A theology of testosterone

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Could also be called a theology of emptiness: empty of love and needing all outer material goods, identification, recognition, status, fame etc to fill up the lack of true love within him. Thing is no amount of money, fame, adoration by 25000 people+, material possessions can really remove his self-loathing and fill up the deep emptiness inside him - even if it appears to.

Perhaps there are a few experts on the theology of testosterone on the the Will and Testosterone blog!!?? ;-))

(Sorry William - feel I'm probably over-using that line now. Although just seems to fit so well sometimes given that there are not too many chicks on the blog on a regular basis and nothing to do with the testosterone fuelled debates you understand!! :-)) )

Hi William, thank you for your comments. I totally agree with you re there being more to testosterone driven theology than being male and indeed one could be female and have a testosterone driven theology! My comments at the end of the previous post were just light-hearted banter re the maleness of the blog and not intended to be taken as a serious comment re testosterone driven theology as concerning males only - hence the double smiley! I could postulate a few ideas re why bloggers on religion are male (and less female nos. too ) - but perhaps not here!! :-)

BTW: are you allowed to say who are the terrific female bloggers on religion??

William

As ever, interesting and thought provoking issues you raise.

The media has an important responsibility to hold churches and church leaders to account.

In response to your post4, as "a white male blogger of a certain age"
can I offer a counter question?

:)

My impression is that W&T often seems to decry the abuses of maleness without ever appearing to affirm the positive and wholesome aspects of male contribution to society.

This is not reflected in W&T's treatment of femaleness imo. In this regard W&T appears to affirm an *uncritical* feminist agenda.

I affirm much of the feminist agenda and what it has achieved, but an uncritical affirmation does not sit equitably with the constant one sided grinding against the male gender which i feel on W&T.

This is reflected by your use of the word "testosterone" as thought it is some sort of poison that we should get rid of. I suggest it is actually morally neutral substance, just like the internal combustion engine, which can be used to assist both bank robberies and ambulances.

It almost seems as though W&T has a real problem in accepting the valid and genuine legitimacy of masculinity in the 21st century.

IMO this also spills over into decrying any sort of gender roles as outdated and prehistoric etc etc.

Now if we are decrying limitations of gender roles which most women find dehumanising that is one thing.

But if we are imposing supposed feminist values onto women which most of them find crazy then that is something else.

The validity of my point is found in that the fact that the distinction is a somewhat hot potato which the media would normally refuse to explore.

An example would be a coke advert on billboards I saw last year which saw an ordinary women relaxing and sitting on the ground driking a coke, saying "I'm no superwoman".

Behind her was a poster of a comic book super heroine.

The point? Cocal Cola have cottoned on that their key market is no longer fooled by the feminist dream the media pushes at women; increasingly women realise that trying to live up to the latest ideals of the feminist movement is tearing them apart.

In short, most women in the real world applaud the rights won by the feminist movement but increasingly want the right to live lives as real women without being looked down on.

None of my wives peers (or mine) relish the idea of a demanding f/t career while families are still young.

They dont mind women making other choices, but they wish to have the freedom to devote a lot of time to their children while they are still young.

Dont point the finger at me please, I didnt fix the coke advert, which is doubtlessly speaking to and for many, many women.

Yes, the vast majority of women (and men) like and welcome the key values of gender roles. Why?

Because men are men and women are women.

I understand that the contrary view I am challenging is often formed by strongly negative male role models who use their testosterone to abuse children in their formative years.

That unfortunatley is a very sad and increasingly common reality. But nontheless I contend it is no reason to throw the testosterone out with the bath water.

As someone who aspires to follow Christ, I look to him as a wholesome model of masculinity who put his testosterone to good use; ie money changers in the temple, setting his face like flint to go to the cross.

I believe that only in him and his word and spirit can we find true liberation for our identities and healing for the hurts and scars of the past.

He made us, he died for us and rose again - who could know better?

OT

I just cannot believe that we are focusing so much attention on something which happens daily, by many "men and women or anyone half way" some considered salt of the earth, pillars of society, respected, influential, around the world in many countless courtries. Hypocrisy is alive and well my friends everywhere and in every corner of life, or are some people still wearing rose tinted glasses here. Is it because of the anti homosexual views which make this more spicy and interesting to the blog and blogger or is it a deep desire to show effort to flush out some tainted two faced human? One a week, or a day to make us all feel happy we are doing our bit. Oh and yes nothing proven yet! This Judgemental Northern Irish society is great, you got to love it. Hey lets not let it get in the way of a good story when the facts have yet to be established.

Some bloggers also seem to think the nature of women and men are distintive enough that their views can be easily identified and deciphered down sexual lines. Thats a nice theory and one for a BLOG.

I must disagree the scientistic atheism and the naive fundamentalism that many on this blog adhere to...the only woman posting seems to be the only poster prepared to wrestle with what we cannot say.

Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for the success of male driven religions? I am sure that evolutionary psychology has some woefully untested (untestable) hypothesis (dogma)...

It is important to notice that "women are women, small fluffy alpa centaurians are small fluffy alpha centaurians" is not a suitable response. We are (not) defined, in part, by the "absence" of what we are (not). Therefore there is a "presence" of maleness in every female, and so forth. This is rudimentary philosophy, surely?!

There is merely a "play" of words and concepts. Indeed "testosterone driven" is a revealing phrase. A crude populist scientism is used to define maleness.
There is no essential woman.
There is no essence of man.
There is only the play of sterotypes and pseudo- scientific terminology present (absent)in this debate!

LOL @ Kieran- Reckon you do a good job on the judgmental side of things all on your own;)
It's a question of how people apply their time. Not everyone follows the same thing.People sift through articles online, in a magazine/paper. They might not read every single one. They elect to read what's pertinent to them. The information someone gleens from the FT won't be the same as from a glossy gossip magazine.
In fairness, if someone applies thought to complain about a blog, they are part of the problem they wished to highlight.If you wish to find fault in something then go looking for it, you'll find a way to vent your aggravation. Another persons perception could equate replying to a blog as a desire to understand how elements in a society work. To me, this article ( to put it in other terms) is like a clockmaker taking apart a watch to see how it ticks, because they want to undertand the mechanisms,not to gloat at it

OT - you said you were going to ask William a counter question - what was it??!

**Men are men and women are women** - if only it was that simple. We are equal and different. We have different attributes and bring different perspectives/qualities to the table. But over the last 20 yrs or so women (in general) have adopted a more male way of being in order to succeed in what were traditionally male roles. Women have lost touch with their true femaleness and gentleness and all of that has consequences for the health of women and relationships.

As women take on a more masculine role the male can get confused re his role as no longer 'the provider'. The macho male image is a front. Men are just as gentle as women and can feel hurt just the same (or more!) but society doesn't permit them to show this side - so they bury their true ability to be tender and gentle. That said, they are naturally stronger than women and I would no longer reject a man offering to carry my suitcase up a flight of stairs on the london tube! So there is plenty of room for a man to be a man and I won't knock it!

We are different and we can bring those differences to whatever job/role it is we are doing. We should honour and appreciate those differences - at the same time realising we both have a natural gentleness and tenderness that both sexes are very good at covering up/hiding/burying/denying etc etc.

Deckard: to my understanding the essence of each person is the same and is love. So in that context I would say there is no essence of man/woman that is different. I agree there is a 'presence' of maleness in each female and femaleness in each male as you said. And in some cases some women are more male than female and some men are more female than male - and that is part of their journey. However, to my understanding women are to bring the qualities of femaleness to the world and men are to bring the qualities of maleness - in how they express on a daily basis. So there are differences that do impact our physical health as well when we do not honour our true nature and that which is harmonious to the body.

There is much in what you say, Eunice. But these qualities can only be understood by reference to what qualities they are not (and what qualities they lack can only be understood by reference to what qualities they lack and so forth...) so we meaning is constantly deferred, and we are confronted by absence.

So I cannot see how (fe)males have "true" qualities.

Deckard: I understand what you are saying but would offer a different view. It is not our absence that is important but our presence. That presence can be many things and can be memorable for many reasons perceived to be 'good' or 'bad' or perhaps more accurately can be healing or harming. We are to live in the world not in absence but in total presence - but many people are indeed absent and not present but checked out, numbed out. I am suggesting there are qualities that women and men can bring to their presence that are different by the nature of their energetic make-up, whilst at the same time acknowledging the innermost essence of each is the same.

