Shooting Fish in Barrels

[cnorman18]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. Even in liberal religion, people still cling to what seem to me to be irrational notions. I have seen you use religion to justify the circumcision of infants, for example, and that still fascinates me (just an example, I am not intending to start a debate on that in this thread at all).

Only if you define "religion" very loosely indeed; if you mean something like "belief in the supernatural" -- no, I have not. Not ever. Fidelity to an ancient tradition and heritage, perhaps; membership in an ancient community (without which one would, in times past, been an outcast in that community) -- plus evidence that it does no harm, and that it is actually beneficial in many ways -- but none of those are ipso facto "irrational," as you seem to imply. That just isn't a given, and debates on the subject that begin with begging that question are no longer of interest to me.

I do try to define religion loosely, so as to encompass all the different ways in which people use it. When you talk about fidelity to an ancient tradition and heritage and ancient community, that is all I mean by religious justification.

I say only that it seems irrational to me, and agree that it may not seem irrational to you. This is why we debate such things on forums such as this.

And beyond the most liberal of traditions such as yours and Christian Atheism, many liberals still do believe in and argue for the existence of gods.

Of course, and so do many liberal Jews. From my perspective, that does no harm at all where it does not interfere with rational thought or the freedom of others to believe as they choose -- or not to. Belief in gods itself is not ipso facto "irrational," either.

As with the above issue, people will disagree on whether certain notions are rational.

What is your definition of religion and why do you consider what you do to be a religion?

I don't think there IS a hard-and-fast definition of "religion." As I say, there is no single characteristic that is common to all religions, including a belief in a supernatural God, or any kind of God, for that matter.

There is a book I have, but have not yet read, only skimmed, entitled How Judaism Became a Religion, by one Leora Batnitzski, subtitled "An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought." The thesis seems to be that before the Enlightenment, a period which coincided with what Jews call the Emancipation -- when we were finally allowed to take our place in Gentile society as equals and actual citizens of the nations in which we lived -- Judaism was more of a separate culture and civilization, a way of life that had little contact with the outside world (not by OUR choice, I hasten to add, but by the edicts of the Church and the Gentile authorities and Gentile society). It is itself, and only when it began to be compared with other "religions" did it too fall under that classification. It certainly contains many of the elements of other religions, not least a belief in God, never mind the definition of that word; and my own belief is well within the acceptable spectrum of Jewish belief, and in fact is a rather common approach. I see no need to separate myself from the rest of my community (since Judaism is, truly, more about community than belief anyway) and renounce the term.

Whether or not the term "religion" applies to my own beliefs or those of others is a question for others. I'm comfortable with it, and if others have a different approach or understanding, that is their affair. One can call it a "philosophy" if one chooses, but I do talk about God rather a lot, even if I am cognizant of "God" being -- perhaps -- a metaphor or symbol, as well as perhaps an existent entity of some unknown kind. I don't claim to know, and I have no reason to pretend that I do.

It seems to me that religion needs to be defined before one can worry about whether religion is being unfairly represented or attacked. If the only reason to use the term is conformity to tradition, perhaps at some point another approach might be taken.

Would you say atheism was always acceptable in Jewish religion? Or how far back does this go?

As I noted in a post above, "atheism" in the modern sense did not exist until after the Renaissance; but belief was never the focus of the Jewish religion. Action was always the point. There is a rather striking remark in a commentary on a verse in Jeremiah which says "[They] have forsaken me and have not kept my Torah" (16:11). The commentator remarks that God is saying, among other things, "If only they had forsaken me and kept my Torah." That was no modern academic; the remark came from Pesikta D'Rav Kahana, who lived at some time between the fifth and seventh century of the common era.

I couldn't find which above post you were referring to so I'm not sure what you mean by "'atheism' in the modern sense." What do you make of Psalm 14:1-3 in relation to this?

More to the point -- from where would such a definition come? From an ancient collection of the literary works of our people? Even if one attempts to read the Bible literally in an effort to find out what kind of Being God is -- the Bible doesn't say.

So the value of the bible is what? Only literary?

Surely you're not saying that the only possible reason to read the Bible is to find a definition of God.

This topic is too extensive for me to discuss here, but take a look at my old thread, "The Bible as it IS," in the Tolerant, Respectful and Civil subforum and you'll get an idea of what real, nonliteral, non dogmatic Biblical scholarship looks like.

