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]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

I will make one exception and respond to this one immediately. The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves. We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back. This is the same old crap that's been thrown at us for centuries: "Look how standoffish and snobbish those Jews are; they won't have anything to do with us Gentiles. That's why I don't want them in my neighborhood and why I won't have one in my home or do business with one." Logical, isn't it?

If anyone wants to talk about irrational beliefs and claims, we can start there.

[scourge99]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves.

My description was not specific to Jews other wise i would say so. But it certainly does apply. It also is apt to describe Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and many others.

It also speaks in disagreement to your claim that the holocaust was somehow only possible in Germany.

We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Is it your contention that only non-Jews decide who is Jewish? If not then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a culture, lifestyle, religion, etc, where those who would identify with it would call themselves Jewish. And a unique minority identity from the majority seems to be a prerequisite for discrimination and "otherizing".

Since you seem to see antisemites lurking in every shadow I will have to make this explicit: That doesn't justify discrimination. That doesn't mean its OK to be bigoted.

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back.

Your insinuation that its bigoted and prejudiced to state the fact that "others" are more likely to be persecuted is nothing but zeal. By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

Uncomfortable and ugly truths cannot be ignored. Acknowledging them is a necessary towards preventing their occurrence in the future

[cnorman18]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves.

My description was not specific to Jews other wise i would say so. But it certainly does apply. It also is apt to describe Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and many others.

Since your post was in response to one that was concerned with the Holocaust, and which WAS specific to Jews, and since you did NOT say that it was a general observation, it's hard to believe that you did not intend it to be about Jews. That was a reasonable inference if there ever was one, and in any case, Jews were certainly INCLUDED in it.

Further, since Mormons and Witnesses work VERY hard to evangelize and bring others into their groups, it's pretty hard to see how your remarks about "exclusion" and "seclusion" could apply to them at all. I think it's pretty clear that you're backpedaling, abandoning what you actually said, and are now substituting something that you did NOT say. See below.

It also speaks in disagreement to your claim that the holocaust was somehow only possible in Germany.

And that, of course, is something I did NOT say. I admit that the remark about Schadenfreude was ill-chosen, but my point was that the Holocaust should NOT have happened in Germany, since it was the most highly advanced, cultured, educated, etc., state in the world. That is a very long way from saying that it was only possible there; in fact, the obvious implication of those remarks is that it could happen anywhere. (I recently saw a play, Avenue Q, which contained a song about Schadenfreude. Perhaps that was on my mind. In any case, I myself should have been aware of the implications of that remark and not made it.)

We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Is it your contention that only non-Jews decide who is Jewish? If not then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a culture, lifestyle, religion, etc, where those who would identify with it would call themselves Jewish. And a unique minority identity from the majority seems to be a prerequisite for discrimination and "otherizing".

You said nothing about merely identifying oneself with a minority culture. You spoke of "Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society," and so on. I say again: The Jews did not do this themselves; it was done TO them. Are you dodging and refusing to acknowledge or deal with that very clear point? It would appear so.

Since you seem to see antisemites lurking in every shadow...

That is a blatant personal attack. I do no such thing. I note and call out the possibility of the presence of antisemitism where it appears to be present, and your statement was inarguably a variation on a very old antisemitic trope. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but then considering the post to which you were responding, it's hard to read it any other way. Perhaps you should post with a bit more awareness of how others might read your words.

I AM keenly aware of the continuing presence of antisemitism in the world, and even on this forum -- examples are rather easy to find -- and for that I will not apologize, nor will I reduce my vigilance on that subject. Attempting to trivialize and ridicule concern about antisemitism does not exactly speak to your own acknowledgement of its actual, continuing presence here and elsewhere.

I will have to make this explicit: That doesn't justify discrimination. That doesn't mean its OK to be bigoted.

Okay, I'll agree with THAT; but let's look back at what you actually said.

The implication of your statement was very clearly that Jews (and perhaps others) are at least partially to blame for bigotry directed against them -- and NOT because of mere self-identification as members of a minority, but for excluding others, secluding themselves, actually having the temerity to participate in their own communal activities, and the like. Again, it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'"

Further, when it was pointed out to you that this "exclusion and seclusion" was not done BY Jews, but TO them, you ignored that point entirely, without so much as acknowledging it, and retreated to a claim that you were not talking about Jews, but only about ANY group's mere self-identification as a minority.

