yayyyyyy God

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Will our Political leaders have more of a sense of God/the divine in their lives and policies?

Isn't that kind of the problem? There are a terrific number of political leaders who work with a very reductionist view of God/the divine, who have been making all sorts of (imo) horrible decisions predicated on that (did you see Rumsfeld's Iraq briefing slideshow, to take an extreme example?)

[Birdy]

Me too.

If there were a way to open up dialogue with some of these people to convince them to live and let live... that their god, whatever god, whosever god was the creator of all of this, their religious colleagues, their rival religions, the blue sky and the green grass, fall, winter, spring and summer - and that in being the creator of it, willed it so and therefore, live and let live, that's the only kind of message i'd want to put out there.

Where i think we continually wind up frustrated is when we try to reason with the unreasonable and as a result denounce religion in its entirety because of its intangibility. And in doing so participate in the same kinds of things we accuse religions of - lack of understanding, hostility towards each other, closed-mindedness.

It's why I continually pop up in these threads lashing out against secularism because I struggle with the idea of how to teach a 'live and let live' mentality to everyone, atheists, nihilists, and agnostics included. To this date, even after the countless replies on this board, i still believe the only way to get such a message across is to have some kind of religious representation somewhere... anywhere. It's really not going to end the world if some buddhist monk addressed parliament one day, I promise. It does have the potential to create a broader acceptance of one another. And while I really have taken what others have said to me on this board in consideration, i'm back... saying the same thing. If it comes down to offending the masses, well... the masses need to be offended.

[SaggyBalls]

No Dave, it's nothing to do with God, but with religious or political dogma. If they really had a sense of God they wouldn't have people killed for oil or power.

"Where i think we continually wind up frustrated is when we try to reason with the unreasonable and as a result denounce religion in its entirety because of its intangibility. And in doing so participate in the same kinds of things we accuse religions of - lack of understanding, hostility towards each other, closed-mindedness. "

You're definitely not alone there, Birdy.

Secularism is one of the things that has been of huge detriment to the Developed world. Separation of CHURCH and state, yes - but not with the separation of Man and God. That happens all too often.

The realization of a 'higher power' - be it Vishnu, Christ, metaphysics, or something else is one of the most powerful realizations that (although should be unnecessary) society will wind up having.

The 'oh yeah...how come we didn't catch onto this before' moment: Our kids' kids will probably have that.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Sure, but I'll stick to my point that as soon as you use the word "God" you're going to get mired in religious and political doctrine, partly because that's a central foundation of organised religion (which is how we learn the stories, myths, etc.), partly because people come with different experience.

As far as secularism goes, I'm with you when it's the shallow sort that thinks that poetry, myth, etc., can be written off as somehow irrelevant, but do see the need for it in terms of the separation of powers which really got underway through the last couple hundred years that we call modernity. I don't want that guy with the pointy hat telling me how to think and act, even if some people still do.

I keep coming back to Armstrong on this - mythos and logos are two complementary ways of thinking, and any exclusive reliance on one over the other impoverishes both.

I mean, otherwise I fully agree - we do need something of the religious in private and public life, but trying to ever pin that down with any consistency could just be impossible. I used to be involved in groups that tried getting World Religions courses better taught in schools, and there's a staggering amount of resistance to that, from religious and secular people alike. I've always wanted to tease out the reasons for that.

[SaggyBalls]

I don't want some guy in a pointy hat to tell me how to think and act either. That's the aim with the church and state separation, but whatever else came with it was probably unintended and isn't really all that great.

I don't think that the arguments against religion classes in schools are substantial or well-founded. It would help q lot of miscommunication and resentments work their ways out.

Religion is definitely a huge aspect of Social Studies that is being ignored by our educational system that makes a huge case for and against homeschooling.

Armstrong's Mythos/Logos point is well made, well put, and well-needed.

[Birdy]

Staggering amounts of resistence are so bloody tiring and defeating, though. I sit on the board for a theatre project here in Chatham that for the last 13 years has been in construction phase - requiring the restoration of an old theatre that's sat empty for so many years, building and restructuring it to turn it into a 1200 seat, state of the art performance centre. We're in the final stages now, and by all realistic means, the theatre should be open to the public in a year's time. If any of you are familiar with Chatham, there's really not a lot going on here... this theatre has the potential to do great things for our community, not only by way of revitalizing the downtown core (kind of already on its way), but by projecting a positive image of our city and giving citizens something to do on a Friday night other than sit on their couch or burn stuff in their backyards.

But, Chatham's also a largely manufacturing town where a lot of people have recently lost their jobs, and frankly, the majority of the population aren't the type to consider the importance of arts and culture as part of the bigger picture. So the resistance to the project has been staggering... and really, i mean staggering. People get absolutely PISSED when the subject comes up, facebook group exists to publicly shame the organization, the organization is weary about making any sorts of presentations to council because the political will is so damaged. For a project that has relied on fundraising and provincial/federal grants to fund it, this kind of attitude is sooo defeating.

