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?

[cnorman18]

I find that this happens in real word debates as well. I checked a book out of the library called God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, thinking it would be interesting to read a unified atheistic position. It was so worthless I couldn't even finish it. The whole time I just kept thinking, "I don't believe in this God you are arguing against either!"

I had the same experience with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. To be fair, he does, at least, acknowledge the existence of religious perspectives other than the fundamentalist/literalist.

From a series of objections to his work in the Preface:

You always attack the worst of religion and ignore the best.

"You go after crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than sophisticated theologians like Tillich or Bonhoeffer who teach the sort of religion I believe in."

If only such subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would surely be a better place, and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that this kind of understated, decent, revisionist religion is numerically negligible...

And so on, establishing himself as a member of Group 1; but he does, at least, admit the existence of "subtle, nuanced religion" and seems to think it at least benign -- but even then, he only considers liberal Christianity and ignores all other traditions. I never heard that either Dawkins or Hitchens ever had much to say about modern Judaism. Orthodox Judaism, certainly, and not surprisingly; but then the Orthodox are essentially Jewish fundamentalists, as I have said many times.

Okay. We Jews are rather used to the practice of writing off our point of view as insignificant and not worth considering because of our small numbers. We seem to have made a certain impact in various fields anyway, including the sciences, economics, business and industry, philosophy, literature, the arts...

Maybe there are things more important than mere numbers.

[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?

Since I acknowledged that my observations here do not apply to all non-theists -- ...sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable -- I dont think that question applies to me.

Then i guess i misunderstood.

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?

Perhaps I am not learned enough, but I have no idea what you mean.

You seem to be complaining that non-theists usually only tackle non-liberal beliefs because they are the easiest. And that the one's who do this usually aren't even aware of liberal beliefs or put them in the same bucket as all religions. I think the people who do such are usually new to debate and religious study. Thus you would be picking on the easiest targets in the non-theist community which is ironic considering that your complaint is about people who pick on the easiest targets.

If by less learned anti-religionists you mean those who are not aware of the fact that all religions are not the same, I dont think thats a matter of arguing, but of informing.

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.

Yes, I agree, and some of those engagements have been with me. You are not among those whom I am criticizing here.

What I have in mind are threads like the following:

Does religion defy reality?

Would the world be a better place without religion?

God and mental illness

God is an imaginary friend for adults!

And so on. None of these distinguish between different religions or different kinds of "belief in God."

I genuinely believe that many of these people aren't aware of liberal beliefs. I was one of them for quite a long time. I was religious during my youth, took a few religious study classes in college, and debated/discussed religion for quite a few years (including with some pastors) and never encountered anyone who clearly distinguished themselves from the literalists or "magical thinkers". Even the Jews I had debated made no attempt to make such a distinction and were often taking sides with literalist and magical thinking Christians to defend their beliefs and "faith". It wasn't until I came here that I encountered a clear and concerted effort by liberal believers to distinguish themselves from the others. This was from members such as you and Slopeshoulders.

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.

On (1), I have no argument; you are quite right. The influence of liberal believers is not as visible, at least, as that of the conservative bunch. But then I have often pointed out that assuming that the fact that liberal believers do not get as much ink as others and therefore must exist in smaller numbers is an example of the Spotlight Fallacy and ought to be recognized as such.

Well that isn't quite the spotlight fallacy because the spotlight fallacy deals with conclusions made by observing the media's spotlight. Its not necessarily about one's personal observations. I think you should sympathize a bit more with non-theists who assume that all theists they meet are literalists and magical thinkers because after encountering hundreds or thousands of believers they probably have never encountered a liberal believer. Or worse, they may have encountered one but the liberal failed to clearly distinguish himself from the literalists and magic believers.

(2) is similar. Id like to see a definition of magical thinking, and then Id like to see some evidence that the majority of liberal, nonliteral believers engage in it.