I know all about biblical scholarship, it's a fascinating field. I mean to ask, what value does the bible have outside of scholarly interest?

And Jews make up less than 1% of the world population. A version of the religion held by a fraction of those Jews that the adherents aren't especially interested in talking about is not going to be popular.

Granted. But "not popular" isn't exactly a synonym for "not important," now is it? Also, there are very many people, as I've said previously, who are not affiliated with any particular religion or denomination at all and who hold similar ideas -- that is, belief in a God which they do not feel is compatible with the various dogmatic doctrinal pronouncements that are so common, and belief in moral ideals, values and priorities which don't fit with those of "organized religion" either. Dismissing rather sensible and rational ideas on these subjects and considering them not worth noting doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to do.

Right. I don't think these ideas should be dismissed, more I wonder what they really have to do with religion. And if these ideas can hold their own in common discourse then whatever religious aspects they have becomes unimportant anyway (except to the people holding the ideas, of course).

[Artie]

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

I'm not arguing "against religion", I'm arguing for logic, reason and common sense wherever I can find a lack of it which is why I have ended up on Christian forums...

[cnorman18]

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. Even in liberal religion, people still cling to what seem to me to be irrational notions. I have seen you use religion to justify the circumcision of infants, for example, and that still fascinates me (just an example, I am not intending to start a debate on that in this thread at all).

Only if you define "religion" very loosely indeed; if you mean something like "belief in the supernatural" -- no, I have not. Not ever. Fidelity to an ancient tradition and heritage, perhaps; membership in an ancient community (without which one would, in times past, been an outcast in that community) -- plus evidence that it does no harm, and that it is actually beneficial in many ways -- but none of those are ipso facto "irrational," as you seem to imply. That just isn't a given, and debates on the subject that begin with begging that question are no longer of interest to me.

I do try to define religion loosely, so as to encompass all the different ways in which people use it. When you talk about fidelity to an ancient tradition and heritage and ancient community, that is all I mean by religious justification.

I say only that it seems irrational to me, and agree that it may not seem irrational to you. This is why we debate such things on forums such as this.

Fair enough. A matter of opinion, as opposed to a matter of fact. That sounds right to me as well.

And beyond the most liberal of traditions such as yours and Christian Atheism, many liberals still do believe in and argue for the existence of gods.

Of course, and so do many liberal Jews. From my perspective, that does no harm at all where it does not interfere with rational thought or the freedom of others to believe as they choose -- or not to. Belief in gods itself is not ipso facto "irrational," either.

As with the above issue, people will disagree on whether certain notions are rational.

Opinion again; and again, fair enough. Freedom of thought and all that.

What is your definition of religion and why do you consider what you do to be a religion?

I don't think there IS a hard-and-fast definition of "religion." As I say, there is no single characteristic that is common to all religions, including a belief in a supernatural God, or any kind of God, for that matter.

There is a book I have, but have not yet read, only skimmed, entitled How Judaism Became a Religion, by one Leora Batnitzski, subtitled "An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought." The thesis seems to be that before the Enlightenment, a period which coincided with what Jews call the Emancipation -- when we were finally allowed to take our place in Gentile society as equals and actual citizens of the nations in which we lived -- Judaism was more of a separate culture and civilization, a way of life that had little contact with the outside world (not by OUR choice, I hasten to add, but by the edicts of the Church and the Gentile authorities and Gentile society). It is itself, and only when it began to be compared with other "religions" did it too fall under that classification. It certainly contains many of the elements of other religions, not least a belief in God, never mind the definition of that word; and my own belief is well within the acceptable spectrum of Jewish belief, and in fact is a rather common approach. I see no need to separate myself from the rest of my community (since Judaism is, truly, more about community than belief anyway) and renounce the term.

Whether or not the term "religion" applies to my own beliefs or those of others is a question for others. I'm comfortable with it, and if others have a different approach or understanding, that is their affair. One can call it a "philosophy" if one chooses, but I do talk about God rather a lot, even if I am cognizant of "God" being -- perhaps -- a metaphor or symbol, as well as perhaps an existent entity of some unknown kind. I don't claim to know, and I have no reason to pretend that I do.

It seems to me that religion needs to be defined before one can worry about whether religion is being unfairly represented or attacked. If the only reason to use the term is conformity to tradition, perhaps at some point another approach might be taken.

