Ha Ha...she pooped!

>> ^gwiz665:
The reality is that relilgion is an outdated mechanism, which should have been rooted out long ago.


And, is that a scientifically verifiable fact? Or is it an opinion which is not provable, but should be believed nonetheless...like, oh, faith?

What a wonderful diatribe. But, could anyone please tell me actually how he defines these self-evident categories that he sets up? How does he understand "public religion?" And why is it juxtaposed with "personal faith?" What in the world would religion be if it was not public? Religion is social and it has found its inherent expression throughout histories and cultures precisely in public practices. It is, by its very nature, public.

The difficulty with his positions in this video is that he is blind to the limitations of his understanding of religion...probably b/c of his thoroughly modern mindset. Modernism and the rise of the individual has told us that beliefs are the core of religion and, therefore, are best seen as private or personal. And then, of course, any foray of religion into the public arena (however he would define it) is seen as overstepping its righful bounds and encroaching on others.

Both pre and post-modern understandings show us how limited this view is, and he would do well to do some more readings from centuries other than the 1900's. Religion and faith are best understood as rooted in practices and practices are always public. The real truth here is he has his own religion...and it is classic liberalism and it's patron saint...the Cartesian I.

Downvote for the annoying audience laugh and the "shaky cam" footage. Sheesh...

Now would you kindly change the title to this video?

*discard

Wow...what a blast from the past. I actually went to college with these two guys. Upvote for the personal touch (not a euphemism).