Time Magazine - The 25 Most Influential Evangelists

Photo essays...inform yourselves...

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/

Gee, I have no idea where that comes from. :eyes:

Because your (read: you making the post, not "all atheists") capacity to paint with an overly large brush knows no bounds. :)

Never mind the inherent flaws in religion that allow for authoritarian, hierarchical control. Or the total failure of "divine revelation" as a reliable source of information.

If my statements on religion disturb you, your energies would be much more effectively directed towards reclaiming your religion from the Christo-fascists than bashing us mean atheists.

If you mean that there flaws in religious institutions that allow for authoritarian, hierarchical control, I certainly agree with you. Of course, these are not so much religious specific problems as they are universal problems of institutions. That's why institutional criticism is so important, and religious institutions should absolutely be included in that discussion.

However, I belong to no religious institution, denomination or organization. I take no creedal confession. Yet, I've been told on more than one occasion that I am appropriately referred to as a "religious" person. There seems to be a bit of ambiguity in the definition "religion" and "religious." Does that mean personal beliefs, or does have to necessarily mean institutionalism?

As far as "divine revelation" is concerned, I'm not entirely clear what that has to do with anything, seeing as how 1) I'd need you to define what you mean by that phrase and 2) assuming I understand your meaning that is certainly not a necessary pre-requisite of a spiritual belief. Simply because it is for some is not a legitimate argument spanning across "religion." Which is why I comment that you paint with too large a brush. Besides that, the claim "divine revelation" is a total failure as a reliable source of information is actually a claim that cannot be proved scientifically.


If my statements on religion disturb you, your energies would be much more effectively directed toward reclaiming your religion from the Christo-fascists than bashing us mean atheists.


Come on now, let's be mature shall we? My stating a simple point of view is not "bashing." Saying that I think you are painting with too large of a brush when you imply, "atheists hate religion in part because of these 25 evangelists" obviously a reasonable person not emotionally connected to the subject is going to ask, "since these 25 evangelists are quite clearly not indicative of every religious person out there, nor ever religious structure, wouldn't it seem to be that your disdain for these 25 evangelists is logical justification for little more than your hatred of these 25 evangelists and kind of influence they wield?"

There's nothing bashing in that. Next, you know nothing about where my energies are in fact directed, since you know nothing about me. Therefore that statement is meaningless. Next, your "statement" on religion doesn't "disturb" me. It's just too broad, therefore unsupportable in any logical fashion.

Thanks,
Sel

I've toyed with you long enough. Go back and read my original post.

I did not say, nor imply, "atheists hate religion in part because of these 25 evangelists."

What I said was:

And religious liberals wonder why we atheists seem to hate religion.

Notice those words in bold? Apparently you didn't, and you launched into your tirade against me, personally, because of your misinterpretation of what I said.

Of course, this isn't the first time you've done this. But I will note that any energy you expend reading things into what people say on DU and going into "martyr complex" mode is energy that could otherwise be spent giving your faith the good name it deserves.

First of all the fact that you admit to "toying" with me is telling. I come to the discussion to have an honest one, apparently you don't do the same. You don't "toy" with someone you respect. You don't "toy" with someone you desire to engage in mature rational discourse.

You assume all kinds of emotionalism that is nowhere present in my post. You assume I feel threatened and defensive about criticisms of religion. In fact I don't. I have my own criticisms of particular manifestations of religion. What I do take issue with however, are generalizations that I feel are overly broad and therefore not logically justifiable. The only one acting emotional here is you.

It seems to me you assume that I am a defender or orthodoxy or some such thing, and it seems to me that you assume I must have an awful lot of ideas about things I don't actually have. In the simplest language I can muster, I think religious institutionalism almost always totally sucks. It can't think of an example of religious institutionalism that I feel is more or less exempt from my ability to make some pretty scathing criticisms. Perhaps some Eastern traditions which are far less hierarchical and almost more philosophical in nature - but I admit I am not versed enough on those to speak with any credibility.

Now as to the other thing -


what I said was: And religious liberals wonder why we atheists seem to hate religion.

If I misunderstood your meaning, I do apologize. However, there was no tirade. There was no "martyrdom" going on. Just a difference of opinion. To be frank, based on other things you have said I find it highly unlikely that I have in fact incorrectly understood your meaning, which is that one of the reasons atheists don't like religion is because of guys like this. It really doesn't matter if the "seem to hate" part is there or not.

Are you denying that the basic meaning of your post was, "one of the reasons we(I) don't like religion is because of guys like this?" If so I stand corrected, but I think that would be a pretty understandable mistake to make. If you are not denying this basic meaning was implied, then I feel that using that basis to support a dislike of religion in its broadest sense is not reasonable seeing as how these 25 people do not speak for a great many religious folk all over the world.

I think you assume that I am defending religion. I am not. I think you can make very reasonable arguments against many (if not all) the different shades or religious tradition and different institutions around the world and through history. I frequently make those criticisms and arguments. Which is why I always chuckle when you repeatedly say I'm trying to be a "martyr." I basically think religious institutions stink. But what I don't like, are arguments that I don't feel are logically defensible, either because they are too broad, or in some other way fallacious.

That's all. And its kind of sad that this makes you so upset.

The two words - "seem to" - are perhaps the most important part of the sentence. Non-believers are able to take a step back and analyze flaws in "religious" (and I use quotes here to acknowledge your disagreement with using the term) thinking that the believer simply cannot do.

Our criticisms of religions and religious individuals are OFTEN mistaken, even by many here at DU, as being attacks ON religion. You just did it again. We seem to hate religion, to certain kinds of devout believers.

These 25 Top Evangelists are yet another source for non-believers to analyze and criticize, and seem to "hate" religion.

By the way, what on earth would make you think *I'm* the one who's upset?

The two words - "seem to" - are perhaps the most important part of the sentence. Non-believers are able to take a step back and analyze flaws in "religious" (and I use quotes here to acknowledge your disagreement with using the term) thinking that the believer simply cannot do.


What kind of support do you offer for this claim? I cannot think of any kind of logical justification for this claim. The only think I can think of on which this claim could be based is emotion, inference and assumption.


Our criticisms of religions and religious individuals are OFTEN mistaken, even by many here at DU, as being attacks ON religion. You just did it again. We seem to hate religion, to certain kinds of devout believers.


It's pretty easy to mistake such attacks, since they rarely take the form of "here's my problem with x sort of religion or y kind of religious individual." Instead they take the form of "here's what's wrong with Religion" which is just impossible to substantiate on any rational ground because the diversity and variety of religious experience is just too broad. In fact, people can't even always seem to agree on what kinds of beliefs are rightly termed 'religious' and what are not.

If I understand your meaning, you once again assume a meaning that was not explicitly stated. My taking issue with you is not because I wrongly think you are being critical certain kinds of devote believers instead of being critical about religion. My problem is only that your criticism of "religion" is logically unsupportable for the reason that the justifications for the premises are too broad therefore not accurate.

I think there are plenty of good criticisms to be made about institutions, religious institutions and the specifics of particular varieties of religious experience. I just don't think you made any of them.


By the way, what on earth would make you think *I'm* the one who's upset?


Use of the word tirade, saying I need to chill, accusing me of "martyrdom" are all emotional reactions focusing on the person and not the argument that are impossible to actually justify in the context of what I actually said, even if I mistook your meaning. Of course you never answered my question about that: Are you denying that the basic meaning of your post was, "one of the reasons we(I) don't like religion is because of guys like this?"

would be a review of your religious beliefs. Silly me.

Seriously, though, what kind of logical justification can you offer for your beliefs? Or can you only base them on "emotion, inference and assumption"? Do you feel justified in holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?

The justification I give for my statement is that a believer cannot extricate his- or herself from the very nature of religious thought. You view the universe through non-removable theistic lenses. At least from what you yourself have said elsewhere - you NEED your "crutch". A person who needs a physical crutch to stand could no more stand without it than you could analyze the universe without your metaphysical crutch.

It's pretty easy to mistake such attacks, since they rarely take the form of "here's my problem with x sort of religion or y kind of religious individual." Instead they take the form of "here's what's wrong with Religion"...

Hey, I don't dispute that those sorts of posts exist. But that's not the point here - there are some who will take ANY criticism of religion, even the first kind you cite, as an "attack" and attempt to squelch debate. "Religious hate speech" is a term that one in particular has used.

To answer your final question: Yes and no. "Guys like this" are a living example of how religious belief fails in establishing any sort of demonstrable common ground, whether that be on a spiritual, political, philosophical, or any other kind of plane. There isn't even a mechanism for resolving differences, other than declaring war and wiping out the "infidels" to kill any dissenting thought. So yes, one of the reasons I don't like religion is because "guys like this" exist. But no, it's not because of the "guys," it's because there is no way to rationally engage people like them on their own religious level and counteract their incorrect beliefs. As I have said, I view this as perhaps the most significant flaw in "religion" or "Religion," whichever you prefer.

I just thought I should point that out, in response to your opening joke.


The justification I give for my statement is that a believer cannot extricate his- or herself from the very nature of religious thought. You view the universe through non-removable theistic lenses. At least from what you yourself have said elsewhere - you NEED your "crutch". A person who needs a physical crutch to stand could no more stand without it than you could analyze the universe without your metaphysical crutch.


By that rationale, I cannot say anything about the world around me because I cannot extricate myself from the world in which I exist. I don't think that's true do you? You have no idea how I view the universe, though you do make lots of assumptions - over and over and over again. I certainly do not view the world through the traditional lens of classical theism.

You mis characterize what I said about a crutch. Is that deliberate on your part? What I said was a question to atheists which was -- if a person is right, and in just so happens that religion in some or all forms is some kind of a support crutch for some people, what does it matter to you? What if I need that crutch - that difference does that make to you, especially if I'm not asking you to take a crutch?"

