim, or rasta, and just as unlikely.
I know this is a horrible stereotype, but I can only picture someone yelling, "Smoke your pot! SMOKE IT OR GO TO HELL!"
I know Rastafarians are a bit different than American stoners who are delighted they can call it a religion. I worked with someone from Grenda who had rasta friends, and it was interesting hearing about the real religion.
This reminds me of people who say, 'I support feminists, but not those femi-nazis who hate men.' In reality, the vast majority of feminists are not at all of this kind, but are misrepresented because there are interests at work who would very much like to see feminists marginalized. I feel the same way about atheists; an urban legend is created which says that atheists are dangerous and fanatical and it is believed by people who long to remain polite and who want to avoid upsetting people. I hate that.
Oh, I've heard stories of these 'mean atheists' who want to destroy your religion and shame you and make your life miserable, but I have yet to meet or see any of them. A couple of strongly-worded comments in an internet forum don't count for much, by the way. As it stands, the US would sooner elect a homsexual Jewish woman than an atheist. So until atheists are actually trampling religious freedoms, you won't mind if play the world's tiniest violin.
By the way, do you know why secular humanist groups aren't screaming about Wiccans or astrologists? It's because those people keep their religion in their homes and to themselves; they don't sell it at your front door, don't try to use it as a shield to remove science from classrooms or assault women's rights.
...is exactly what Schaeffer would like, i.e. people who don't try to convert others to their own beliefs and who keep their beliefs out of politics. If anyone thinks he is issuing a blanket condemnation of atheists, they haven't listened very carefully to what he said.
"By the way, do you know why secular humanist groups aren't screaming about Wiccans or astrologists? It's because those people keep their religion in their homes and to themselves;"
Yep. Actually, some of the atheists at work thought I was atheist for a while until I mentioned obligations for a prayer service at one of the equinoxes or solstices. Wiccans believe that, barring harming oneself or others, people gravitate to the set of beliefs they need at that point in their life. Wiccans believe that atheists simply are at a point in their soul's growth that they are focusing on things outside religion and spiritual development, and so they simply don't need religious beliefs at that point. Difference or lack of faith does not threaten or even concern us at all until someone starts to try and take the rights of others away. We think that trying to convert another, including atheists, is interfering in that soul's natural development, and so we think trying to convert or bring faith is wrong. As long as a person's faith, or lack thereof, is not used as an excuse to do wrong, we really don't care.
I should say that while I've had bad experiences with the "I hate x-tians!" atheists, that is a minority, just like the Christians and the evangelical fundie One True Christians (TM)(R)(C).
I like Wiccae primarily because it makes no demand of faith. Sometimes it's a curiosity, like the old image of an ape contemplating a human skull, sometimes it's a belief system to hold on to when you live in the buckle of the Bible Belt as I do, other times, it's more of a philosophy, that everything is there to be understood, and has it's own right to exist (when practical).
http://www.reclaiming.org/about/witchfaq/char...
Most versions state some form of, "For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am That which is attained at the end of desire."
Of course it's reminiscent of Jesus saying he was the Alpha and the Omega, but it's a good thing he didn't say the Alpha and the Beta, or it would sound like He works as a sacker at a grocery store.
However, the Charge of the Goddess doesn't say Her presence is conditional only if you've been naughty or nice.
And here I thought the lack of wanting to impose a theocracy would leave atheists at least heads-and-shoulders above the competition. After all, how many man-made catastrophes were created in the name of atheism?
Here's headline you never see: "Hundreds of innocent civilians killed as heavily armed atheists assault agnostic stronghold."
Sigh. Now this just irritates me. There are no "atheist beliefs." If you think there are then you really don't know what an atheist is. I wish people would learn...
ALL that being an atheist is is having a LACK of belief in any gods. That's. It. Nothing more. And for the record, promoting logic and reason and general humanity is not the same as trying to get everyone to worship some ancient bronze age desert god who cares what you do with your privates.
I do not LACK. I experience a sweet, cleanly absence.
irish spring
(and quite frankly, i think you are right, it is a sweet cleanly absence)
Yep...
I think religion should not be flaunted, but should also not be hidden. I think if it as just another part of life. It's no one else's concern, but it's also not something to be ashamed of. (I also belong to a non-missionising religion, so the thought of trying to convert someone is amazingly rude, and actually against my religion.)
I've been on the receiving end of rabid attacks by atheists. The usual pattern is usually to attack the inaccuracies in the Bible. I play along, as I'm actually reasonably well versed in the subject. They think they are converting me, but when I ask what that has to do with me, they get confused and a bit pissy. In my experience, most "fundamentalist atheists" are actually rabidly pissed at Christianity. They have no idea how to deal with someone who is religious but not Christian. A rather amusing and common transaction is:
A: Your religion says you have to eat the magic Jebzuz cookie to be saved!