Eunice

It is the absence of "meaning" that I am referring to, not physical presence or absence. What, exactly, is present. It is impossible to "say". However we can "show" what is the case, through our'way of life'.
This is why I think restrictions on sexual behaviour must be embraced by every religious community. And these restrictions must be given religious force by reference to sacred texts and traditional our practices. However we should not be constrained by the traditions that gave birth to our 'way/form of life'

Deckard: on the one hand you say sexual behaviour needs to be restrained by religious force and on the other that we should not be constrained by traditions - sounds like a paradox to me!
There is no place for force - religious or otherwise.
Again it comes back to love and self-love - problem is most human beings lack self-love and that leads to all sorts of behaviours/attitudes incl towards sex. Increasing people's awareness of their true nature, such that they become more self loving and live from there by their own choice - is all that is required for then one comes to know and feel the harm of non-loving sex. It is easy to say but tends to be journey for many of us....as can realise what thought was love is not love!! :-)

Eunice:

I've enjoyed reading your comments but I'm not sure I agree with your assessment on self-love. I would consider that a lot people have issues with self-respect and have too strong a divide between the aesthetic and ethical dimensions of their lives though.

In the end it probably comes down to a sense of personal responsibility that modern society does not engender. We are humans first (before consideration of male/female/other). This gives each individual the infinite gift and responsibility of choice, which overrides everything else. We are not "good" we: choose to be "good". If we don't do the right thing it is because we have chosen a short term aesthetic satisfaction over a long term ethical one.

Life is a series of choices within a continuum of polar antagonisms. Humans don't live at the poles. Priests are humans.

Magic Martian: thank you for your comments. I'm not sure what aspect of 'selflove' you disagree with as you did not say. I will say a couple of things in response that may help and if not feel free to let me know where you are coming from re concern on self-love.

Some people confuse self love with the egotistical self-love of the man or woman they say "oh so and so just loves himself' and meant in a derogatory manner. This is not self-love - but is one manifestation of a lack of self-love. Self-love and self-respect go hand in hand - can't have one without the other. Someone who does not respect themselves does not love themselves and someone who does not love themselves will not respect themselves. This can play out in many many ways in our lives - I know quite a few of them!

With what I would call true self-love comes higher degree of personal responsibility as we realise how harming it is to not be self-loving. Thing is we are so engrained in loveless ways that we don't even realise they are loveless and even when we do we can be so stuck in patterns of behaviour that can take a bit of work (healing our stuff) to shift to new ways of being that are loving. This can be very simple stuff - like foods we eat and going to bed etc. To live with self-love and make choices from there becomes a natural impulse that is in harmony and is not imposed from the outside as an ethical requirement to 'do good'.

I have just made the same point on another thread about us all being humans first before any other label is added and that is the common denominator. For me, the true nature or essence of all people is love - that is not a choice that is what we are. It is because we live in ignorance of that true nature and grow up believing all sorts of misbeliefs and misperceptions about ourselves such that many of us believed the opposite - that we were bad, or flawed or unlovable etc We make choices based on these false beliefs and hey ho things happen in life that we would prefer didn't!! IMO it is by re-connecting to our true essence and making self-loving choices from there that we can live a life that has more joy and harmony. There is more to it than what I have said here but is a rough outline!

Thanks again Eunice for some interesting points.

I think my problem with the word or concept of "love" is that it's a bit too vague. To paraphrase a quote from the Simpson's "Is that the love of a man for a woman or the love of a man for a fine Cuban cigar ?” The only definition I can accept is a “feeling of unity”. Self-love, thereby being a feeling of wholeness. But perhaps this can only be the goal at the end of the journey rather than any concrete way of existence ? We all operate in a state on incompleteness (or despair for the existentialists out there ;-) ). The way in which we handle this will be our own personal history.

If I define “love” as a feeling of “desiring unity”, then I get into a theological paradox.

So for sad or deranged people (like me) – a love-centric viewpoint is difficult to comprehend. A world full of universal love means a total loss of individuality.

deckard_aint_a_replicant,

his is why I think restrictions on sexual behaviour must be embraced by every religious community. And these restrictions must be given religious force by reference to sacred texts and traditional our practices

This is a bit weird, given that only one set of sacred texts can actually be true (as they all claim exclusivity), you seem to be suggesting sexual restrictions based on things which may not be true is a good thing. It actually sounds like you are suggesting that you believe that sexual restrictions are a good thing and that we should create sacred texts to support it almost like the other social engineering aspects of religions and how a lot of them were formed.

What exact sexual restrictions would you want imposed, how would you impose them, what would the punishment be for going against them??? If you do not have good secular reasons for these restrictions I fail to see why inventing a religious reason advances mankind.

The love thing- to me It all comes down to self respect, respect for others and constantly educating yourself so you don't fall into the easy traps of someone else's propaganda.People don't think enough or clearly enough and alot of that is down to people just not having the time.
In term of sexual restrictions imposed by religion, again that's just scapegoating the sexual problems of whoever would decree such a thing on everyone else. Straight, gay, black, white and all in between- if 2 people are in a loving, caring, nurturing relationship it should be applauded for being just that- a healthy relationship- regardless of sex, race, gender.

"This is a bit weird, given that only one set of sacred texts can actually be true" - what an odd assertion!


"(as they all claim exclusivity)" perhaps they're wrong on this point only, but right on others?

(However, can anything be truly exclusive if it 'contains' an 'absence' or a 'trace' or if its meaning is always deferred to other signifiers? Nothing is ever truly present-to-itself. Everything we say contains 'traces' of what we are not saying. Or so it could seem.)

Still, like Eunice, I can tell the difference between good and evil, and will flee evil to embrace what is good. Some oppositions are inescapable. I can't help myself, I must believe in them.


"you seem to be suggesting sexual restrictions based on things which may not be true is a good thing"

if legal fictions are good enough to base a restriction on, why not other types of myth (not 'fiction' exactly, but a narrative that grounds a way of living)


"It actually sounds like you are suggesting that you believe that sexual restrictions are a good thing"

Yes. Of course. You would not embrace sexual chaos, where everyone does what is right in his own eyes. Do not be (hypo)critical.


"what would the punishment be for going against them"

None. As I said, the fiction that is our law does not cohere with mythology.

"you do not have good secular reasons for these restrictions"

I cannot think of a "good" secular reason for anything at all. Although it does offer some pragmatic reasons, now and then.
Please - offer one that goes beyond self-interest/pragmatism

D-a-a-R

D-a-a-r,

I have to say that I think you are talking complete nonsense, but please be free to take out of that what I am not saying.

D-a-a-r,

I find your posts hard to follow, but here's a thing;

If I'm a consenting adult, and my partner is also a consenting adult, and what we're doing effects no one else and we're doing it in the privacy of our own homes...

Who gave religion (or anyone really) the right to tell me I can't do it?

So long as I live with my consequences, it's no business of anyone else's what I do with my life.

Plus, if a religous text claims exclusivity, but then so do others, how can we sure if that part is wrong, all the rest isn't as well? Who makes the decision on which bits of the religous texts are true, and which are false?

A few examples of nonsense:

"What is the difference between a duck? One of its legs are both the same"

"Twas Sprillig and the slivey troves did gyre and wamble in the wade".

Constantly complaining about a religious concept, whilst claiming that you have no time for religion.

Natman

I agree that no one should intrude into the privacy of your home and accuse you of anything. That would be an act of "violence"

But...

If you volunteer to join a tradition that forbids certain practices, and then claim that the sanctity of your home overrides that tradition, and you can do as you will there, I would claim that the tradition has a "right" to put you outside.

You cannot claim the comfort of a tradition free of charge. But you can freely ignore a tradition.

(Where on earth do you think rights come from? They're clearly convenient fictions, yet you talk about them as if they were carved into the very foundations of the earth...)

deckard_aint_a_replicant,

I don't complain about religious concepts unless they are used in some way to control my life.

Someone who suggests that sacred texts have some meaning when it comes to my sexuality or physical expression of it and that I should not be treated as an equal in society is interfering in my life and so I complain about it. I think that is fair.