Note how the actual meaning of the question is "even if it were a crutch" not "I need a crutch!" Though I like it how you're like the fourth or fifth atheists to jump on that and mis-characterize it into some kind of admission I never made.

As far as your analogy goes - a person who uses crutches is not necessarily less able to talk about his experience of being on crutches than a person who does not use crutches. In fact in some ways, he may be more able to say appropriate things about the experience. And its ludicrous to suggest a kind of worldview where the only way one can think reasonably and appropriately about an experience is if he or she doesn't not actually have the experience.


To answer your final question: Yes and no. "Guys like this" are a living example of how religious belief fails in establishing any sort of demonstrable common ground, whether that be on a spiritual, political, philosophical, or any other kind of plane. There isn't even a mechanism for resolving differences, other than declaring war and wiping out the "infidels" to kill any dissenting thought. So yes, one of the reasons


My point has always been that "guys like this" are living examples of the fact that "Guys like this" fail in establishing any sort of common ground. Nothing more and nothing less. "Guys like this" do not represent anything universally applicable to religious experiences on the whole. So it is not possible to use "guys like this" in conjunction with some universal statement on religious belief.

There are plenty of folks who might call themselves religious who have plenty of other ways for addressing differences other than declaring war and wiping out "infidels." In fact quite a lot of religious folk are pluralist in their beliefs, enjoy and encourage dialog between different forms of belief and with those of no-belief, and basically enjoy diversity.

Of course this is hard to process for someone who interprets "all religion" to be dogmatic in nature. But that simply isn't true.


I don't like religion is because "guys like this" exist. But no, it's not because of the "guys," it's because there is no way to rationally engage people like them on their own religious level and counteract their incorrect beliefs. As I have said, I view this as perhaps the most significant flaw in "religion" or "Religion," whichever you prefer.


There are people of all kinds - including irreligious people - who hold certain beliefs and will not listen to any form of reasonable disagreement. No one likes talking to those folks. However you've just described your problems, issues and dislikes with a specific group individuals and one particular variety of religious experience. You could probably make a very strong and compelling case against the particular beliefs of "guys like this" - I know I could.

However when you extrapolate that into a universal condemnation on religion, it becomes an absurdity. There are plenty of religious folk out there who have absolutely nothing in common with "guys like this" on any level.
Sel

>> seeing as how these 25 people do not speak for a great many religious folk all over the world.<<

... they *do* speak for (and have the ear of) most of the politicians who control *this* country and who establish bigoted policy and who continue to blur (and erase) the line separating church and state.

I don't understand the efforts to minimize their real impact and import.

:hi:

these people have hijacked the real
message of Christ for their own greed,
power and influence over government
policies. Whether athiest or not, you
really need to know who these players
are.

is that both groups will point at the other and quite forcefully proclaim THEM to be the impostor Christians, and themselves to be the "real" Christians.

This is the inherent flaw of any system based on divine revelation.

not in the way Christ taught.

*sigh*

so I lived up to one example you have.

However, don't think that all I do is roll my eyes. Unfortunately, our voice isn't being heard right now. Just as the left voice isn't getting much airtime right now. Yes, it is frustrating, as it is for anyone on the left being ignored, censored and quieted.

Often, posts proclaim that us Progressive Christians should be taking back our voice. I would love to see some suggestions. I talk to people, work with other Progressive Christians, proudly hold signs at protests, etc.

If they are truly a minority, you should be able to duplicate their methods and achieve even greater success. They ran for local offices, they organized letter-writing campaigns, etc., etc. Either the "good Christians" aren't doing this as effectively, or there just aren't that many "good Christians."

you see how much everyone in our party disagrees. Over there, they must step in line. It's the same in the religious aspect. There are all types of Progressive Christians, and they don't all agree. We need to be more organized.

I can only take care of myself. I can't make others join in.

I think the reason this group has goten so powerful is by playing off the stupidity of others.How many peopoe are reallyasleep at the wheel? They play off the fact that people don't pay attention. They lie. Whatever it takes.

To assume all Christians or all any one religion is the same is like saying all Black people are on welfare and in gangs.

>> There are all types of Progressive Christians, and they don't all agree. <<

Perhaps, but certainly they can come together and DISAGREE and DISAPPROVE of and fight against everything that the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons are doing in the name of Christ.

Why must they FIRST agree on everything as it pertains to THIS side of the debate BEFORE they will even consider fighting all the faith-based bigotry and hatred that's being done on the OTHER side?

>> I can only take care of myself. I can't make others join in. <<

Oh. Okay... never mind then. Sorry to interrupt. Go back to whatever it was you were doing.

Oh. Okay... never mind then. Sorry to interrupt. Go back to whatever it was you were doing.



Totally unecessary. And quite frankly, I have no idea what your point was. I can only do the work of one person. I never said we all have to agree. Who said that? You asked why we weren't more visable and I answered that just like the party as a whole, we are not nearly as organized as the other side.

Obviously, if I am part of DU, I have taken some active interest. I happen to volunteer many hours to the Democratic party. Is a pissing contest of who does how much really what you want? I don't think so.

... that you felt before any meaningful work could be done to thwart the advances of the zealot RW fundies, there must first be some sort of consensus among liberal Christians.

Frankly, it sounded an awful lot like the typical excuse-making one often hears from some liberal Christians. The idea that progressive Christians need to become some sort of Borg collective with a hive mentality is simply false.

The conservative Christians and their leaders are not the collective that you make them out to be, yet they are still successful. Why should it be any different for liberal Christians.

There are many here to are quick to dismiss the encouragement of others who think that one of the most effective responses to the zealot Christians is for the progressive Christians to actually SAY SOMETHING... ANYTHING.

Not as Democrats... but as CHRISTIANS. If they truly want the rest of the country to see that Christians aren't defined by RW policy and bigotry, then they must stand up and fight them AS CHRISTIANS who happen to be Democrats.

It often seems that many people around here are more interested in being universally offended on behalf of ALL Christians whenever someone casts their net of scorn too widely... or whenever they paint the criticism with too broad a brush. (When any reasonably intelligent person can tell--in context of the discussion--which group of Christians the anger is directed.) Hell! Even when it's directed at ONE person for an idiotic statement (the Pope for example) there are those who spend their energy defending the affront to all Catholics.

Never mind that they actually AGREE with the criticism, they'd rather be spend their energy being offended than FIGHTING THE FIGHT and SPEAKING OUT against the faith-based bigotry and faith-based hate.

I guess everyone has their priorities.

>> Obviously, if I am part of DU, I have taken some active interest. <<

While that may be true for you, one's participation at DU isn't always an "obvious" indication as to their interest or sincerity.

>> I happen to volunteer many hours to the Democratic party. <<

Good for you! What you said earlier ("I can only take care of myself. I can't make others join in") had the unmistakable sound of excuse-making and deferring responsibility to others.

>> Is a pissing contest of who does how much really what you want? I don't think so. <<

LOL! Pissing contest? What on EARTH gave you that idea? Piss away if it makes you happy!

I'm glad I cleared up my posts. I would never make excuses, but I always try to figure out why something is happening so I can think of the most effective way to combat it.

I'm glad there will be no pissing contest. As a female, that's one contest I'd probably lose!

often do nothing more than to roll their eyes and politely point out that those conservative fundies aren't "real" Christians. And... that's the extend of their attempts to try and reclaim their own religion.

It's as though they've decided to throw up their hands in disgust and walk away from it all. They won't fight, or speak out against the HORRORS and HATE and BIGOTRY that's being carried out in the name of their Lord.

Oh sure... some do speak out, but not in any meaningful numbers that would have any measurable effect in suppressing the faith-based bigotry from the RW Christians.

I've heard many times that RW Christians are actually a "loud minority" in Christianity. REALLY? If that's that case, then it should be very EASY for the "true-Christians" (who are among the "true-majority") to speak out and put an end to all of this.

Where ARE all these Christians who (we're told) do not agree with these faith-based policies of hate and bigotry that pander to Christians?

I fear that their silence is another way of expressing their approval. They don't want to make themselves visible by OPENLY supporting policies and ideas that they know will be frowned upon... so they offer their support by saying nothing and quietly sticking to the sidelines.

I call that "stealth bigotry".

..is an incorrect assumption

so also is the flase generalization that "both groups" must point at each other and forcefully program the other to be impostor christians. Certinaly that happens, but it is not the other thing that happens. If you come from the relational school of religious thought rather than the dogmatic school, then the discussion of "who is a real christian" based on dogam is a totally meaningless and absurd discussion.

Whether you agree with that premise or not is not at issue. What is at issue is your making blanket generalizations about things for which clearly, you do not have enough information or experience.

Did god write a book? If so, which of the umpteen thousand holy books is the one that he really wrote?

Could two people, separated by cultural, social, geographical, and racial differences, independently arrive at an identical religious "truth," and could that truth be demonstrated to and repeated by any other individual anywhere else?

..is that many people you ask will answer no to your questions.

If you want me to give you references to resources to learn about some of these different perspectives - I will be happy to do that. But I don't think that actually what you want, which is perfectly fine.

What you spend a lot of time rejecting is a narrow defnition of religion, rather than "religion" in its broadest sense. Different manifestations of and foundations for beliefs that could appropriately be called religious certainly can be criticized and obviously they can be rejected. But there is no magic forumal for a wholesale rejection of the ambiguous "Religion" with a captial "R" because there is no single interpretation of what being religious actually means.

"Narrow definition" vs. "broad sense"

"Good Christian" vs. "Bad Christian"

You don't really get it, do you?