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back.

Your insinuation that its bigoted and prejudiced to state the fact that "others" are more likely to be persecuted is nothing but zeal.

And once again, that is not what you said. You said, quote, "groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc". Merely being a member of a minority group was NOT the subject of your post.

By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

Except that, once again, THAT remark says nothing at all about anything a woman DOES, but only about the mere fact of her being a woman. Your post went rather far beyond that, explicitly so, and it's a trifle disingenuous of you to try to backpedal and say something else now. Your remarks are on the record. I dealt with what you actually said, and everything I said was perfectly justified.

Uncomfortable and ugly truths cannot be ignored. Acknowledging them is a necessary towards preventing their occurrence in the future

Agreed. Now apply that to what you actually said, and not to what you now claim that you were saying.

[cnorman18]

....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.

I have read a lot, from Hannah Arendt's 'Banality of Evil' to Primo Levi's 'Periodic Table'; from technical and logistical reports of the various stages of the holocaust to an analysis of the business structure and practices of the IG.
My lifelong opposition to all forms of racism and prejudice started with a horrified recognition of what the Nazis did to the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Slavs, and anyone else they decided to hate.

I had the same experience; the Holocaust and its horrors were a burden on my heart since I first learned of them around age twelve, and may well be the origin of my interest in Judaism and the root of my eventual conversion to that religion at age fifty.

Far be it from me to belittle that atrocity.
But it was an aberration, and I am willing to consider, at least, whether the sheer monstrosity of it has distorted our picture of human moral progress.

Now there you might have a point; but note the remarks I italicized above. I think that a meaningful standard of "human moral progress" might be found in considering not just what does happen -- "aberrations" in the form of individual human acts, e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, the BTK killer, and so on -- are beyond the control of the greater society; but the Holocaust was the result of the united effort of an entire nation and culture, with very, very few dissenting voices. Too, it did not happen in a backward Third World nation like the Sudan or the Congo; it happened in the most literate and industrialized modern nation in the world.

The fact that it DID take place in a nation so educated and advanced and cultured and so on rather speaks to the fact that "human moral progress" was not then what we all thought it was.

It is perhaps no accident, either, that Schadenfreude is a German word.

Anti-Semitism has been a disease across all of Europe for many centuries. I think the fact that it found its most horrible expression in one particular country under one particular political party does not tell us anything about German people or culture as such.

I agree, and I retract the observation. It was unfair and unwise, and I admit that I spoke in the heat of the moment. Since the end of WWII, Germany has been a friend to the Jews, unlike some other nations. I should not have said what I did, and I regret it.

I have known enough ignorant and violent racists in dear little civilised England to be aware that, had the socio-economic circumstances been different, Moseley's blackshirts would have acted in precisely the same way. And I don't see that an anti-Semitic holocaust could not have been committed in France, Spain, Holland, or indeed the USA, under similar circumstances.

Again, that was my point of my remarks about the culture, education, and general sophistication of Germany at the time. It could, indeed, happen anywhere; thus my bristling at the suggestion that the Jews of Europe were in any way to blame for what had been done to them.

[99percentatheism]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

I will make one exception and respond to this one immediately. The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves. We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back. This is the same old crap that's been thrown at us for centuries: "Look how standoffish and snobbish those Jews are; they won't have anything to do with us Gentiles. That's why I don't want them in my neighborhood and why I won't have one in my home or do business with one." Logical, isn't it?

If anyone wants to talk about irrational beliefs and claims, we can start there.

Could it be that the gut wrentching accuracy of the history you report has to do more with Europeanism than it does the Jewish Gospel of Yeshua Ha Mashiach?

Europe's history is one of intense bloodshed and traibalism.
As Louis Farakhan (no friend of jews) has so effectivle detailed.

Since "Christiendom" was an invention of Europeans, could it have turned out any different? And yet, through the corrupting influence of politicsal power . . . some of the most incredible civilization has come from The European Church.