Would you say atheism was always acceptable in Jewish religion? Or how far back does this go?

As I noted in a post above, "atheism" in the modern sense did not exist until after the Renaissance; but belief was never the focus of the Jewish religion. Action was always the point. There is a rather striking remark in a commentary on a verse in Jeremiah which says "[They] have forsaken me and have not kept my Torah" (16:11). The commentator remarks that God is saying, among other things, "If only they had forsaken me and kept my Torah." That was no modern academic; the remark came from Pesikta D'Rav Kahana, who lived at some time between the fifth and seventh century of the common era.

I couldn't find which above post you were referring to so I'm not sure what you mean by "'atheism' in the modern sense." What do you make of Psalm 14:1-3 in relation to this?

The earlier post was no more detailed than this one; "atheism in the modern sense" means simply "belief in no gods at all." That approach was unknown before the Renaissance, which not coincidentally saw the beginnings of modern science.

As for the Psalm -- I don't even have to look that one up. I presume you mean "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

That is simply a mistranslation of the Hebrew; the JPS translation has, "The benighted says, 'God does not care.'" The Hebrew word rendered as "benighted," naval, has connotations of moral deficiency rather than low intelligence or the lack of reasoning ability. The import of the passage is that people who do evil believe that God does not see or does not care about what they do, and that there will be no consequences or recompense for their actions; it has nothing to do with "not believing in God" at all.

It is also an atypical Psalm in another way; it does not address God, but speaks of Him in the third person. It is regarded as a Psalm of instruction more than of liturgical poetry or song, as is more common in that book. In any case, it is one human's opinion, and one that is much more than two thousand years old. I would regard that passage as Infallible Holy Writ no more than Psalm 137:9, "a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!" That is also a matter of human opinion, and in context, is not a moral recommendation (as it is so often presented) but a cry of rage and pain from one who has seen such things done to his own children.

The Bible is not a guide to morality. It is the literary heritage of a people, and a springboard for discussion of morality (and of many other things) -- and that is precisely where its importance lies. If it were really as obsolete and irrelevant and insignificant as is often claimed, we would not be discussing it here and now, and books -- for and against -- would not still be being written and published and read about it. I do not say that it is the ONLY such ancient book that is valuable; books are still being published about the Iliad too -- but if we're going to consider numbers, the Bible is a much more popular topic, and not only among fundamentalists or even theists.

More to the point -- from where would such a definition come? From an ancient collection of the literary works of our people? Even if one attempts to read the Bible literally in an effort to find out what kind of Being God is -- the Bible doesn't say.

So the value of the bible is what? Only literary?

Surely you're not saying that the only possible reason to read the Bible is to find a definition of God.

This topic is too extensive for me to discuss here, but take a look at my old thread, "The Bible as it IS," in the Tolerant, Respectful and Civil subforum and you'll get an idea of what real, nonliteral, non dogmatic Biblical scholarship looks like.

I know all about biblical scholarship, it's a fascinating field. I mean to ask, what value does the bible have outside of scholarly interest?

An odd question. "Scholarly interest" can include the study of morality and the history of morality, the development of the concepts of Law, Justice, Truth, Liberty -- you know, all the things we mentioned before, not to mention the meaning of being human itself, of reality, of what is important and what is not -- and even early ideas about what we would call "medicine" and "science" and "government" and "human rights." Learning about what humans thought about those matters, and thus of how we got where we are today, is not mere academic trivia.

Did you bother to read the OP at the link I posted?

And Jews make up less than 1% of the world population. A version of the religion held by a fraction of those Jews that the adherents aren't especially interested in talking about is not going to be popular.

Granted. But "not popular" isn't exactly a synonym for "not important," now is it? Also, there are very many people, as I've said previously, who are not affiliated with any particular religion or denomination at all and who hold similar ideas -- that is, belief in a God which they do not feel is compatible with the various dogmatic doctrinal pronouncements that are so common, and belief in moral ideals, values and priorities which don't fit with those of "organized religion" either. Dismissing rather sensible and rational ideas on these subjects and considering them not worth noting doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to do.

Right. I don't think these ideas should be dismissed, more I wonder what they really have to do with religion. And if these ideas can hold their own in common discourse then whatever religious aspects they have becomes unimportant anyway (except to the people holding the ideas, of course).

