An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (Buddhism, soul, atheist)

[TroutDude]

Tzaph, you're tilting at the windmills in your own mind.

And by the way, your buddy Rbbi1 burns books. And brags about it.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

If some one said this to you how would you respond:

I would think they were crazy. But you are arguing with a strawman. Heck, not even a strawman. As far a I can see you are engaged in combat with a patch of thin air. Neither I nor Rockwell have advocated any sort of censorship. Just the opposite. I would highly encourage people to read the Bible and other ancient texts. So would Rockwell. (I don't have handy access to his article at the moment, but later I could give you a quote indicating that he fully favors people reading the Bible).

I would, however, encourage people to read critically. (BTW: The word "critically" does not mean "disagreeingly". I love reading Doug Hofstadter (for example) and I agree with most of his views, but I still read him critically - meaning, carefully and with an eye toward testing/comparing his ideas with what I think is rational. If he happens to say something wildly self-contradictory or in violation of empirical data, I ought to notice. Of course, by the same token, I ought to notice all of the really insightful, witty, and informative things he says as well.)

I really don't see how you can interpret me, or Rockwell, as advocating censorship. I am completely baffled.

BTW: I like this remark from Dan Dennett (which Rockwell quotes):
“No text can be conceded the status of ‘gospel truth’ without foreclosing all rational inquiry.” Notice that Dennett is not saying "don't read it" and he is certainly not advocating the burning of books. This is, rather, his way of saying "read critically." If you insist, before you even start reading it, that a book is completely perfect and has to be 100% true, then you can't very well read it critically. I would add that the same goes for negativity. If you are completely convinced, before reading, that a book has to be pure evil, then you will, again, fail to read critically.

Critical reading does not close you off to new ideas, but opens the door for them.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I would think they were crazy. But you are arguing with a strawman. Heck, not even a strawman. As far a I can see you are engaged in combat with a patch of thin air. Neither I nor Rockwell have advocated any sort of censorship. Just the opposite. I would highly encourage people to read the Bible and other ancient texts. So would Rockwell. (I don't have handy access to his article at the moment, but later I could give you a quote indicating that he fully favors people reading the Bible).

I would, however, encourage people to read critically. (BTW: The word "critically" does not mean "disagreeingly". I love reading Doug Hofstadter (for example) and I agree with most of his views, but I still read him critically - meaning, carefully and with an eye toward testing/comparing his ideas with what I think is rational. If he happens to say something wildly self-contradictory or in violation of empirical data, I ought to notice. Of course, by the same token, I ought to notice all of the really insightful, clever, and informative things he says as well.)

I really don't see how you can interpret me, or Rockwell, as advocating censorship. I am completely baffled.

BTW: I like this remark from Dan Dennett (which Rockwell quotes):
“No text can be conceded the status of ‘gospel truth’ without foreclosing all rational inquiry.” Notice that Dennett is not saying "don't read it" and he is certainly not advocating the burning of books. This is, rather, his way of saying "read critically." If you insist, before you even start reading it, that a book is completely perfect and has to be 100% true, then you can't very well read it critically. I would add that the same goes for negativity. If you are completely convinced, before reading, that a book has to be pure evil, then you will, again, fail to read critically.

Critical reading does not close you off to new ideas, but opens the door for them.

so its not a book, its irrational people? how in no gods name can't somebody change with new information?

grey, its empirical. you call brute fact. they can't, and pretending its just religion textbooks that cause this is foolish. pretending people are all the same, although scary not to, is a major problem. how would you address it?

let milli mentals and fundy mentals just rip each other to shreds and hurt everybody around them doing so?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I would think they were crazy.

I agree. That is the precise response to your buddy Teed's abstract.

How about saying why it's crazy? Specifically in what way is the person saying the following crazy? Be specific. Tell us how it is problematic for you.

"Gaylen, philosophy is responsible for evil so there need to be no philosophy books. Philosophy texts and journal articles are unjustified and incoherent. Rejecting and removing these elements of traditional organized philosophy from the study, teaching, libraries, and university departments would have a strongly positive impact on the beliefs and practices of philosophy, even though many philosophy people feel strongly attached to them. It is belief in philosophy texts and journal articles that is responsible for most of the evil done in the name of a philosophy."

Why do you have a problem with it? It is Teed's approach here is text from his abstract. Surely if your buddy Teed takes it upon himself to change up God and religion and eliminate holy books, then a philosopher such as yourself Gaylen would be enthusiastic and open minded and downright welcome having religious people improve upon philosophy in the very same way, by getting rid of philosophy books and journal articles even though philosophers such as yourself may feel strongly attached to them, religious people know that philosophy books and journal articles are unjustified and incoherent and responsible for evil.