Me: No, my religion says I have to recycle and be environmentally conscious so future generations, and my future incarnations, have a stable world.
A: But you have to have your sky friend save you so you get into heaven!
Me: No, I have to help make the world a better place so humanity can be better off.
A: But... Creationists!
Me: Are a blight that poisons education. Science helps us understand the world, and we have the responsibility to better our society with it.
A: But... the inquisition!
Me: I would have been burned. Yes, horrible thing. Two. Hundred. Years. Ago. It's time to start moving on.
A: But... Biblical inaccuracies!
Me: Faith delineated by dogma is not faith. That's conformity. Besides, not my book.
These atheists think that religion is and can only be fundamentalist Christianity. When I point out that my religion says I should recycle and compost, be well educated and support the sciences as well as arts, and take personal accountability... well, I've actually been told, "You're just stupid!" as the atheist left.
But it does nothing except for marginalize and trivialize concerns that decent, concerned Americans have regarding the direction your country is taking and the influence religion has on the discourse.
Actually, I wasn't attacking atheists. I'm wiccan, so I think trying to change another's set of beliefs (including lack thereof) is wrong. I was targeting the... "atheist fringe"? who, in my experience, are simply very angry at Christianity. I think that equating atheism with anti-christian sentiments is a stereotype, but it has fit a small number of their fringe. I have had a few people throw the "Jesus cookie" line at me, and the Biblical accuracy issues at me (I really enjoyed Dr. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" and "Lost Christianities", so I already know), and "salvation", which I personally also think is just a way to control the masses.
As a theist, I think that injecting religion into politics is a disaster. I think that "Intelligent Design" is a poison on the education system. (I have a degree in Geology, so I actually do understand evolution rather well.) I will also admit that the people who I usually find the strongest agreement over these things is the atheists, since (in my *personal* opinion and experience) Christians in the US are hesitant to stand up to or censure their own. I don't want the Christians to claim this country. They don't accept the fact that if they did, they would first purge the "others", and then would purge the "impure" within (many who claim a "christian nation" also claim Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians), and there would be a lot of blood shed. I also wouldn't want Wiccans in charge. Yes, we'd have a kick-ass environmental and pollution policy, but anyone who's been to a circle knows that the Pagans just *don't* get tings done. ;-)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I have no beef with atheists. My belief is mine, and no one else's. My issue is with the fringe who tries to simply blindly destroy another's religion, christian fundies and atheist fundies alike. Really, now, if you're going to go bible bashing to try to crush a *pagan's* belief... you're just being ignorant and annoying.
Mike
Where did I attack pagans? I accused you of using a strawman argument, and you being Wiccan has no bearing on whether or not my assertion is true.
I was simply pointing out that I'm a theist as well. The comment about trying to disprove the bible to crush a pagan's belief was a comment on those who's lack of faith extends to snuffing it in others. Every time an atheist has tried to "free" me, it's been attacks on the Bible or Christianity. Neither of those have any meaning to me, and simply show a bias on the attacker. It would be as futile as doing that to someone who is Hindu or Shinto. However, being Caucasian, I'm never assumed to be one of those.
I would imagine that most of the social issues you speak of we would agree on. I'm very pro environment and pro science. I think ID is intellectual poison, and people who want war in the Middle East scare me.
I think the next commenter put it right. The issue is that there are belligerent a$$holes all around. The christian fundies, well, we all know them. The atheist "fundies", in my experience, as I've said, seem to just be anti-Christian and angry. As a Pagan, we've got two kinds. Type A is the poorly educated teenager who wants to be a Satanist who reads books on Wicca because his/her fundie parents say witchcraft is Satanism and "wicca" books are easier to find at the mall. Type B is... well, just weird as all hell. The freaks who think they are ancient Atlantian wizards who can level a city with fireballs seem to love modern paganism. They're like the christian psycho fundie, but... weirder.
a rude person asking inappropriate questions at an inappropriate time, and actually, not really asking questions, but making brash statements?
i have had the same interaction simply for ordering a vegan burger, i just want to eat the darn burger.
I've had that interaction by backing into a parking space. Not near the person, mind you. He was just distraught that I would back into a spot.
Where I work, I've had people ask about the veggie burgers when I ordered them, but never be rude. I stopped ordering them when we got a new brand that contains cheddar. I don't order those. Cheddar does evil things to me that makes Baby Elvis up in Heaven cry. I still like Bocca Burgers, though.
"Christian fundies insist atheists as being Hellbound, and atheists mock anyone who believes in a higher being...
Neither side will ever let the other side believe their beliefs without resorting to insults or ridicule..I'm not complaining about that fact of life, I'm stating it as a fact-"
Sorry but that's not the case. Atheists object to religious beliefs because in this country they are imposed upon everyone through the legislative process, the court decisions, and national and internatiuonal policy. Atheists have no problem with people believing (or not) anything they wish. The objection is to imposing those beliefs upon others who do not share them. religious fundies are fascists who want to take choice out of the equation.