I am not saying "good Christian" vs. "bad Christian" nor was I talking about "Christianity" in a "narrow sense" vs. a "broad sense" - there are folks out there who don't fee that those kinds of divisions can even imply.

This is unconnected to pointing out that you take one slice out of all the diversity and varieties of religions experience and say, "I hereby discredit all religion" which seems pretty absurd to many people who look at your justifications for that claim and say, "that doesn't have anything to do with me." The point being that "religion" is not "one" thing that can be tackled with "one" argument. It's too ambiguous.

"Religion" is too ambiguous! When you can't even agree on a definition of what "religious" means, that pretty much demonstrates my point.

I didn't see you making the point that religion was ambiguous. I did see you making other points, though.

Why should anyone assume that religion is something that should have universal agreement? Our experiences on many other planes of life are heavily influence by our culture, history and experiences - it seems very reasonable to assume that the varieties of religious experiences would come by way of similar reasons, and there doesn't seen to be anything in that alone that is invalidating.

Of course, if you assume that religion is only about dogma and creed, then it would make sense why it would be hard to think about that. Of course, off the top of my head I can think of a plethora of examples of religious traditions that have nothing to do with creedal kinds of confessions.

Can you tell me how people gain "religious" knowledge? (However you want to define "religious.")

And secondly, how does one verify whether such knowledge is legitimate (true or false)?

French is neither "true" nor "false."

It would be a nonsensical and meaningless questiong to ask "is the language German true or false?" Languages are neither true nor false on their own accord. Languages can be used to frame certain experiences and convey certain ideas in a large variety of ways - through literal logic, through metaphor, through imgagry, etc.

"True" and "False" do not apply.

I can give you a little take into my perspective if you like: I don't believe that we know anything. If by "know" we're implying absolutely certainty then human beings must rightfully be said to "know" nothing, indeed - no knowledge is ever possible, by that definition.

Even the most basic scientific claims are based on an assuption: that our sensory data is accurate. Of course we know that senses can be decieved. And it is not possible to know that all of our experience are not in fact deceptions, the classic BIV example from epistemology.

I accept this as true. We can never know anything with absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is a myth. No one is ever - ever - justified in seriously saying "there is absolutely no possibility that I'm wrong." However there is a much more important question for huamn truth-seeking: how reasonable is my belief?

When I walk into my bed room and say in my brain "ah, my senses seem to be telling me that there is a lamp sitting on my desk" - the fact of the matter is that my senses could be decieved. The more importan queston is: how reasonable is my belief that there is a lamp sitting on my desk? Do I have sufficient justification for believing this to be true? There are many critiera for answering this question; on of the chief ones is simply utilitarianism - its useful for me to operated under the belief that in this case, my senses are giving me accurate information.

What does this have to do with religion? Well actually it has to do with what I think about atheism, agnosticism, and the varieties of religious experience in the following way:

--What I believe many if not most atheists think is: it is reasonable and justfifiable to have no belief in the existence of a god or gods, but it is not reasonable or justifibale to believe in the eixstence of a god or gods.

--What I believe many if not most religious Christians (you have to be specific like this - just saying "religious people" is too broad) think is: it is reasonable and justifiable to have belief in the existence of a god or gods, but it is not reasonable or justifiable to have no belief in the existence of god or gods.

--What I believe many if not most agnostics think is: it is not reasonable and justifiable to have a belief in the existence of a god or gods, and it is not reasonable or justifiable to have a belief in the non-existence of a god or gods.

Now,

What I think is: it is possible to make a justifiable argument for having no belief in the existence of a god or gods and it is possible to make a justifiable agrument for belief in the existence of a god or gods. Proving who is objectively "right" and who is objectively "wrong" is impossible, and both beliefs have equal justification --- ultimately we must make a choice. No certainty is possible.

One personce choice to have a justifiable belief in the existence of a god or gods is not a matter of "true" or "false" - it is a matter of language by which to frame and articulate one's impressions and experiecnes in the universe. Ones persons choice to have a justifiable belief in the non-existence of a god or gods is not a matter of "true" or "false" either - it is a matter of lagnuage by which to fram and articulate one's impressions and experiences of the universe. You speak German. I speak French. It's not a "true" or "false" claim.

Let me tell you a story. First let me tell it the way I think you might tell it:


An atheist and a theist are walking along. All of the sudden the theist points to a rock and says "look! A tree!" The atheists stops his friend and says, "no friend, you are not corrrect - that is not a tree, that is a rock!"

Suddenly a big argument insues between the theist who staunchly, militantly defense his assertion that he has pointed to a tree, while the atheist patiently tries to point out that it is, in fact a rock. The atheist tries to explain the difference between plants and minerals, trys to use reason to show how the object that is clearly a rock does not have any of the properties to be rightly called a tree, etc."

After a while, the theist finally explodes in anger and frustrating, punches the atheist in the mouth and storms off.



I don't deny these kinds of experience happen. But let me tell that story another way:


An atheist and a theist are walking along. All of the suddent the thiest points to a rock and says, "rocher!" which is the french word for rock. The athiest says, "nein! Gestein!" which is a German form of the word rock. The two argue for hours at each other, one speaking french, the other speaking german about who accurately identifed the object - when in fact, they both did in different languages.

Finally both the atheist and the theist get infuriated with each other and, thinking the other to be clearly ignorant and assinine, storm off in different directions.


I think the latter story is true just as often as the former story is true.
Sel

I forgot - the theist gets to redefine terms at will to avoid any conflicts or questions they don't like.

I reject your claim that religion is simply another language one can use to describe reality. Why? BECAUSE it has no correcting mechanism. There is no known way to refine it, to resolve disputes, to improve its accuracy. That makes it useless at even communicating those phenomena over which it claims exclusive domain. Thus the multitude of religions, sects, beliefs, etc., etc.

Human language (like French) has the capacity for correction and refinement. Science also has this capacity. Religion does not, no matter how you try to define it.

How much it bothers atheists when people don't fit into their little narrow conceptions that they have ready-made arguments for. I forgot how much it flusters atheists when people don't answer questions in the ways they are comfortable with. Someone said that atheism often really means rejecting the God you grew up with. I think that's often very true, and its fascinating to me how many times I see people such as yourself get so irritated with people who don't fit into their stereotypical categorizations.

We don't live in a monastic world, and simply because there are a diversity of perspectives on spirituality and faith that often discuss ideas and concepts that cannot be proven by scientific empiricism alone does not mean that there is no mechanism for dialog, resolving disputes or improving the quality of the language. In this sense religion is very much like philosophy. Some of the world's greatest wisdom has been handed down to use by great philosophers and thinkers. Subjects like epistemology, ontology and ethics - these are subjects where there is no concrete empirical way to judge right and wrong.

Saying that the only way to have a "correcting mechanism" is via science or scientific claims so that if science alone cannot inform a discussion, the discussion is meaningless or invalid is itself not a scientific claim. It cannot be proven scientifically. So it is a belief, without a correcting mechanism. The claim is self-referentially incoherent.

Returning to the subject of philosophy, there are plenty of correcting mechanisms. Discussion and thought about complicated ideas, debate over which theories and approaches were the most consistent. Philosophers throughout history have soundly critiqued other points of view - we who know the history of philosophy know that some perspectives are not taken as seriously today as they were 1,000 years ago, because there have been such strong and valid critiques of those arguments. New arguments form, and people discuss them - and if you think that through the course of history philosophy has not gone forward, making corrections and coming to better understandings of ideas and concepts, then you are a fool.

Theologians are just philosophers. It's is more than possible to have correction and refinement in theology just as it is in philosophy, and if you don't think that, then you are ignorant of religious history. The writings of Soren Kierkegaard were revolutionary in the history of Christian thought and marked a profound turning point for the better. Guys like J. T. Robinson and Paul Tillich began correcting some ideas left over from the medieval times about literalism and theism. Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne introduced us to correcting ideas about processes rather than crisis. People like Mildred Wynkoop and Rosemary Radford Luther begin to make corrections to the historical legacy of patriarch on religious theology, and moved the quality of theological discussions forward a generation, but beginning to change the frame of theological discussion to relational philosophies.

Of course philosophy can't talk about absolutes. Of course its not absolutely certain that one particular perspective on a question or concept is the right way. Of course there are often a plurality of ideas that all have some degree of validity from a certain perspective. But the bottom line is, neither can science. Nothing is absolutely certain. Our claims about what we know or even what we think we empirically discover have the possibility to be logically valid - meaning we can come to the place where are conclusions on a certain thing must be true, assuming that all our premises are true. But there is always the possibility that our claims are not logically sound, meaning that our premises in fact happen not to be true.

The claim that religion does not have the capacity for refinement is an ignorant claim, that ignores history, and makes the assumption that only discussions that are exclusively scientifically verifiable have any meaning - a claim which itself is not scientific, so meaningless by that definition. And just because something can not be objectively proven right does not mean that it has no value or the discussion has no merit. That idea is based on a mis-assumption that science gives us objective certainty, which it doesn't. Nothing does because nothing can. Absolute certainty is a myth that is indefensible by any criteria. We never know anything with absolute certainty. Instead we use many tools - science, logic, philosophy, the arts, history, experiences and even religious, in attempts to answer the question: "how justifiable is my belief that....."

By the way, depending on your meaning, I am not a theist. I have a question for you - can you define theist for me? And I have a follow up - if you used the word "god" or "gods" in your definition anywhere, can you define for me what elements you feel are necessary for a thing to rightfully be called god? That's a complicated way of saying what do you mean when you say "god?"

I'm late for work now. Have a good day.

Coupled with a nice little personal jab. B+ for effort!