As for your other examples I find them as easy to understand as some of your other pronouncements. You may have valid points to make but I cannot find them.

D-a-a-r,

"If you volunteer to join a tradition that forbids certain practices, and then claim that the sanctity of your home overrides that tradition, and you can do as you will there, I would claim that the tradition has a "right" to put you outside."

This is all well and good, but religions are well known for attempting to force their 'traditions' (read that as 'dogma') upon anyone and everyone, believers or not (homophobia, sunday trading restrictions, teaching of biblical creationsim in schools, etc)

And I don't believe I mentioned having rights, but rather denying them to religious authorities. "Who gave religion (or anyone really) the right to tell me I can't do it?"

Magicmartian: Universal love does not have to mean a loss of individuality - on the contrary the way that people express themselves through their work, life, family etc still retains that individuality and uniqueness and is honoured and acknowledged - at the same time knowing that no-one is higher or lower. Some are more evolved on the journey having already learnt the lessons....but the love within all is equal - some are just more aware of it and live from it.

Ryan: I would propose that people think too much and feel too little - not that they don't think enough! (but I know what you mean!)

Daar/Naman/Dave: people are free to do as they please and there is no punishment as such - only the consequences of our actions. I have come to realise that the choices I make today influence my life tomorrow and so on .....and affect my body. I have learned the hard way perhaps that not being self-loving be it in relationship or work or life has consequences I would prefer not to have - and likewise being self-loving is not only beneficial to me but those around me. So it becomes a choice to do that which is self-loving.

D-a-a-r, like some others I also had some trouble following what you were saying in some of your posts. But one bit stood out for me.

"I cannot think of a "good" secular reason for anything at all. Although it does offer some pragmatic reasons, now and then.
Please - offer one that goes beyond self-interest/pragmatism"

Try curiosity, a fascination to work things out, to understand how they work. Keeps me happy in my work. That coincides with the pragmatic point of making a living that way. Although with the temporary contracts that are the staple of academia nowadays, I have taken periods of unpaid leave between my PhD time and various postdocs and still done some research work during them. Just because it can be interesting.

Talking about testosterone driven ministry, I remember some years ago being in a church that was encouraging men to go off to special male-bonding Christian meetings.

I remember one chap in the church kept badgering me to get involved with them, and being the utterly compliant person that I am (/sarcasm) I told him (in perhaps rather too strong 'no uncertain terms') that I would give it a miss. I don't think he could really understand my reservations about it. He seemed deeply 'concerned' about me as a man (even though I hardly knew the bloke, and he should have been 'man' enough to mind his own business in life, frankly). I found the whole idea ridiculous, not say psychologically incestuous. In a small fellowship group that we were both in at the time, he subjected us to videos of similar all-male meetings held in America and run by a leading figure in the movement, who used to boast about the domineering way he 'ran' his family (much to the guffaws of his captive 'testosterone high' congregation). 'Macho' is just too mild a word for those gatherings. It was grown men gathering together to undergo a masochistic experience in being lectured on the facts of life like a bunch of gawping adolescents. I suppose the justification for it was to try to attract more men into the church, since the general view seems to have been that men are 'put off' church because it's too effeminate. As a man, it made me want to run a mile, and it's beyond me how any self-respecting male of the species could be attracted to that stuff. In fact, it's a travesty of maleness to suggest that there is a prescribed way that men are supposed to act and speak.

I suppose that I am probably rather 'damaged' when it comes to this kind of single sex experience, having been through the social myopia, emotional semi-literacy and psycho-sexual dysfunction of an all-male boarding school. As the writer Evelyn Waugh memorably put it: "Anyone who has been to an English public school will always feel comparatively at home in prison". (Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but it does leave a few scars, I must confess). An evangelical "be a man for God" version of communal showers, dormitory intrusiveness and small-minded competitiveness doesn't really do it for me, I'm afraid.

What both men and women need is the experience of the grace of God, not some souped up, spiritualised psychological manipulation masquerading as Christianity. This is just my opinion, of course. Others may disagree, but there you go... freedom of speech and all that...

Interesting logica,as you say; it's nothing to do with christianity and more to do with some American GI Joe cultural ideal. To many europeans its just too ridiculous to take seriously. I still think religion should be a quiet, private matter, but i can see how many enjoy the happy clappy side. The testosterone fuelled side perhaps comes from the subservience of the congregation and the inflated ego of the pastor who thinks he can say or do anthing he likes cos *God's on his side*

I'll try to be clearer Peter

First,Sorry for misspelling your name repeatedly on this blog.

Second, I am sorry that our society undervalues the quest for knowledge, and that you have had to make these sacrifices. We have replaced romantic longing with the ideals of the market place. The secular world has time for efficiency but little time for Quests.

Third, The reasons that you cite would not be compelling for many thinking individuals. Try promoting them at Goldman Sachs. I wonder how many would follow you.

Fourth, These reasons, as you have described them are not "empty"(they have some motivating power) but they are "blind" (they do not tell us which direction to travel). You cite "curiosity, a fascination to work things out, to understand how they work"

The surgeons of Unit 731 and the US Public Health Service's at Tuskagee would have agreed.

natman

I can't see that we've much to disagree about.

bUT
Secularism does get aggressive with non-secular traditions, and complain about their ethics and such. Perhaps secular and non-secular should exercise a little more patience, and be content with not-understanding one another

D-a-a-r,

Secularism is a blank slate, it requires nothing of people but that they treat people the same and that rationalism is held above religous dogma. Yes, it does get aggresive, but if someone was attempting to force their opinions on you, opinions that aren't based on anything other than a belief that you don't hold to, you might get annoyed too.

And vice versa

Curious --

'rational"ism"'

do you seriously mean that? or better - what do you mean by that?

'treat people the same and that rationalism is held above religous dogma'

Persian Muslims, Mu'tazila rationalists, would agree with both ideas vociferously. Perhaps you should try living in Iran? (-:

Deckard- what about those who are of a different faith to the majority in countries like Iran. How would you feel about being plonked over there with your current set of beliefs. Secularism protects your religious beliefs as a private matter to you, not something that's public access where others can come and interfere in how you conduct your life. Secularism is a humanist approach that advocates social justice for all with reason. Whereas in a religious based society those areas will always be subjucated to the religious mores of the time- whether that be burning heretics or witches, hanging gays or blacks,crucifying people, self flagulation..

Deckard post 21. You say you can't think of a good secular reason for anything at all. What about the Nobel awards- given to those who confer "the greatest benefit on mankind"

Ryan

Really? Lenin didn't consider himself to be a rational secularist? How ... amusing!

You just take a bundle of beliefs that you like and label them "secularism". How nice for you.

I suppose you could blow out your birthday candles and wish that the values of Voltaire and Jefferson didn't emerge from Christian traditions.

In your own odd way, you're just as blind as Ahmadinejad. At least he has the courage of his convictions. If you really believed that Religious Traditions were as dangerous as you claim they are, you would advocate some kind of dramatic decisive action.

Instead, you advocate ... nothing. A few by-laws. An educational policy. I doubt the course of Western History will be dicatated by bureaurats taking down the occasional note, and passing on a suggestion to the relevant minister. And you doubt this too.

This is why I must insist that you are religious to your very core. You expend considerable emotional energy (but little intellectual energy) attacking religious traditions. Yet you advocate no course of action that would eradicate religious traditions.

On a psychological level, you seem to earnestly desire religion, yet seemingly you are repelled by what you desire. It is a kind of denial IMHO.

You are more passionately religious than the village parson. Until you advocate burning the parson at the stake, I will believe that you are a religious man.

D-a-a-R (PhD)

To Deck hard
Lenin was no different to any dictator before or since. An ideology of force manipulation and propoganda in the same vein as Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler and,Ah-mad-inejad. Purely a vehicle of control. Any word can be used to supposedly purport to be one thing but the actions speak louder than the words used to describe them. You seem to have a poor grasp of that.
Honestly , how would you feel moving to Iran or even better- Saudi Arabia and living the life you subscribe to.It would give you a taste of your own medicine to see and experience a theocracy.In Saudi Arabia,you can go to the mosque, adhere to ramadan.Live in a society where men and women are segragated and you can be punished for any indiscretion with shariah law, oh and no drinking- all laid down nice and easy for you in the Koran.Good luck practising or even speaking about your christian beliefs in any open and free way
I have no issue with my belief structure, Im a christian Humanist- a liberal Anglican if I would have to identify with any church over here, although if the Unitarian Church had a larger reach it would be my natural choice

Oh and in all honesty To Deck Hard, you should try/ pray to get that derisive attitude under control- very *un christian* in the true sense of the word.You feel everyone else should adhere to a set of religious rules that your personality has decided is your interpretation of Gods will- Are you that immature. I would say perhaps yes- to profer a way of life that has more in common with a country synonymous with human rights abuses rather than a more enlightened, mature approach by secular governments that allow law and religion to be separate entities.

