|
|
Post by turoldus on May 11, 2009 11:27:45 GMT
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on May 11, 2009 14:39:37 GMT
Mr Andrew Sullivan describes himself as "...a struggling and doubting person of faith..." and comes across as distinctly confused, as though he has accepted what the neo-atheists are saying but can't quite let go of the form of faith. All of which strikes me as quite sad. "...Christopher Hitchens’s oddly persuasive massacre of a few fish in a small barrel..."  Is this the same Christopher Hitchens who, philosophically speaking, could not locate his own derriere even with the aid of both hands, a manual of anatomy and a GPS system? Christopher Hitchins, who was severely embarrassed (as in, 'became a fish in a barrel') in his recent debate with William Lane Craig? "...Bart Ehrman’s detonation of scriptural accuracy..."?? Bart Ehrman, who recycles hundred year old biblical criticism and passes it off as something new and unheard of, thereby answering questions that practically no-one is asking? Chin up, Mr Sullivan! The situation is not *quite* as dark as you paint it... |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 11, 2009 15:49:18 GMT
Just been listening to another interesting (and quite amusing) lecture by Dan Dennett A Darwinian Perspective on Religions: Past, Present and Future www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCgUJdsliEMThe vile Polly Toynbee makes an appearance towards the end. The gist of it is that in evolution many things have been engineered without necessarily being planned, a good example being the domestic cow which was honed and perfected over many years without any real concious master plan on the part of those doing it via selective breeding. Religions have evolved via a similar process of evolution in the memetic sphere. So we start with a bunch of primitive people monkeying around in a forest and saying 'oh look the trees are talking'. Nine times out of ten this tomfoolery doesn't produce anything but sometimes it produces a meme that convinces people the trees talk. Over time these memes compete and the best ones form a memeplex of ideas, for example Judeo-Christianity, which then enslaves the minds of large numbers of people. No-one consciously designed these religions, they simply evolved themselves and now we are stuck with them. I'm not sure what to make of this thesis. It sounds like Sir James Fraser's 'The Golden Bough' with a sprinkling of pseudo-science and evolutionary metaphors. How exactly do they know that secular-humanism isn't a parasitic meme which has cobbled itself together and infected their brains?. Lets take for example this idea that evolution programmed us to be humanists and naturally nice to one another, but we fell from this state into ignorance, superstition and religion which distorted our true nature. This does sound a lot like the 'noble savage' meme of Rosseau which has resurfaced and is busy replicating itself again. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on May 12, 2009 18:08:02 GMT
I've got a lot of time for Sullivan. He's always struck me as thoughtful, forthright and principled. As for Bart Ehrman, it is hard for laypeople to answer back to scholars. Sullivan may not have the material to answer back to Ehrman, but that does not mean he is confused, just not aware of counterviews.
The book sounds interesting too.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by turoldus on May 12, 2009 23:43:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on May 13, 2009 0:24:27 GMT
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on May 13, 2009 9:31:35 GMT
I would tend to agree - as a rule, Andrew Sullivan is well thought-out and stands up for what he believes. But his assessment of the impact of the likes of Hitchens seems to me to more than a little wide of the mark. Yes, there may be some mitigating circumstances in the case of Ehrman, who at least approaches his task with something approaching academic rigour, even if he presents nothing new. But Hitchens? And Harris?
I think from reading some of things he has said, that Sullivan has been hurt at an emotional level from a number of issues, most particularly the church's approach to gay people and the revelations of paedophilia within the priesthood (exaggerated in lurid detail by the press).
I feel for him in this, as I left the church for a number of years because of an emotional response to certain circumstances that made the church a very uncomfortable place to be. But it was a confusion, as I (and I think Sullivan, though I am doing considerable 'reading across') allowed my emotional response to give the arguments against God and faith much greater force than they actually have. But I do think that 'confused' may actually be a good description of this state.
Mike
|
|
Is this the same Christopher Hitchens who, philosophically speaking, could not locate his own derriere even with the aid of both hands, a manual of anatomy and a GPS system? Christopher Hitchins, who was severely embarrassed (as in, 'became a fish in a barrel') in his recent debate with William Lane Craig?