I was NOT claiming that all liberal jews or liberal christians engage in magical thinking.

What I am saying is that most present-day believers are NOT liberal. Most present-day believers are literalists or engage in magical thinking. E.G., some of the stories of the bible like adam and eve, tower of babel, noah's ark, etc, probably didn't actually happen or are myth/legend but Jesus literally rose from the dead, magically healed people with his spit, and flew into heaven like superman.

I dont think thats true of Jews, and speaking from experience, I dont think its true of very many liberal Christians either.

I agree.

Only you have made it abudently clear To choose a convenient example, the belief in miracles; I dont think that acknowledging that miracles are possible -- I cant say that they are NOT possible, and neither can you -- is quite the same thing as assuming that they can be obtained at will or can be depended upon.

Miracles are possible only in that they cannot be proven impossible. Leprechauns and flying spaghetti monsters are possible in the same regard. But if we want to discuss whether leprechauns, spaghetti monsters, or gods are more or less probable/reasonable then that is a different discussion.

In short, saying something is possible (or not impossible) is rather pointless because there are a seemingly infinite amount of things that are possible. Yet, people such as yourself who say they think god, miracles, etc are possible don't ever seem to also say that leprechauns, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters are possible in the same breath.

When I pastored a small, rural church in north Texas -- hardly a bastion of liberalism -- many people had no objection to praying for the healing of an ill person, but they still expected that person to go to the doctor, and no one expected that person to be suddenly and magically cured of all illness. The consensus on prayer seemed to be, It cant hurt. I dont think that constitutes magical thinking, and I dont think it seriously impedes rational or critical thought.

I disagree. The idea that one is petitioning a supernatural being in the hopes that they magically heal the person certainly is magical thinking.

I accept that intercessory prayer is not always about requesting divine intervention. But your example was vague because you failed to explain the internal thoughts of the person praying that would make it non-magical. If, for example, the person praying was doing it purely as a show of support then that would be an example of non-magical thinking.

I really think objection #2 is just another version of religion = supernaturalism = irrationality,

Yes, it is. But my criticism of what I find irrational about liberal beliefs is much different then the literalists and magic believers because of the very different ways these types of people think.

[cnorman18]

Liberal religion in general is not interesting, influential or relevant enough to "engage" with. It's mostly harmless. What are some examples of the pressing arguments of liberal religion that are not being addressed?

Mostly stuff that you probably agree with -- the importance of peace, justice, truth, liberty, rational thought, debate and argument, like that. I'm mostly referring to the fact that there are other things to talk about than merely whether religion, as a set of objective claims of fact, is "true" or "false" -- because to many people, including me, religion is not that in the first place. One of the flaws of this forum is that we rarely seem to get beyond the "true/false" question, as if there were nothing else about this topic to talk about.

I can imagine it gets annoying if people are talking about religion without constantly mentioning how your religion is this special exception.

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said anything about "constantly mentioning" anything. I'm talking about unstated assumptions and unsupported blanket statements. What's wrong with a word of qualification now and then? How about "some religions" or even "MOST religion," as opposed to just "religion," as if it were one undifferentiated thing?

But personally, I see this as a trivial complaint.

How is a factual and reasonable observation about unsupported blanket statements and objective error "trivial"? I might speculate that you think it trivial mostly because it is not your complaint.

If someone makes a thread about certain beliefs, I suppose it's peripherally relevant to point out that the beliefs aren't shared by everyone, but it doesn't do much to progress the topic.

Of course it does. Since when does actual accuracy -- in this case, acknowledging that there are other perspectives and avoiding gross and provably false blanket generalizations -- not matter in ANY discussion?

People make generalizations, it's what they do, and sometimes they have to be corrected. There is nothing special about religion in this regard.

Quite right; and thus my post. I am correcting a massive generalization, which has become, as I indicated, a very common meme around here. What is your objection to my doing that, since you just remarked that generalizations sometimes "have to be corrected"?