Religious freedom and freedom of choice need to be treated with respect. We should count ourselves lucky that in many ways we are able to make choices in our lives many around the world cannot.If you feel somehow incapable or not responsible enough to be able to make your own decisions or choices in certain matters maybe you should think deep and hard about moving to a country run theocratically

Ryan

Oh dear, I seem to have underestimated you. I said that you would not have the courage to burn the village parson.

But you are made of sterner stuff.

You would have the courage to endure his sermons.

Now as for being condescending, you are suggesting that I, and other bloggers, would not have thought about repressive religious regimes, or have noticed that some bright people reject religious texts. And that we may not have thought about these issues, and tried to deal with them.

So your last few posts imply that I may not have noticed that life is unpleasant in some religious states. Which is the fault of religion apparently.

Of course Lenin's ideology had nothing at all to do with Communist oppression. He was just high on his own power!

And then you accuse me of advocating "theocracy". In fact, I've spelled out why I could never accept a theocracy in the sense that you intend. Perhaps numerous communities with overlapping rules, and the freedom to move between. Or a Quaker theocracy. I could contemplate these.

Beyond your general rage, you are saying that you cannot, in fact,find any rational grounds for preferring secular society to theocratic society. People get hurt in both. Suppose people, overall, would be happier and safer in a theocracy? (Who knows what the future holds? Perhaps you accept the myth that we live at the "end of history" and that secular democracy will reign till the sun burns out?)
If that were the case, why should the majority care that you or I would be persecuted? Couldn't they rationally accept this as the price of their fulfilment?

My view of reason inclines me to reject totalising meta-narratives. I reply to the theocrat by critiquing his view of his own reason, and the limits of his mythology.


Your reply is - "Iran makes me quite cross, and the Persians might hurt me and my friends, and I am quite obviously right because my society has better missiles and means of production. Oh. Sorry - I meant to say, I am quite obviously right because my society is a Parliamentary democracy, with sexual freedoms."

I have also identified myself as 'post emergent'
,
There is no mythology or narrative that 'post emergents' identify with. We live between the narratives, hoping and waiting for the next wave of fresh thought.

We hope that the "play" (not "clash") of the meta-narratives ("civilizations") will breathe new life into our dying culture.

Daar: I just googled post emergent and didn't seem to match what you are saying -but maybe was just the site I was on. So to clarify do
Believe the bible is the only source of truth/wisdom?
Believe the bible is infallible?
Believe that Jesus died to save you from your sins?

If you identify with the bible/story of Jesus - then you definitely identify with mythology/narrative.

So what do you do whilst your waiting and hoping for your knight in shining armour to come along and save you??!! ;-)

Eunice

Sometimes "Post-Emergent" is used to refer to a conservative evangelical critique of the Emergent Church.

A few problems. This isn't post anything, these guys never tried the Emergent Movement or Post-Conservative Theology, and learned nothing from McClaren, Grenz or Rollins.

Other "post emergents" (me) want to move beyond the Emergent experiment, and not to return to what it critiqued.

We are open to a broader range of religious traditions, and prefer to listen to myth and narrative than prescribe a method of Church growth.

Generally, if the word "church" is attached to "post-emergent", it is a Calvinist swipe at thinkers they are uncomfortable with, or an Evangelical attempt to win Emergents back to the fold.

A small 'think tank' is working on this, and we hope to put up a web site in the near future. An on-line journal is a possibility.

We tend to empathise with Karen Armstrong, Terry Eagleton etc. But we want to be creative, not just nod appreciatively when another tradition speaks.


D-a-a-R

Eunice

If you google "extreme theology" and check what that site says post-emergent is - you will see the very OPPOSITE of what we endorse.

The term on that site is a pitiful attempt at irony!

D-a-a-R

Iran . I have alot of respect for Iran, its culture, the way regular people circumvent their leadership in many ways to lead the lives they want rather than whats dictated. Sometimes living here in the west can be oppressive enough.So have to give them credit. I went to a pretty international school- had kids in my class from all over- Syria, Iraq, Iran - alot of the middle east was represented. One of my best friends was Parsi- Zoroastrians who fled persia and muslim persecution in the 10th century & went to India. One of my favourite comedians is Omid Djalili-a British Iranian. If you haven't heard of him You Tube him, he's fantastic!. I think many people in Iran get by inspite of their leadership rather than because of it. I get the impression they're more like Italians- lots of flair, great food, great humour- whereas the leadership have tried to stamp out alot of their natural decadence in favour of something altogether more sombre. Saudi Arabia is a much more cryptic place and their brand of wahabi islam is alot more damaging in a wider context than Iran

Daar: thank you for the info.
So is post emergent just a more open/liberal form of Christianity - but still holds that salvation is through Jesus alone ? or would you say Christ alone? (those 2 in my understanding being very different!)

eunice

My goodness, you should come aboard!

Post-emergent could include people who answer "the questions" in this way. But it is a much, much wider tent than Christian, or even post-Christian.

A good place to start is Peter Rollins web site. He has deep insights, but is still a "slave" of his Christian background.(I think he acknowledges this).
He speaks in Christian terms. He cites secular or Sufi parables AS IF THEY WERE WRITTEN BY CHRISTIANS. He seems to model a method of Church growth - a way of keeping disillusioned Christians attached to the Church Universal.

This is not condemnation by faint praise. He is an excellent philosopher, who just needs to make the next step.

Post-emergents will take the next step.
Keep in mind - we are a work in progress.

THEREFORE...
Post-Emergent is post-church but pre-community.
Post-Emergent is post-dogmatic but pre-mythological.
Post-Emergent is post-"true" but pre-"authentic".
Post-Emergent is post-conversation but pre-consensus.

D-a-a-r, post 32,

"Second, I am sorry that our society undervalues the quest for knowledge, and that you have had to make these sacrifices."

It's nothing that dramatic as 'making sacrifices'. The practical hassle of moving country and settling down in a completely new place where you don't know anyone becomes pretty unpleasant after a couple of times. But giving yourself a few months of unpaid leave in between postdoc jobs has its good sides! In fact, the brains of some very overworked tenured professors in my department would probably explode if they suddenly found they had 2 months to spend only on what they found interesting to do. Their heads would simply not be able to cope anymore with how wonderful even just the idea of that is. :)

"Third, The reasons that you cite would not be compelling for many thinking individuals. Try promoting them at Goldman Sachs. I wonder how many would follow you."

You can easily name things from the secular world that do not provide meaning (or not much positive meaning at least, imo), but of course one point where the secular world does not provide does little to support your very sweeping statement that the secular world does not provide meaning anywhere.

"Fourth, These reasons, as you have described them are not "empty"(they have some motivating power) but they are "blind" (they do not tell us which direction to travel). You cite "curiosity, a fascination to work things out, to understand how they work". The surgeons of Unit 731 and the US Public Health Service's at Tuskagee would have agreed."

Same answer as to the previous one I think. Naming two bad examples does just about nothing to show there are no positive examples anywhere. It's a bit like YECs who point to Piltdown man as an excuse to disregard all of archeology.

Also, I feel I must protest a little on a different level here. Bringing up Unit 731 and the Tuskagee experiment as the only thing associated with the quest for knowledge is not a particularly classy way to make an argument, is it? You might agree with me that that was a rather unconstructive cheap shot you made there?

Peter

You should also read what I wrote about your posts on the politics thread.

A few responses

"Unit 731 and the Tuskagee experiment as the only thing associated with the quest for knowledge"

yes, a crude tactic on my part. Which is why I prefaced this with a reference to Goldman Sachs.
the fact remains that curiosity and a desire to see (how) things work , if taken as primary values, could justify atrocity. SO my point stands, I'm afraid.

