Jing-reed's Musings from Thailand

A History of 'God'

Thanks to Custador at Unreasonable Faith for the information which led me to discovering the following videos posted on YouTube by Evid3nc3.

At last a scholarly video presentation of 'The History of God', complete with 'footnotes' for revelant information.  This is not some frenzied wanker sitting in his basement making outrageous, and non-verifiable statements about whatever subject, but rather a young man who KNOWS his subject well, and has done considerable investigation and research.

Just a few of the references for the video:




This is an excellent history of the supreme being/God  of the Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which evolved from polytheism into monotheism.  

.

 

.

"I Just Don't Know . . . "

 

An Agnostic Manifesto [Slate, By Ron Rosenbaum

"Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.

Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism" —the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.

I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety. 

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.) 

.....Let me make clear that I accept most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself. I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will......."

Personally I have never been able to identify with 'fervemt religious nutters' with blinders on, OR equally 'militant atheist nutters' also with their blinders well placed. A position I have mentioned frequently here. There is nothing wrong with affirming that 'I just don't know'.  And which, of course, is what Mr. Rosenbaum is advocating. . . 

.

     
 

'Religion 101' for the Religious Illiterates

 

Stephen Prothero on why all religions aren’t, deep down, all the same.

"In his 2007 book, Religious Literacy, Stephen Prothero identified a dangerous contradiction.  Americans are not only profoundly religious, but also profoundly uneducated about religion—including their own.  The enormous role of religion in contemporary politics means that religious literacy is nothing less than a civic responsibility.

Now, with God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter, Prothero provides a crash course in Religion 101 for the legions of religious illiterates.  Prothero, however, has written much more than a mere textbook.  His guide to the world’s eight most important religions is informed by his insistence that religions, rather than offering different paths toward the same truth, begin with different problems and offer different solutions.  If this approach appears contentious, it’s because Prothero is entering a public religious debate characterized by absolutist claims.  Religion is either wholly terrible, a virus of the mind as Richard Dawkins has characterized it, or mankind’s greatest treasure, because, as Karen Armstrong has written, “Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus.”

Prothero offers a moment of reasoned calm amidst the mudslinging.  If there is to be peace, he argues, we must understand and accept differences, rather than deny them.  Informed by this sensitivity to diversity, Prothero finds the divine in the details. The beauty of the world’s religions lies not in their ineffable universality, but in the concrete particularity of their expressions. 

.....Why do we have to pretend that Jewish monotheists are saying essentially the same thing as Hindu polytheists and Buddhist nontheists? Let each be what it is—which is to say, recognize that we are bumping up against genuine religious diversity here.

.....The public role of the New Atheists is, in my view, important. Most obviously, they are raising questions about precisely the things many people value most, not least God, Jesus, and the Bible. More urgently, however, they are calling the Religious Right to task. There used to be a gentleman’s agreement that kept both our faith and our doubt out of the public square. After Christians raced into U.S. politics in the 1970s and 1980s, that agreement was breached. Many of the New Atheists are criticizing the God proposition not only because they don’t believe it but also because they object to the conservative political uses to which that proposition has been put. Here too they are advancing the conversation, by pointing out there is a price to pay for enlisting God in political projects."

Does God Have A Future?

 

"The "Face-Off" is a recurring ABC series where opposing sides debate hot topics. In the sixth installment of the series, Deepak Chopra, a physician and best-selling author of "How to Know God," and prominent scholar, philosopher and writer Jean Houston, will face-off against Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, and Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" on the tension between God and science."  

ABC's Dan Harris does an excellent job of moderating the stimulating Does God Have A Future?, which was held at Pasadena's Caltech. Videos of the entire discussion are available on the ABC site.

Here’s how ABC News describes their different approaches: “Chopra and Houston contend the universe is proof that there is intelligence at the heart of creation and that a person needs to look beyond what can be seen and touched while Shermer and Harris advocate that science and biology can explain what is happening to people when they pray, meditate and believe in God and that evolution can explain why our beliefs developed.”

All four of the panelists were in agreement that the currently accepted notions of the 'supreme being' by the world's religions needs to be examined. 

Chopra said science alone cannot explain the universe, and that new developments in science support the existence of an all-powerful deity. "We are here to upgrade science so we can look at a deeper level of reality," he said. Although science is useful for describing the rules that govern the physical world, Chopra said, science alone cannot sufficiently explain all that exists. "Science gave us the Big Bang Theory", Chopra said, but cannot explain what led to it.  Chopra added that new scientific revelations, such as quantum mechanics, support the existence of an organizing principal, while Shermer contended that they do not.

God of the Old Testament

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

A very accurate description of the Abrahamic god of the Jews, Christians and Moslems.  A very unsavory character indeed.  

And EACH word of Richard Dawkin's portrayal of this unsavory character is backed up by countless specific verses from that very same book which many Christians claim is the inerrant word of God.  So if God describes himself with all of these attributes, he is obviously proud of it  . . . .

The list is far too long for inclusion here, so check out 'The God of the Old Testament'.

Sam Harris: Faith vs. Reason in the Modern World

"Sam Harris: Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World, Aspen Ideas Festival (2007).  Sam Harris gives a lecture on the dangers of mixing iron age philosophies with modern day technology, common misconceptions theists have about atheists and why we need to build a morality system separate from faith."