Another matter of opinion, I suppose. Okay -- but I, in turn, wonder why you seem to have this compulsion to find a way to say that religion is of no importance or significance.

THAT is a VERY modern idea. The whole history of human thought until relatively modern times was inextricably linked with "religion" in every field, as even a casual perusal of historical documents in any field will attest. Medicine began in the temples of Apollo, chemistry began with the quest to transmute lead into gold and ordinary mortal souls into immortal and holy ones, astronomy began with tracking the gods across the sky, and so on.

In all of those fields, as they matured, the focus moved farther and farther away from "supernatural" assumptions and toward more "naturalistic" ones, as one would hope and expect; but there were still valid perspectives and insights in earlier times, and those ought not be dismissed and discarded -- and in the field of ethics, it's hard to see how we are more "civilized" than our ancestors. In the Bronze Age, one killed with a blade or a stone at close range, and was obliged to look one's enemy in the eyes and smell his breath; now we can kill millions with the push of a button from thousands of miles away and never even know their names or their number. The ancient world was, in very many and very significant ways, much less "barbaric" than this one. We sneer at the Bronze Age at our peril.

It looks to me like we still have much to learn in the field of ethics and right and wrong, and we are a long, long way from being "mature" enough to discard the ideas of the past -- and don't hand me the Bible as evidence of the evils and horrors of religion; if you want to criticize Jewish ideas about ethics, you won't find them there. There are a few hundred years of discussions and debates on that general subject in the Talmud alone, and for depth and breadth of thought and openness and vigor in debate on that subject, there has never been anything in the literature of humanity to rival it. That discussion and debate continues to this day, and though it has little to do with trivial concerns like the nature of God and the Afterlife or "proofs" of either, it is a living and vital discussion for all that.

[Jax Agnesson]

-- and in the field of ethics, it's hard to see how we are more "civilized" than our ancestors. In the Bronze Age, one killed with a blade or a stone at close range, and was obliged to look one's enemy in the eyes and smell his breath; now we can kill millions with the push of a button from thousands of miles away and never even know their names or their number. The ancient world was, in very many and very significant ways, much less "barbaric" than this one. We sneer at the Bronze Age at our peril.

For another opinion on this subject
The link to the interactive display, at the top of the piece, (The twenty worst things people have done to each other) is worth study.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 43:

As one who has in this thread alluded to my not much caring about religious talk, I find myself fascinated when this man speaks...

As for the Psalm -- I don't even have to look that one up. I presume you mean "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

That is simply a mistranslation of the Hebrew; the JPS translation has, "The benighted says, 'God does not care.'" The Hebrew word rendered as "benighted," naval, has connotations of moral deficiency rather than low intelligence or the lack of reasoning ability. The import of the passage is that people who do evil believe that God does not see or does not care about what they do, and that there will be no consequences or recompense for their actions; it has nothing to do with "not believing in God" at all.

TIL.

This would seem to fit with the notion of a loving god - who wouldn't much worry about the failings of those with less intelligence.

It is also an atypical Psalm in another way; it does not address God, but speaks of Him in the third person. It is regarded as a Psalm of instruction more than of liturgical poetry or song, as is more common in that book. In any case, it is one human's opinion, and one that is much more than two thousand years old. I would regard that passage as Infallible Holy Writ no more than Psalm 137:9, "a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!" That is also a matter of human opinion, and in context, is not a moral recommendation (as it is so often presented) but a cry of rage and pain from one who has seen such things done to his own children.

And again your take seems the most reasoned. What "loving" God would ever command such a horrid thing?

The Bible is not a guide to morality. It is the literary heritage of a people, and a springboard for discussion of morality (and of many other things) -- and that is precisely where its importance lies.

They mighta coulda used your input there awhile back

I think the Bible can be an excellent source of moral training - if it's not always taken literally, and if, as you've shown, one doesn't just read it, but attempts to fully understand it, for all that it is. I'm impressed with your ability to make this stuff interesting, and valid to me personally, and I'd contend so many others.

An odd question. "Scholarly interest" can include the study of morality and the history of morality, the development of the concepts of Law, Justice, Truth, Liberty -- you know, all the things we mentioned before, not to mention the meaning of being human itself, of reality, of what is important and what is not -- and even early ideas about what we would call "medicine" and "science" and "government" and "human rights." Learning about what humans thought about those matters, and thus of how we got where we are today, is not mere academic trivia.