I disagree that arguing with some religion is especially easier. It isn't like liberal religious beliefs have strong arguments or evidence supporting them that are difficult to address.

Oh? Are we once more assuming that the only thing to debate is whether or not the "claims of objective fact" on the part of liberal religion are true or false? Sure sounds like it.

Like I said, there are other things to talk about; but they will never be talked about as long as religions are assumed to be all the same.

They just make fewer claims and are less enthusiastic to force their beliefs on others.

Seems to me that those facts themselves are worth noting, and in a positive light, as opposed to being mere grounds for dismissal. Gosh, maybe they could even be discussed.

Isn't the existence of alternatives to fundamentalist beliefs other than atheism worth talking about from time to time? Or is atheism the only permissible choice?

If I'm going to debate bigfoot, I want to debate with people who think bigfoot is or might be real. I don't have the interest to debate against people who just think bigfoot is a really special metaphorical cultural phenomenon that we can all learn a lot from.

Now THAT is "trivializing." I think there might be a BIT more to learn from rational religious perspectives than from belief of whatever kind in Bigfoot, and I think that those perspectives might have just a bit more rationality and serious thought behind them. Once again; equating religious belief of any and all kinds with belief in Bigfoot, or leprechauns, or flying pink unicorns, is both begging the question (i.e. assuming that ALL religious beliefs are both false and worthless), and, not incidentally, rather insulting.

Sorry. I have no intention of folding my hands and keeping my "trivial" complaints to myself. I can understand how you might regard my observations here as "trivial"; stereotyping is typically not regarded as a problem except by those who are being stereotyped and dismissed.

[cnorman18]

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?

Perhaps I am not learned enough, but I have no idea what you mean.

You seem to be complaining that non-theists usually only tackle non-liberal beliefs because they are the easiest. And that the one's who do this usually aren't even aware of liberal beliefs or put them in the same bucket as all religions. I think the people who do such are usually new to debate and religious study. Thus you would be picking on the easiest targets in the non-theist community which is ironic considering that your complaint is about people who pick on the easiest targets.

Isnt that pretty much what I said immediately below?

If by less learned anti-religionists you mean those who are not aware of the fact that all religions are not the same, I dont think thats a matter of arguing, but of informing.

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.

Yes, I agree, and some of those engagements have been with me. You are not among those whom I am criticizing here.

What I have in mind are threads like the following:

Does religion defy reality?

Would the world be a better place without religion?

God and mental illness

God is an imaginary friend for adults!

And so on. None of these distinguish between different religions or different kinds of "belief in God."

I genuinely believe that many of these people aren't aware of liberal beliefs. I was one of them for quite a long time. I was religious during my youth, took a few religious study classes in college, and debated/discussed religion for quite a few years (including with some pastors) and never encountered anyone who clearly distinguished themselves from the literalists or "magical thinkers". Even the Jews I had debated made no attempt to make such a distinction and were often taking sides with literalist and magical thinking Christians to defend their beliefs and "faith". It wasn't until I came here that I encountered a clear and concerted effort by liberal believers to distinguish themselves from the others. This was from members such as you and Slopeshoulder.

Yes, and alas for his bad habits that got him banned. His voice was a rare one.

You are speaking, of course, of the reasons I posted this thread in the first place.

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.

On (1), I have no argument; you are quite right. The influence of liberal believers is not as visible, at least, as that of the conservative bunch. But then I have often pointed out that assuming that the fact that liberal believers do not get as much ink as others and therefore must exist in smaller numbers is an example of the Spotlight Fallacy and ought to be recognized as such.

Well that isn't quite the spotlight fallacy because the spotlight fallacy deals with conclusions made by observing the media's spotlight. Its not necessarily about one's personal observations.

If the spotlight of the media is what one bases ones argument upon, it makes little difference. A possibility is still being treated as a fact, and thats what a fallacy IS.

