Vianet.ca
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Speedster - don't get prissy.

  1. #1
    Guru Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SSM
    Posts
    1,843

    Default Speedster - don't get prissy.

    News in from Aunty:

    Keeping the faith
    A POINT OF VIEW
    By Tim Egan


    The pledge of allegiance says 'One nation under God'
    The US may be one of the most religious countries in the West but is it undergoing a period of doubt.
    A few days ago, I attended a memorial service for a friend who died far too young, of throat cancer. The service was held at a history museum, and it was packed - standing room only.

    What was curious, initially, was the lack of any reference to religion. My friend had left a final set of instructions: he wanted to be remembered first as a husband to his wife of more than 20 years, and second as a citizen of his city, and third as a lover of history.

    During the tributes, there were many references to how the past can inform our decisions in the present. There were nods to reason and friendship and love.

    The closest anyone came to mentioning God or spirituality was when someone told the widow, as an aside, that you often visit the deceased through dreams - when they can appear at no particular prompting.

    America seems to be experiencing an atheist moment



    Hear Radio 4's A Point of View
    Even if the formal religion was absent, the habit of expressing a hope for spiritual optimism remains. The secular funeral is still somewhat of a novelty, at least to me.

    But it may be something that we see more and more of in the future - particularly on the West Coast, the most unchurched part of the United States.

    It may be daring to say it but America seems to be experiencing an atheist moment. Although "In God We Trust" was declared the national motto by an act of Congress more than 50 years ago and has been stamped on the currency for longer than that, some considerable doubt has developed of late.

    If you look at the bestseller list over the last year, you'll find a number of books on atheism - to the surprise of the publishing industry.

    God has always moved in not-so-mysterious ways when it comes to the literary world. He can sell books, especially ones that foretell an apocalyptic ending just around the corner.

    The so-called Left Behind books, a series of novels envisioning the Rapture, when the good are separated from the evil in a fiery judgment day, sell in the millions. They are not for the faint of faith.

    Another genre, self-help books that invoke God for the sake of making money, losing weight or finding a date, have a permanent home on the bestseller list. God is kept very busy with this segment of the market.

    But until this year, there was thought to be little support - or audience - for tomes by the anti-religious. Several books changed that.

    Full-bore polemics

    On the academic side, we have God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger and Nothing: Something to Believe In by Nica Lalli.

    The three most popular books are God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by the newly-Americanized Christopher Hitchens, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.


    Hitchens, the pied piper of non-believers
    These bestsellers are not cursory academic surveys; they are full-bore polemics against religion, challenging the very idea of God.

    Hitchens, with his quick wit and his quiver of quotes from long-dead British luminaries which he carries over from his schoolboy days in England, seems to be having the most fun and the most effect.

    You could call him the Pied Piper of non-believers. He makes it a point to debate with a cleric in every city he visits, and is a frequent guest on conservative and religious radio stations.

    The premise of his book is that while religion may have served people well in the age of ignorance, now that science can explain the world there is no reason to attribute the sun, the moon and forces like gravity to higher beings.

    As he says, the nine-year-old knows more about the natural world now than the leading scholars of a thousand years ago. What has rankled his critics most is his suggestion that religion is usually a force for bad.

    More than anything, people without faith hate the description of them as empty or soulless

    Believers point out that people of faith have been at the forefront of significant improvements in human rights and in caring for fellow humans over centuries - everything from abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement in this country, to church-led efforts to reduce starvation and disease in less-developed countries.

    I ran into Hitchens not long ago at a book festival where he was jousting away and getting rich in the process. He looked just as the New York Times Book Review had described him: "A village atheist standing in the square trying to pick arguments with the good citizens on their way to church."

    I asked Hitchens why he thought his book had such a sudden rise to the top of the bestseller charts when polls show that - at most - barely one-half-of-one-percent of Americans call themselves atheists.

    He said that the polls were misleading. There is a large and fast-growing segment of the population that is lapsed or well onto its way to atheism but is afraid to admit it.

    "If you're a lapsed Catholic," Hitchens told me. "You're part of a very large and fast-growing group."

    Many of those people, of course, might be agnostic rather than atheist?

    Revulsion at zealots

    More than anything, people without faith hate the description of them as empty or soulless. They have long been singled out for a special kind of hell.

    The constitution of the state of Texas, for example, allows discrimination against atheists in employment or jury duty - provisions that have been nullified by federal laws.

    And even my mother used to lower her voice in the kind of whisper reserved for people with terminal brain cancer when she described a neighbour as.... an atheist.