My point is that, sometimes, i think it's best to realize there's always going to be someone or some group that doesn't agree with you - but if you never attempt to show them what you can do, you by default shrug your shoulders and wash your hands of it. Stick your tail between your legs and go home for another day. There's still that lack of understanding, hostility and closed-mindedness and gone is the opportunity for betterment.

[Birdy]

I don't want some guy in a pointy hat to tell me how to think and act either. That's the aim with the church and state separation, but whatever else came with it was probably unintended and isn't really all that great.

I think that's it, right there. In the 'whatever else'. I'm tired of thinking in circles trying to find a mutually acceptable way of exposing the whatever else for what it is. Tired to the point where I don't think there is a mutually acceptable way. So i find myself of the why not just jump in, head first camp.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

There's a lot to be said, too, for what myths (in the good sense of the word) popular culture gives us that hang on to the old threads of what we can maybe call good religion - movies, books, etc. Why else do so many people put things like "Jedi" on their census forms under "Religion"?

And on that point, good luck with the theatre project, too.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

Why do people put things like 'jedi' on their census under religion?

Perhaps the convenient clever ties to world religions/philosophies and science (miticloriants/mitochondria(the key to multi-cellular life)), and most peoples abhorrence for modern organized religion.

Just look at the fastest growing religion in the world - Islam. It's definitely not modern and a lot of people gain a great deal of insight from *gasp* monotheism.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

the fastest growing religion in the world - Islam

That's going to be hotly contested, and the stats hard to back up; others will argue that it's Pentecostal Christianity.

[SaggyBalls]

You're probably right.

Can I exclude the USA?

Anyhow, about 'God'...to me 'God' is the Tao.

"Trees and animals, humans and insects, flowers and birds: these are active images of the subtle energies that flow from the stars throughout the universe. Meeting and combining with each other and the elements of the Earth, they give rise to all living things. The superior person understands this, and understands that her own energies play a part in it. Understanding these things, she respects the Earth as her mother, the heavens as her father, and all living things as her brothers and sisters."

"Those who want to know the truth of the universe should practice...reverence for all life; this manifests as unconditional love and respect for oneself and all other beings."

-- LAO TZU (translated by Brian Walker)

Hence my 'to bad politicians aren't into God' appeal.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

(The) Lao Tzu is brilliant. 'Nuff said .

Ever read Krishnamurti? Home page. He nails it for me, in terms of separating out sensible from insensitive religion.

[SaggyBalls]

never had a chance to get into it. thanks for the link.

[Thorgnor]

Just look at the fastest growing religion in the world - Islam. It's definitely not modern and a lot of people gain a great deal of insight from *gasp* monotheism.

That statement is absolutely wrong.

There is nothing less modern about Muslims who live in the world today than Jews, Christians, or anyone else. >

https://mymail.yorku.ca/horde/util/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fheavymetalislam.net%2F&Horde=fc5074afe35b83f7732d8e5537944fb6

Edited July 17, 2009 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

Oh yeah... Dubai.

[SaggyBalls]

It's not absolutely wrong, but from the perspective you're approaching the statement with it is.

I wasn't talking about muslims, I was talking about what I see in Islam/what gets pushed via. the multi-faceted media and what I've found online. Islam doesn't really seem to need to 'sell' people on that way of life like Christianity seems to.

How is Dubai a gauge of religion first and foremost??

Dubai and Islam

It's certainly a gauge of wealth, proceeds from commerce, and our ingenuity, but Islam??

It's far more realistic to assert that Islam happens to not be particularly modern, and Muslim societies that loosen their religious grip have more opportunity to be 'modern'.

[Kanada Kev]

[Thorgnor]

It's not absolutely wrong, but from the perspective you're approaching the statement with it is.

I wasn't talking about muslims, I was talking about what I see in Islam/what gets pushed via. the multi-faceted media and what I've found online. Islam doesn't really seem to need to 'sell' people on that way of life like Christianity seems to.

How is Dubai a gauge of religion first and foremost??

Dubai and Islam

It's certainly a gauge of wealth, proceeds from commerce, and our ingenuity, but Islam??

It's far more realistic to assert that Islam happens to not be particularly modern, and Muslim societies that loosen their religious grip have more opportunity to be 'modern'.

I wasn't measuring the Islam of Dubai, as I'm sure you've realized by now is farcical, I was pointing out the fact that whether you like it or not, whether it is the popular voice of the state, or whether the people are open and vocal about their faith, the most represented religion in several places that are at the cutting edge of both global commerce and technological ingenuity is Islam. Religions do not exist without followers, so to talk about Islam is to indirectly involve Muslim people in what you're saying.

Would you say that a Canadian Muslim who grew up next to you is living in the dark ages because of their religion?

BTW, what exactly makes a two-thousand year old re-branded religion more modern than one that is about thirteen-hundred years old and considers itself to be a clarification of the earlier?