...you said it very well.
It's the false equivalence of believers/atheists that frustrates me. Despite the lies, atheists simply wish that believers would keep their religion, and the consequences of it, from impacting our lives. It's a bit like smoking, if you can do it without killing me, or driving my healthcare costs up, knock yourself out, it's your life.
But I do reserve the right to point out that it's stupid.
I'm going to call bullshit on this idea that the "new atheists" are fundamentalists. Which new atheist has used violence to spread their message? Which new atheist has tried to use intolerance and bigotry to single out minority groups?
The only thing new atheists have done is "come out of the closet" and dare to speak, out loud, about their thoughts.
It seems like many religious people have a problem with that.
It still doesn't mean the "new atheists" are fundamentalists. In a world where religious zealots pull off something like 9/11, or a systemic cover-up of child rape, I'd say it's high time for atheists to speak up for rational thinking.
The villains were members of an atheist terrorist group! Silly fun.
...Drunk drivers used to avoid accountability accordingly, because after all... They were Drunk! Do you believe [MADD] is uncalled for?
I hope Daniel C. Dennett is correct, in his theory "that freedom evolves", in his book by the same name.
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)
"man is the only animal who eats when they are not hungry, drinks when they are not thirsty"
Evet, I would add "kills when they are not threatened"
Good line.
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself."
Sir Richard Francis Burton (1821 - 1890)
Please guide me so I may permanently possess a large Mercedes, several large homes, boats, large TV's, a fat bank account, and economic advantage over the lessor . .. amen
It's called prosperity gospel 'cause if you're born rich white and greedy . . .
Watching the elder Schaeffer's film series How Shall I Then Live? which laid down the party line on fundamentalist thought in the Seventies. Well, sort of - I made the mistake of questioning various tenets of the Evangelical Presbyterianism my church was affiliated with, and after my car was vandalized for the second time and I was bluntly informed by the youth pastor that I was going to hell, I became a Recovering Presbyterian.
For the rest, I quote William Durant: "Protestantism is the triumph of Paul over Peter; Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
Difference being Atheist aren't trying to use their lack of beliefs in imaginary friends as justification to keep straight Christians from getting married.
Apples and Oranges.
We are in the middle of a perfect storm. We have a financial crisis, the first black president, the innuendo since the campaign that he is "the other", lies, about guns and FEMA camps. Rising unemployment, foreclosures, the disparity in incomes, the immigration issue, and states increasing taxes and reducing services are all making people fearful and insecure. Talk radio, cable and a press corps, that is lazy and owned by the corporate kings, and the Republican right, working since the 70's, are on top.
What we have to realize that this is by design. The House, Senate, Pentagon, Justice and State departments are loaded with "Christian nationalist". The CEO's and Board of Directors in RW think tanks are loaded with Dominionists, Revisionists, and biblical capitalists. Goldman Sachs CEO yesterday, admitted he is doing God's work. Look up any of these isms--they will scare the hell out of you.
It is no mistake that children are home schooled, that we are in two wars with Muslim’s, no mistake that Congress handed Wall Street billions, no mistake that military reports are leaked to the press, no mistake that incomes are stagnant, no mistake that union membership is dwindling, no mistake that ACORN and the SEIU are now targets.
It is no mistake that abortion is the issue in health care, no mistake that the that the only social agenda they support is abstinence, school prayer, corporate personhood, military dominance, traditional marriage, low taxes for the rich--for of course they are the "new chosen" people of god, destined to govern this country by biblical law.
Kingdom Coming by Michele Goldberg, The Theocons by Damon Linker, Idiot America by Charles Pierce, The Family, by Jeff Schalet, and Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein all outline this endeavor.
...merit. √
"I'm Doing God's Work"
That alone should be enough incentive for people to storm the Bastille.
having read a lot of the Philosophers and Critical thinkers presented in Christopher Hitchens puts in his book the Portable Atheist. Looks Mr. Scheaffer is or sounds scared because of his loss of the fundie right. He is a Christian he CAN NOT be trusted.
The proof is in his addressing Mr. Hitchens, Atheist believe.
Why do the fundies think it is so important to embrace a book of fairy tales, fall shaking and begging for forgiveness from some imaginary deity.
Then be persecuted pointed out and shouted at because I do not embrace the make believe god or homophobia jesus I am to be hunted down and cast out, and the religious right sees nothing wrong with this.
My choice is the banishment of any and all religions and if they speak of it to me without my consent it should be a mandatory prison sentence of 20 years and a automatic fine of $500,000 dollars. This applies to all religions especially the Hate Monger, Fear Monger and Insipid christian.
...the constitution.