Very well said. Dovetails nicely with a reason for us to consider the Bible, even if we don't accept it as literal truth, or even an accurate portrait of history.

In all of those fields, as they matured, the focus moved farther and farther away from "supernatural" assumptions and toward more "naturalistic" ones, as one would hope and expect; but there were still valid perspectives and insights in earlier times, and those ought not be dismissed and discarded -- and in the field of ethics, it's hard to see how we are more "civilized" than our ancestors. In the Bronze Age, one killed with a blade or a stone at close range, and was obliged to look one's enemy in the eyes and smell his breath; now we can kill millions with the push of a button from thousands of miles away and never even know their names or their number. The ancient world was, in very many and very significant ways, much less "barbaric" than this one. We sneer at the Bronze Age at our peril.

That part's worth reading this entire thread to get to end up reading.

It looks to me like we still have much to learn in the field of ethics and right and wrong, and we are a long, long way from being "mature" enough to discard the ideas of the past -- and don't hand me the Bible as evidence of the evils and horrors of religion; if you want to criticize Jewish ideas about ethics, you won't find them there. There are a few hundred years of discussions and debates on that general subject in the Talmud alone, and for depth and breadth of thought and openness and vigor in debate on that subject, there has never been anything in the literature of humanity to rival it. That discussion and debate continues to this day, and though it has little to do with trivial concerns like the nature of God and the Afterlife or "proofs" of either, it is a living and vital discussion for all that.

I'm thankful in that I understand a bit more of the Jewish perspective - "God's cool and all, but what the heck are you doing", seems the best way to show one's respect for the god in question. By studying the Bible we can learn were the ancients erred, and hopefully where they got it right.

I'm impressed by your reasons for wishing to discuss religion without the trappings I'm used to encountering - "believe or burn", "you disagree 'cause you wanna sin". Instead, from your take on all this, I'm gathering. "Who cares about the goofy stuff, it's this stuff right here that's the important part!" So obvious, yet so rare.

I retract any claim or implication I've ever presented in the past, or might present in the future, that says religious discussion can't be among the most profound endeavors of all humanity - when it has us discussing what truly is important.

[PREEST]

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against anti-religionists when one is only arguing against certain varieties of non-theists...

Non-theist is equivalent to anti-religionist? Interesting to know your opinion, though I imagine many non-theists would say that the comparison is inaccurate and perhaps dishonest.

Some number of non-theists are anti-religion. What's the issue exactly?

I for one, am 'ant-theistic'. Religion doesn't teach us anything. So to me, it doesn't matter if someone is a liberal believer or a fundamentalist, it still remains that believing in unproven, or unprovable, man made stories is absurd. Constructs of eternal damnation and eternal life and grovelling and praising this mystical deity is equally absurd.

I must say also, that thought I don't like religion, I don't care for people to practice it as long as they keep it to themselves. It's when I am told I must believe that I begin to resent it. I don't like encroachment on free society and I claim my right to non-belief.

I also feel that 'liberal' belief has come from secularism and the sciences. As we make more and more discoveries about our natural world, religious folk change what they accept in their holy books in accordance. Liberal christians now believe in evolution, when god said he created the Earth in 6 days...

[cnorman18]

-- and in the field of ethics, it's hard to see how we are more "civilized" than our ancestors. In the Bronze Age, one killed with a blade or a stone at close range, and was obliged to look one's enemy in the eyes and smell his breath; now we can kill millions with the push of a button from thousands of miles away and never even know their names or their number. The ancient world was, in very many and very significant ways, much less "barbaric" than this one. We sneer at the Bronze Age at our peril.

For another opinion on this subject
The link to the interactive display, at the top of the piece, (The twenty worst things people have done to each other) is worth study.

Different standards. First, I question whether it makes sense to consider "percentages" here. According to this chart, the deaths of 8 million people at the fall of Rome is somehow worse than the deaths of 63 million people during WWII. I doubt that any of the 63 milliion would agree; the meaningful standard of "evil" here would the the individual human, not a statistical analysis.