Until you start weaving all your values into some coherent narrative or mythology you have no ethical framework. And this "weaving" is what secular "neutrality" refuses to do.

However, I think that I detect something much deeper than secular-ism at work in your posts. You seem to advocate what Heidegger would have called "authentic" living.
Perhaps you've never thought of it in those terms...nor should you have! It's still an admirable approach to life.

Daar: I am familiar with Pete and some of his work. He puts forward some interesting views and for the post evangelical world is prob a breath of fresh air. Sufi wisdom is heart centred and Jesus was heart centred so its not hard to marry the two. Indeed, it is by taking a heart centred approach that many of the faith traditions overlap - unsurprisingly perhaps! However, from what I recall Pete considers God to be external to the human person - or he did a few years ago - that may have changed by now of course!
Thanks for the invite but I'll pass just now - feel i'm well post post-emergent!! haha ;-)

Ryan (@ 31) -

"Interesting logica,as you say; it's nothing to do with christianity and more to do with some American GI Joe cultural ideal."

I agree. I must admit that I feel pretty tired of the way Christianity is used as a psychological tool to achieve some end completely unrelated to anything even remotely spiritual. The Christian world seems to be full of almost everything you find in the 'non-Christian' world, but with just the word 'Christian' tacked on the front.

I question whether Christianity should really be a culture at all. OK, this is my subjective opinion, admittedly, but I feel very uncomfortable in any little Christian sub-culture. Many denominations and Christian movements are just little worlds in themselves, with their own cultural and historical icons, their own minor celebrities, their own 'oh so clever' thinkers (at whose feet we must all sit and nod), their cultural 'wallpaper' and ambience, their own special music and most of all... their own jargon (and in the more contemporary movements: the trendier the language, the better).

D-a-a-R, Eunice etc...

Looking at the way this thread has gone, I have to say that I don't consider myself 'post' or 'pre' anything. I'm afraid I find this kind of Christianised, spiritualised, religiosified psycho-sociology rather pretentious, but perhaps that's just 'me'. Labels tend to be restrictive, in that they allow others to make assumptions about those identified by the label, and those assumptions will inevitably be hasty simplifications.

I guess I would hesitatingly call myself an 'evangelical'. But it's a pity that I cannot fully identify with that word, despite its wonderfully positive etymology. To be 'evangelical' today often means emphasising the 'bad news' to such an extent, that the 'good news' becomes a shrivelled afterthought: everyone supposedly deserves to go to hell, and therefore any perceived deliverance from that fate is considered 'good news'. This is totally contrived, as far as I am concerned. It's a bit like saying to someone: "from the moment you were born you have deserved to starve to death. Justice demands this. But I am kind and I am going to give you a small bowl of watery soup and a stale crust of bread. Isn't that just wonderful good news?" In other words, the 'good news' is really just the minimum (or even less than the minimum) requirement of justice and decency, but it is made to look more than it really is by setting it against a totally contrived dystopian nightmare, which is marketed as 'the norm'. Therefore I find much evangelicalism totally phoney.

I suppose I would consider myself a 'Bible believing' Christian. But by the 'Bible' I do not mean "the Bible as interpreted and cherry picked by the Protestant Evangelical magisterium". That is unfortunately often what is meant by the phrase 'Bible believing Christian'. The true 'Bible believing Christian' can't really be labelled, since the Bible, as a whole, is an extremely difficult book (or set of books) to interpret (and anyone who says otherwise is a liar), and it defies reduction to simple formulae.

So mark me up 'post' and 'pre' however you like. But I'll be blown if I can work it out!


Natman (@ 34) -

"Secularism is a blank slate, it requires nothing of people but that they treat people the same and that rationalism is held above religous dogma."

I can sympathise with this statement, except that I would rephrase the last bit to read:

"....rationalism is held above all dogma."

LSV/Daar...
I don't really consider myself post or pre anything either - I was just light-heartedly playing along with Daar's phraseology so to speak but it's not one I use myself. As I have said elsewhere on the blog - I endeavour to not use labels that promote separatism ie. that lead to the 'them' and 'us' scenarios....although it happens in the world we live in. If more people re-connected to their inner heart alot of these labels, ideals and beliefs that perpetuate the separation of humanity would simply fall away! That day, unfortunately for humanity, is a long long long way off!

"could justify atrocity. SO my point stands, I'm afraid."

should read

"so MY point stands, I think"

I emphasised the wring words, aand created the wrong tone

My apologies

LSV

I understand the charge of pretnetiousness, but I think UR all so GR8...its so much fun andreally interesting.


Any way, we all use big words and when we do we get called names so why worry thats what I think

Labels tend to be restrictive, in that they allow others to make assumptions about those identified by the label, and those assumptions will inevitably be hasty simplifications.

Hm. Pot, kettle etc.

grokesx -

Hm. Pot, kettle etc.

Well, at least my use of labels on this blog is considerably less crude than yours, as the discussion on the politics thread about Nick Clegg's beliefs reveals. Your 'no true Scotsman' gaffe was rather stretching logical inconsistency to a whole new level.

I also know the appropriate context to apply the 'strawman fallacy', rather than simply blindly directing it at any view I don't happen to agree with (which appears to be the case with certain other contributors). Neither do I dismiss arguments I cannot answer as a 'merry go round'.

So I don't think you're really the appropriate person to talk about pots and pans, frankly...

D_a_a_r,

"the fact remains that curiosity and a desire to see (how) things work , if taken as primary values, could justify atrocity. SO my point stands, I'm afraid."

Yes to the first part of that, curiosity can lead to people doing painful things to test subjects. No to the latter part. The point that I replied to you about, was your statement that the secular world can't offer any meaning or reason for anything at all. That is a very sweeping statement. I offered one example of a secular endeavour that for me provides meaning. You can point out the dark side to some parts of the quest for knowledge, but that is hardly relevant. Pointing out that something can sometimes have bad consequences is simply not the same as addressing the issue of whether it can provide meaning.

And it's much the same when you say

"Until you start weaving all your values into some coherent narrative or mythology you have no ethical framework. And this "weaving" is what secular "neutrality" refuses to do."

I strongly disagree with that assertion but I won't go into that now, it's a different discussion. For now all I'll do is point out that in that quote too you're mixing things up again. Meaning and ethical framework are not the same.

You made the sweeping assertion that nothing secular can provide meaning. Let's focus on that. Could you give me your reasoning underlying that statement please?
And you'll need more than just do away with the example I gave about the quest for knowledge. That's just one example that could falsify your statement. Even if you did successfully reason away the example that seems to kill your statement, then you still would not have provided positive reasoning in support of it. Can you that latter bit, i.e. tell me your reasoning why the secular world can't provide any meaning?

@LSV 58

I shan't make too much of this since we are on the testosterone thread, but you do rather make my case for me. I've already addressed the "gaffe" point and the merry go round is so called because you have declined several times to address responses to the argumentum ad ellesvee and subsequently repeated it as if the responses had never been made, while claiming it's an argument "You cannot answer."

And anyway, we are here talking about specific arguments, which doesn't actually fall under the aegis of labelling. I was thinking more along the lines of ascribing thoughts, opinions, philosophy, epistemology, world view, morality etc to whole groups of people based on a label of, ooh, off the top of my head, "atheist" for instance, which could be described as hasty simplifications. And of course those simplifications are the raw materials for poor Ed's fiery end, so I suppose we are talking about similar things after all.

Just wondering why people think meaning might be important when everything we know about the universe suggests a randomness underlying even the most complex pattern. Meaning is only a solacium, a consolation. I am quite happy believing that life is, essentially, utterly meaningless. One can move towards a moral life without considering the journey meaningful; one can experience a spiritual life without re-imagining the world with non-existent significances. Understanding that, say, good has no intrinsic meaning, that it is simply a construct susceptible to constant reshaping, is both a cautionary notion and, potentially, a challenge.

As a Christian I find inspiration for my own life in the life and teachings of Christ and sustenance in the fellowship of the church - I am not pre or post anything, I am a good old-fashioned liberal Anglican. When I look at people like Rollins the circumlocutions and mental evasions they make baffle me - anyone would think liberal was a dirty word. If you are a liberal why not just say so?