I don't recall insisting that we needed to talk about "absolutes." You made a comparison, that religion is (or is like) a language. Human languages, I pointed out, have a process by which they grow to be more accurate in accounting for reality. There are standards in language. There are *dictionaries*. If you aren't sure what a language is saying, you can look in a book and get a definition. Science acts in much the same manner.

I don't see any of these characteristics in religion, even in your special definition of religion. There are no self-correcting processes, and that is precisely why there are thousands of sects and cults, and also why we have people like our Top 25 Evangelists. There are no standards, no way for people to settle disagreements. And so they either kill each other or set up a different church. The history of religion in a nutshell. Unlike languages and science, religion seems to be growing MORE splintered and MORE divided with time. That is why I reject your claim. You didn't address that at all.

Oh, you say religion has the capacity for "refinement." Well, sure. Lots of cults end up with a very specific definition of what exactly it is they believe in. A UFO that's going to whisk them all away to the Andromeda galaxy. A savior-man-god who provides forgiveness of their sins and the hope of eternal life. You're completely missing, or ignoring, my objections. "Refinement" is not the same as error-correction. You can refine an incorrect answer to an amazing degree, but you won't make it any more correct. This has nothing to do with being unable to know an "absolute truth," only wanting to have a process by which we can try and approach it.

Odd that you want an atheist to define god for you. Can you define ablkasadt for me? To me, "god" is a meaningless term. The best approximation of a definition I can give is that "god" is a character in some storybooks. How's that? Have fun at work.

First of all, no I don't believe I have changed the subject. And just because you say so doesn't make it true. Second, I feel that after your numerous little "jabs" I am entitled to one or two minor ones. Third, when you argue for "standards" - a word you've used, you're arguing for absolutes. If you're not arguing for absolutes, then you're talking about "principles." A standard says: this is true, period. No debate, no possibility of error. A principle says "all things being equal, this is true."

Religious language has a process by which it grows to be more accurate in accounting for reality. There are principles in language, but they are not absolute. Words come into and go out of language, languages evolve, the meaning of words change. There are dictionary's in language, but they don't set the "rules" - they catalog the evolution of language. That is why new versions of dictionary's change definitions of words and add new words - because language is like a living, evolving thing. It is not static and concrete. It does not have absolutes. I gave examples of that same kind of progression through the history of theological thought.

There are plenty of correcting, refining mechanisms, and the fact that some people choose not to use them is not in itself a justification for making sweeping generalizations about "religion." Pseudo-science fails to use appropriate kinds of evaluation and self-correcting processes available in science. The result is fringe science, paranormal speculation treated as absolute fact, sects, cults, etc. Of course, no one in their right mind says, "because there is pseudo-science, therefore science is discredited."

You say I am missing your point, but I am not missing it. It is simply invalid. There is the possibility of error-correction in religion. For example, if a religion makes the claim that god created a firmament - that claim is correctable (to a reasonable degree of certainty) by advances in science. We understand that, to the best of our knowledge, the sky is not made up of liquid form water held back by an invisible shield. We have more evidence to support that latter assertion and evidence that seems to directly contradict the former assertion. So it can be corrected.

Now, just because someone says "no!" and chooses to still believe in a firmament and ignore other evidence is not something I can do anything about, and it cannot be used as a indictment of religion in general. Why not? Because it is not a necessary condition of "being religious" that you reject forms of credible evidence to contradicts a previously held idea. Many people do not do that for instance.

One of the self-correcting mechanisms in my religious experience is empirical evidence. I am not a Christian in any traditional sense, but hypothetically, if I were a Christian and someone uncovered strong evidence that Jesus never existed - for example something like writings that talk about the invention of a Jesus figure, or other kinds of evidence - then, after looking at the evidence if it was indeed compelling, I wouldn't deny the evidence and continue on with a belief. I would accept the evidence. Whether or not that means that my Christian perspective (in that example) on religion is torn down or not depends largely on how I actually think about my Christianity. Either way, what I'm not going to do is keep believing something in the face of contradictory evidence.

There are however many discussions within religion that our beyond the domain in which science can be finally informative. There are subjects where we cannot come to a conclusive answer via methods of empiricism alone. If you feel that means the discussion is meaningless, that's fine - other than the fact of course that the basis for that assertion rests on an inescapable logical fallacy. But philosophy and the arts are areas where discussion is not measured in absolutes of objective "right" and objective "wrong." That doesn't mean there is no progress, nor does it mean that there are no principles for differentiating a reasonable position from an unreasonable one within that framework.

You didn't like be using the term absolute, but that's exactly what you are implying. Your problem with religion is that in your view there is no absolute criteria for evaluating "true" and "false." There are only two discipline that has an absolute criteria for defining true and false: science and mathematics. Philosophy is not about "true" and "false." The arts - literature, painting, expression - are not evaluated in terms of "right" and "wrong" claims, and yet the arts have a great deal to offer us when it comes to more fully understanding and appreciating life.

Are you suggesting that the only things that can be said to have any meaning are scientific or mathematical claims? If yes, you've surrendered yourself to an inescapable logical contradiction and base your worldview on an unscientific claim. If no, then you allow for the possibility that things like philosophy, the arts, and theology can be said to have capacity for meaning in human life. Each these things to have principles by which we can make evaluations of the reasonability or validity of certain approaches, expressions and or premises.

There are principles by which one can talk about the quality and value of one piece of art over another - art critics do that all the time. But art critics can't rightfully tell someone that they are wrong to like a certain piece of art. "Wrong" doesn't apply to the experience, but that doesn't mean the experience of art is meaningless or ridiculous. What a sad world it would be if we actually thought that. There are principles and criterion by which one can talk about the validity of certain philosophical approaches to certain question, and principles by which we can evaluate the reasonability of philosophical arguments. And anyone who doesn't recognize the demonstrable forward progression of human thinking through the history of philosophy knows nothing of philosophy. But that doesn't mean that philosophical subjects are always things with empirically verifiable "right" and "wrong" answers.

The issue in philosophy is to answer certain questions with a complete and internally logically consistent system - that's logically valid. Logically sound then, means that in point of fact this system happens to be objectively true. Well we may never know that when it comes to things like epistemology for example. So we look at the different approaches out there and we try to come to the ones that seem to be the best explanation for what we do know and experience in life. We debate and discuss each others ideas, and refine them. The self-correction criteria is dialog and discussion with other great minds and the correction of logical inconsistencies or mischaracterations of reality.

All of these things apply to theology.

If you can't define "theist" and you can't define "god" then you really don't have much business making arguments against theism or arguments about god. Furthermore, it is hilariously hypocritical to say "I forgot how theist just get to change the definition when they don't like it" when you can't even give a definition in the first place. I suggest the same principles are valid for the term "religion," as I find it difficult to believe you could come up with a definition of religion that didn't include the word "god" or "gods" - and if you can't define that term, then your whole larger definition becomes ambiguous and incoherent. You can't argue against something you can't even define. As Wittgenstein wrote, "wherein one cannot speak, therein one must be silent."

You can't help but redefine words. Exactly where do you get the definition of "standard" to be "this is true, period. No debate, no possibility of error"? Is that something you just made up?

Webster says that standard means "something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example." That's how I was using the word. Now I see why you have such an insistence that people define their opponent's terms. It sure makes it easier for you to attack others by redefining their words for them, doesn't it?

By your own words, though, you have proven that you still don't get it. Your very examples you are using to claim that religion IS self-correcting show nothing of the sort. Your examples are using OTHER systems, namely science, to correct religion! How I wish we could do that more! But as you note, someone can, via the magic of religion, simply close their eyes to the science, cover their ears from any sort of other analysis, and stick with their claim. Because religion wields the ultimate weapon of invalidation: the miracle.

The only way out of the problem is to use your escape hatch of saying that religion is just like philosophy. In other words, saying that religion really makes no verifiable claims, it's just a way of looking at things. Of course that means you have invalidated Christianity, Islam, Judaism, pretty much every sect out there, since all of them make quite specific religious claims about reality. And the fact that those claims can never be reconciled is just a fact of religion - the way that the majority of the world uses the term, not just you and the philosophers you've chosen to agree with. I identify this as a flaw, because it directly results in the kinds of wackos we see on our Top 25 list.

But once again, even in your system, you are not "correcting" anything. As I pointed out in my previous post, "refining" an answer is NOT the same as "correcting" it. You can philosophize all you want and come up with an answer that you FEEL is correct, but that's all.

Finally, on your little righteous diatribe regarding how I can't define "theist" or "god" or whatever term you decide to pick - that's not my job. The definition I use is the one that belongs to whomever I'm arguing with. If I pick the definition, it's far too easy for the theist to simply say, "Nope, that's not what I believe." And where does the discussion go from there?

You can't help but redefine words. Exactly where do you get the definition of "standard" to be "this is true, period. No debate, no possibility of error"? Is that something you just made up?


That is Smith's definition, he uses principle as what he believes is the rationalist's alternative to "standards."


By your own words, though, you have proven that you still don't get it. Your very examples you are using to claim that religion IS self-correcting show nothing of the sort. Your examples are using OTHER systems, namely science, to correct religion! How I wish we could do that more! But as you note, someone can, via the magic of religion, simply close their eyes to the science, cover their ears from any sort of other analysis, and stick with their claim. Because religion wields the ultimate weapon of invalidation: the miracle.


There is nothing inherent in the definition of religion that necessitates believing in a miracle. Just because someone does reject some other argument by appealing to the "miraculous" doesn't say anything about religion - it says something about that person. So this entire paragraph is invalidated. However, I'll engage it a little anyway.