Second, I was not speaking only of sheer numbers. I was speaking of EVIL. Did you know, for instance, that the Nazis carefully calculated how much food should be given a prisoner in order to wring the most work from him while starving him to death at the least expense? It worked out to about a quarter of a raw turnip and a cupful of thin broth per day. But on Yom Kippur -- the most sacred of Jewish holy days, when observant Jews eat and drink nothing at all -- the SS provided enormous feasts for the doomed prisoners, enough that some of those who had been so starved for months gorged themselves till they died. Pork, of course.

Prisoners on their way to the "showers" were often made to strip in their barracks and walk naked across the camp to their deaths. Too, the "latrines" were open, exposed trenches next to the parade ground, the most public place imaginable inside the wire, and prisoners were obliged to squat and relieve themselves in full view of everyone -- men and women alike. These practices were not based on efficiency or convenience. They were quite deliberately directed at Orthodox Jewish teachings of physical modesty (most of the Jewish prisoners were Orthodox; Reform and secular Jews had largely long since fled). The cremation of corpses was not for efficiency, either. Mass graves would have served as well, and have in other genocides in modern times; but in the Jewish religion, cremation of the dead was long considered a desecration and a horror.

These practices were not accidental. Adolf Eichmann was fluent in Hebrew and was long a student of Jewish tradition, literature and religious practice. It was all quite deliberate.

There is more, of course; unspeakable "medical experiments" where no anaesthetic was even considered, because the agony of the subject was of no concern at all -- or else was the subject of study. The "third line" at entering the camp, which is not well known; there were two primary lines -- one for prisoners who would work for a time before being killed, the other for those who were sent directly to the "showers." But there was often a third -- for attractive young girls and women, down to their early teens or younger. That line let to years in a free brothel for stormtroopers, or just mass rape followed by casual murder.

There is much more. I encourage no one to study this material; there are things I have learned that I wish I had not. The point is that all this took place, in a deliberate and calculated fashion, in what was universally considered at the time to be the most technologically and scientifically advanced, certainly the most educated and learned, the most sophisticated, the most highly cultured, and the most civilized nation on Earth -- and in my humble opinion, there has never been anything to match it in all of human history.

Evil is not statistical and a matter of numbers; it is anecdotal, a matter of individual human pain and degradation, and the pleasure that others take in it. It is perhaps no accident, either, that Schadenfreude is a German word.

[cnorman18]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, which is that you haven't been paying attention. Allow me to explicate:

I for one, am 'ant-theistic'. Religion doesn't teach us anything. So to me, it doesn't matter if someone is a liberal believer or a fundamentalist, it still remains that believing in unproven, or unprovable, man made stories is absurd.

"My point is rather about the enormous number of threads which assume that "religion" per se entails a certain point of view or approach -- that is, a dogmatic, Biblically literalist, supernaturalistic, and anti-scientific view that is hostile to rational and critical thought. Part of that assumption is that "religion" essentially consists of and is defined by a set of beliefs, which are assumed to be claims of fact which cannot be objectively evidenced or proven.

"That is not the case. That that kind of religion is very common, and clearly the kind of religion that is held by the majority of "religious" members of this forum, is not in doubt; but those ideas are not found in all religions, and that fact is not recognized in very many of the posts that are found here."

Like this one, for instance.

Constructs of eternal damnation and eternal life and grovelling and praising this mystical deity is equally absurd.

"[Sacrificial atonement, grace, heaven and hell] obviously, in the Jewish religion... have no import whatever."

And:

""Who can say?" is a typical answer [from Jews] when asked about the nature of God or the afterlife -- and like it or not, it's a very sensible and realistic one."

I must say also, that thought I don't like religion, I don't care for people to practice it as long as they keep it to themselves. It's when I am told I must believe that I begin to resent it. I don't like encroachment on free society and I claim my right to non-belief.

"The God-concept is not what [the Jewish] religion is all about, and of course we don't press our beliefs on anyone. We don't generally consider "evangelism" or "witnessing" wrong or immoral or whatever; it's just rude. How one thinks of God isn't anyone's business but one's own, and it isn't relevant to the practice of our religion."

I also feel that 'liberal' belief has come from secularism and the sciences. As we make more and more discoveries about our natural world, religious folk change what they accept in their holy books in accordance. Liberal christians now believe in evolution, when god said he created the Earth in 6 days...

