Starboy

I don't think I said that. And if I did what I meant was that I would not want people to have a superstitious belief in science. If they are going to persist in superstition then I would prefer that their superstitious beliefs be about religion. There is enough pseudo science in the world and we don't need any more.

I have no problem with religion in general, only supernatural religion.

Starboy

Biff the unclean

More baloney. Unless you have decided that truth vs. lies is merely a matter of preference.
You may have the right to believe any stuff and nonsense you please. But con artists should not have the right to take you to the cleaners.

You like the idea that the widow of the minister of finance of some central African country is going to return your investment, over E mail, many fold. You like the idea of all the toll money you will collect now that you have bought the Brooklyn Bridge. You like the idea that, after you die you'll live in bliss forever.
All victims of All cons prefer to believe that the con they have fallen for is real. That's the difference between armed robbery and a scam.

Again, I am not so callous and heartless towards my fellow man as to believe that those who were foolish enough to fall victim to a scam deserve to be victimized. Even when they show that they know the con isn't real because they question their own perception of reality.
A person's gullibility (a.k.a. the depth of their belief, their "faith") is not license for the unscrupulous to victimize them.

brighid

I think we really get into a dangerous area when we classify "believers" as liars and non-believers as possessors of truth. The spectrum of "believers" and theistic application is too broad for you to make such truth vs. lies claims.

In many cases, whether you chose to acknowledge or understand it, belief is a matter of preference and something as subjective as a like or dislike of brocolli.

Is it foolish to believe in a God or many Gods? Perhaps, but it really doesn't matter in the long run does it? Except for those individuals that attempt to affect legislation or take harmful action against others who do not believe exactly as they do (and atheists aren't immune from this human failing.)

No one should be taken advantage of because he or she "believes" in anything. It is unfortunate that most humans don't adhere to a higher moral standard when it comes to taking advantage of others, and religion has no market cornered on such things.

Freedom means accepting those who believe differently, even the gullible and allowing even the delusional their delusions (as long as it harms none other than the individual.)

Brighid

King Rat

Nice caveat.

Magdlyn

Starboy, you make some good points.

How do we define nonsense? I think you mean, no supernatural stuff, no gods, no miracles? Do you?

But what if it was agreed, Jos Campbell style, that this "nonsense" was meant to be taken as allegory or psychology?

This third option has long been explored in Judaism. Now is is being explored in Xtianity by such Anglican thinkers/thoelogians as Spong and Harpur. Of course, one can not force this new view on anyone. That would be anathema, self-defeating. One can only propose it, and see who agrees and comes over to this way of thinking and behaving.


Absolutely. The separation of church/state in this country has led to an ignorance of world religions amongst the general populace. So they default to Xtianity and more are even going over to fundamentalism. I understand fundamentalism is almost unheard of in GB, where religion is taught in the public shcools.

Yes, this is quite true. So many people think their doctors are gods and have all the answers. This is not true. Drs are humans, with limited intelligence and education. My motto, from the old hippie days, is: question authority. Drs, teachers, priests. It is downright dangerous to be a sheeple.

Moms and dads do not do this. So many, in fact, do the opposite, by demanding obedience from their children, who may not question mom or dad's authority. "Do what I say, no back talk," enforced by spankings, leads to more sheeple production, kids who turn into adults who just want to be led, and not to think for themselves.

My dh and I have parented in the way you suggest. We have 3 teenagers. The oldest is a comparative mythologist like me. The other 2 think religion is boring and stupid and so far, are happy atheists.

Biff the unclean

But I am not protraying "believers" as liars. Rather they are the victims of liars.

The difference is as subjective as "does broccoli exist only as part of a work of fiction or does it actually exist."

Well, yes it does. It matters very much because of the destructive influence religion has on people's lives. Note on this board alone how many believers think that all of humanity "deserves" damnation for the "sin" of merely being human. How many have had the "value" stolen from their lives and can't understand how a life can have any meaning outside of their religion.

At the very least the un-taxable profits from religion, in this country alone, runs into the billions.

"Freedom" does not grant the license to victimize people. Allowing those who have been conned into believing that they have bought the Brooklyn Bridge to continue in their delusions is doing them a disservice. Even if they aren't setting up a toll both. Even if they can easily afford the monthly payments. Even if they enjoy thinking that they own the bridge.

Starboy

Yes, but if I had to ask for just one thing I would remove "faith". Nothing would be exempt from reevaluation in the case of conflicting evidence. This one thing would eliminate all the other nonsense.

Joe didn't advocate that religious metaphor was appropriate for this day and age. He only explained it a man's attempt to understand and guide himself. He would have told you that such metaphor is actually inappropriate to this age, that the current age has a completely different set of metaphors for understanding existence. The old metaphors are anachronisms. Only ignorant people see them as relevant.

But even Spong and Judaism are not completely free of the nonsense. They both advocate a special pleading for god.

Church/state separation is not the reason for the lack of comparative religion in US schools. As long a no particular religion is promoted over another or no religion at all it is permissible under the constitution. Comparative religion is not taught because the Christians would not stand for it. If there is gonna be any learnin of religion they demand that it be only the Christian religion and that would be unconstitutional. So their intolerance mandates that no religions are taught. Even so they are still trying their darndest to get only their religion taught in schools.

It is not obedience that is the problem, it is teaching children to ignore evidence by learning to believe in things that don't exist, like the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa clause and so forth. Sure it is cute and fun and it is also a very bad way to get a young impressionable person started off on the wrong foot. I know that many think that such exercises are important for developing an active imagination, but there are much more honest ways of doing that. Playing make pretend is honest, tricking kids into thinking there is a Santa is dishonest.

Starboy

Biff the unclean

You are quite right. He danced around that issue on the PBS show, but in a series of lectures he gave at Cooper Union in NYC, that I was lucky enough to attend, he made no bones about it.

Starboy

He did dance around it in TPOM but it is in there. You just have to read it carefully.

Starboy

Magdlyn

I do not have faith in anything I can't see feel and or touch, or find trustworhty through experience. So I agree. Would we need to remove hope, charity and love as well? Or is faith somehow ridiculous, even tho it is listed alongside other vitures?



Why did he support a rewriting of the perenniel philosophy/hero myth in Star Wars then? Is myth clothed in the future superior somehow to the same myth from the past?

I do not quite get you. Can you expand on this a little?

Somehow this was not a problem for us! I myself, and later, my kids, just outgrew Santa when I/they were ready. It was just a game, not "faith." As soon as their belief began to falter, we told them the truth. Some parents do push it for too long tho.

I stand by my "obedience" assertions. That is a much larger subject than fantasizing about a holiday gift-bringer or two. Forcing a child under your control because you are bigger and can beat them is criminal, IMO.