Fast-forward to THIS DAY:

http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/ ... NG_homenew

http://www.foi.org/

As we see, the "Evangelical Church" is addressing the reality of The Church, in a way that is profoundly active. No stone is left unturned - literally - and the history it is writing right now is in line with the history proclaimed (and prophesied) by Christ Jesus.

By the way, how many times do Christians have to apolgize for the atrocities meted out to jews in the history of European Christendom?

Give me number would you please? You could start with 7 x 70 if you'ld like.

I'll do it.

[cnorman18]

Could it be that the gut wrentching accuracy of the history you report has to do more with Europeanism than it does the Jewish Gospel of Yeshua Ha Mashiach?

Europe's history is one of intense bloodshed and traibalism.
As Louis Farakhan (no friend of jews) has so effectivle detailed.

Since "Christiendom" was an invention of Europeans, could it have turned out any different? And yet, through the corrupting influence of politicsal power . . . some of the most incredible civilization has come from The European Church.

Fast-forward to THIS DAY:

http://www.ifcj.org/site/PageNavigator/ ... NG_homenew

http://www.foi.org/

As we see, the "Evangelical Church" is addressing the reality of The Church, in a way that is profoundly active. No stone is left unturned - literally - and the history it is writing right now is in line with the history proclaimed (and prophesied) by Christ Jesus.

By the way, how many times do Christians have to apolgize for the atrocities meted out to jews in the history of European Christendom?

Give me number would you please? You could start with 7 x 70 if you'ld like.

I'll do it.

Once again I see nothing here which addresses any of the issues being discussed in this thread, and therefore I feel no need to respond to it.

For the record, I have never said nor thought that Christians were directly responsible for the Holocaust. That the two thousand years of consistent teaching of antisemitism by the Churches laid the foundation for it and made it possible is a generally agreed-upon fact, but whether those teachings had anything to do with what Jesus taught is another matter. I think it is also a generally agreed-upon fact that they did not.

[cnorman18]

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 see, upon rereading, that I misunderstood your remarks here. I therefore delete the following exchanges, and apologize and retract.

Besides, there ARE fewer liberal believers than otherwise -- among Christians, at least.

(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 support you in that and would much prefer to live in a world where those beliefs dominate over the fundamentalist and magic beliefs. But that's not the world we live in.

Alas, I must agree with that too. But my point remains; where opposition to fundamentalism is concerned, liberal believers are your allies, not your opponents.

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.

I fail to see a difference in reasoning between:
1) "i don't understand or know why that happened therefore it might have been caused by a god"
2) "i don't understand or know why that happened therefore it might have been caused by a leprechaun." (if the notion of leprechauns is too insulting then insert Zeus instead).

You seem to be telling me there is a difference but i don't see it other than the particular supernatural bias of the person. But i don't accept by non-argument that god magic is anymore reasonable than any other magic. And such criticism happens to be on track with my arguments against liberal believers. That their religious beliefs are arbitrary and their skepticism is arbitrarily exclusive (E.G., Yahweh magic is believable/possible/rational but Zeus/leprechaun magic isn't)

And, oddly enough, I find that I agree with that too. That is precisely my own internal dilemma; I DONT believe in miracles, and yet, and yet.... I have seen things that I do not understand. For all I know, they were caused by God -- or leprechauns or Zeus, for that matter (I am of Celtic descent, and I respect the Greeks...). I just dont know.

The two statements above, which you say you cannot see a difference between -- well, neither do I. My own statement stops before the "therefore." thus: "I don't understand or know why that happened." That's as far as I go. I don't characterize such things as "miracles. I cant characterize them at all -- but Im not willing to rule out anything, either. God, good karma, the wee folk, cosmic rays -- who knows?

If I were an atheist, I would dismiss such incidents out of hand;

This is very unfair characterization of atheists. If you believe atheists dismiss such things out of hand then you do not understand atheists very well (except perhaps the fringe).

You misunderstand. I mean that they would dismiss them out of hand as Yahweh-magic, as you call it. Is that not accurate?

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.

Which is exactly the mindset of atheists as well. Except the difference seems to be a openmindedness to particular magical explanations rather than all of them.