"Pointing out that something can sometimes have bad consequences is simply not the same as addressing the issue of whether it can provide meaning."

Perhaps I lost the thread of the conversation, but didn't I ask someone to provide a secular justification, and then you suggested curiosity, and I pointed out that this doesn't work at all for ethical or existential justification (and said that you need some kind of narrative or mythology)which falsified your claim to have a good secular reason...

so now I have to provide good secular reasons?!?!?! I have to provide them all and shoot them all down?!?!? Can't I just say I've never heard any that stood up to any scrutiny, and leave it up to you and other secularists to prove me wrong.?.?.?.?.
(....although, the sort of existential justification that you suggest seems closer to the religion of Bultmann and Heidegger... so perhaps you won't see my point...we run these risks)

I'd rather wait for the secularists on this site to provide the reasons, and then I'll shoot them down, as I'm in a rather lazy mood after the weekend (:

All I can see is wafer thin on the secularists part...just a vague bundle of values, lumped together according to the secularists thin and insubstantial personal tastes---this is all I'm offered when I have these discussions, never any reason why these values belong together, or why I should pay any heed to them, or why they should motivate me, or anyone else. To what end beyond personal preference? The fashion of the moral market place? Motivation is left to the power of the mass, the crowd... "Do as we say benefits you..."

But what does the secular world say to the Pearce's and the Sorel's and the Jamal Kalifa's who believe that willingness to die a violent death is essential to human authenticity? They believe in death as much as you believe in authenticity. What do you say to them? What vision can you offer them? What is the way out of the maze of their myopia?

The West replies, "we have efficiency and free markets...we have productivity and better guided missiles!"

Your love of knowledge, Mr Kalver, is not shared by the technocrats. They serve efficiency and power. Geertz is wrong!

Of course this diatribe is not aimed at you Mr Kalver.

For the later Heidegger, the difference between authenticity and inauthenticity is in whether you simply accept a routine version of your tradition or whether you go back to its very bases and roots and make a resolute decision for it. So what he’s really talking about is resolute decisiveness.
I don't think that you accept the routine version of the secularist (non)-narrative, as you are not enamoured by efficiency. In that sense, I believe that you are that very rare thing, an "authentic" secularist. But whether secularism can "produce" authenticity on a large scale (and its aim is large scale production) is doubtful at best.

deckard_aint_a_replicant,

You seem to suggest that it is necessary to have a mythology or narrative in order to give meaning, and maybe coherence, to a set of values. You seem to stop short of saying that the mythology or narrative has to be based on truth.

Is it possible that your need for stories to 'enforce' moral values is exactly why we have several different religions. People in the past have believed as you do and developed religions (consciously or unconsciously) to create the weft and warp which form the fabric binding these values together into a way of life and worship.

Have we not got to the stage of being able to determine for ourselves why we need values and how to develop and agree them without myths. Secularism, informed consent, harm, respect, freedom (of thought, deed and conscience) are all concepts which allow a framework within which to develop values. Sometimes they compete and that is where debate and consensus come into play.

Dave
"Have we not got to the stage of being able to determine for ourselves why we need values and how to develop and agree them without myths."

No

"consensus" is what the wolves have when they scent blood. it is even a "rational" consensus. 'tear flesh from the limbs of the dying and you will be fed.' there is consensus in every ideology that you hate. consensus is hate. it hates the other, it hates what will not conform.

The twentieth century was full of various atheists who were rampaging around killing millions of people. So it is simply absurd that at the end of the twentieth century someone would continue to advance the thesis that mythology is the main cause of violence. I mean you’d think these bloggers were writing in 1750 but to say this in 2010, well it just takes an incredible stupidity to blame all harm on mythology.

The extreme atheist reaction on display here is actually a spiritual reaction to an interrupted spiritual (non)narrative.

"Have we not got to the stage of being able to determine for ourselves why we need values and how to develop and agree them without myths."

No

I'm sure you've got something tangible to back that statement up?

consensus is hate. it hates the other, it hates what will not conform.

No... I'll think you'll find that consensus is also called majority rule. The alternative - minority rule - is even more flawed than majority rule, and it's what fundamentalists would see used as a basis for government.

The twentieth century was full of various atheists who were rampaging around killing millions of people.

Don't tell me, you're going to use various early 20th cent figureheads as your 'atheists', completely ignoring any other factors involved in their motivations or even ignoring the fact that they oppressed atheistic and free-thinking movements more than religous ones?

The extreme atheist reaction on display here is actually a spiritual reaction to an interrupted spiritual (non)narrative.

No, I think you'll find that the 'extreme' atheist reaction on display here is the usual reaction to superstitous nonsense by people who don't need a magical fairy tale to provide meaning to their lives.

Daar,

I completely disagree, at the moment the secular consensus is a more humane inclusive set of values than that based in mythology. In fact it is ball the better for rejecting that narrative. I find far more hate and exclusion based on religious values and consensus than on secular ones.

I also don't recognise extreme atheism, is it possible to be extreme when the status is binary, belief or non belief?.

#68 That simply shows an inability of a believer to accept that someone has a different opinion, that some one does not believe, (it is almost a fear of even contemplating that there is another possibility) very dangerous as it is the basis of a desire to make me see sense and for me to be controlled to live by your rules (for my own good of course).

Parrhasios: I wrote a response to you re meaning a while ago and it has got lost in the miasma or the ether! It was along the lines of

Being a bit confused re your post. On the one hand you say you can accept life being meaningless and on the other you find inspiration in teachings of CHrist.....so do you find those teachings meaningful or do they give your life meaning - and if not why bother with them? If you use them as a moral guide - why bother with that if it is meaningless?

**Just wondering why people think meaning might be important when everything we know about the universe suggests a randomness underlying even the most complex pattern.**

Not everyone would agree with your 'we' statement. I and many others find that behind the apparent randomness there is order. That order is linked to meaning - for just as there can be order behind the randomness there can be meaning out of chaos. How we live and the choices we make can lead us to live lives full of joy and laughter or misery and pain. Is that important or meaningful?

Is the belief that life is utterly meaningless - itself meaningless to you or meaningful? If the former why bother making meaningless statements and If the latter then the world is not meaningless!

We are interpretative beings and how we interpret the world influences our experiences in the world. Meaning can be transformative. There is more to meaning for me than just my interpretation - as it also based on what is actually occurring at the energetic level and that is something I am learning about more and more. So it is possible for me to give something a meaning that is harmful or a meaning that is healing. The latter for me is based on knowing/understanding what is actually going on at the level of energy.

Parrhasios (@ 61) -

"Understanding that, say, good has no intrinsic meaning, that it is simply a construct susceptible to constant reshaping, is both a cautionary notion and, potentially, a challenge."

Is it a 'good' thing for morality to be subjective? If it is, then morality is not subjective, because the only way we can accept that it is so, is if we first submit to the objective premise that 'moral subjectivism is a good thing'. If we do not accept that that premise is objectively (universally) valid, then we have no basis to assert that morality is or should be subjective.

And if it is not a good thing for morality to be subjective, then, of course, we are back to objective morality.

All the subjective moralist does is push the objective aspect of good and evil back one stage in his mind. He is, in reality, an objective moralist; he has just tried to hide his objectivism behind clever assertions. (It's a bit like the person who claims that logic is subjective and then puts forward a logical argument to try to persuade you that it is so. On what basis, however, can he make such an argument, since, for him, logic is subjective?)

And what if my subjective position is that 'morality is objectively valid'? What are the subjectivists going to do with me? They can only condemn me by contradicting their own moral position, since I am asserting my subjective right to say that morality is objectively valid.

If the concept of good can be redefined and reshaped, then it ceases to have any meaning at all. The word good becomes merely a phonetic variation of evil. Who decides what is 'good' and what is not? There are certain people who think that the mass murder of certain people is a good thing. In what sense could they be wrong, if the concept of 'good' can be reshaped and redefined?

We only need to think about how we think to realise that the claims of meaninglessness and subjectivism are nonsense. In fact, if all is meaningless then the claim that "everything is meaningless" is itself meaningless. Thus none of us can say anything at all.

LSV,

In a universe as vast as our own, concepts such as 'good' or 'evil' are pointless and miniscule.