You exclaim that I use principles of science correct religion as though that's some kind of big deal. We use principles of empirical evidence gathering to correct science, religion, philosophy, history, and ever other dimension of human life. If a claim we make - any claim, from any dimension of life - has empirical evidence that directly contradicts it, and we can be reasonable certain of the soundness of our empirical evidence, then that evidence should reasonably serve as a correction to our point of view. That is not a particularly shocking claim. In fact I personal believe that empirical evidence and logical reasoning have a place in every kind of discussion we could possibly get into - the difference is I don't believe that the tool of science alone can be logically claimed to be the one and only ground for making a meaningful statement about something - particularly since that claim itself is not a scientific claim.

Of course someone can close their eyes to science and cover their ears to any other analysis, but that is no specific criticism of religion. Scientists can close their eyes to science and ignore any other analysis. That doesn't invalidate Science - it discredits the specific scientist. Philosophers, Historians and theologians can all close their eyes to empirical evidence or ignore other analysis. In no case is that a sufficient condition for the dismissal of all philosophy, theology or historical pursuits.


But once again, even in your system, you are not "correcting" anything. As I pointed out in my previous post, "refining" an answer is NOT the same as "correcting" it. You can philosophize all you want and come up with an answer that you FEEL is correct, but that's all.


And once again I point out to you, that there are only two places where "correction" occurs as you meaning it: mathematics and hard sciences. That’s it. Just because Philosophy has a "refining" process but not a "correcting" process because Philosophy is not dealing with empirical or mathematical true/false statements does not mean philosophy has no value. In fact philosophy has had great value in human history standing right alongside science.

History may have some objectivity - x event really happened, y thing was done on z date. But the interpretations of history the - meaning ascribed to actions and events are totally open to interpretation. That doesn't mean we are wasting time when we read history books. The interpretations of historians are not necessarily open to yes/no true/false "correction" because they are interpretations of the meaning and import of factual events. But those interpretations certainly are open to refinement process in which by the strength of argumentation and reasoning they either gain or lose credibility.

Your lust to condemn religion is causing you to make some crazy statements that are just not supportable by any reasonable standard. Philosophy, History, the Arts - these are not exclusively objective fields with "correct" answers, that doesn't mean they are invalid, inappropriate or without usefulness or importance. The same is true with theology.

Basically all your argument really rationally says is “religion is not a science, and cannot be verified by scientific inquiry!” To which I respond, “no shit.”


Finally, on your little righteous diatribe regarding how I can't define "theist" or "god" or whatever term you decide to pick - that's not my job. The definition I use is the one that belongs to whomever I'm arguing with. If I pick the definition, it's far too easy for the theist to simply say, "Nope, that's not what I believe." And where does the discussion go from there?


It is in fact your job to define your terms before you open your mouth to criticize something. Criticizing something you can't define is ludicrous. If you can't define it, then there's nothing to do but stay silent. Think about this for a second: if I came into a forum and I started attacking "socialism" - and ranting about how historically socialism has always failed and how it betrays the people and inevitably leads to authoritarianism, etc. If someone asked me "do you even know what socialism means? Can you define what you are referring to when you say socialism?" and I reply that no, I cannot give any definition for the thing I've just been waxing eloquent about, I DESERVE to be laughed out of the building in disgrace.

If you engage a person who makes an argument about "god" or "theism" or "religion" then you have every right to ask them to define those terms, and then discuss those definitions with them, agree or disagree, etc.

But in this cause, you're the one making the claims. You're the one who keeps saying "I love it when theists do x...." without even being able to define what a theist is! Do you see how absurd that makes you look? Can you name for me any other rational discussion where that kind of absurdity would be tolerated. Do you think Scientific Journals would take articles where a guy writes a bunch of opinions on a particular hypothesis without having any idea how to even define the subject his discussing?

You're the one saying "religion this" and "religion that" and yet, you can't define religion, because any definition you try to give of religion is likely to include the word "God" and you can't define the word God. So with due respect, and forgive my bluntness - how is any reasonable person supposed to not come to the conclusion that you are basically talking out of your rear end about things you have no clue about?

If I come into a forum and I make a claim about God, or I say "theists believe this" or I start talking about "religion" - you have ever right to ask me to define those terms. And of course you then have every right in the world to say "I don't agree with those definitions" or "I don't agree with your conclusions or inferences based on those definitions," etc. But if you come into a forum and open up with terms like "theist" or talk about "god" or criticism of "religion" and you can't even define what you are talking about... then you don't deserve to be taken serious, and Wittgenstein's words become pretty good advice.

I'm glad you like George Smith's definition (if that's truly what he said, and you're not taking some liberty with the text). But it's not the one I used. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. If anything, you are strengthening my view that when you ask (or in your case, DEMAND) someone else to define your terms, you end up with confusion and discord.

You exclaim that I use principles of science correct religion as though that's some kind of big deal.

Trust me, it is. Oh, science has played a role correcting religion through the ages, no doubt. With religion kicking and screaming the whole way. If the two views were as harmonious as you apparently like to think, we simply would not see the incredible disagreements that lead to schisms, holy wars, and even the Top 25 list. I feel like a broken record here.

For the record, I'm not "condemning" religion, lustfully or otherwise. I'm not saying it's invalid, I'm not saying it isn't important. Those are ALL words that you have chosen to put into my mouth, a tactic you just can't seem to get away from (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x7400#7577). I am simply pointing out a weakness inherent in any system that does not have any kind of error-correction capabilities. Religion is one. Philosophy is another. Such systems may certainly be useful for specific individuals to try and define "meaning" or provide a context for a worldview to make sense of the world. But their inherent weaknesses will inevitably cause problems when people (again, like the Top 25) decide upon one interpretation which simply cannot be corrected within the system. You have no means to challenge them.

A scientist refusing to consider data contrary to his or her views is not being a scientist.

A <theist/religious believer/whatever you want to call it> who refuses to consider other data is simply following his or her faith. After all, maybe they're right and you're wrong! You never can tell, can you?

At any rate, I think there is just a little too much emotion right now to continue this discussion. Maybe we can pick it up again sometime, but I think both of us need a break.

I'm glad you like George Smith's definition (if that's truly what he said, and you're not taking some liberty with the text). But it's not the one I used. So I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. If anything, you are strengthening my view that when you ask (or in your case, DEMAND) someone else to define your terms, you end up with confusion and discord.


Of course, anyone reading this knows full well they are not "my terms." When you make an argument, such as saying Christianity always leads to unresolvable fights between two different groups of Christians calling each other wrong, logic demands - not me - that you at least have some ability to actually define the terms you use. You want to define Christian you'll need to define religion. You want to do that, you'll need to define what you mean by the concepts implied in that definition - god and possibly theism.

You are the one who said that my asking you to do that was like asking you to define "asdfasdf" and yet here you are, going on and on with "Trosky's dissertation on asdasdf" Would you like an example? No problem!


Trust me, it is. Oh, science has played a role correcting religion through the ages, no doubt. With religion kicking and screaming the whole way. If the two views were as harmonious as you apparently like to think, we simply would not see the incredible disagreements that lead to schisms, holy wars, and even the Top 25 list. I feel like a broken record here.


First of all this statement is invalid, and anyone who takes logic seriously knows it can be nothing but invalid. There are two reasons why. First, you'll notice here that you're the one making a claim - not me. Altogether I've said a grand total of zero about the historical relationship between religion and science. But now you've chosen too. You've choosing to give your own take on things, while at the same time stating that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. If you can't define what you mean by the term "religion" which begs the question of what you mean by the term "god" then your attempts to make statements about things you cannot define are meaningless and ridiculous.

Second, I'll assume you are defining religion narrowly as synonymous with historical western Christian religious institutions. Because it is not the case that all religious individuals have had a disharmonious relationship with science which you have to concede. It is also likely not the case that all religious institutions have had a disharmonious relationship with science, and unless you're ready to speak with expert authority about every eastern religion, paganism, pantheism and the like then about the only claim you can make intelligently is that wester organized Christian institutions have a history of being at odds with science. Which of course doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of examples of individual Christians who have no such history at all.

Which is part of the reason why you inability and/or refusal to define the terms of the things you're arguing about makes your entire argument invalid and relatively meaningless. I would agree with you if your assertions were specific and well defined, not vague and impossible to support. The western Christian religious institution's history specifically is soiled with too many examples of that specific institutions dogma pitting itself against the advances of science, and that is a shame. Trying to turn that into any larger statement about religion or god is weak.


For the record, I'm not "condemning" religion, lustfully or otherwise. I'm not saying it's invalid, I'm not saying it isn't important. Those are ALL words that you have chosen to put into my mouth, a tactic you just can't seem to get away from (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ). I am simply pointing out a weakness inherent in any system that does not have any kind of error-correction capabilities.


When you say things like this, they don't bother me at all. Because if I have indeed put words into your mouth, I would want to correct that, but its not a tactic. It's simply what happens when two people coming from extremely different perspectives try to talk. It's pretty absurd to imagine that at no point would we ever mistake each other's meaning. I think at different points we've both said the same things to each other: I've said that you've put words into my mouth when I've said multiple times (in this thread and the one you reference - than you by the way for free air time) that you've assumed I think things that I don't. The only difference here is that I'm the only one trying to correct those misunderstandings. You keep right on doing the same thing.

You make a statement like this:


I don't see any of these characteristics in religion, even in your special definition of religion. There are no self-correcting processes, and that is precisely why there are thousands of sects and cults, and also why we have people like our Top 25 Evangelists. There are no standards, no way for people to settle disagreements. And so they either kill each other or set up a different church. The history of religion in a nutshell.