I think you should sympathize a bit more with non-theists who assume that all theists they meet are literalists and magical thinkers because after encountering hundreds or thousands of believers they probably have never encountered a liberal believer. Or worse, they may have encountered one but the liberal failed to clearly distinguish himself from the literalists and magic believers.

I dont know that sympathize is quite the right word. My intention here, as noted several times now, is to educate, in part by bringing this problem to the attention of those who seem unaware of it.

(2) is similar. Id like to see a definition of magical thinking, and then Id like to see some evidence that the majority of liberal, nonliteral believers engage in it.

I was NOT claiming that all liberal jews or liberal christians engage in magical thinking.

What I am saying is that most present-day believers are NOT liberal. Most present-day believers are literalists or engage in magical thinking. E.G., some of the stories of the bible like adam and eve, tower of babel, noah's ark, etc, probably didn't actually happen or are myth/legend but Jesus literally rose from the dead, magically healed people with his spit, and flew into heaven like superman.

And as Ive said several times now, I have no reason to disagree with that. MY brief is for those, like myself, who do NOT so believe, and feel as though we ought not be invisible or considered insignificant.

I dont think thats true of Jews, and speaking from experience, I dont think its true of very many liberal Christians either.

I agree.

Only you have made it abudently clear To choose a convenient example, the belief in miracles; I dont think that acknowledging that miracles are possible -- I cant say that they are NOT possible, and neither can you -- is quite the same thing as assuming that they can be obtained at will or can be depended upon.

Miracles are possible only in that they cannot be proven impossible. Leprechauns and flying spaghetti monsters are possible in the same regard. But if we want to discuss whether leprechauns, spaghetti monsters, or gods are more or less probable/reasonable then that is a different discussion.

And I agree with THAT. See below.

In short, saying something is possible (or not impossible) is rather pointless because there are a seemingly infinite amount of things that are possible. Yet, people such as yourself who say they think god, miracles, etc are possible don't ever seem to also say that leprechauns, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters are possible in the same breath.

Um, no. What I mean by not impossible is this: I have seen things, more than once, that I cannot explain and that no one acquainted with them, including the physicians involved, could explain. Were they miracles, or simply things for which we have not yet discovered or determined a reasonable explanation? I cant say. Im not talking about theoretical possibilities; that would be as fatuous as you say. Im talking about reality, which is not always as predictable and tame as we would like to think.

If I were an atheist, I would dismiss such incidents out of hand; but Im not, and though I make no claim that anything out of the ordinary actually happened on any of these occasions, I am not quite arrogant enough to unequivocally claim that that MUST be the case.

When I pastored a small, rural church in north Texas -- hardly a bastion of liberalism -- many people had no objection to praying for the healing of an ill person, but they still expected that person to go to the doctor, and no one expected that person to be suddenly and magically cured of all illness. The consensus on prayer seemed to be, It cant hurt. I dont think that constitutes magical thinking, and I dont think it seriously impedes rational or critical thought.

I disagree. The idea that one is petitioning a supernatural being in the hopes that they magically heal the person certainly is magical thinking.

I accept that intercessory prayer is not always about requesting divine intervention. But your example was vague because you failed to explain the internal thoughts of the person praying that would make it non-magical. If, for example, the person praying was doing it purely as a show of support then that would be an example of non-magical thinking.

I was thinking of that, and also of the fact that such prayers are an ancient tradition in ALL faiths of which I have ever heard, and are regarded as comforting even if they are offered -- as, in my experience, they generally are -- without any real hope of their being answered.

I really think objection #2 is just another version of religion = supernaturalism = irrationality,

Yes, it is. But my criticism of what I find irrational about liberal beliefs is much different then the literalists and magic believers because of the very different ways these types of people think.

I dont think its really all that different, as in there being a bright line between one kind of thinking and the other. My own beliefs have evolved (fundamentalists should pardon the expression) over the course of some years, and have been shaped in no small part by the interplay between minds on this very forum. But thats another topic.