I would change it from "freedom of religion" ...to
"freedom of (and from) religion"...
Could freedom "of" religion be not interpreted the same way? As in, "I am now free of cancer"
freedom of (and from) religion...
...then the "born again people" ...wouldnt be able to knock on your door and try to give you pamphlets and minibibles...
They would be prevented by law!
if not freedom FROM something? Something that is not freedom.
LOL
This sticks with me...but we were instructed that to die for our Catholic faith was a key to eternal happiness in heaven. Converting the unknowing...the other faiths that were all misguided. To even question our own faith was damnable.
Religion is a curse on this earth. I am still Catholic, but I have my own faith, and it is a far cry from what I was taught as a youth.
All the brave missionaries converting all the "heathens" in Africa, Central and South America were just doing "God's work".
For awhile, I though that the "missionary position" meant that you first tried to convert, then kill, your partner before sex...
There were arguments that the Primitive Church, before Constantine, was all about martyrology. They called it achieving the Crown.
I forget which Roman emperor said this, either Diocletian or Julian, or perhaps even a writer, but what he said was in the nature of a complaint for Christians creating trouble for the Empire, because they were so desirous for death, "Have they no ropes of their own or cliffs to jump from?"
George Carlin
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
George Carlin
.
Is that if you're good or bad?
.
Why is it I am so thrilled when I hear some person on the media channels that speaks reason and sane perspectives on issues that have been so f*cking twisted and used to make this whole world seem crazy and lost? Because it is RARE!!
He hits it on the head. There are NO two points of view to a lie. A lie is a lie. It is bull shit and deserves NO coverage. I'm not talking about "points of view on theory or ideology". I'm talking about f*cking lies. President Obama wasn't born in the US? Obama wants to destroy America? All this bull shit that we actually listen to DEBATE about? Get serious America. Our MSM is doing us all a disservice.
The low mental ability populace is actually taking sides with lies and twisted truths to the point that these known falacies are becoming "reason" for their beliefs. Such nonsense.
We are going to teach creationism in schools.....fine. We also should be teaching folk tales and even fairy tales I suppose. But to "teach" our society that all opinions are worthy of consideration is absolute nonsense when much of it are proven LIES.
Wake up America. Don't allow yourself to be dumbed down to the level of a rock. We are an embarrassment to the world. A once great nation, now with a large segment of our population totally irrational.
...without fox propaganda network. Truer words were never spoken. This needs to be repeated over and over and over again!! Brilliant statement.
This is where we have stooped. We take nutballs like beck and limpballs and with the fuel of airwaves, we have turned these raving lunatics into cult leaders. Sad day for America.
"How to live to 225 years old or longer in 10 easy steps!"
Only $19.95 with S+H
...he seems to group atheists and Christians together, as though both are just silly people who have missed the mark (at least, if what has been written in the above post is an accurate representation of the man's worldview). I find that terribly disingenuous and part of a larger effort to marginalize secular concerns.
To me atheism and fundamentalism are essentially flip-sides of the same coin; people so sure they're right and everyone is so wrong.
To me agnosticism seems closer to the mark, as it matches to one of my favorite quotes, "Je nais se quois?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w36iYgU2zus
Also Aristotle had a point in his ongoing debate with Protogoras of Abdera, a Cynic philosopher who believed Truth was relative and experiential, that how can one debate such a point, without the object of convincing others that it is true (since that is the nature of debate); but if it's different for all, than maybe the his view wasn't true for all either.
Protogoras thought that was an admission that he was right.
However, Aristotle had the tendency to theopormorphize (if I may coin a phrase on the fly), Truth into something objective and out there waiting to be discovered.
(a)theism is a statment of belief (or lack thereof)
(a)gnostiicism is a statment about knowledge (or lack thereof)
These terms are not mutually exclusive. People are both agnostic and theist. People are both atheist and agnostic. Etc.
Anyone who suggests atheists are the 'flip side' to fundameneltalists is simply wrong. It's like saying "not collecting stamps is a hobby" or "bald is a hair color".
You think I never heard of the Jeffersonian Bible?
The gadfly in your definition is fundamentalism, which is what Francis Schaeffer was writing about.
Fundamentalism is a human characteristic that can fall into any number of disciplines. People tend to equate it with Low Churches, but High Churches have done so too. The Roman Catholic Church had their Index Prohibitorum Librorum until the Second Vatican Council of 1966. The very people that Darwin was most concerned with was his fellow Anglicans (although he eventually become something of an atheist). There are people who would argue for a certain school of economics as though their very life depended on it.
Even science is not immune. That was probably one of the reasons, along with ambition, that preserved the Piltdown Man hoax from something like 1912 to 1950.
You overstate the "hoax" and mistakenly attribute to science. Anyway compare that to 2000+ years of christianity's hoax. Where it's been so ingrained into culture (and especially here in the US) that to even suggest christianity isn't "truth" is seen as an intolerant attack on people.