And then start acting-selfrightoues about how I put words in your mouth when I said you condemn "religion" without being able to define it. Forgive me - I read describing the history of religion in a nutshell as a bunch of people killing each other as a condemnation. I don't know how I could have possibly thought that. However, we can argue about semantics if you want, and we can shift the focus onto the personal if you like, or you can choose to stay focused on the issues by allowing me to say this:

if you have some kind of problem with my use of the word "condemn" and feel that this is unfairly putting words in your mouth, just say so. I'm glad you referenced a thread which clearly shows me immediately trying to correct a misstatement when I did unfairly characterize your remark. It shows what I care about, and certainly doesn't reflect badly on me. So allow my to change "your lustful condemnation" to "your lustful critique." Would you agree that you have offered a critique? Would you concede that you have offered a critique of something you refuse to define? Could you give me an example of any other place where that would not be considered absurd?

Also, I think you are deliberately softening yourself because the arguments starting to back you into a corner. Are you really "only" pointing out a weakness of philosophy or a weakness of religion when you point out that there is no objective way to determine "right" and "wrong?" Or are you making a value judgment, saying that these things have less value than something else, namely science? If yes, then you have to state why that is true. If the answer is because only sciences have the ability for "correction" by your definition, then I ask why that makes sciences superior to any other form of discussion? And if the answer is because only "facts" coming from a system with the ability for "correction" have any meaning, then I welcome you to the wonderful world of logical contradiction, since that in itself is not a scientific claim.


A scientist refusing to consider data contrary to his or her views is not being a scientist.

A <theist/religious believer/whatever you want to call it> who refuses to consider other data is simply following his or her faith. After all, maybe they're right and you're wrong! You never can tell, can you?


I don't agree with your premise on many levels. I don't agree that "religion" is all subjectively relative with no possibly to evaluate strong or weak arguments, true or false statements, etc. Second and more importantly, I don't agree that if something cannot be concretely broken down into matters of empirical "fact" and "right" and "wrong" that it is therefore a "weakness." I don't believe it is a "weakness" of philosophy, but a strength. It would be a weakness if philosophy was trying to do hard sciences. But it isn't. It is certainly not a weakness of Art, and in fact not even the point of Art. That doesn't make it a weakness, it just makes it different.

Finally I'd like to point out that here once again we have yet another example of you making a claim without being able to even define the thing you're talking about. You can't define theist, because to do so would require you to define what you mean by the word "god" and you can't do that. You can't define "religious believer" or faith for the same reason. And yet here you are, being awfully opinionated about subject you can't even define.


At any rate, I think there is just a little too much emotion right now to continue this discussion. Maybe we can pick it up again sometime, but I think both of us need a break.


Friend, you have yet to see me feeling emotion. I think that you think somehow I'm threatened or "challenged" or even remotely concerned about your arguments when I'm not. I mean, I'm interested in discussing them with you, and I think you've been relatively adult about the whole thing. But it would be pretty hard to get to "emotional" about arguments based on concepts that the arguer can't even define. It's also hard to get to riled about about a long argument which seems more and more to be pushing toward the logically unsupportable and contradictory premise that science is the only valid form or knowledge.

Don't mistake me: I'm not meaning to put words into your mouth. You haven't specifically stated that yet, and you've ducked each attempt of mine to get you to answer the question, but it seems to be the necessary conclusion implied in your arguments. Unless of course you are then affirming that philosophy and religion can also be important tools for knowledge and insight and stand equal in value to science? You're not saying that, are you? Well if you're not saying that then you are saying one or two things: 1) science is superior to philosophy and religion for making meaningful claims. 2) science is the only way to make meaningful claims. Either one of those are a logical contradiction.

One other thing I'd like to address, from a previous post:


The only way out of the problem is to use your escape hatch of saying that religion is just like philosophy. In other words, saying that religion really makes no verifiable claims, it's just a way of looking at things. Of course that means you have invalidated Christianity, Islam, Judaism, pretty much every sect out there, since all of them make quite specific religious claims about reality. And the fact that those claims can never be reconciled is just a fact of religion - the way that the majority of the world uses the term, not just you and the philosophers you've chosen to agree with. I identify this as a flaw, because it directly results in the kinds of wackos we see on our Top 25 list.


First of all, religions is like philosophy, and that is not in any serious dispute by anyone.

Secondly, not all self-proclaimed christians, Islamic or Jews make "quite specific claims about reality." I don't think you have expertise on "pretty much every sect out there" and I question that claim when I think about certain eastern religion, paganism, and other forms or religious experience that aren't westeren christian institutionalism. Now I ask you to name some of the "specific claims about reality" that you believe are universal to the experience of religion. In other words, are you saying that religion in any and all forms makes x claims about reality? If so, name them. If you can't then you've basically invalidated your own argument, becuase while your critique may be true of specific manifiestations of religion in one or more forms, it is not true of relgion itself, on the whole, in its innermost sense.

Once again, you don't invalidate the institution of "science" becuase you can point to some nutjobs claiming they are scientists. You do invalidate the nutjob. Likewise, if you have specific critcism of specific people doing specific things in the name of religion, you invalidate specific people. But unless those criticism rise to the level of universally applicable to all manifiestations of religon (in other words, "if you want to talk about religion in any form, it muse include these specific things or it is not appropriately called religion") then such critcism don't have anything to say about "religion" in general. And since you won't define your terms, we'll never know.

Third, you use the term "religion" and then say "the way the majority of the world uses the term" - could you define that for me? No of course not - becuase you want to talk a big talk about religion without even being able to define what you are talking about. I dont know why anyone should take you remotely seriously until you define your terms.

Finally, there are wackos in every intsitution. You don't need religion for that.

PS -- I love your opening about George Smith... "if" I am being honest about it, as though it just blows your mind that I could possibly read and like Smiths book. It just shows how little you know about me. In fact, I love Smith's book. It is one of my favorites. There are some things I don't agree with, logically. But his indicitment of christian religious institutionalism is scathing and some of the best points I've ever read. I couldn't agree more with him there. Of course, he actually defines his terms before making his critique and sets the scope and parameters of what he's discussing. That always helps.

I had assumed the common definitions for the terms, but since you've apparently based your entire argument on that fact that I haven't spelled them out for you, here you go:

religion:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

God:
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

theism:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Do you have any points left to argue, or was that pretty much it?

First of all, I'm sorry that my request seems so unreasonable to you and I'll do my best to clarify why I think it matters and see if I can make it make sense. But you need to understand one thing first:

I think you think I'm hammering you for definitions so I can reject your arguments by saying "well that's not how I define it." In fact, whether you believe me or not, I'm actually hammering you for definitions because I like logically consistent arguments, and because I think if you were to do that - I would actually agree with you on many points. I'm going to try to see if I can make that clear here.

I have a couple questions about the definitions. First with the definitions of religion.

Religion:
Obviously the root of the two definitions seems to be a system (either personal or institutionalized) of values and beliefs based on believe in the existence of God. A couple thoughts struck me about this:

-- I don't think Buddhism qualifies as a "religion" by this definition, since it has no "supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." Yet many if not most people call Buddhism a religion. What do you think about it?

-- If someone were to believe that the universe got created some other way, and then a supernatural power or powers came on to the scene to "govern" the universe, do you think that would constitute as a religious belief? If so, then the first definition of religion given is incorrect, because "creator" is not a necessary component for religion.

-- What about deists, who (if I understand correctly) believe that a higher power created the world, but does not govern it? Is that appropriately considered a religion? If so, then the definition seems to be not particularly accurate.

-- This is my most important question (those others are more just musings): definition 2) of religion says "a personal or institutionalized system" -- do you feel that both a personal belief system and an institutional structure can be criticized in the same way? Do you think they would necessarily be even saying the same kinds of things?

Hang in here with me and let me try to explain what I'm getting at. Take a look at this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... In this thread I try to outline the differences of perspectives on what "Christian" means. I talk about the "dogmatic absolute" school of thought on the matter and the "relational" school of thought on the matter. I think the point I've never made clear enough to you, is that if you define terms like "religion" "God" and "Theism" in the way of the dogmatic absolutist, then I strongly agree with many if not most of our criticisms. Very few if any of the statements of the Nicene creed, miracles, biblical literalism, or other fundamentalists interpretations can stand up to much scrutiny.

However, I'm not sure that is the only appropriate way to think of "religion" and I know for a fact there are many people who don't think of it that way at all. Not on religion is institutionalized. It is not all dogmatic assertions. It is not all about making specific claims about the world. And I guess I'm not sure that a person with a more relational-school approach to religion, who sees it more as language and thinks about it more in terms of developing a moral philosophy, not in terms of making claims of divine revelation or biblical inerrancy - I'm not sure the same kinds of criticisms are relevant to such people.

Oh there are certainly criticism that are relevant - but not the rejection of dogma, nor criticisms about "religion" being at odds with science or any other criticisms that make overgeneralizations that wouldn't at all apply to such people. You dismiss the "religion is communicative language some use to articulate and express life experiences" as just "another theist conveniently redefining terms to avoid questions." But that statement sounds an awful lot like a person who's upset because he didn't get to make the same standard argument he always makes against most people's idea of religion. But more important than that is this: I don't really care all that much if what I'm calling religion shouldn't be called religion and should be called something else - no problem! Do you have a suggestion for what it should be called? I'll call it that. It doesn't change the fact that this is how I see it.

By the way, do you have any idea what kind of criticisms I think would be extremely relevant to someone who comes and religion from a more relational perspective rather than a dogmatic one?

God:
I know you don't have any interest in hearing my say "well that's not how I define God." So I won't say that. Instead I'll ask a couple of other questions. You are familiar with the fact that there are some traditions that many (if not most) people consider "religions" that don't believe in an omnipotent god? There are even more traditions that don't believe in an omniscient god? Even in Christian tradition there are certain streams of thought that reject these categories. My question is, do they cease being "religious" when they reject those categorizations for "God" and what do you think about the religious traditions out there who don't conceive of God as all knowing or all powerful? Should they be called religions?