[catalyst]

C wrote:

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.

Considering many of those types of threads are made by the literalists themselves, or in some cases, started from points made in thes aforementioned threads, how is one expected to debate contrary TO the OP itself?

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.

Perhaps if those with religion in their lives with a more liberal attitude towards the meaning and intent of Biblical scripture, (or the religious reading material associated with other religions) posted and wanted to discuss their take on the "word" they live by, it may help dull the noise of LOUDER fundy/evangelical types. That said, in a couple of threads just recently (all started by obvious biblical literalists) there have been several more liberal Christians commenting and I see agnostics and atheists alike SEEING what they have to offer as being somewhat valid, but it is the biblical literalist shooting their liberal interpretation down in flames, due to their myopic literalist interpretation.

So if anything , from my observation at least, it appears that the only ones actually seeing "all religions" ONE particular way, is the Biblically literalists themselves and anyone "seeing" the religion as LESS than that, is NOT a "true follower" OF said religion. It is the fundy/literalists also who only tend to see Islam as a whole as being ONLY of the Fundamentalist vein, which is far from the truth.

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.

I know you have in the past, but have noticed myself that lately you have not been doing it so much. I wondered why is all and you have answered that for me.

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.

It was not snarky at all and in no way was intended to be. It was a question asked with genuine interest. I realise for example that for Barmitzvah the young man has to "learn" enough Hebrew to recite portions of the Torah as well as know enough to recite prayers etc.

I thought if you COULD read it, then it would aid in nipping the "literalists" in the bud, by actually showing them what they BELIEVE is a literal translation, is in fact far from it. I have brought certain words and their ACTUAL meanings up on several occasions to the literalists types, but as I am not Jewish, I am swatted away.

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."

And as I stated above, from my observation the only ones I see as when speaking of religion meaning Fundamentalist Christianity ONLY, are the fundies themselves. It is THEY who believe they are the only ones who have got Christianity "right".

Catalyst.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Liberal religion in general is not interesting, influential or relevant enough to "engage" with. It's mostly harmless. What are some examples of the pressing arguments of liberal religion that are not being addressed?

Mostly stuff that you probably agree with -- the importance of peace, justice, truth, liberty, rational thought, debate and argument, like that. I'm mostly referring to the fact that there are other things to talk about than merely whether religion, as a set of objective claims of fact, is "true" or "false" -- because to many people, including me, religion is not that in the first place. One of the flaws of this forum is that we rarely seem to get beyond the "true/false" question, as if there were nothing else about this topic to talk about.

I can imagine it gets annoying if people are talking about religion without constantly mentioning how your religion is this special exception.

Don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said anything about "constantly mentioning" anything. I'm talking about unstated assumptions and unsupported blanket statements. What's wrong with a word of qualification now and then? How about "some religions" or even "MOST religion," as opposed to just "religion," as if it were one undifferentiated thing?

But personally, I see this as a trivial complaint.

How is a factual and reasonable observation about unsupported blanket statements and objective error "trivial"? I might speculate that you think it trivial mostly because it is not your complaint.

If someone makes a thread about certain beliefs, I suppose it's peripherally relevant to point out that the beliefs aren't shared by everyone, but it doesn't do much to progress the topic.

Of course it does. Since when does actual accuracy -- in this case, acknowledging that there are other perspectives and avoiding gross and provably false blanket generalizations -- not matter in ANY discussion?

People make generalizations, it's what they do, and sometimes they have to be corrected. There is nothing special about religion in this regard.

Quite right; and thus my post. I am correcting a massive generalization, which has become, as I indicated, a very common meme around here. What is your objection to my doing that, since you just remarked that generalizations sometimes "have to be corrected"?