Im open to ANY explanation. I dont know means I dont know. And I dont see that saying I dont know, but unequivocally ruling out the unknown and undefined -- which is my formless conception of God -- is particularly reasonable either, given that I dont know.

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.

Sure. I agree there can be many motivations behind particular rituals or practices. But I take Rick Perry and other dimwits at their word when they claim to pray for rain.

Imagine the frenzy and revival that would had occurred had it rained. Someone is bound to guess right eventually. Since you are so open to the idea that perhaps god maybe/sometimes/could answer prayers, what would you make of such a scenario if Rick's prayers were "answered"?

Im not responsible for the attitudes and beliefs of others; but I can tell you this story. When I was serving in that same small country church, we were in the midst of a ferocious drought that had lasted for months. It was cattle country, and this is very bad for those who raise beef cattle; without rain, they would be obliged to buy hay for the winter, and that could easily wipe out all their income for the year.

It was requested that we have a special service to pray for rain; the reason given was not that rain would actually come, but that -- and I quote -- People would feel better. I understood that; the feeling was one of helplessness, and it would be comforting to people to be doing something, even if that something was futile.

Im not saying that no one hoped that our prayers would be answered; Im sure some did. I saw no harm in it then, and I see none now. (One old fellow brought an umbrella to the service -- but I note that people laughed, and he was not offended by the laughter but joined in it. We all thought it a good joke. Make of that what you will.)

As it happened, it rained a few days later. The response of the people on the following Sunday was, again, laughter, not pious pronouncements that God heard and impassioned cries of gratitude. Oh, perhaps a few of my more fundamentalist members felt that way; but that was not the general reaction. More than one old rancher said, Well, Ill be damned. I didnt think it would work -- spoken with a wry grin, which made it very clear that he still didnt think it DID work.

I know all this looks like primitive, childish superstition to those who approach religion in general with a certain amount of a priori contempt, but speaking as one who was THERE, it wasnt. It was seeking comfort, following tradition, and accepting what comes. Human beings are not as simple and stupid as some seem ready to assume, just because they subscribe to a religious belief.

As Dawkins' has said: "By all means be open minded, but not so open minded that our brains drop out." :p

Of course. But then lets not assume that others brains have fallen out when the truth might be a bit more complex and nuanced than that, even among theists whose beliefs ARE a bit less liberal.

Heres a small thing to think about: There is a Jewish prayer called the Mi Sheberakh, repeated in every Sabbath service, which is a prayer for comfort and healing for those who are ill. A list of names is read, and then people raise their hands and speak the names of others that they know are ill. It is obvious, if one attends such a service, that this bit of tradition is more about informing the community about who is sick than about faith healing. The prayer is in Hebrew and is not spoken by the congregation; and as the rabbi or cantor chants it, the people are not piously praying with him and pleading for God's mercy. They are whispering among themselves: I didnt know Stanley was sick! Whats wrong with him?

Its easy to condemn such practices as magical thinking -- but then it hasnt been so long since it was assumed on this forum that anyone who used the word God with anything other than skepticism, ridicule and/or contempt, never mind actually taking the concept seriously, was assumed to be either a superstitious, irrational fool who believed in the supernatural without reservation -- magical thinking, in short -- or an indoctrinated, brainless and brainwashed dupe who is guilty of the same thing, but for different reasons. It took several years of hard work on this forum for those of us who self-identify as religious, but are emphatically NOT dogmatic fundamentalists or literalists, to establish that we actually can and do EXIST.

Now if belief in God, and indeed the very meaning of that word, can have nuances and qualifications and contain a spectrum of thought and approaches that are not so simple and childish and easily dismissed as had once been assumed -- well, might the same not be true of some of the PRACTICES associated with religion?

After all, when watching a football game and the actions of its rabid fans, an outsider might be tempted to believe that it really, deeply mattered to these people which group of overpaid and overdeveloped slabs of grunting beef got that leather ovoid across that chalk line the most times.

Religion can be, and often is, as much a form of entertainment and communal social activity as it is a matter of dogmatic and irrational beliefs. Believe it or not, most religionists still live in the real world -- just like most football fans. You see some fanatics (I know of more than one fistfight that began, and more than one friendship that ended, over football), but most dont fall into that category.

