"Comprehensible to the intelligent, to the world at large, needing interpretation"
-Pindar-
___________________________
-Pindar-
___________________________
Ah, Pastor Rick Warren -- not quite smart enough to realize that his arguments have long since been steamrollered by better minds or just smart enough to realize that enough people are ignorant of it for him to make a living by peddling delusion? That is the question.
Put Rick on the list of people deeply disturbed by a sign on a bus saying belief in invisible magic spirits isn't necessary if you want to be good to your fellow humans. In fact he's been in terror of disbelief for a long time, resorting often to such idiocies as the idea that Atheists must be wrong because they're angry, that Atheists are responsible for most of the worlds wars and atrocities including being responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. I have to admit, even I didn't expect that.
No, it's ridiculous not to believe in magic and the supernatural and forces and places for which there is no evidence other than the failure to understand nature. You see, if Pastor Warren is walking down a mountain and finds a rock - that could be accidental, but if he finds a Rolex, it's "design."
Again, it's easily comprehensible to the rare intelligent American that Rolex's do not occur in nature,nor are they alive and self reproducing, but things, like living cells and viruses can indeed result from natural processes which is liberally illustrated by evidence and that Warren is trotting out this mawkish and moronic argument only because, as I said, there are enough congenitally and willfully stupid people out there to be blind to his festival of fatuous fallacies. It's not an argument at all really, it's just a bad analogy and an attempt to shift the burden of proof as Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker illustrates with greater patience and a good deal more skill than I have.
Warren doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, he says in an attempt to make science and evidence and logic and knowledge a false equivalent of ignorance and the will to believe. Again, if you're intelligent, nobody has to explain it to you any more than I would have to explain why, contrary to his
But almost everybody believes in the supernatural he says, bringing the ad populum fallacy up to bat. "The actual number of secularists in the world is actually quite small outside of Europe and Manhattan," he continues, adding an appeal to people who find an educated populace threatening. The place for Secular Humanists is North Korea, whines Warren. It's called "poisoning the well" for anyone interested and yes, it's in any book of popular fallacies. That he doesn't tell us that the place for blind faith in religious authority is in the Taliban, isn't surprising, but it is telling.
Of course if the future of the world is not secularism but as he reminds us: pluralism, a certainty that certainly lacks support as we see beliefs declining as education ( and intelligence) increases, it's hard to understand that we should accept a multiplicity of religions but not Secular Humanism. What then does Humanism lack that theistic religion has? Authority. It's rather hard to base a tyranny or any system of arbitrary authority on it and that, dear reader, is what Rick Warren is all about and that's why he's afraid and that's why he has to make fun of your freedom.
The intelligent designers get it backwards, or so I've read: isn't complexity a good indicator of THE ABSENCE OF DESIGN? I mean, when you design things intentionally, you design them to be as simple as possible given the desired goal or function, ja? Yet nature is full of fascinating redundancies and complex propagation and survival strategies.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the Victorians already had this argument about randomness and design/teleology. Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley and others won it rather soundly, if memory serves. And really, you shouldn't argue with a gentleman bearing such impressive muttonchop sideburns as Mr. Huxley. Still, as so often, sheer stupidity and benighted ignorance have a privilege: one must tire oneself out making the same arguments again and again, to no avail, "in wand'ring mazes lost."
With regard to the good pastor, I don't know all his views and so don't want to be too harsh. All I can suggest is that narrow-mindedness doesn't become acceptable just because one puts it out there in a genial tone and somehow manages not to mean any harm by it. It is wrong to use the rhetoric of inclusionism and patience if those things aren't really what one's message upholds.
Indeed, and in a more general frame of reference, one characterization of "ideology" is that it consists partly in a set of tenets, attitudes, and practices that allow a person to harm others while not even violating the strictures of conscience -- with the best will in the world, as the saying goes. Ridiculously obvious example: no doubt many of the Conquistadors who shot and be-germed to death large swathes of the New World acted in the belief that they were saving poor heathen souls for Christ. And we Americanos later thought Manifest Destiny was, well, manifestly right as rain.
As for humanism, the only intelligent critiques of it I've ever read come from the likes of "Highdigger" and "Foo-cow" and "Dairy Dada." I daresay most of the opponents of so-called secular humanism couldn't be bothered to read such hoity-toity frenchified and allemagniacal offal. Geworfenheit! Toujours déjà! Blech! They despise pomo-pushers and antihumanists at least as much as they despise humanists. So these three deconstructionists walk into a bar, and ....
I remember as a young man I attended a church where one Sunday the minister ask a very simple question, "What if God doesn't exist..."
ReplyDeleteOf course, after the church members, especially the older ones, regained their composure, the minister went on to to explore the idea that the 10 commandments make sense whether God exists or not...
You can pretty much go through the New Testament and realize that most of it is just common sense...
Love thy neighbor,
Turn the other cheek,
Do unto others,
His whole point was that why do we need punishment? Why does religion need fear?
Why can't we all be motivated by the logic and the basic goodness of the logic...
I would return from college from time to time, or stop in after my various world travels and we would continue the conversation...
Basically, good people are motivated by betterment and improving themselves and evil people are motivated by fear and a desire to better themselves at the expense of others...
TAO, beautiful. I had the same experience with my childhood Baptist Minister. Of course, his question, among other things, caused me to come to the conclusion that one DID NOT need to be Christian to be good, or as I now believe...do the right thing. Christian ideals are indeed good ones. The problem is Christians, who are everything but.
ReplyDeleteI find nothing unique in Christianity at all and nothing good that doesn't come out of liberal first century Jewish ideas shared by many people who had nothing to do with Jesus.
ReplyDeleteIt shares with other religions the malignant idea that since God will make everything all right in heaven, it's permissible to kill. Since God wants us to have this or that, it's permissible to steal as well as to kill and since God is so small his arms don't reach the ground, he needs us to implement his plans which so often include killing and stealing and oppressing.
The golden rule was around a long time before Jesus, Rabbi Hillel, for example, Buddhism was tunring the other cheek centuries earlier and extolled compassion above all other virtues. These ideas come from humans - just like the idea of God.
In a country where most people believe in angels and invisible places where invisible spirits live without bodies, it's no surprise that few can manage enough cerebral bandwidth to see through their own fallacies. They just regurgitate crap people like Warren supply them with.
Why would anyone promulgate the idea that human values owe nothing to humanism unless they had those old human failings behind them: greed and the will to power?
Three deconstructionists walk out of a bar but perhaps it wasn't and they didn't. It's impossible to tell.
Here is my favorite passage from The Salmon of Doubt by Douglas Adams?
ReplyDeleteThis is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in--and interesting hole I find myself in--fits me rather neatly, doesn't it In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises into the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
I have to read that book!
ReplyDeleteRick Warren has made sure to he never misses a meal, though...
ReplyDelete