I'll admit that I was surprised to have a dictionary definition define God in the narrow way of classical Christian theism. Basic history shows us clearly the religious life of other cultures, and what many call religion certain does not always include a belief in an omnipotent or omniscient god. I wonder - does that mean we shouldn't call those things religion? It might be! It certainly might be that the kinds of things I've been lumping under the heading "religion" have been far far too broad, and that what I've been associating with the term "god" is far far too broad.

Theism:
My only question about this definition is what does "especially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world" mean? Can one be "especially theistic?" Like is simply believing in God only a sort of "weak" theism, but believing in a personal God who created and ruled the world" is a sort of strong theism? But wait, now I'm confused. Because by the definition of God given above, God can apparently only be an omniscient, omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe - so how could it be especially theistic to believe in that kind of God? Apparently, no other kind of god can be believed in anyway and rightfully be called "God" anyway, so why is it that according to the definition of theism, this basic definition of God is "especially" theistic. Is the some other form of theism? If so, that seems to indicate the definition of God is lacking..? Or I am in some other way confused.

I tend to really like the dictionary for helping to get terms straight. But in this case, it creates several more questions in my mind.

(edited to fix the utter collapse in my ability to spell)

Summary:
I'd like to sum this whole discussion up from my side if you'll allow. And believe it or not I don't think you'll be particularly unhappy with the summary. My chief concern, which I'm not sure I've made clear enough is: there are clearly two different sides to "religion" the personal belief system and the institutional structure(s). It is absolutely not the case that a person must have experience of both to be called a "religious person." Many people have an institutional experience of authoritarian hierarchy, moralism and rule following without any kind of personal belief structure - their entire experience is based on a kind of collective institutional consciousness.

On the other hand, many people have a personal religious experience without ever coming anywhere near any religious intuition, dogma, moralism or authoritarianism. In fact as Paul Tillich points out, it is the very fact that some people take religion in its innermost sense (and by this he means personal and philosophical sense) so seriously that causes them to reject religions in a wider sense (and by this is means concrete religious institutional structures). Certainly some people have both kinds or religious experience in some kind of mixture, but it is not necessary to have both to be said to be religious and many people don't.

My concern therefore is that I feel that the criticisms that apply very appropriately to religious institutions do not apply appropriately to personal religious belief. Likewise, I feel the criticisms that apply very appropriately to personal religious belief do not apply appropriately to religious institutions. That is why when I am talking to someone who is critical of “religion” I want to know what he means by the term. Even when you give the dictionary definition of “religion” it lumps the personal and institutional together as though both elements are required to be appropriately termed “religion” and I think that is a mistake.

I want to know what someone means by the term religion when they make a criticism, because I want to know if they really mean the institutional structures that are present in Western society and have been through history, or if they mean the personal piety of an individual and his or her own articulation of a moral philosophy for life. In even simple language, when people start being critical of “religion” I want to know if by that they mean organized religion, or personal faith – more specifically, I want to know if by that they mean organized American Christian institutional structures or the personal philosophies and beliefs of individuals.

Now, here is my biggest bias: I do not belong to religious institutions; in fact I’ve basically rejected them. I’m highly skeptical that they can lead anywhere good. I believe that so much, that I blame the institutionalization of religion for the production of idiots like these “Top 25.” I blame religious institutionalization for half for the world’s violence. I blame religious institutionalization for three fourths of the world’s ignorance. I blame the American Christian religious institution in large part for the continuing decline of our own nation is economic and social injustices and disparities continue to grow rather than shrink. However - I believe in God, or at least I should say I believe in something I thought I could appropriately call God, before I read your dictionary definition that says that apparently believing the tenants of classical Christian theism are required to believe in “God.” I’m still pretty skeptical about that definition.

My point is, I consider myself “religious” because I believe in God. Put more specifically, I believe that the language and metaphor of God appropriately correlates to some actual truths of the human experience and of life on the whole. I recognize that I could be wrong in my belief, or mistaken, or not understand my reasoning well enough to realize I am incorrect in my belief. But as a feeble human being doing the best I can, I feel at this time that these beliefs are valuable. My problem is that I have nothing in common with the religious institutions that you criticize. I criticize them too. But when you say “religion this” or “religion that” and start making criticism that could only legitimately apply to the institutional religious structure, I argue back. Because I think to myself, “wait a minute I’m a religious man and none of those things have anything to do with my religious language.”

Am I being clear? You and others make arguments against “religion” – and I take that to mean religion in its broadest sense. But I look at religion in its broadest sense and think, “many if not most of these statements are either over-generalizations or simply do not apply to non-institutional expressions of religion.” A couple weeks ago I got into a three day discussion with someone which was never adequately resolved. He could not accept the fact that I wasn’t disagreeing with his criticisms of religious institutions I was only disagreeing with one statement he made: that theism by definition, inescapably leads to authoritarianism.

That statement is only true of religion in an institutional sense. A person can have a private belief in God and never have anything more than that, never become a part of a religious institution, or never do anything about the belief. His personal belief does not necessarily lead him to authoritarian attitudes. However, he was dead right in implying that the more institutionalized religion becomes the more it moves towards authoritarianism. This is at least a trend in western history – I’m not sure if this same trend is true in eastern religions. But it’s true enough for me to find value in, as it is very often the case.

If you want to apply institutional criticism to religious institutions you can do that with me till the end of time and I will likely do very little but be your cheerleader at “yes” man. I strongly believe that religious institutional structures can and should be criticized. However if you want to try and invalidate someone’s personal religious language on the grounds that it isn’t scientific and is therefore not open to correction, I’m going to have to argue with you until I am blue in the face – because the justification “because it’s not scientific” is problematic and inescapably leads to a logical contradiction.

It is not provable that scientific claims are the only avenue to meaning. It is certainly hard to make an intelligent case that argues that simply because a discipline is not a “hard” science, meaning there are no clear “yes/no” or “right/wrong” kinds of corrections possible (i.e. it is a discipline that includes a “refining” but not “correcting” process – please note I use your definition of these terms even though I don’t agree with them) it is somehow inferior to science. Psychology, Sociology, History*, Philosophy – all of these are not “hard” sciences and there are no easy “yes/no” or “right/wrong” answers possible. Yet these fields are indispensable to human understanding and every bit as much a part of fully apprehending our existence as hard sciences are. Now, whether or not the same can be said for religion (that it is every bit as much a part of fully apprehending our existence as hard sciences) is a debatable claim. Frankly, I personally would debate that point, but that’s because I see religion as language – so that it may be an important part of fully apprehending the world (in conjunction with all these other disciplines)for one person and it may not be for someone else. But that’s a discussion for another time.

When it comes down to debating the legitimacy of someone’s personal religious language or beliefs, I think the only reasonable answer anyone can give is no answer at all – silence. I don’t believe we can every say anything reasonable on that subject other than “I don’t know” if it’s “right” or “wrong” for anyone other than me. Not when it comes down to making institutional criticism and applying that specifically to religious institutions, that is something we can do with a great deal of accuracy and expertise.

So this is where a lot of my arguments come from: I don’t believe that this kind of categorization of the two different kinds of religious categories actively exists in many people’s minds. Therefore, even they later said “I didn’t mean all religion” the truth is, they really did – because they understand no distinction between institutional and personal. Further more, far, far, far too many people on this side of the world conflate American Christian institutions with “religion” on the whole – another point at which I will almost always start arguments. Many, many of the things a lot of people say around here apply almost exclusively to American organized Christianity and hardly ever apply outside of that context, and yet they “frame” their objection as a stunning refutation of “religion” in general. In my mind, I immediately think of about twenty-five counter examples of other religious traditions to which those criticisms particular to Christianity completely do not apply and therefore question the claim that there has been fair critique of “religion” as a whole. That’s about the time that people start getting mad.

So in conclusion, my objections to the bulk of what gets posted here is very simple: it’s too broad. It’s very rarely that there are no valid points at all, its just that the arguments themselves are very good for challenging specific things: institutional criticism is very important in critiquing religious institutions, which is not the same as critiquing “religion” universally or generally, since we know that one need not have an institutional experience to have a personal “religious” experience.

Criticism against Christianity and Christian concepts is good for criticizing Christianity and Christian concepts – nothing more or less. It cannot be substituted in as a logical critique against all religion or forms of religious expression or definitions of religion because not all forms of religious accept or agree with Christian concepts in the first place. This includes by the way, the tenets of classical Christian theism such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence – those work for rejecting the God articulated by classical Christian tradition and little else.

When you get right down to trying to make a general criticism of “religion” in its broadest and deepest sense, the bottom line is: you can’t. No one can. The truth is we just don’t know and we have know way to prove these things true or false. However we have a lot of capacity to criticize very specific manifestations of religion, specifically religious institutions, and we should keep doing that.

Have a good day. Thanks for the discussion.
Sel

*some would argue that history is an objective discipline, but I agree with Howard Zinn in his rejection of that claim and assertion that history is subjective, or at least no historian can talk about history in any way other than subjectively.

If you want people to really read what you say - ESPECIALLY on a vibrant, quick-moving discussion board - keep it short and to the point.

Your "summary" is almost 2000 words long! Koresh save us if you should decide to post your complete thoughts on something!

Seriously, you are stuck in some sort of "paralysis by analysis" mode. Rather than really discuss the core issue, you get hopelessly lost in minute trivialities like hair's width variations in some arbitrarily chosen definition. (Yes, I just plucked them off of Dictionary.com!)

To top it off, you almost seem to get personally offended by any sort of disagreement.