Anyway science is the method by which we separate good ideas from bad ideas. Science is nothing like fundamentalism. If anything science is the exact opposite of such thinking. Science is an open work in progress, always updating and changing according to the newest evidence and knowledge. Again compare this to religion which more often than not fights against progress in favor of dogma.
Bottomline line that, for me, it's not about religion vs atheism. It's reason vs dogma. Atheists usually side with reason (of course not always since as you rightly posted there are other things to be dogmatic about, other than religion) and religionists usually side with dogma.
RL is going on here so my apologies if I make little sense.
You missed the point entirely, I was blaming fundamentalism thinking as creeping into science, and also raw ambition, with the Piltdown Man hoax.
That's why I argued that fundamentalism is a human characteristic, not a scientific one, however, scientists are human, with the same flaws as the rest of us, not plaster saints.
You also don't detract from one's head of a scientific institution if one wanted to advance at that time.
But starting around the 1950's scientists stopped saying, because I can't prove it, it doesn't exist, but instead say, as of right now it is improvable, or simply, the available evidence doesn't support it.
But from about 1850 to about 1950, science would say that initial statement.
But you're right, dogma may be a better term.
But the separation of good ideas from bad ideas is the process of ratiocination, of which science plays its part by attempting to provide explanations based on observable data and the scientific method. And one important feature of rationality is building on the available evidence, but always mindful that you're evidence may not be complete.
That's where theology tends to branch off, if you can't prove your dogmas you simply have faith in them. And change will come slowly if at all.
Now you see why I prefer the brevity of links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1sYgknWGSA
deny the existence of certain super-beings currently being worshiped, or do we still have to allow for their probable existence simply because someone says it might be so
How dare people challenge the superstitious beliefs that, even now, hold back scientific progress and infringe upon human rights (and I'm speaking only of the United States, here). What arrogance to suggest that a minority of religious fanatics shouldn't be able to dictate United States policy, that perhaps we should look to reason and define our morality in a more-inclusive and humanist fashion!
Lumping atheism (a lack of religious belief) into the same pot as fundamentalism is not only historically ignorant, but I think cowardly as well. In my experience, most 'agnostics' are just people afraid of ruffling feathers (after all, no one is better at feigning outrage than religious nuts). And I don't spend my time shouting down religious individuals, as that would pit me against my own friends and family members. I am a tolerant individual, but I won't stop voicing how I feel when prompted out of fear of being reprimanded by those who are intolerant or who will assume me to be an asshole just because I think that your God is fictional.
It's that sense of certainty, and an almost missionary zeal to convince everyone that your assumptions are correct, and could solve all social ills, and if they refuse your argument, that there's something wrong with them, that I suspect.
I think you may be projecting a little.
I also find it interesting that the one time someone is chastised for being confident in one's beliefs is when it comes to not believing in God. In everything else (and this includes religion), a certain amount of conviction is expected - but when it comes to atheism, they're viewed as inherently arrogant and therefore dangerous should they seem certain of the fact that, no, there's no bearded, patriarchal white dude in the sky who will smite you if you don't pay him an appropriate amount of lip service.
Well I certainly wouldn't be discussing it all day if I didn't feel confidence in my belief, so projections is always possible.
But my preference is atheism discussed on it's own merits without denigrating the views of others.
The conviction of dogma you refer to is faith, which is anathema in science which prefers to prove, or at least get results that are replicable and verifiable.
However, I wish someone like Richard Dawkins would do an annotated version of The Origins of Species and The Descent of Man. Darwin slips back and forth between English, Latin, French and German, provides no translation, and uses the names of taxonomy in species and genera, that even when I tried to search for their definitions online, none was provided.
However, I'm not into bearded old white dudes, here's my preference:
http://proseandletters.com/BlogImages/DianaEp...
And I've heard it argued those were all pomegranates...
...Yeah...right...
Notes: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn Ōsis,“knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”;
hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals —“ists,” as he called them —who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
--Albert Einstein
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me down to lie, Through pastures green, He leadeth me the silent waters by. With bright knives, He releaseth my soul. He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places. He converteth me to lamb cutlets.
For lo! He hath great power and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones, Through quiet reflection and great dedication, Master the art of karate, Lo! we shall rise up And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water."
Sometimes I wonder if SETI is really more about finding God
Or at least angels.
I also have the same question about any attempt at a Unified Field Theory.
I bet we look like gods to ants. I suspect beings that are further up the food chain than us might very well appear god-like. Wouldn't it be funny if "God" was just a space tourist, effing with an anthill s/he found in her/his travels?
No we don't. Ants do not know we exist. In my view, most animals that are aware of humans simply think that we are them since they do not recognize themselves by their reflection.
into food source, threat, or neutral. And in the case of domestic animals such as dogs and cats, "friend", both as source of food and reassurance.