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

[from Teed's abstract]
... i propose a theism which rejects sacred texts as unjustified, and supernaturalism as incoherent. I argue that rejecting these two elements of traditional organized religion would have a strongly positive impact on the beliefs and practices of religion, even though many religious people feel strongly attached to them. It is belief in sacred texts that is responsible for most of the evil done in the name of religion....

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

How about saying why it's crazy? Specifically in what way is the person saying the following crazy? Be specific. Tell us how it is problematic for you.

What's crazy is advocating censorship.

It is Teed's approach here is text from his abstract

I think I might see where you are coming from. Teed is saying we should "reject" these ancient texts, and you are interpreting this as "don't read them" or "burn them" or, perhaps, "read them with the assumption that they are stupid". I think his abstract could have been worded more carefully. More accurately, what he is saying is that naturalism should reject the view that these texts are the pure word of God (and thus above/beyond the need for critical thinking). He is not rejecting the texts, as such, but the common religious tendency to believe in them uncritically. His central point is that belief in God is not, in itself, irrational, but uncritical belief (faith) in any text as being the one and only expression of God's words is irrational, and is a source of great mischief in the world.

BTW: I should also add that the need to read critically is not always the one and only acceptable option. One can read for the sake of inspiration or entertainment, for example. But if you read a text for the sake of inspiration, then don't turn around and use the text as it were a document of absolute empirical truth. Inspiration, motivation, good feelings about life - all good. No problem. Just don't insist that everyone else is stupid or evil or destined for damnation if they don't get the same kick out of it that you do. To carry the authority of guiding practical morality or political policy, the text has to be read critically (and even then things can go wrong, but at least critical reading gives us a fighting chance at making rational choices).

[mstelm]

https://youtu.be/9xTz3QjcloI

[mstelm]

And then
https://youtu.be/8nz2dtv--ok

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I have no idea where you are getting that. Can you quote anything I've said that would even remotely imply such a stance?

Yellow journalism techniques: trying to make it look like personal rejection of religious texts, etc. is the equivalent of forceful removal of those things from everyone. Expect that kind of dishonesty. Guilt by association: because a person saw value in national socialism (who can deny that the Volkswagen was a huge boon to the public?) must mean that all his ideas are tainted. Anything to avoid confronting the actual ideas, you know?

[Tzaphkiel]

Still waiting for a response Gaylen. So you're OK with this? Isn't it a splendid display of critical thinking? Do you find it rational? Be sure to point out all the places and ways it is brimming with insightful, clever, and informative things as well.

Surely if your buddy Teed takes it upon himself to change God and religion and reject holy books, then a philosopher such as yourself Gaylen would be enthusiastic and open minded and would downright welcome having religious people improve upon philosophy in the very same way, by rejecting philosophy books and journal articles even though philosophers such as yourself may feel strongly attached to them. Religious people are making these improvements to the field of philosophy because philosophy books and journal articles are unjustified and incoherent and are responsible for evil.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Still waiting for a response Gaylen. So you're OK with this? Isn't it a splendid display of critical thinking? Do you find it rational? Be sure to point out all the places and ways it is brimming with insightful, clever, and informative things as well.

I guess I don't understand what you asking. I've already responded as clearly and as completely as I can. Rockwell is not advocating censorship. Perhaps a few quotes from the article will help clarify his perspective:

I think that Naturalistic Theism, Nondogmatic Atheism and Agnosticism are equally legitimate choices.... I find Atheism distasteful, largely because of its association with dogmatic Atheism, but find it difficult to choose between Theism and Agnosticism. Perhaps this is because Buddhism, which is my spiritual practice, does not clearly make such a choice. Nevertheless, I do feel the need to defend Theism from what I feel are unjustified attacks by dogmatic Atheists.
[...]
Notice the sentence that I have put in bold letters. I don't know how Rockwell could say it with any greater clarity:

This does not mean these traditions should not revere and respect those texts, or refrain from carefully reading and thinking about them in hopes of finding profound truths. However, it does mean that no one should believe anything simply because it is written in a book. Naturalism requires that all texts be evaluated critically in terms of their ability to make sense of life as we experience and study it. To say that a claim must be true simply because “it is written” is to give up on the principles of inquiry that are the basis of Naturalism. This does not necessarily require denying the possibility that God might have spoken directly to mankind through a particular book or books. But it does require rejecting the idea that this fact or any other would give a text unconditional authority over the truth.