    Non-believers say they have also been aided by the revulsion of fair-minded Americans to the religious zealotry behind the September 11 attacks and the subsequent violence on behalf of radical Islam.

    The latest round of atheism books point to countless wars, slaughters and massacres done in the name of My God is Better than Your God. The 9/11 attacks got people thinking about what sort of God could be summoned for such awfulness.


    Obama has talked about his faith
    Social critics, dating to at least de Tocqueville and ****ens, have always marvelled at the pure number of passionately religious people in this country. Indeed, no Western democracy has so many devout churchgoers, by percentage, as the US.

    On the face of it, the numbers do seem to indicate that the United States is a Christian nation, as politicians often say.

    The latest surveys by the Pew Centre show that 76% of the population - upwards of 230 million people - call themselves Christians. Jews make up 1.3% and Muslims are under one per cent - though fast-growing.

    Atheists are near the bottom. There are seven times as many atheists in Europe as the United States, by percentage. But the second largest group, categorized by belief, are those who call themselves secular or non-religious. They make up 13 percent of the population.

    It is this group that has perhaps been afraid to call themselves atheists, for fear of shunning or other censure. They could be largely undecided or they could be searching or they could believe, as some friends say with a wink, in the Church of the Outdoors, or the Church of Baseball. They are also the people buying these books.

    But while atheism may have made its way into the public discourse, it remains strictly verboten in our politics. Even though a majority of people say in surveys that a person can still be a good American without Christian values, to be an atheist and run for high office is to wear the scarlet A.

    Among the presidential aspirants, half the Republican candidates do not believe in evolution, a view bounded in their religious faith and the imperatives of running in a primary heavily dominated by evangelicals.

    Democrats 'more open'

    One contender, Senator John McCain of Arizona, made headlines this month when he said the American founders meant to establish the United States as a Christian nation.

    In truth, the constitution expressly prohibits establishment of a state religion. The founders were trying to avoid the entanglements of church with state. And perhaps the best known founder, Thomas Jefferson himself, may have been an atheist, in the view of many scholars.

    No matter. The Democrats, scorned by a huge sector of the electorate for their perceived secularism, have become more open about faith this time around. Both Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama frequently mention God on the campaign trail.

    But they also put some distance between themselves and the religious. Senator Clinton said last week that if she were president she would shield science and research into such things as stem cells from religion and politics.

    The United States may never be as secular as Europe. If you sample even a small share of the reaction, on blogs or Christian talk radio, to these new atheist books, you sense how strongly people feel about their faith. It's not passive or abstract.

    But, perhaps we have arrived at a moment where doubt is having its day - and for a time, atheists are coming out of hiding.





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Add your comments on this story, using the form below.
    Hopefully this is the beginning of a world-wide movement where if a person has a religion he sees it as a personal approach to God/Goddess/Gods as opposed to a philosophy which much be imposed upon others.
    Paolo, St Albans

    I have long admired Europeans for their relaxed approach to religion, which sometimes ranges from the laid-back to the completely apathetic. While I myself am a devout Episcopalian, I've always thought that faith has played far too important and unnecessary of a role in public American life. I would be grateful of a societal movement that casts faith aside as such a major criterion for determining whether someone is 'a good person' or not.
    Eric Campbell, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Speaking as a lifelong (American) agnostic I find Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins the equivalent to how many Christians must view the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - they may be nominally on my side but their rhetoric is so patronising and repellent I often wish they weren't.
    John R, London

    I resent having to be pigeonholed into any kind of belief system - why should I have to choose between Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Atheism? I'm just me, I don't have a part of my being that needs to have a label to announce what I believe in, even if it's nothing. Come on you 'atheists', preaching to the faithful about how much better atheism is, is just making you as bad as them. Ignore the poor medieval moon woofers and get on with your own lives free from guilt, greedy evangelicals, suicidal fundamentalists, and then a bit more guilt.
    Richard, Staffordshire, England

    Watch any BBC programme about geology or natural history, from Coast to The Living Planet, and sooner rather than later the presenter will mention events of millions of years ago, or even the last Ice Age of 10,000 years ago, as a given fact. There is no debate in the minds of presenters or viewers. Do they have such programmes in the US, or do they gloss over the timescale of geological events (it all happened in 4004BC)? I fondly imagine the average Republican politician or supporter watching (to UK eyes, completely uncontroversial) presenters like Nicholas Crane or Alan Titchmarsh and going "Lies!" "Untrue!" every couple of minutes.
    Ken Strong, Hornchurch, Essex

    As always, "your mileage may vary..." I suppose it's just possible to have a look around America at the moment and at least suggest that this is a "period of doubt." But only in a very relative, hair-splitting, sense. Even in making this suggestion, the author can't get away from the fact that fervent and frequent references to faith in god abound in American politics as much now as ever. I'm pretty certain that most Americans would sooner vote for a Catholic, Muslim, Scientologist, Witch Doctor or even a Satanist than for an atheist. When (and if) that ever changes, then we can talk about a "moment of doubt."
    MJ Kuhns, Elyria, Ohio, U.S.A.