Look, here's my summary, and I'm done:

To me, the existence of the "Top 25" is simply further proof that in the religious (or philosophical, if you prefer) sphere, it is impossible to achieve any kind of consensus. This is because there is no accepted touchstone, no "standards" on which to determine whether a religious or philosophical claim has any validity to it whatsoever. This is why when there is a disagreement in a church, it inevitably leads to a schism or holy war. "You're reading the bible wrong!" "No, YOU are!" Stalemate.

While you quibble and fret over what constitutes "religion" or "God" or whatever, people with extreme right-wing views have found justification for those views in religion. And because of that, we have no way of debating with them, no way to show them wrong, no way to counter their agenda effectively. If it were possible, liberal Christians would have been able to squash the theocratic movement long ago.

There. Two paragraphs. Not bad, eh?

My writing "style" (or lack thereof) or length is irrelevant to any issue at hand. Offering your "friendly advice" in a patronizing manner and focusing on personal issues like my lack of brevity instead of the argument is just an argumentation dirty trick and cheap shot.

If you feel it is not worth reading, that's your decision. Not choosing to read something is ok, if you also choose not to respond to it. That's your choice. Choosing not to read something then responding back to it anyway is kind of sad and its pretty arrogant. It tells me exactly how little you think of who you are talking to, and exactly how much you think of yourself. "I don't need to read this puny idiots blather to come back and make an argument! My arguments are superior with or without the facts!" :)

Part of the problem with addressing these subjects on a discussion forum is that they don't avail themselves to the "quick moving" pace since they are exceptionally complicated topcis. So instead, what you get much more of is cheap, half-assed weak sauce argumentation.

For example, no one should even enter a discussion on theoretical physics and not expect complicated, detailed, discussion to occur. Discussion of religion, science and religion, epistemic skepticism, language and semeiotics - all of which are things we've been discussing - are also complicated. You can write about them shortly, but that requires you to make false generalizations and sweeping arguments that just don't stand up to scrutiny. Or you can take the time to really think about the subjects. Given the choice between shorter but demonstratably fallacious arguments or longer, possibly more poorly written, but logically defensible arguments I would strive for the latter.

Though you have chosen to make this personal at many points, I choose not to respond in kind any further than I have already done.

Everyone wants to live in a fast-food world where everything can be consolidated into sound bite. But I don't believe everything can. Thinking in-depth about certain subjects is good for me. Maybe it’s not always pretty, but too bad. I enjoy it, and I interact with enough people who also enjoy it. If you don't want to participate in that kind of discussion, no one is asking you to.

>> I forgot how much it flusters atheists when people don't answer questions in the ways they are comfortable with. <<

You mean when theists don't answer questions in ways like... oh... what's the word... "directly"? Or when they simply ignore the question or change the subject entirely? Or who prefer to play word games by redefining words on-the-fly, and who simply refuse to use the commonly accepted meaning of ordinary words?

Yeah... I suppose that would fluster anybody, not just atheists.

>> Someone said that atheism often really means rejecting the God you grew up with. <<

A statement like that was likely written by someone who couldn't accept the literal definition of atheism. So instead that person tried to redefine an atheist as "someone who acknowledged the undeniable existence of God yet chose to scorn God by turning his back on Him". (Didja notice the caps? Nice touch, eh?)

>> I think that's often very true, and its fascinating to me how many times I see people such as yourself get so irritated with people who don't fit into their stereotypical categorizations. <<

(Selwynn said, not realizing the irony of his own words.)


>> By the way, depending on your meaning, I am not a theist. <<

LOL. Case in point.

There can be no doubt that the radical religious right is growing more powerful on the political scene. But I think the question of "why" is much more complicated than a lot of the sweepingly dismissive answers frequently given.

For example, allow me to give you a list of 20 Christian Theologians, Ministers and Activists who would radically disagree with most if not all the perspectives and approaches of the people on this list:

1. John Shelby Spong
2. John Cobb
3. Rita Nakashima Brock
4. Michael Lodahl
5. Marjorie Suhockie
6. Brennan Manning
7. Phillip Yancy
8. Marcus Borg
9. Jim Wallis
10. The executive director of Progressive Christians Uniting (whose name I forget)
11. Jospeh Sprague
12. John Haught
13. Clayton Sullivan
14. Rev. Peter Laarman
15. Rev. Jessie Jackson
16. Rev. Al Sharpton
17. Dr. Robin Meyers
18. Rosemary Radford Luther
19. Rev. James R. Adams (president, center for progressive christianity)
20. Anthony Freeman

It would not surprise me much at all if many of you have not heard of the majority of these people. But that does not mean they are not speaking out, writing out, and acting out. Certainly criticism can be made of what I will very loosely term the "religious left." For one thing, the religious left would likely disagree with the radical right about the nature and place of religion. Its hard to have the same kind of force and effect on the political scene when you don't believe that personal religious experience and politics should be mixed.

There is another problem as well: media. I'm not blaming everything on the media - this isn't a cop-out for the huge problems being brought on the country by the radical religious right. But I can tell you from very personal experience that if you are a liberal progressive religious thinker and you want to get national air time -- good luck. The media is not a courageous organization - if something exists out of mainstream consciousness, doesn't fit conventional "wisdom" or standard generalizations, you can pretty much be sure the media will not give it much serious attention.

It's one thing to be critical that the "religious left" isn't doing enough to speak out and resist the radical right. But its quite another to recognize the extreme challenges to doing that effectively, getting air time, getting the national spotlight -- without compromising yourself to the point where you look and act exactly like the other guys. And by the way, these people are speaking out. They are writing books and articles and getting them snuck into publications under the radar.

They are teaching in universities and training new generations in a better way of thinking about religion. They are certainly not refusing opportunities to speak -- but no one is offering them any sort of serious microphone. In many ways its not dissimilar to someone like Noam Chomsky's basic inability to be taken seriously and engaged by the media at all. Now, if you feel that professional folks on the "religious left" are not doing what they should be doing to speak out, get involved or resist the oppressive forces of the radical religious right, that's fine. But you can write or contact many if not all of these people yourself and give them your suggestions on what they could do more than they are doing. Do you think they would not take your suggestions?

It's pretty dismissive to just off-handedly act like the large number of religious folk who do not in any agree with the radical right are just sitting around on their asses not doing anything. If you have practical suggestions on how to do that better, I suggest you let people know. Otherwise, I think its probably healthy to remember that for every person on a Top 25 list of radical religious right evangelists (which by the way, a couple of those names on the list don't actually deserve that label, but a lot do) there are an equivalent number of people on the left who disagree strongly and say so, in universities, in publications, in books, in magazines, in every speaking engagement they are offered, in any interview ever given, etc.

Organizations like Sojourners, Progressive Christians Uniting, the Center for Progressive Christianity, Interfaith Alliance, the Center for Process Studies, affiliated with the Claremont School of Theology, etc. are out there and active, as well as countless individuals speaking out at any opportunity in local scenes. I'm sorry if national media refuses to give them equal time.

Sel

Hitler was very influential on Germany in the 1930's....

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/photoessay/22.html



The Point Man On Capitol Hill: The Senate's third-ranking Republican may be a Catholic, but he's the darling of Protestant Evangelicals. Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference Committee, is the standard bearer of social conservatives on the Hill, regularly and vocally taking the point position against gay marriage, abortion rights and judges who defend either. He speaks monthly with evangelical leaders, hearing their concerns and briefing them on the status of legislation, while his staff regularly taps evangelical broadcasters and activists to help mobilize support for their common agenda. In the new congressional session, that includes pushing laws aimed at limiting access of minors to interstate abortions and giving legal rights to fertilized eggs in utero. Though highly controversial for his verbal attacks on gays and supporters of abortion rights—he once likened homosexual sex to bestiality—Santorum, 46, is said to have presidential ambitions. "Never say never," he says—music to evangelical ears.

Richard John Neuhaus sure does bear a strong resemblance to Colin Mochrie. But what really scares me is that I've never heard of most of these evangelists. I like to know who is pulling the strings of the sheeple.

http://www.liberalseekers.org

Like other progressives, I was pretty disgusted by the use of right-wing fundamentalist religiosity in the last election. As a gay male, it totally boggles my mind that people are more afraid of gay people than they are of the Bush policies. I also have had some experience with the religious left. The religious left is frustrating for me because they are so invisible. The political right and religious left work in concert together. The political left and religious left need to do the same. The religious right uses rock music and Powerpoint in their worship services that appeal to modern "seekers" and their churches are overflowing with converts to whom they can then dessiminate their message of hate and bigotry. The religious left congregations dwindle and die. I feel strongly that progressive clergy must lose the elitist robes and come down off their high podiums and start talking in everyday language and start using the rhythms and technology that will most effectively communicate with the masses. Please visit my website at http://www.liberalseekers.org and give me some feedback. I know that some of the animated gifs take a minute or so to load on a dial up. Before clicking over to my site, take a look at a clock with a second hand and let me know how long it takes for the site to load and let me know. Let me know what is effective. What your thoughts are. Be sure and look at the link "The Culture Wars" and the link to the "progressive cards." I appreciate all feedback. If you like the site, please share it with others. I accept no advertising and I fund the site out of my own pocket.

We ARE in a culture war and the religious left needs to be on the frontlines- not on the sidelines. Thanks.

Sorry, just noticed your post today...
yeah, the gifs slow down the information...
can do without the visual assault but
I'm not young...
Good info, links and cards...right on.

Howabout archiving info about the Christian
rightwing hatefilled groups and their articles...
or if you know of a site already doing that,
can you point me that way.

Getting on the road for Lent.

How will God love you today?

I don't think there is, unless I don't know one of them or missed someone. There really are some liberal evangelicals out there; I wish they'd be as vocal as the Dobsons and Falwells.