Nonsense. You ever try to step on one? Or a spider? They know we exist, it's just that most of the time we don't matter to them. Just like gods.
That why ever since I was 15 I thought the Good Shepherd was an odd analogy, besides it's Osirian connotation, which I wasn't aware of at the time.
Because to me it seemed, the sheep were destined for someone's supper plate, either sold to someone by the shepherd, or the shepherd's own plate. That's why I related more to the wolf, who might also get a shot at a mutton supper.
That when we need leaders they appear. Barak Obama is one of those leaders I believe. He's in a bramble of thorns right now that he has to clear with the help of those behind him. I believe as Frank Schaeffer that we have to give him time.
Also, though I am saddened that he didn't follow his passion yearly in life, his education in life has become our guidance now. He has such humanity and such understanding of this issue, not just religion, but the power behind religion and atheism. This issue is about power and those that use it to their own means. He more than anyone has the ability to cast back the curtain and show the world the real purpose behind it all.
Not only that, but is showing to the average person the danger of this insanity. The republican party has lost it's value. It doesn't exist anymore. It has become possessed by a leadership that is making it dance as if it were a marionette. There is no constructive element to the party. It is wood with no soul.
Not sure what the %$#@! Schaeffer means by that statement. Is he placating to the crazies the possibility that a cloud being creator could actually exist? Is he saying that atheists, who base their reasoning on rational thinking, common sense, scientific method, truth and logic could be barking up the wrong tree?
Schaeffer is saying that we can't be sure of any system of beliefs. That includes atheism. Atheists choose to believe that no higher consciousness exists beyond the human. That would be a rejection of evolution, since it assumes that human perception is currently capable of embracing all there is to know in the Universe, that there will be no further evolution of consciousness and perception. That position seems arrogant to me. I don't belong to any organized religion. I consider myself an agnostic theist. But I've also experienced the wrath and scorn of atheists that others here have described. Schaeffer is right. The rigidity and lack of tolerance is the same as that of fundamentalist Christians. I have no problem with anyone who choses atheism, but I do have a problem with how some of them treat others.
"Atheists choose to believe that no higher consciousness exists beyond the human."
atheists:
1. One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
"There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy."
--Jacob Bronowski (1908-1974),
until everyone keeps adding more and more nonsense that it appears to be some sort of far reaching religious dogma
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
...
*headdesk*
Once again, Atheism. Is. Not. A. System. Of. Beliefs.
It is the LACK of ONE belief. That's all it is. It's false to even call it an "-ism." It's more like the ABSENCE of one. And atheism does not require 'rigidly' disbelieving in god claims. And 'lack of tolerance' only applies if you try to make laws that discriminate against other people for their beliefs or lack thereof. No atheist who's worth the time talking to would ever support that.
Atheism is a belief, like not collecting stamps is a hobby. :)
Sun, 11/08/2009 - 10:50 — xagzan
_____________________________________________________________
That's only arguing that it's not an organized religion.
Taoism is a religion without any gods.
Buddhism doesn't really admit to any Gods either, but to enlightenment (but there are various sects).
The same can be said about Vedanta.
The current idea too is that the German Scientists of the first half of the 20th century fully went along with the Nazi's racial theories, and attempted to prove them with measurements of peoples heads, particularly ears and noses to prove whether they were "Aryans" or not, in a manner that suggested phrenology a hundred years after it's vogue.
Even now you see some vestigials of such theories when brain structure and genetics are utilized in ascribing criminal behavior.
Yes, science inevitably leads to Nazism. Do you even realize that you're repeating talking-points used by the religious right? By people like Ben Stein in his film Expelled?
I think you need to pick up The God Delusion and at least give it a fair shake before you use arguments that have been refuted time and again.
The only one arguing inevitability is yourself.
That is utilizing an Argumentum ad Reductio.
Whereas I may be using the so called Godwin theory, but the point is under debate by historians, who like scientists, try to deal with facts, although it's human nature to try to color those facts with one's own experiences.
But one has to be cautious of human nature getting in the way of scientific research, which the Germans did.
America also had a eugenics program in the early 20th century, sterilizing the retarded and the insane, and the English definitely believed they were the pinnacle of human civilization during their Victorian era, whether they accepted evolution or not.
I'm familiar with Richard Dawkins work, and his main point of contention is non-experts trying to insert themselves into science with claims of a rival "theory" to evolution, geography, astrology etc, which as you see I am not doing.
And right now I'm working my way through The Art of War, War is a Racket, The Audacity of Greed, and Armegeddon 2419 AD.
...Buddha (born Siddhartha Gautama c. 623-- 543 B.C.E.), Indian spiritual teacher. Following a midlife crisis, became Buddha at age 35, having already accumulated enough dharma and karma points (and having sat under a tree and vowed not to arise until he had found the Truth). May have been an avatar or incarnation of Lord Vishnu. But without DNA testing...
