^ Agreed. On the one hand, the candidates need a big-picture individualism, stoicism, and acceptance that they're leaving all the people they love behind -- they need the ability to "disconnect" from that human companionship-- yet they also have to somehow get along with 3 strangers. To say nothing of the ability to not totally flip out when a chestburster pops out of one of them during dinner.

Seriously, what.

The fuck.

Incredible composure. Unparalleled stoicism.

*quality

I think his points are truer than we'd like to believe.
I mean, should we shoot every female duck for choosing her mate based on plumage? It's natural biology.
We could revert back to stoicism.

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

fair enough >> ^Gallowflak:

"Proud to be Atheist"? God. Stop acting like you're some persecuted minority. Even if you are, stoicism is a powerful thing.

"Proud to be Atheist"? God. Stop acting like you're some persecuted minority. Even if you are, stoicism is a powerful thing.

Christianity (Stoicism) = Only feel what the Bible says to feel. All else must be transcended not confronted.

BE HUMAN FOR CHRISTS SAKE!! Embrace all that is good and bad.

It sounds to me, gwiz665, as if your beef is not really with religion, but with malignant ideological authoritarianism. But this isn't a problem merely in religion. Communist China and the Russia are/were both atheist, and are both committed to the veracity of science, and yet their subjection to ideological authoritarianism has seriously set back scientific progress in both countries. Russia failed to study statistics after WWII, for instance, because it was perceived to be out of line with party ideology.

It has only been in areas of ideological tolerance--for both religious and scientific thought--that any major scientific advances have occurred in the last two hundred years. I believe your animus toward religion is misplaced. While religion has frequently been a transmitter of malignant authoritarianism, I would submit that this is not because of irrational elements within religion, but because of the widespread acceptance of religious thought. It was easier for authoritarian attitudes and ideas to spread through this medium as a result. If some other ideology becomes widespread, then it acts as the vector by which authoritarianism is spread. Communism acted as such a vector, as I noted, (Communism does not, in itself, mandate authoritarianism) as has nationalism in causing World Wars I and II.

Denouncing religion in favor of science will only render science itself subject to the same social and historical forces, thus perverting it and rendering far less effective.

In addition, your understanding of religion is, as I noted, extremely flawed. You do not seem to grasp the implication of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy." Here it is: Primarily orthopraxic religions do not have creeds. Thus, there are no creeds to submit to. Only a general sense of what moral principles to act on, and the performance of a few ritual acts. This leads to vast diversity in all areas of thought, including the ethical. (Compare Stoicism to Epicureanism to Cynicism sometime. Then remember that they arose from the same culture with the same religion.)

"Supernatural" elements do not always require faith. "Faith" does not always mean "unquestioning belief."

During the Dark Ages--classified by historians as the first half of the medieval period, roughly 476 to 1000--there was relatively little religiously motivated violence. There was plenty of violence of other kinds, but Christianity was used as a tool to abate it to some extent. (There are exceptions, of course. There was the beheading of remnants of paganism in the Eastern Roman Empire, the bloody persecution by Charlemagne of pagans in the Saxon Wars, and the persecution of Norwegian heathens by King Olaf I. Without these three elements, there's a substantial chance some pagan religions might have survived.)

In the second half of the medieval period, the Crusades were not motivated merely, or even mainly, by Christianity. The Western Crusaders marching on Jerusalem murdered Christians just as readily as they murdered Muslims and Jews. They killed because they had been trained for war since childhood. Though there was a rise in violence caused by religion as evidenced by the Albigensian Crusades, which were religiously motivated, and the Inquisition.

I think it's obvious to some extent that aspects of most religions are in there to control the populace. But the same can be said of government. Government is far more explicitly "control over individuals way of life, their income, and their thoughts." Religion, in contrast, has far more often been an agent of change and rebellion in various cultures. That's how Christianity and Islam started--though there were elements of authoritarianism from the beginning. From a less authoritarian perspective, one also has Protestant Christianity, Sikhism, Mormonism, the Quakers, the Shakers, modern pagan revivalism, the Nation of Islam, Rastafarianism, Druze, and many more. Each of these religions was created explicitly to rebel against the authority structure of the day.

You really don't seem to have studied "religion" very much, Gwiz, and yet you're awfully quick to condemn it. I would recommend a great deal more study before consigning such an integral aspect of human experience to the great dustbin of history.

Oh for shame Bill, cheating on Hillary already? So much for her experience and stoicism that inspired those to call for a write-in. A pretty, younger lady in rimless glasses comes along and you can't drop your trousers and salute fast enough. Your indiscretions do you dishonor good sir.