"As a matter of historical accuracy, neither "atheism" nor "fundamentalism" existed until relatively recently; both are creations of the modern world. Atheism, in the modern sense, simply did not exist as a "belief option" before the Renaissance, and Christian fundamentalism did not exist prior to the late 19th century and was not "organized" until the 1920s. Similarly, Orthodox Judaism did not exist as a distinct and separate "branch" of Judaism till the early 19th century as a reaction to organized efforts at "reform"; before that time, Judaism was pluralistic, allowing many diverse approaches to the issues of belief and "theology." In the liberal branches, it still is.

"Both fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews claim that they hold the "original" or "true" doctrines of their respective faiths; but those are modern, and anachronistic, claims in both cases, and generally false and self-serving ones. Pluralistic, nondogmatic, and generally "liberal" views are very much the historical norm in Judaism, and are not a modern development; and Christianity was similarly tolerant and pluralistic in its beginnings before it was more or less forcibly codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Even after that, it was and remained much more pluralistic, even before the Reformation (which was a pluralistic movement by definition), than "fundamentalist" Christian has been in only the last century or so.

"Sorry about the history lesson, but the common assumption that "liberal religion" is a modern, and in fact recent, phenomenon, and that rigid dogmatism is the original and normative form, actually turns history on its head."

All quotations are from this thread.

[Waiting4evidence]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Well, this is how I see it:

Religiosity is a spectrum.

On one end you have dogmatic and blind faith, and an absolutely literalist view of whatever scripture you believe in.

On the other end you have a completely skeptical and clear mind, where you only believe that for which there is good evidence, and only do so tentatively until such a time as new evidence is discovered.

Now, I, as a person on the skeptical side of the spectrum think of it this way: The closer you are to my worldview, the less of a beef I have with you.

A person such as your typical modern Jew living in NYC who only manifests his faith by throwing a party for his 13 year old son, and having a vague feeling in his heart that there is some kind of creative force out there, is for all practical purposes an atheist. What would I debate him on? Should I try to convince him to have a secular Sweet 16 party for his kid, and not a Bar Mitzvah? Whatever!

The other way of looking at it is that most moderate and educated religious people tend NOT to make TESTABLE, EMPIRICAL claims. They will say something like "I hold the deistic view that some kind of force external to the universe was integral to the universe's beginning".

In terms of its "debatability" such a subjective, untestable claim is as meaningful to attack as the statement "My favorite color is blue".

On the contrary, fundamentalists make testable, empirical claims. They will say "Donkeys can talk". That's a testable claim. They will say "The earth is 6000 years old". That is a testable claim. I can mount a fact-based argument against those claims



Also, lets not forget the obvious. You don't see many moderates of any religion bombing abortion clinics, or blowing themselves up in supermarkets, or picketing the funerals of soldiers with "God hates Fags" signs, or refusing treatment for their children and then the children die.



This is the bottom line:

I try to dissuade fundamentalists rather than moderates of their beliefs for the same reason that a doctor in an Emergency Room will treat the person that is bleeding to death from a major car accident BEFORE he treats a guy with a scratch on his hand.

Fundamentalists need more help!

[cnorman18]

From Post 43:

As one who has in this thread alluded to my not much caring about religious talk, I find myself fascinated when this man speaks...

My thanks, as always, to my friend Joey for his kind words. I am humbled and grateful. But see below...

As for the Psalm -- I don't even have to look that one up. I presume you mean "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

That is simply a mistranslation of the Hebrew; the JPS translation has, "The benighted says, 'God does not care.'" The Hebrew word rendered as "benighted," naval, has connotations of moral deficiency rather than low intelligence or the lack of reasoning ability. The import of the passage is that people who do evil believe that God does not see or does not care about what they do, and that there will be no consequences or recompense for their actions; it has nothing to do with "not believing in God" at all.

TIL.

This would seem to fit with the notion of a loving god - who wouldn't much worry about the failings of those with less intelligence.

Precisely. Such a concept is puzzling to anyone who actually DOES believe in God in ANY way; but then, such ideas -- that God is the most evil entity possible, for instance -- are rather frequently presented around here by those who do NOT believe. It has always seemed odd to me to make wholly false pronouncements about what "theists" "must" believe, and then criticize them as if they came from the theists themselves.

It is also an atypical Psalm in another way; it does not address God, but speaks of Him in the third person. It is regarded as a Psalm of instruction more than of liturgical poetry or song, as is more common in that book. In any case, it is one human's opinion, and one that is much more than two thousand years old. I would regard that passage as Infallible Holy Writ no more than Psalm 137:9, "a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!" That is also a matter of human opinion, and in context, is not a moral recommendation (as it is so often presented) but a cry of rage and pain from one who has seen such things done to his own children.

