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?

[catalyst]

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?

I doubt this is addressed to me, but if you want a debate as to Judaism, I would be happy to discuss it with you. That said, if someone come in spouting their own "religious" ideology as to how American Football is better than ... say.. NRL or AFL, I would debate that point too, just as I would also debate the "religious" following of some assumed "trendy" "boy band", and the viability of that. To me ALL these things have "religious" undertones to them.

Hey.. I have brought up over the years a multitude of "god-styled" religious beliefs to tackle and no one has pipped in, except for one person who, when I put into up about it, they didn't return to the site.

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 don't believe so C...at least not in my own case. That said, I have pointed out TO biblical "literalists" (they only read the ENGLISH translation") though , so their "literal" interpretation of what is actually written IN the Tanakh, leaves a lot to be desired. My main issue with Christian Bible readers who take the words written in the versions THEY READ literally, is that in MANY cases, they aren't actually getting nor understanding the original intent.

I am actually surprised that you have not pointed the glaring errors yourself TO these Christian Fundy people, especially when they cite verses from the OT(which many as you know believe is word for word accurate from the Hebrew Torah). Or did you only learn the Hebrew for recitation purposes...for shabbat...etc.. and nothing else?

Cat..x

[sayak83]

Isn't it true that in the open forums somebody posts a topic and ANYBODY can jump in. So how can one in forum only confine the debate to certain sections?

Would you consider the God of classical theism a liberal or fundamentalist idea. Much of theology is based on that concept.

Would you consider the Euthyphro dilemma a liberal or fundamentalist problem? Whether God can be a legimitate source of the ethics we possess of identify with seems to touch both.

Liberals do not have a problem with evolution. That said many mainline churches in US do have reservations about evolution as well. Yet the idea whether or not evolution has teleology or not seems relevant.

The problem of the concept of a just loving God given the idea of sacrificial atonement, grace, heaven and hell has probnlems that touch liberal Christianity also.

I have seen many posts on each of these issues as well.

[undeterred]

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?

Hey there big C.

Clearly that's a rhetorical question... unless I'm mistaken... as I so often can be.

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, as I see it your problem with these questions is in your idea that people should "engage with other varieties of religion which are not subject to their complaints." Exactly how would that work?

Anyhoo, thought I'd drop in. Feel free to ignore me. I'm sure my schedule won't allow me to keep pace with forumizing any more. If I don't make it back - have a good one!

[scourge99]

.
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?

Counter questions to the questions for debate:

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

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that the less learned anti-religionists are the easiest variety of non-theists to argue against?

As for me, i have plenty of criticism for liberal believers but there simply aren't many here and they rarely, if ever, put their beliefs out there for discussion. IME, the times that they have, have been some of the most informative.

Lastly, we have briefly disagreed on this before, but i think you greatly overestimate the numbers of liberal believers and their influence/exposure as compared to (1) the fundamentalists and (2) the more modern believers who don't take the bible completely literally but still engage in magical thinking.

[Mithrae]

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.

[scourge99]

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?

[Mithrae]

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?

The question involved claiming to argue against A (religion) while only engaging with a minority of A. Your 'counter-question' is nonsensical if you're talking about claiming to argue against A while only engaging a minority of B. Since you're an intelligent fellow, we must presume that your question has some sense to it and therefore that you are equating non-theists with anti-religionists. As I've suggested, in my experience many (if not most) non-theists would consider this comparison of yours inaccurate and potentially insulting.

[cnorman18]

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?

The question involved claiming to argue against A (religion) while only engaging with a minority of A. Your 'counter-question' is nonsensical if you're talking about claiming to argue against A while only engaging a minority of B. Since you're an intelligent fellow, we must presume that your question has some sense to it and therefore that you are equating non-theists with anti-religionists. As I've suggested, in my experience many (if not most) non-theists would consider this comparison of yours inaccurate and potentially insulting.

I would agree with all that, if it were applicable; but I don't think that's what Scourge meant to say or imply. I got no sense of it, anyway.

[cnorman18]

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?

I doubt this is addressed to me...

Certainly not!

...but if you want a debate as to Judaism, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

That's always a possibility, but it's not the point of the OP or of this thread.

That said, if someone come in spouting their own "religious" ideology as to how American Football is better than ... say.. NRL or AFL, I would debate that point too, just as I would also debate the "religious" following of some assumed "trendy" "boy band", and the viability of that. To me ALL these things have "religious" undertones to them.

Hey.. I have brought up over the years a multitude of "god-styled" religious beliefs to tackle and no one has pipped in, except for one person who, when I put into up about it, they didn't return to the site.

None of that is, again, quite the sort of thing I had in mind. 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.

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 don't believe so C...at least not in my own case.

As I said, this post was not addressed to you.

That said, I have pointed out TO biblical "literalists" (they only read the ENGLISH translation") though , so their "literal" interpretation of what is actually written IN the Tanakh, leaves a lot to be desired. My main issue with Christian Bible readers who take the words written in the versions THEY READ literally, is that in MANY cases, they aren't actually getting nor understanding the original intent.

I am actually surprised that you have not pointed the glaring errors yourself TO these Christian Fundy people, especially when they cite verses from the OT(which many as you know believe is word for word accurate from the Hebrew Torah).

I have, and rather often. I haven't bothered to do so lately, because I have found the game not worth the candle; but I have said more times than I could count that Christians and Jews do not read the OT in the same way, and that many Christian readings are not and never have been supported by Jewish tradition -- and that WE wrote the book.

Or did you only learn the Hebrew for recitation purposes...for shabbat...etc.. and nothing else?

A bit snarky and uncalled for, don't you think? In point of fact, I can't say that I have "learned Hebrew" at all. I can stumble along and follow the Hebrew in services, but not fast enough to "recite" it; I use a transliteration for the prayers which I have not committed to memory after long repetition. When I want to know about the Hebrew in a certain passage, I use a commentary or the Jewish Study Bible.

In any case, I have rather often pointed out the differences between the Christian and Jewish ways to read very many passages, and as I have also said rather often, you will find NO member here more opposed to fundamentalism and Biblical literalism than myself, and I'm on the record there many, many times.

And again -- the OP, and this thread, is not concerned with those arguments, but is addressed to those who speak of "religion" when they inarguably mean "fundamentalist Christianity."