When people are new to a topic, they tend to generalize about it. When people make incorrect generalizations, they ought to be corrected. And since your religion has pretty much nothing to do with the fundamentalist side of things, I don't see that you need to worry too much about hasty generalizations about "religion" that people make. It's just due to a lack of interest and awareness in such traditions as yours. It's like an introductory course for a subject, people are going to come in with a lot of popular misconceptions that will need to be addressed. All you can do is keep raising awareness where you can.

I'm just saying it doesn't follow that because someone is interested in debating creationism they should care about religious perspectives on peace, justice, truth, etc. That's not what attracts most people's interest, most people are interested in discussing beliefs that they perceive to be irrational. It sucks if you're hanging around here and constantly seeing new people with the same stereotypes, and you're doing a service by correcting at least some of them. I think as long as religion keeps making headlines for all the wrong reasons this is going to be the state of things, though (unless there were more comprehensive religious education in schools).

I disagree that arguing with some religion is especially easier. It isn't like liberal religious beliefs have strong arguments or evidence supporting them that are difficult to address.

Oh? Are we once more assuming that the only thing to debate is whether or not the "claims of objective fact" on the part of liberal religion are true or false? Sure sounds like it.

Like I said, there are other things to talk about; but they will never be talked about as long as religions are assumed to be all the same.

They just make fewer claims and are less enthusiastic to force their beliefs on others.

Seems to me that those facts themselves are worth noting, and in a positive light, as opposed to being mere grounds for dismissal. Gosh, maybe they could even be discussed.

Isn't the existence of alternatives to fundamentalist beliefs other than atheism worth talking about from time to time? Or is atheism the only permissible choice?

If I'm going to debate bigfoot, I want to debate with people who think bigfoot is or might be real. I don't have the interest to debate against people who just think bigfoot is a really special metaphorical cultural phenomenon that we can all learn a lot from.

Now THAT is "trivializing." I think there might be a BIT more to learn from rational religious perspectives than from belief of whatever kind in Bigfoot, and I think that those perspectives might have just a bit more rationality and serious thought behind them. Once again; equating religious belief of any and all kinds with belief in Bigfoot, or leprechauns, or flying pink unicorns, is both begging the question (i.e. assuming that ALL religious beliefs are both false and worthless), and, not incidentally, rather insulting.

Sorry. I have no intention of folding my hands and keeping my "trivial" complaints to myself. I can understand how you might regard my observations here as "trivial"; stereotyping is typically not regarded as a problem except by those who are being stereotyped and dismissed.

If people want to talk about these aspects of religion, that's fine. People can and should bring religious perspectives to discussions of peace, justice, truth, etc. so long as they are not given any special consideration simply because they are religious.

[JoeyKnothead]

I sheepishly raise my hand.

Joey, you are always so unabashedly honest.

Well I 'preciate that.

[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?

Im not talking about confining the debate. Im talking about the assumptions evident in many posts here, and the fact that some posts which are apparently intended or claimed to be addressing religion in general are, in fact, only addressing one kind of religion.

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

First Id like to see a definition of classical theism. I dont know of one -- and my very point is that not all religions, or even definitions of religion, are the same.

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.

In some religions, including my own, that dilemma is not a dilemma. In the Hebrew Bible, the God-character is rather clearly subject to a standard of ethical behavior higher than Himself. As Abraham said, Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?

This dilemma is based on the assumption that God is necessarily good by human standards. I dont know that that is true, or that anyone can claim objective knowledge, evidence, or proof of that. Looking around at the world, I find much reason to doubt it.

And that question is irrelevant to my point and to this thread.

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.

That is, again, an assumption. I dont see that it has anything to do with actual scientific evolutionary theory; and that issue is irrelevant to my point as well.

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

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

And in many versions of liberal Christianity, all those concepts are no longer considered objective claims of material fact, but are acknowledged to be mental constructs, metaphors, and/or symbols expressing values and priorities, as opposed to carved-in-stone dogmas; and obviously, in the Jewish religion, they have no import whatever.