And again your take seems the most reasoned. What "loving" God would ever command such a horrid thing?

Again; precisely. The Bible is a human document, written by humans, based on things that humans felt and thought thousands of years ago. It is not the "Word of God" -- but that doesn't make it false or of no account whatever, either.

The Bible is not a guide to morality. It is the literary heritage of a people, and a springboard for discussion of morality (and of many other things) -- and that is precisely where its importance lies.

They mighta coulda used your input there awhile back

I think those who have read it and thought on it over the centuries knew all these things. As I explained below, the "literal reading" and "rigid dogmatic belief" stores opened only recently; before the 19th century, no one was around to buy what they're selling.

I think the Bible can be an excellent source of moral training - if it's not always taken literally, and if, as you've shown, one doesn't just read it, but attempts to fully understand it, for all that it is. I'm impressed with your ability to make this stuff interesting, and valid to me personally, and I'd contend so many others.

And here I must reject your praise; none of this is original with me. I merely pass on the teachings of modern Judaism that I have learned from others.

Yes, we should share it more often, but we got out of the habit. In earlier centuries, disagreeing with the majority tended to get one murdered or exiled, and as often as not along with one's entire family and community.

An odd question. "Scholarly interest" can include the study of morality and the history of morality, the development of the concepts of Law, Justice, Truth, Liberty -- you know, all the things we mentioned before, not to mention the meaning of being human itself, of reality, of what is important and what is not -- and even early ideas about what we would call "medicine" and "science" and "government" and "human rights." Learning about what humans thought about those matters, and thus of how we got where we are today, is not mere academic trivia.

Very well said. Dovetails nicely with a reason for us to consider the Bible, even if we don't accept it as literal truth, or even an accurate portrait of history.

Yes. "Seriously, but not literally," as I've been saying for some years around here.

In all of those fields, as they matured, the focus moved farther and farther away from "supernatural" assumptions and toward more "naturalistic" ones, as one would hope and expect; but there were still valid perspectives and insights in earlier times, and those ought not be dismissed and discarded -- and in the field of ethics, it's hard to see how we are more "civilized" than our ancestors. In the Bronze Age, one killed with a blade or a stone at close range, and was obliged to look one's enemy in the eyes and smell his breath; now we can kill millions with the push of a button from thousands of miles away and never even know their names or their number. The ancient world was, in very many and very significant ways, much less "barbaric" than this one. We sneer at the Bronze Age at our peril.

That part's worth reading this entire thread to get to end up reading.

Thanks very much. Seems obvious to me. Achilles was a very brutal guy and a helluva fighter, but he did it all with his hands and hand weapons. Any 98-pound weakling can be "a helluva fighter" today. That can be good or bad, of course. As someone once said, "God did not create all men equal; Colonel Colt did."

It looks to me like we still have much to learn in the field of ethics and right and wrong, and we are a long, long way from being "mature" enough to discard the ideas of the past -- and don't hand me the Bible as evidence of the evils and horrors of religion; if you want to criticize Jewish ideas about ethics, you won't find them there. There are a few hundred years of discussions and debates on that general subject in the Talmud alone, and for depth and breadth of thought and openness and vigor in debate on that subject, there has never been anything in the literature of humanity to rival it. That discussion and debate continues to this day, and though it has little to do with trivial concerns like the nature of God and the Afterlife or "proofs" of either, it is a living and vital discussion for all that.

I'm thankful in that I understand a bit more of the Jewish perspective - "God's cool and all, but what the heck are you doing", seems the best way to show one's respect for the god in question. By studying the Bible we can learn were the ancients erred, and hopefully where they got it right.

I'm impressed by your reasons for wishing to discuss religion without the trappings I'm used to encountering - "believe or burn", "you disagree 'cause you wanna sin". Instead, from your take on all this, I'm gathering. "Who cares about the goofy stuff, it's this stuff right here that's the important part!" So obvious, yet so rare.

I retract any claim or implication I've ever presented in the past, or might present in the future, that says religious discussion can't be among the most profound endeavors of all humanity - when it has us discussing what truly is important.

And for that, I thank you most of all.