[cnorman18]

Here's something I think might be helpful before we go farther: How about giving me YOUR definition of "religion"? It appears that you are still insisting that it must be about supernatural beliefs and dogmas, and that nothing else is really "religious." Would that be an accurate statement? Because if it is, we have nothing to talk about, and our conversation here is back where it began.

I don't really have a definition of religion, at least not one that I try to impose upon people. I recognize that people use the term in different ways. I think from an academic perspective the most useful definition of religion would have to be some collection of beliefs and/or practices which involve some aspect of the supernatural.

Thats what I thought. Thats not wrong, but it conflicts with my own ideas of religion, and thats also why were talking at cross purposes here.

I think that is the most logical criteria with which to separate religion from politics and sport and the like, and it's what separates theology from philosophy. But certainly religion may be defined in any number of different ways depending on our purpose.

Now, I'm not sure why you are suggesting we have nothing to talk about. I have my understanding of religion. You have yours. I am trying to understand what your understanding of religion is, but this is made difficult as you lack a definition yourself. We can talk about ethics, for example, and we can even talk about ethics through analyzing the bible and the exegetical literature. For me, this is not a religious activity, but I get the impression that for you it might be.

It absolutely is. Debate itself is a religious activity for Jews. The traditional method for learning Torah, that is, Jewish teachings and law, in rabbinical schools and yeshivot, is to work with a partner and argue, endlessly, defending your own understanding and attacking the others.

You see, the Jewish religion concerns all of real life, and not just the spiritual or conventionally religious aspects of it; indeed, for Jews, those aspects are not necessarily even recognized as existing, and are of no actual importance at all; one may speculate, but it is recognized that that is mere speculation with no practical significance. There is no teaching about a soul in Judaism, for instance; humans are one, one thing, spirit, soul, mind, body all the same thing (which is why the idea of life after death is problematic for us). The nature of God? Who can know that?

This perspective of Jews is qualitatively different from any other religion. Look back again at post 40, where I talked about the book, How Judaism Became a Religion. For us, religion was our whole way of life, and in many ways it still is. What others call religion was, and is, to us empty speculation and bizarre dogmatism; and yet I, and others, are not about to stop using that word and say that Judaism is a philosophy or a culture or any of that, because it isnt. We use the word God, we have holy days, we have services, we pray, we read from the Bible, we speak of sin and forgiveness and repentance and redemption -- though NONE of those have the same meaning for us as for Christians, and no supernatural beliefs are even defined, never mind required.

I think these are the sort of ambiguities that need to be worked out.

Maybe for you. I dont have a problem with this understanding of religion. Its very clear to me; I dont limit the concerns of religious belief and practice to the supernatural realm or to theological propositions or to claims without evidence. None of those are relevant to my religion. Judaism is about human beings living real lives in the real world, and it seems to me that that is what religion OUGHT to be about. Notice, too, that we do NOT say that OUR way is the ONLY way, or the RIGHT way, or even that other ways (including explicit atheism) are WRONG ways. Believe, or dont, whatever you like: that is of no concern to us, even where other Jews are concerned. What you DO -- now THAT is an issue with importance. And that is what religion IS, to us.

I once told the rabbi that was supervising my conversion that, after studying both Christian and Jewish thought and theology in some depth, that the basic difference between them was that Christian theology was a chess game; Jewish theology was a fist fight. That is, one was a fascinating intellectual game, and the other was blood and bone. One was theory; the other was real life.

There are exceptions; the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was as vital and real and hard-nosed as any Ive ever read, and he proved it with his life on a piano-wire noose; and there are Jewish writers, to be sure, who are as isolated in their ivory towers as any monk in his cell. But the difference remains real.

I wont allow my RELIGION to be pigeonholed with the Westboro Baptists or even the Methodists; and I wont allow it to be barred from the classification, either. Yes, its differences are unusual and atypical and hard to grasp; but at bottom, that isnt my problem. It is simply up to those who stereotype and assume and categorize and dismiss to learn better.