    In a world where religion causes more hurt, division and war than any other cause, this gives me hope.
    Steve, London, UK

    The vast majority of my friends that claim to be atheist, in my opinion, are not "true" atheists. As soon as we talk religion and they make their "view" known, they go into a discussion on why they don't believe in God or Jesus. Nine times out of ten the reasons are because of people who call themselves Christians. Basically their opinion on God is based upon his ambassadors. Therefore they say if God was real, "his" people would be representing God better. Therefore since Christians are not behaving in the manner their religious beliefs require them to, God does not exist. However very seldom do my non-religious friends ever explore, in an honest fashion, if God truly does exist. Their atheism is a surface religion. They haven't explored their belief in depth. Just like many of my religious friends.
    Paul, Peachtree City, Georgia USA

  2. #2
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    First of all, it's too long an article.

    Second, I saw the names "Dawkins" and "Hitchens", so I did myself a favor and skipped it.

    What does it say?

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sault
    Posts
    32,829

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    "He makes it a point to debate with a cleric in every city he visits,.."

    I'm sure, like O'Hare, he hasn't got the guts to debate a real Christian Apologist.
    ''Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.''

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,309

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    Ya I remeber Ohare debating some anglican priest, with questions that even I knew better answers to. She would never risk going up against a real Christian bible scholar.
    more than one way to skin a cat

  5. #5
    Guest

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    umm, guys, Hitchens does debate with real Christian apologists.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Dines...topher_hitchens

    He has also debated with McGrath, here:
    http://www.eppc.org/publications/pageID.390/default.asp
    If you have an hour, you can watch it.

  6. #6
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ConKat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ya I remeber Ohare debating some anglican priest, with questions that even I knew better answers to. </div></div>

    Somehow, I highly doubt that.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,309

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    The question is not what you think speedy, its IF you think.

    Now do be a good parrot and go post some drivel. maybe theres a site in Australia where you could get some air time.
    more than one way to skin a cat

  8. #8
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    Struck a nerve, eh?? [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

  9. #9
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">umm, guys, Hitchens does debate with real Christian apologists.

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Dines...topher_hitchens

    He has also debated with McGrath, here:
    http://www.eppc.org/publications/pageID.390/default.asp
    If you have an hour, you can watch it.
    </div></div>

    I appreciate the link. I usually frequent the EPPC site, but somehow missed this gem of a debate. Very interesting.

    However, I must ask: Aydeloof, do you not run the risk of coming off as an opportunist in this case? The man who defends Christianity in this debate, Alister McGrath, has a book out now called, "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First".

    Here is snippet of Publisher's Weekly account of the book:

    This is McGrath's third book title borrowed from his atheist bête noir Richard Dawkins. But don't let the titular borrowings fool you: this is an original and important book. Someone had to imitate the long, popular works of history being written on secular subjects from Lewis & Clark to FDR, and McGrath has the theological and historical expertise necessary to tell a story stretching from the Reformation's origins in the 16th century to today. The dangerous idea was Martin Luther's: that individual believers could and should read the Bible for themselves.

    and

    The "dangerous idea" lying at the heart of Protestantism is that the interpretation of the Bible is each individual's right and responsibility. The spread of this principle has resulted in five hundred years of remarkable innovation and adaptability, but it has also created cultural incoherence and social instability. Without any overarching authority to rein in "wayward" thought, opposing sides on controversial issues can only appeal to the Bible—yet the Bible is open to many diverse interpretations. Christianity's Dangerous Idea is the first book that attempts to define this core element of Protestantism and the religious and cultural dynamic that this dangerous idea unleashed, culminating in the remarkable new developments of the twentieth century.

    LINK

    Obviously this is a stark and fundamental difference with your view. I will assume you believe McGrath is wrong here.

    But this is no small point. He questions the very ground your particular faith is built upon (not Christianity, but your particular Protestant beliefs). If he is so 'wrong' here, then how can he be so correct in his debate with Hitchens?

  10. #10
    Guest

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    Hi Speedy

    This may come as a pleasant surprise to you, but I have shifted somewhat in my views.