There is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil' the universe is uncaring, random and chaotic, we, as humans, assign values to concepts we find appealing or useful. An earthquake that kills tens of thousands or a genocidal dictator who kills the same number; which one is 'evil'? Both did the same damage, killed the same number of people and achieved the same end, but we assign the label of 'evil' to the man, because that's what we do as humans. The fact that the dictator has some form of self-justification and purpose in mind doesn't seem to make any difference.

In that sense, morality is -always- subjective. There is no such thing as a 'good' molecule, or an 'evil' wave. We assign values according to our own views and ultimately, even the most heinous act, when viewed across the 15 billion lightyears (or more) of the known universe, it's very meaningless indeed.

Natman: unsurprisingly perhaps - I disagree with you. :-)
Good and evil can be known - but we often mess it up and sometimes what we think is good - is not really good. It comes back to what is going on energetically - and when that is understood the universe is not random or chaotic but infinitely ordered and we experience the consequences of our choices over lifetimes. Ultimately what we put out comes back to us in some form. To understand the difference between earthquakes and genocide is another story and also requires a shift in the understanding of death.

Energetically there is love and that which is not love and we can all come to know and feel those for ourselves - takes a bit of practice! That discernment enables one to feel what is 'good' (love) and what is 'evil' (not love).
We are where we are as a consequence of the choices we (humanity) has made over lifetimes - that will either change and improve or continue to deteriorate depending on our choices and whether they are from love or not love. Quite simple really - but not necessarily easy - esp as we confuse love with emotional love. Knowing that calls us to live with responsibility - knowing that everything I do/say/think contributes to the whole. The opposite (a meaningless world) gives people free reign to do as they please as they believe it doesn't make any difference - be that killing someone or spewing anger over a blog - when in fact both have significant consequences for the person involved and also affect the whole as I understand it.

"consensus is also called majority rule"

or nationalism

it has worked worked wonders for the Roma - they're big fans

and in Serbia --- oh, they even have songs about it

"In a universe as vast as our own, concepts such as 'good' or 'evil' are pointless and miniscule...."

ah, there's secularism...the whimpering of a hollow man afraid of his own shadow

hold on to those guided missiles...you've nothing left to protect your borders

Take something as simple as consumerist intellectual trends like the wroks of Dennett, Dawkins and Harris...people think they are going for individualism, authenticity, and cultural transformation, but in reality they’re just capitulating to the domination of the capitalist system and the culture industry. So not only do their actions not bring about any real substantive structural change, but there isn’t any real subjectivity or authentic personhood at work here at all.

"ah, there's secularism...the whimpering of a hollow man afraid of his own shadow"

Whimpering? Hollow? Afraid?

I've no idea how you manage to glean such words from other peoples posts. The implication that I'm any of them is laughable at best, offensive at worst.

I am in utter -awe- of the universe. Every atom in your body with an atomic weight greater than iron was born in a supernova - your very existance is only made possible due to the unimaginable forces present in the violent dying moments of a huge ball of superheated gases.

Unlike theists, I know the universe doesn't care about me and bears me no ill-will. It is the theist who is afraid, borne out from the term 'God-fearing'.

If you don't like consensus, or majority rule, D-a-a-r, what is your alternative? Don't hide behind accusations of flaws in another. Stand up for your own ideals.

Dennett, Dawkins and Harris...peddlars. Used car salesmen. They claim that religion is a poison, that it is a disease, that it is child abuse. Really?!!Then demand inquisitions! Demand re-education centres! Demand that books are burned! Demand that the Parson and the Mullah are burned on the same pyre! They do not believe a WORD of what they write. They are toothless and aimless! They should demand that Meccah be razed to the ground... They should demand that the world be wiped clean...that an axe be put to the root of all evil! They are empty and hollow. There is more integrity in "Mein Kampf" or Mao's Red Book....


Then Dawkin's has the effrontery to talk about the "strong meat" of meaninglessness. Strong meat! he has no stomach for anything except sales receipts. I was going to call them 'dogs', but dogs are carnivores. They are gerbils. Rodents that knaw on paper. They don't want authenticity, they want a fan base.

d-a-a-r, post 62,

"Perhaps I lost the thread of the conversation, but didn't I ask someone to provide a secular justification, and then you suggested curiosity,......."

It seems there was indeed a mixup involved. Near the end of post 21 you wrote

"I cannot think of a "good" secular reason for anything at all."

That statement didn't limit itself to just ethical justification. But if you meant limit it to that, then I agree that curiosity certainly doesn't always provide it and can indeed go against it. So we may agree there.

However, there was another bit in your post that we can use to continue the exchange. You wrote

"so now I have to provide good secular reasons?!?!?! I have to provide them all and shoot them all down?!?!? Can't I just say I've never heard any that stood up to any scrutiny, and leave it up to you and other secularists to prove me wrong.?.?.?.?.
.
.
I'd rather wait for the secularists on this site to provide the reasons, and then I'll shoot them down, as I'm in a rather lazy mood after the weekend (: "

I find plenty wrong in that.

First, rather unimportant, of course I never suggested you should provide the secular reasons.

Second, more important, is that you seem to be confusing the two concepts of 'I'm unaware of .....' and 'There are no.....'. The first one doesn't require much support. You profess to being lazy on the issue and not making an effort to find out. Fine. It makes your point of view rather poorly informed, but that's your good right. However, you then seem to go on from there to make it into 'As long as no one presents something convincing contrary to my uninformed view, then that view must be right.'. That is wrong. If no one were to present anything against your uninformed view then it would still not have any foundation, it would only be unchallenged. It is far better of course if you have something positive in support of your views.

Third, very important, is that your mode of thinking oozes hostility towards new insights. Just look at your phrase 'I'd rather wait for the secularists on this site to provide the reasons, and then I'll shoot them down'. That statement is made regardless of what those reasons would be. Never mind the possibility that there may be valid reasons presented. Your mindset is not to listen and possibly learn, it is to remain firmly stuck in the views you presently held. Anything presented that goes in the other direction is there to be shot down.

The thing that most effectively makes me a 'militant atheist', as some would call it, is that so very counterproductive mindset that is such a huge drag on progress. Learning new things and forming better ideas often requires tossing out old ideas. And the worst way to impede progress is to take some book/person/idea and call it holy. The line I re-quoted from you is a good example of the mind-rotting effect faith can have.

I would suggest here for you to be more open-minded and be willing to consider things contrary to the views you presently hold.

Natman
"the whimpering of a hollow man afraid of his own shadow"
It was a metaphor for secularism; a (blatantly transparent, and rather crude)reference to TS Eliot...it was not a description of you. We've never met.
I would apologise, but there is too much suspicion in your hermeneutic. You'd probably read an insult into my apology.

My alternative is to build new myths and narratives, by playing existing myths and narratives off on another until we have a set of narratives that can be lived out authentically.
By not choosing one narrative we would avoid "violence" and coercion. We retain the possibility of decision.

Now, convince me that this secularist alternative is not broke!That it is not in need of replacement! The prima facie evidence is that those not born into the secular elite despise the thin secular world with its rules of production and soap-operatic ethics.

"I would suggest here for you to be more open-minded and be willing to consider things contrary to the views you presently hold."

True, I do need to be more open minded.

'and then I'll shoot them down'

yes, I should have said "I will attempt to shoot them down."

'Learning new things and forming better ideas often requires tossing out old ideas. '

I agree. I am not advocating conservatism. I am advocating NEW myths, forms of living!

'That is wrong. If no one were to present anything against your uninformed view then it would still not have any foundation, it would only be unchallenged. It is far better of course if you have something positive in support of your views.'

I seem to pegged be as a religious fundamentalist...despite the fact that I have stated that I am post-church me , post-dogma and also post-secular.
I am advancing a critique of secularism (which would sound better this morning if I wasn't so hungover ) and current church practises for so being closed to other voices and new opportunities.
Again, why the insistence that I am "uninformed"? Inform me then...where am I misunderstand the roots of secularism? Where am I going wrong on narrative and myth?

I have posted a critique of contemporary secularist rhetoric on the "politics" thread......lest I be accused of dodging ballots.

D-a-a-r, I've read your post #83 and the one on the other thread you referred to as well. In the relatively short time you've been on this blog I'm getting the impression of an angry, bitter, distinctly negative believer.