Im not trying to sell the Jewish religion to anybody or convince anybody to join. On the contrary, when I have been approached about conversion, I stick with the tradition, which is a wise one, of discouraging that effort, as was done with me. It takes a LONG time -- four years in my case -- not least because Judaism IS so different. But if one wishes to discuss religion with a Jew in the room, one had better be prepared to be corrected when stereotypes and assumptions come to the fore.

And there is nothing at all wrong with that. After all, one would not expect atheists to remain silent when a theist remarks that atheists are all, or even typically or usually, contemptuous of all religion, dismissive of all religious people as idiots, and ignorant of the Bible and the teachings of religion, now would one? Wouldn't you say that such people need to open their minds and learn about atheism? Those statements are perfectly true about very many atheists, and perhaps even most of them, from what I've seen, just as most of the theists you have seen are fundamentalists and literalists. But those assertions are wrong, wrongheaded, and unfair anyway, and the importance of that fact ought to be obvious to anyone interested in serious debate and the serious exchange of ideas among intelligent equals.

All I am asking for in this thread is the recognition that -- as I have said more times than I'd care to count -- all religion is not the same, and that arguing against the most rigid, moralistic, and toxic varieties of religion says NOTHING about "religion" itself, "religion" in general, or about very many approaches to "religion" that are none of those things.

That this rather obvious, and rather obviously true, thesis is being so strongly argued against is proof positive that its explication is sorely needed here.

ETA: One final note. I am not only speaking of modern Judaism here. I have noted in the past that much of this can be said of liberal branches of Christianity, of the many variations of Buddhist belief, of Taoism, of Wicca, and of any number of other "religions" that vary as much in their approaches and definitions as the languages of humanity. "Definitions" of "religion" are doomed to failure, because, as I have also said many time, there is simply no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single practice, belief, or attribute that is common to them all.

The word is useful as a general term -- but when it comes to debating rights and wrongs and the nature and value of "religion," it is wholly useless. On those issues, it makes sense to discuss specific beliefs, practices and teachings, and that is the ONLY way that such discussions make sense. Discussing "religion" is like discussing "politics." Attempting to discuss whether "politics" is good or bad, rational or not, beneficial to humanity or not, would inevitably lead to the obvious question -- "WHAT politics? Which political viewpoint are we talking about?" The same is true of "religion." Are we talking about the "religion" of Torquemada, or of Martin Luther King?

[Wootah]

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?

Fundamental Christianity scares people because it actually believes God is real.

I can't recall you easily arguing against me in our discussions. In fact I don't recall having that done at all.

I further think that this is a Debating Christianity site not Judaism or any other religion. The & Religion is only sub forums.

Actually what is your bullet point list of defeating arguments for fundamental Christianity. If it is so easy then post it up and let's find out.

I would guess that people find God offensive. God's holiness is awful for us and what it means. I would imagine fundamental Christians are the next most offensive as we actually defend God as holy.

[cnorman18]

Fundamental Christianity scares people because it actually believes God is real.

I can't recall you easily arguing against me in our discussions. In fact I don't recall having that done at all.

We have conversed from time to time. I don't recall anything particularly memorable, but then I'm not about personalities here.

I further think that this is a Debating Christianity site not Judaism or any other religion. The & Religion is only sub forums.

I was formerly a moderator here, and I can tell you that that is not accurate. This is the most general and open of the subforums, and here anyone may discuss any religion or absence of religion they care to.

Actually what is your bullet point list of defeating arguments for fundamental Christianity. If it is so easy then post it up and let's find out.

That is not the subject of this thread. If you'd care to start a thread of your own and ask for such arguments, I'm sure you'll get a lot of takers.

Those debates are not usually something I care to pursue. I am no more interested in debating "Creationism," for instance, than I am in debating whether the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's not worth my time.

I would guess that people find God offensive. God's holiness is awful for us and what it means. I would imagine fundamental Christians are the next most offensive as we actually defend God as holy.

And as a Jew, I can tell you that both your guess and your imagining would be wrong. I am certainly not "offended" by God -- Jews think of God as holy, too, for the record -- and I do not find Christianity "offensive" either; it is an ancient and honorable faith, and I do not say that it is wrong -- but it is not my own.

Start another thread if you like, but this one was not addressed to you, and your concerns are offtopic here.

Be well, and peace to you.