That's probably from one of the schools I referred to, but I don't believe (so to speak), Buddha himself ever claimed to be an incarnation of anyone.
It's like some Hare Krishnas will argue whether Krishna was an incarnation of Brahma or Vishnu, or Brahma and Vishnu were incarnations of Krishna.
But some keep out of the discussion all together by claiming that such discussions are all a part of Maya.
...Your a Powerhouse. ♥
Sigh. No, yet again. It should be obvious why atheism is not an organized religion. That's why I didn't waste my time pointing that out. I explained why it is not a belief in and of itself. That's the fact.
Unless one is all-knowing one doesn't know what is just a belief and what is a fact
And if one is all-knowing they're either certifiable or God
The very thing they say they don't believe.
It's a 'fact' insofar as that's how the majority of atheists define themselves as to their (lack of) belief. And unless you're also an atheist, you really have no right to say "no, you can't define yourselves like that."
You're presuming the right to define theists, even though by your own admission you're not a theist.
Just a single one...that there is no God, or Higher Intelligence. You can bang your head and assert that it isn't a belief all you want to. That doesn't change the fact that it is a belief...and a denial of the evolution of consciousness. And "lack of tolerance" applies to many things. Not just discriminatory laws. It can show up in one on one dealings with people. I respect your right to believe that there is/are no God/gods, but at least admit that it's a belief. Although if you do admit that, it would probably make you an agnostic atheist.
"I respect your right to believe that there is/are no God/gods, but at least admit that it's a belief"
-------------------------------------
"agnostic atheist" atheist are very much like agnostics... they just take it (1) one step further. ;)
As you may have heard... calling atheism a belief, is like calling "bald a hair-color" :P
No, no, bloody no. Atheism = lack of belief in god. For at least the third time today, That's. It.
What YOU described is "strong" or "hard" atheism, where people not only lack the belief in a god, they actively claim to "know" (not absolutely but strongly) that there is no god. There is a subtle difference between these two things and I'm sorry if you cannot grasp it. But being an atheist, without any extra labels, simply means you lack belief. And this describes a large number of atheists, though not necessarily me. And there's really nothing wrong claiming to "know" there's no god. I "know" there's no such thing as Santa Claus or fairies, because there is simply not even a shred of evidence for them and mountains of evidence against them. Not to mention they defy common sense.
All these equally apply to gods.
Can you prove ysbaddaden exists?
And if you can't
Does that mean ysbaddaden doesn't?
It's not about proof. This isn't math. It's about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you think courts operate in that way? Because it works.
But yes, I do believe you exist. There is obviously someone with the screename ysbaddaden who has typed the message I am replying to. That is pretty good evidence that their is someone with such a username. If someone with a different username had typed your message, than I wouldn't have any evidence for or reason to believe their was a person with the username ysbaddaden. And since I find it very unlikely that you are some sort of genius, self-aware supercomputer, the 'entity' with your username is almost definitely a person. A person who is you, who exists.
It's not law either, although you're using the test for a criminal charge.
And how do you know ysbaddaden's not a shared computer, so any number of people could be signing on with the name, but the IP stays the same?
Kind of like Franklin W Dixon or Caroline Keene.
I don't know that. I certainly don't have any evidence for it though. Your suggesting it doesn't count. Thankfully I don't much care how many people you are.
That's not refuting it's a possibility.
Interesting how fundamentalist theists, and fundamentalist atheists are among the few that won't acknowledge their basing their knowledge and decisions on areas where they may still have a lack of evidence.
Even when one decides on the availability of evidence, or upon it's preponderance, is to infer that there is an acknowledgement that there may be more evidence out there they simply do not have at present.
and what evidence has been presented?
and how would one even know to proclaim this entity as a god or creator? maybe it would be better named as a "life force"--is that a god, a creator? maybe we should not even be talking of God, god, or gods and just refer to it as "It". is It now a god, or just another man-made construct for an agnostic to consider might exist. maybe God exists only in sophistry.
i am luis stoole.
if an entity is born of one mind, or a collective, it is still just a concept.
it is not something that exists outside of thought, even if it is dressed up on paper as the image of a pipe smoking family man named bob. the only influence that entity would have is if those with a belief in this entity make it happen; the individual or individuals "give life" to the lifeless. it is an illusion, and to ask for proving its existence is really just asking for a word muck on what is existence, maybe along the lines of "is a corporation a living person".
According to some theorists all reality as we know it is a construct. I have read in quantum mechanics that we are all just bubbles of energy, some portions of us perhaps moving slower than others and thereby becoming more denser, as per E=MC2.
However, that leads to dubious New Age claims, and sounds reminiscent of the anathematized teachings of Origines Adamantius.