In the July 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival, sponsored by the Aspen Institute, Sam Harris gave a presentation that included a question and answer session. Mr. Harris is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. Curiously he has spent considerable time in Buddhist-type meditation. He is completing a doctorate in neuroscience. He talks, with unrivaled clarity, about the contemporary need to develop a system of morality separate, and apart from, tradtional religious dogma.

"Critial thinking does matter."

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Questions and Answers 1
Questions and Answers 2

Atheists, Agnostics and . . .

Several days ago I discovered an internet Agnostics Forum and joined.  Believed I would feel a bit more comfortable there than with the rather strident and militant Atheists on the Pharyngula website [where science has been equated with non-belief].  What I didn’t realize before my first posting is the many hued variety of the Agnostics on the forum – from very liberal in their interpretation of Agnosticism to the conservative Atheist-Agnostic.  

Am reminded of Christianity – dogma, ritual-riddled Catholics on one end of the spectrum with the batshit evangelical fundamentalists ranting and raving, and spouting scripture on the other end.  Same general type of divisions – I just wasn’t aware of them.  

HOWEVER, after a few days realized that I felt no more comfortable with the Agnostics than I did with  the Atheists, both of which I turned to in my desire to completely separate myself from the believers of the Big Three Monotheistic Mafia with its countless divisions of belief.  

Actually I feel more comfortable listening to the lyrical strains of a Mozart serenade or contemplating the beauty of a moss covered rock to the endlessness of philosophical debate about who or what, when or where and how. Music and nature make more sense to me, more adequately explain who I am, and my place in the universe.

THEISTS VS ATHEISTS

First I read "The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris" By Chris Hedges [Alternet].

Then I encountered "The Dangerous Theism of Chris Hedges" by David Swanson [American Chronicle]

Both write well, have all the proper credentials.  And yet, and yet.....  It would appear to this aging geezer that both the theists and atheists are standing on the somewhat same soapbox.  Just opposite points of view and yet both arguing about those 'ABSOLUTE TRUTHS' that they both hold so dear.  Now don't get me wrong, I find most theists, especially those of the fanatical, evangelical variety, to be a pox on civilization.  Distasteful creatures.  Brainless and blinded by their narrow religious views.

On the other hand I have recently become enamored of the most vocal of the atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hutchins, et at.  Intelligent, thought provoking, literate, thoroughly likeable fellows.  And yet, and yet.....

It was a comment posted by 'primalscream' [Both are boring] that really caught my fancy, and in many ways paralleled my own thinking:

"Religious fundamentalism and atheism are both oh-so-19th-century. That was the golden age of "absolute" truths, and people of small horizons always will absolutize whatever is in front of them. Might be the local religion, might be the latest science, might be their own egos. Sadly, this problem has always been with us and likely always will be. People of broader horizons will be humbled by what they don't know -- and they'll try to keep science and philosophy, two useful human pursuits despite their sniping at each other, asking questions proper to their competencies. The problem with many premodern societies was that they tried to do science philosophically, and the problem with many modern societies is that they try to do philosophy scientifically. The first introduces too much mystery, the second not enough. Personally, I like the borderland between religion and science. It's a fuzzy zone -- which means to me they are strangely linked, like the crease of a paper folded back on itself -- and it's a place where belief becomes less important than thought and action."

I have spent over seventy years attempting to discover my place in the grand scheme, only to now discover that I am most certainly not a theist, nor for that matter probably not an atheist.  They both make too much noise.  So could I be a FUZZY ZONER ?

Of course there also was an excellent posting on 'The Wild, Wild Left' about the Hedges piece.

The Dangerous Theism of Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges recently published an article called "The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris," but he failed to include in it any indication of what he thinks is dangerous about their atheism. He thinks they have horrible political opinions, but does not explain how those relate to atheism. He thinks they have a fetish for science and technology, but does not explain how that relates to atheism. He thinks they cherish a simplistic utopian vision of progress, but he himself traces that to Christianity. He thinks they are fanatics willing to kill for their magical belief in human progress, but that would just mean they had something in common with a lot of theists.

There is good and bad to be found in our religious heritage, and our world is full of noble and ignoble acts by theists and atheists alike. For every admirable or offensive trait in an atheist, we can find one in a theist. For every Martin Luther King Jr., there's a Pat Robertson. But does theism or atheism, on the whole, tend to encourage more, or less, desirable behavior?

So everything considered, perhaps I am an FZ [Fuzzy Zoner] with atheist leanings. . .

Expelled from Expelled - TOO FUNNY FOR WORDS

So PZ Myers, a well known professor who has the blog Pharyngula, and who is also known for his personal and succinct views on the smarmy creationists, was interviewed  for an upcoming film.  Note that those who did the interview lied about its purpose, and then carefully edited the content to completely skew the results for their film Expelled.  When he went to see the film at its opening last night at the Mall of America, he was refused entry.  The account is quite humorous — read it for yourself, EXPELLED!  [I don't want to spoil the delicious punch line.]

What are the fundies and creationists so afraid of ???  Their tanks seem to be running on massive infusions of pure, unadulterated fear, and distrust of the entire world.  Don't they believe that their invisible sky god can protect them?  Evidently not. . . .

Since Expelled will not be shown here in Thailand [christian crap just doesn't interest the locals], guess I will have to wait for someone in the States to pick me up a copy in the 39 cent bin at Target.