Or were you speaking of Modern, as in -ism? Cause in that case, they are less "Modernist" in their thinking, and less driven by other things that are part of the "English language/Western philosophy" complex that we suppose to be a part of everyone's "common sense" but are in fact culturally embedded articulations of understanding and meaning.

I hope your not telling me that you think you can tell an authentic Muslim from a faker by judging their clothes and determining if they carry a laptop or not

Edited July 17, 2009 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

HAHA! WHAT WOULDN'T JESUS DO!

I never said that a non-modern faith is 'in the dark ages' but I was more going with the concept of modernity as Dr. Evil Mouse suggested in regards to religion.

'Modernism'? I wouldn't really say that it fits as it's not really art. Impressive and beautiful, but that's a bit of a stretch.

The 're-branded' religion has been rebranded to suit modern times while Islam has not really embraced our western philosophy/"globalism" of the past 200 years.

Is that so bad? I don't think so.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The 're-branded' religion has been rebranded to suit modern times while Islam has not really embraced our western philosophy/"globalism" of the past 200 years.

That's an exceptionally complicated thing, not least because of the impact of Western colonialism in Islam, from North Africa to the Mideast to Southeast Asia.

I think it's helpful to remember that there's no such thing as fundamentalism without modernity. Fundamentalism is impossible without modernity. Fundamentalism is modern. It's not only about the embrace of the use of technology (Khomeini couldn't have pulled off the Iranian revolution without it, e.g., nor would Jerry Falwell have become a household name); it's also in the attitude towards the relationship between science and religion.

Anyway, that said, there are plenty of very significant contemporary Muslim thinkers who are nothing but modern; I'm a little out of step lately with recent scholarship, but a few names comes to mind - Tariq Ramadan, Yvonne Haddad, and (more historically) Mahmoud Mohamed Taha are three that I can come up with at random.

The more voices, the better. Sad whenever any get shut down.

[Kanada Kev]

I think it's helpful to remember that there's no such thing as fundamentalism without modernity. Fundamentalism is impossible without modernity. Fundamentalism is modern. It's not only about the embrace of the use of technology (Khomeini couldn't have pulled off the Iranian revolution without it, e.g., nor would Jerry Falwell have become a household name); it's also in the attitude towards the relationship between science and religion.

Very interesting point. It is true that many see fundamentalists/extremists as those who praise the "good old days" yet their means to get their words to the masses can be unbelievably high tech.

I was reading some responses to an article in the Guardian earlier this week that touched on this somewhat. Basically it's a number of stances focused on should we believe in belief? Here are the links;

Hardline atheist response by Daniel Dennett:

The folly of pretence We must not preserve the myth of God – it was a useful crutch, but we've outgrown it

Other responses (which I found much more enlightening) that bring up some really interesting points:

Metaphysical mistake Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religion

I like how it is detailed how the Greeks separated mythos and logos and how that relates to how many modern religions have blurred the lines and that could be considered where much of the mess begins.

The comfort of your convictions Anyone who values the truth should be wary of throwing a protective cloak over ideas, making them immune from criticism

The philosopher's God There is no cabal seeking to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. Many philosophers believe in God, and many more think the issue is not easily solved

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Excellent series - that's where I'd pulled that Armstrong article from. It's a simple enough idea, the mythos and logos framework - pretty much in line with what people like Joseph Campbell argued - but it gets right to the heart of the problem, imo.

Modernity is terrifically hard to define - in terms of economics (rise of capitalism), politics (separation of powers), culture (exercise of personal freedoms), or science (development of scientific methods like experimentation/ falsifiability). Since even the most fundamentalistic movements are modern in their own ways, the only alternative, as far as I can see, is postmodernism, which gives up on the idea of consistent narratives (cultural taken-for-granteds), which is where any conservative will likely draw the line.

I'm still taken with the ideas of people like Habermas, who argue for the hope behind modernity - that people can argue, that there might be rules of argument that we can follow and hope to come to common understanding and social order.

[Thorgnor]

Agonism - Mouffe & Miessen

http://www.wmin.ac.uk/sshl/pdf/csd_mouffe_interview_with_miessen_ArticulatedPowerRelations.pdf

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Interesting piece - thanks. The business around Carl Schmitt is important stuff to get through. I like the language here, though, of "adversaries" rather than "enemies" - enemies being what Schmitt was all about.

[SaggyBalls]

"I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound."

Dennett seems to be using his logic to try to 'prove' his point...poorly. the Gold Standard is sorely needed in these times.

"Can you imagine anything "so important that it must not be subjected to the risks of disconfirmation or serious criticism"? Intellectually, most of us would say not. But, in fact, we often act as though the answer is yes."

Baggini - We need more people like this guy writing for major outfits. What a crucial concept to accept.

"I don't believe in belief. Beliefs about metaphysical issues, including the existence of God, are inconsequential. In the aggregate, religious believers are no better or worse than atheists and, historically, societies that have embodied strong religious commitments are no better or worse than those committed to atheism."

What a refreshing example of Atheism and the bigger picture.

Thorgnor: thanks for the read.