So we're all constructs trying to define other constructs, and disparaging other constructs as just being constructs as per the Cartesian, "Cogito, ergo sum."
and some are just constructs of human design
"Schaeffer is saying that we can't be sure of any system of beliefs."
The alternative is hihilism. In the interim, the rest of us shall try to create a guiding ideological system... and I can't think of a better one than secular humanism, can you?
I know that the turning of the tide can be a frightening thing, but it's high time that we accept that the world is turning and that better ways of living are being discovered.
Atheism is simply accepting and working with what we have proven; no more, no less. Atheism isn't anti-religion, it is simply a lack of religious conviction. If evidence for God or a god presents itself, it will be via science - the same science many believe is at war with religion. It is not. Atheism states that we don't know a heck of a lot about the universe; thus, we ought to work with what we do know in the meantime. How is that arrogant? Religion presupposed answers to the biggest, most complicated questions, using fantastical stories that can't be proven and certainly sound dubious. Maybe you're fighting the wrong people.
I like hihilism
It gets more yucks than nihilism
Or a car crash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_D6nxAa7rA
You responded before I could fix my typo!
I think at this point I'll leave it, mostly because it's far more entertaining to do so.
Damn your eyes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD_nkqY6rSk
Shaeffer wrote a scree against atheists over at alternet the other day.
That he can get it so wrong regarding atheists makes me question his opinions on other things. Granted since he's never been an atheist maybe he's just blowing smoke. Anyway thumbs down to alienating a chunk of your "fans".
I'm glad others have noticed.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/fr...
Schaeffer is definitely in conflict with himself.
.
[Anyway thumbs down to alienating a chunk of your "fans".]
>>>Posted by: Sastra | November 5, 2009 12:51 PM
Schaeffer seems to ignore the rationale behind the merchandising: atheists need to become more visible and vocal in our culture, because it's otherwise too easy to consider them a negligible lunatic fringe, and remain convinced that it's absurd to not believe in God. No, wearing a t-shirt does not automatically make you into a militant.<<<
>>>Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | November 5, 2009 12:31 PM
I love the comment that someone wrote in response:
"It always amazes me that after centuries in which organized religion monopolized the debate, as soon as a handful of authors succeed in getting a word in edgewise, there is a wildly disproportionate backlash against them, from moderates like Schaeffer as much as from Neanderthal troglodytes like Bill O'Donohue.<<<
>>>Posted by: Rey Fox | November 5, 2009 12:36 PM
We've seen it time and time again: A "fundamentalist atheist" is one who talks about atheism. Out loud.
In other words, meekness and restraint gets you nowhere.<<<
This framing is incorrect. I am not looking for the same answers as religious people. Accommodationists like Schaeffer are free to speak for themselves, but please leave me out of it! Acceptance is the peace of death.
Death doesn't care if you accept it or not
It's the ultimate party crasher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAru3aPelCY
...at The Providence Performing Arts Center. We enjoyed the rendition. ;-)
slur, "fundamentalist atheist", when calling for more civil discourse.
good points being made - different beleifs can produce lone wolf and/or organized terrorism? would think so.
bible says you cannot worship god and mammon, how many times have we heard the expression, the almighty dollar?
maybe people can worship other things than an imaginary god?
like themselves?
a financial system?
true beleivers will tell you faith is the evidence of things not yet seen, not much of a circular argument.
but then you have unemployed people, people who work,work,work - to pay interest on a loan - or make slave wages in china.
but just ask the free market gurus? you must not be looking at it right.
must be careful who you criticize though, you could be insulting someones religion?
then you have millions and millions of women walking around in burqas lest the morality police come beat them with sticks, contrasted with gay marriage, the right to choose, and supposed trillion $ deficits.
geez, would there maybe be a rational way to deal with things?
not while people can,t see things as they are, and not with a vision clouded by beleifs which are unprovable.
they say it takes all kinds to make a world, looks like the great divide, or more like a yawning gulf.
Thank you.
Is GritTV a cable service, that if you sell enough packages, you win a lot of great crap?
In just one species, our species, a new trick evolved: language. It has provided us a broad highway of knowledge-sharing, on every topic. Conversation unites us, in spite of our different languages. We can all know quite a lot about what it is like to be a Vietnamese fisherman or a Bulgarian taxi driver, an eighty-year-old nun or a five-year-old boy blind from birth, a chess master or a prostitute. No matter how different from one another we people are, scattered around the globe, we can explore our differences and communicate about them. No matter how similar to one another bison are, standing shoulder to shoulder in a herd, they cannot know much of anything about their similarities, let alone their differences, because they can't compare notes. They can have similar experiences, side by side, but they really can't share experiences the way we do.
Religion Vs Atheism - Daniel Dennett on CCTV "Highlights" (9:46)
Login or Register to post comments.