Comments on: Why Don’t Smart People Get Jesus?

By: MennoMo

MennoMo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:31:55 +0000

Its implied in the argument you've tried to make. "Here's a believer who values irrationality, and demonizes skepticism, etc. Ergo, religion = dangerous." 'Quack' was poor word choice on my part. 'Illiterate' would have better pinpointed what I was trying to counter in your argument. Just as scientific illerates don't invalidate science, neither do religious illiterates invalidate religion.

We agree that science and religion will progress on their own merits. My prediction is that, so long as there are people, both will adapt and thrive as different and necessary disciplines.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:24:15 +0000

Did I say that they do? Religion, like science, must rise or fall on its own merits. I say that it falls just as fast and just as deep with or without the quacks to bring it down.

By: MennoMo

MennoMo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:43 +0000

And just as the existence of a multitude of scientific quacks doesn't invalidate science, neither does the existence of religious quacks invalidate religion. Use the mind God gave you, and use all the logic you want. The world sorely needs more of that. Just don't let your logic become a prison for your soul or others.

By: MennoMo

MennoMo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:13 +0000

As to the general point "religious claims are approached in ways different from other claims": Yes, they are. And religious claims *should* be treated with different methods. It is silly and futile to operate on legitimate religious ideas with scientific or historical methods. Religion is about the future, it is about hope and identity. Science and history can't tell us what is worth hoping for or what we will identify with. When you are the character in the story, there is no experiment you can do, or history you can uncover that will force the author to tip his cards. You may agree with the author on some points, and you may oppose him on others (good luck with that!). Maybe he will write himself into the story, and maybe you will encounter him somehow and align yourself with him. What and how can we know about such things? This is the legitimate domain of religion, not science or history.

By: Darthcynic

Darthcynic — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:38:08 +0000

What else would you like not to be spoken of; perhaps you find discussion on articles of faith disrespectful?

The womans words illustrate the point at the end of the article. It is a mode of thought I have commonly encountered amongst the religious; it is a dangerous mode of thought. Just because it is weak is no reason to quietly ignore it because some believers think it a cheap shot.

By: MennoMo

MennoMo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:34:29 +0000

There are weak thinkers in all camps (yours too), and this really has nothing to do with the validity of the ideas of the camp. I agree that there is something very oppressive in the anti-intellectual meme. The other side of this coin is that sometimes intellectuals 'play victim' to their anti-intellectual brethren. Experience has taught me that when I am in the stronger position, I don't need to prove anything to those in the weaker. Its really their own problem, not mine.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:48:37 +0000

This may seem like a cheap shot, and in many ways it is, but it also reveals what I find to be a quite common approach that religious believers take when examining their own religious beliefs. It also reminded me of the Mormon Missionaries who are nearly as explicit as this. Specifically, it reminds me of how they start with the belief they want to have, "confirmed" through a feeling of being right, and then rationalize their faith from there. So, despite the absurdity of the target I tried to draw out a larger and more general point at the end of the post: "Here is the problem with religious beliefs: people, for whatever, reason, seem to think that they should approach religious claims in ways that we wouldn’t think of approaching for any other claim."

By: MennoMo

MennoMo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:06:28 +0000

Geez. "Smart people don't get Jesus." That's a broad brush to paint with, and amounts to little more than name-calling. Sloppy for folks who prize so highly reason and objectivity. Instead of picking out the weakest you can find, why not take aim at stronger stuff? Sure the weak has great entertainment value among friends, and maybe it helps you keep preconceptions. It doesn't do much for the case you want to make.

By: Darthcynic

Darthcynic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:34:14 +0000

"By the way, and I am sure you understand that atheism is as much of a belief or system of faith as is Christianity or any other religion."

I forget who said it but anyhoo, "atheism is as much a belief or system of faith as not collecting stamps is a hobby".

You good Dr. are also an atheist; you probably don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Ahura-Mazda etc. I just go one further.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:03:47 +0000

Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I have yet to see anything that would indicate that my own comments were off the mark. Rachel's revelation that she came to her faith via a personal experience doesn't change my basic critique, which is that she is arguing that religious beliefs must be arrived at through essentially non-smart reasons. One who chooses whether or not a religious belief is true or not based on subjective inner feelings has not arrived at those beliefs through rational means. If other people arrive at other religious faiths through different personal experiences she still has no basis to claim that their conclusions are wrong and that hers are right. So my critique holds.

I do not understand that atheism is a belief or system of faith and certainly not on the level of most religions. Atheism is a position of skepticism. An atheist is not convinced that your religion or your gods actually exist. Nothing is being taken on faith and atheists do not make unfounded assertions about the nature of reality or about unverifiable miracles. No atheist that I have met follows Rachel's prescriptions in her post and start with a particular belief such that it can be rationalized later.