"yes, I should have said "I will attempt to shoot them down.""

Still oozing with hostility toward anything secular. Have you ever considered the thought that some day something of value may be presented? If you google 'Atheists for jesus' you'll find links to Richard Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with that same slogan on it. Why? Because if you put aside what atheists think are the supernatural fairy tales then what you are left with is the story of a guy who had some socially very innovative ideas for the harsh age he lived in. And it's not just the new testament and good ol' jesus, but even the often blood-soaked pages of the old testament have their good bits. Few atheists would disagree with the commandments that say not to kill, lie, or commit adultery with the woman next door.

While on the other thread you were posting an angry rant against them evil, evil net atheists, it may be worth to consider for just a sec that you're well exceeding the anger, shouting and negativity of atheists posting on this blog.

"Again, why the insistence that I am "uninformed"?"

The word uninformed was due to your own statement that you wait for secularists to present arguments (to cut down, by defenition) rather than look into things yourself, before deciding that there is nothing worthwhile in secularism.

I do not wait for secularists in general to produce a case for secularism. I have read (and reviewed) many.

I meant secularists ON THIS BLOG.

And as I see it, you are holding out hope that one day someone will justify your beliefs.

Put your cards on the table Mr kalver! If you have knock down arguments that show the superiority of secularism - say what they are! I'm calling your hand! Where are these final proofs of atheism hidden? In which journal are they concealed? In which book? Which author must I consult?

Or have you a blind faith that the arguments you seek exist in principle but not in fact? Eh? Are you in fact a religious believer getting spiritual comfort from this possibility?

Deckard - I am quite interested in myths but I don't even begin to get where you're coming from. Myths evolve, constantly. Successful myths have not only explanatory power but purpose and utility. We already have a very successful, extremely useful modern myth-system which satisfactorily explains most of the questions the major myths have always addressed: scientific rationalism.

I generally think, to paraphrase Henry Ford, philosophy is more or less bunk but occasionally one of the beggars comes out with something sensible. Popper says "We shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is". Science, however, is new improved myth, it is myth plus, or perhaps more accurately, myth minus. He says "My thesis is that what we call 'science' is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition - that of critically discussing the myth. Before, there was only the first-order tradition. A definite story was handed on. Now there [is] still, of-course, a story to be handed on but with it [goes] something like a silent accompanying text of a second-order character: 'I hand it on to you, but tell me what you think of it. Think it over. Perhaps you can give us a different story.'".

That seems pretty sound to me. We've got, in Science, the prevailing myth of our age and that myth, by its nature, calls us perpetually to engage with it, to shape it, to expand it, to change it. What more do we need?

Eunice and LSV - I'll definitely get back to you on meaning but it will probably be next week. Not only do I need to consider my response but the Dublin Theatre Festival is on and a steadfast opponent of the capitalist system like myself doesn't plan to miss Enron - on in the Gaiety if anyone else is is down at the weekend...

Parr

Scientific Rationalism AS a myth!

Now there's an interesting thought...

Can you expand a bit? How would you bring in a narrative element, virtue, character etc.

Deckard, you continually ask for evidence, for words to convince you of many different things. The rational approach to the universe adopted by the athiest/agnostic viewpoint is based on evidence, sound thoery and rational exploration. The views of the 'faithful' come from the arena of no evidence, extremely flawed theory and historical exploitation: Invisible Friend Theory. The onus is on the Christians, Muslims etc to provide a convincing argument that they have the right of it. After all, apparantly it's our souls at risk so the stakes are high. All that can be mustered is a play on hopes & fears with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up the claims made within their respective fairy tales. To you, evidence means nothing, likewise the opinions of others. You are so certain of your position, despite the fact you cannot even come close to proving on e iota of your argument.
Reason is the enemy of religion, and you (and your fellow believers) back that up with every rambling post. Congratulations on your (sometimes) fine word play, but the message and viewpoint you are expressing is extremely weak. You cannot provide any evidence for your beliefs. Most athiests realised that scientific understanding of the universe stood stark against the outlandish claims of the bible and assorted other comic books. The challenge is not for the 'non-believers' to deliver proof, it's for those who profess to know god to prove they are not merely victims of delusion and wishful/silly thinking. Religion is given an un-earned place in the high echelons of civilisation. People are deserting the faiths in droves, despite the best efforts of preachers and cronies to create a climate of spiritual fear. Religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Thanks e-volve, pointing out who carries the burden of proof saves me a lengthy reply to post 86.

So once again just shortly then d-a-a-r: I haven't made any substantial claims in my exchanges with you yet. You have made claims. So stop calling out to atheists or secularists that they need to disprove what you said. Provide something in support of your statement first. Until then, what is there to disprove?

The claim that you haven't made a claim is a claim.

So, now that the secularists have shot themselves in the foot,

and I await evidence that they haven't made a claim,

and evidence that those who don't make claims don't need evidence,

and evidence that those who do make claims do need evidence,

and proof that the burden of proof is on me

and proof that the burden of proof is not on them,

I will share the most testosterone filled Zen parable that I can find...

A Japanese warrior was captured by his enemies and thrown into prison. That night he was unable to sleep because he feared that the next day he would be interrogated, tortured, and executed. Then the words of his Zen master came to him, "Tomorrow is not real. It is an illusion. The only reality is now." Heeding these words, the warrior became peaceful and fell asleep.
The next day he told his captors about what his master had said. They could do him no harm. So they let the warrior go. But he fell into a river on his way home and drowned beacuse he wore heavy armor.
His enemies said "If we cannot harm him, why did his master let him wear armor?" So his enemies killed his master to avenge the brave warrior.
Then they retired peacefully, and died of old age. And only the river survives.

This runs a close second. Third place will follow shortly after!

One day Tokusan told his student Ganto, "I have three monks who have been here for many years. Go and examine them." Ganto picked up an ax and went to the hut where the three monks were meditating. He raised the ax, saying, "If you say a word I will cut off your heads; and if you do not say a word, I will also cut off your heads." Two monks continued their meditation as if he had not spoken. The third ran away.
Ganto dropped the ax and said, "You are true Zen students." He returned to Tokusan and related the incident. "I see your side well," Tokusan agreed, "but tell me, how is their side?"
Ganto returned to the meditating Monks, and cut off their heads, saying "No man will call me false!".
And in that moment all three attained Enlightenment.

Zen Master Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A young novice began to imitate him in this way. When Gutei was told about the novice's imitation, he sent for him and asked him if it was true. The novice admitted it was so. Gutei asked him if he understood. In reply the novice held up his index finger. Gutei promptly cut it off. The novice ran from the room, howling in pain. As he reached the threshold, Gutei called, "Boy!" When the novice turned, Gutei raised his index finger. At that instant the novice was enlightened.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Deck #94-96
Yes, Zen Warriors really were the epitome of a theology of testosterone.
But in saying that I'm sure plenty of Zen monks thought of them as a self-serving corruption of the ideology
Reading about it, the Zen warrior class seems to be from one branch of Zen Beliefs- the Rinzai sect- where provoking anxiety was supposed to lead to the sudden realisation of truth.
The calmer Zoto sect seems to promote meditation as the primary way of enlightment

D_a_a_r, you remind me a lot of a former regular on the blog here, Graham Veale, a.k.a. Graham of the gaps, for his god of the gaps level of reasoning. Like yours, his contributions also took a quantity over quality approach. Using up quite a few words, but not presenting many well argued points in them. In a rare moment of critical self-reflection he fessed up to being something of an intellectual windbag. So when in post 92 you come up with the not so very useful contribution of 'The claim that you haven't made a claim is a claim.' it makes me wonder if you perhaps share some DNA with him?

Mr Kalver

LOL, no, no, not at all.. I'd say I believe very strongly in the "gaps" in the "god-of-the-gaps", so perhaps that's where you spot the 'family resemblance'. But it's only a family resemblance in the sense of a Wittgensteinian language game.

Was that just a nice way of calling me "an intellectual windbag"?

And it is very irritating to be misconstrued as a Theist over and over. Can you please stop doing that?

"So when in post 92 you come up with the not so very useful contribution of 'The claim that you haven't made a claim is a claim.'"
So you're claiming that the claim that you haven't made a claim isn't a claim? Well, is that a claim then?