My post is about those who address those problems without acknowledging that there are religious traditions and iterations of religious belief to which they do not apply.

Historically more philosophical discourses in atheism has focussed on the God of Classical theism:-
http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A1113445

There are five qualities that the God of classical theism is meant to have. These are:
1. Transcendence
2. Omnipotence
3. Omniscience
4. Omnipresence
5. Absolute Benevolence

or on the classical arguments for or against God. It is only recently that a lot of atheist discourse has shifted to the more fundamentalist religions as many has realized that that is where most believers exist. Also I guess the main area of conflict lies between atheism and more fundamental systems of religion and that's why the debate questions are mostly addresses there.

I am personally aware that liberal systems exists but I do not think there will be fundamental sources of conflicts with them that could start a debate. I cannot speak for others.

[cnorman18]

C wrote:

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.

Considering many of those types of threads are made by the literalists themselves, or in some cases, started from points made in thes aforementioned threads, how is one expected to debate contrary TO the OP itself?

That does happen, but I was referring to threads like the ones I listed earlier in another post.

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.

Perhaps if those with religion in their lives with a more liberal attitude towards the meaning and intent of Biblical scripture, (or the religious reading material associated with other religions) posted and wanted to discuss their take on the "word" they live by, it may help dull the noise of LOUDER fundy/evangelical types. That said, in a couple of threads just recently (all started by obvious biblical literalists) there have been several more liberal Christians commenting and I see agnostics and atheists alike SEEING what they have to offer as being somewhat valid, but it is the biblical literalist shooting their liberal interpretation down in flames, due to their myopic literalist interpretation.

So if anything , from my observation at least, it appears that the only ones actually seeing "all religions" ONE particular way, is the Biblically literalists themselves and anyone "seeing" the religion as LESS than that, is NOT a "true follower" OF said religion. It is the fundy/literalists also who only tend to see Islam as a whole as being ONLY of the Fundamentalist vein, which is far from the truth.

I would largely agree, but I have had a number of debates with nontheists who insisted either that I was not "really" religious, or that I was actually a fundamentalist who was trying desperately to avoid admitting it. The last was with Divine Insight, in a thread about whether or not "God's Word" is ambiguous. Perhaps my post was influenced by that and similar experiences.

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.

I know you have in the past, but have noticed myself that lately you have not been doing it so much. I wondered why is all and you have answered that for me.

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.

It was not snarky at all and in no way was intended to be. It was a question asked with genuine interest.

Then I apologize -- but surely you are aware that your style in debate is rather more "in your face" than most. Nothing wrong with that, but it can lead to misunderstandings.

realise for example that for Barmitzvah the young man has to "learn" enough Hebrew to recite portions of the Torah as well as know enough to recite prayers etc.

Never had a Bar Mitzvah -- converted as an adult, & knowledge of Hebrew is not a requirement. Sorry for the misunderstanding there, too.

I thought if you COULD read it, then it would aid in nipping the "literalists" in the bud, by actually showing them what they BELIEVE is a literal translation, is in fact far from it. I have brought certain words and their ACTUAL meanings up on several occasions to the literalists types, but as I am not Jewish, I am swatted away.

I AM Jewish, and get swatted away pretty regularly on THAT basis.

In my experience, the issue is more often context than translation; but then I'm usually dealing with "messiah" issues.

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."

And as I stated above, from my observation the only ones I see as when speaking of religion meaning Fundamentalist Christianity ONLY, are the fundies themselves. It is THEY who believe they are the only ones who have got Christianity "right".

My experience has been different; but it's not surprising, given that we chose different subjects to debate and deal with different people.

[kayky]

Maybe there are things more important than mere numbers.

I would have to agree on the numbers thing. I have been told over and over again by some of the more extreme fundamentalist debaters here that the mainline denominations are all dying because they are on the wrong side of certain social issues. They brag about mega-churches and growth in membership. The implication is always that God is on their side and that's why they are being blessed and we are not.