    I agree with McGrath in that The spread of this principle has resulted in five hundred years of remarkable innovation and adaptability, but it has also created cultural incoherence and social instability.

    I do not hold to, (and don't think I will ever) a magisterium, but I have moved over to a position that would not support the individualism that is so rampant among evangelical Protestants. Tradition figures in a little more strongly in my view now.

    I believe that any interpretation of Scripture that is done individually is suspect, and should always find resonance in the community of believers. I do believe in a kind of regula fidei; that is, the faith once delivered and believed by all.

    The problem with an absolutist approach though, is that the majority of the church has been wrong from time to time. Remember Athanasius against the world?

    As well, I would never, as an individual, accept a teaching that is not plain to see in Scripture.

    So, I am still a Protestant, and probably more so, because I am now protesting against the rampant and selfish individualistic attitudes I see in our own ranks. That's what the Reformation was and still is all about. Calling God's people back to the inscripturated Word.

    I would like to read that book though.

  11. #11
    Guest

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    BTW, I would have been just as happy to watch a Catholic believer trounce Hitchens as a Protestant.

  12. #12
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    I thought Hitchens came off as very defensive at times. But I also thought McGrath tried to be too much the other way, too nicey-nice. I didn't expect him to sink to Hitchen's level, but I thought he could have been more forceful. He seemed almost apologetic for his faith at times (and we know he isn't that kind of 'apologist').

    Hitchen's has such a deep-rooted hatred for religion it seems to transcend anything he came up with through pure reason alone. He seems driven by some personal demons (metaphorically, of course).

  13. #13
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the majority of the church has been wrong from time to time. Remember Athanasius against the world</div></div>

    But the this has nothing to do with the Magisterium.

    It does have something to do with the human side of the Church getting things wrong from time to time. I even mentioned this a while ago when talking about that aspect of the Church that deals with the laws, etc, and how the Church runs as a political organization (for even though it is first and foremost a spiritual organization, it can nonetheless not help but take on some human capacities when it is ran on earth by humans. Politics is one such human reality that is the Church).

    If the Church ended up getting the Arianism question correct then the Athanasius episode shows how the human portion of the Church struggles with questions and issues, but in the end the Holy Spirit provided right guidance and Truth.


  14. #14
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    I need to play devil's advocate here [img]/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img]

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
    As well, I would never, as an individual, accept a teaching that is not plain to see in Scripture.</div></div>

    Again, I ask, where is sola fide in the Bible, so clear and unambiguous that you hold to it?

  15. #15
    Guest

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    I agree about McGrath being too nice. Absolutely.

  16. #16
    Becoming a Regular Here
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    426

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    I found McGrath's manner made a striking contrast that demonstrated grace toward his opponent. 'Speaking the truth with gentleness and respect' comes to mind as how we are to defend our faith. I think his manner speaks to his faith and, aside from the issues themselves, others will see a contrast between the 'gentleness and respect' of McGrath and the 'anger and bitterness' of Hitchens. Just my 2 cents.

  17. #17
    Wrote enough to form half the internet.
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    15,637

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    I understood that part, Batman. He needed to come off that way, or he would have lost the battle before the first portion of the debate was over.

    But you can go too far in being the accepting, nice, respectful, gentle person. When you do go too far, you look plastic and fake.

    I don't think McGrath went that far, but he did straddle the line a few times, IMO.

    There's nothing wrong with a Chrsitian showing a little teeth now and then.

  18. #18
    Guest

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    This is exactly issue what Dinesh D'Souza talks about here:
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Dines...topher_hitchens

    So far Hitchens and his fellow atheists have had it relatively easy. Hitchens has been going around the country debating pastors. Pastors are supposed to be models of Christian charity. This means that Hitchens can call them names but they cannot call him names. Pastors are required to turn the other cheek, while Hitchens gets ready to kick them in the rear end. Moreover, pastors are not used to fending off attacks from people who deny the validity of the gospels and, in Hitchens’ case, even cast doubt on the historical existence of Jesus Christ. How can you quote Scripture to a man who denies the authority of Scripture to adjudicate anything?

    So Hitchens has a good game going, because he gets to make outrageous claims and they are going mostly unchallenged. Consider Hitchens’ discussion of one of the classic Christian proofs for the existence of God. Hitchens takes up Anselm’s so-called ontological argument, and he makes short work of it. Basically Anselm argues that God is, by definition, a being than which no greater can be conceived. But if God is such a being, he must exist. Why? Because if it didn’t, then he would be a being than which a greater could be conceived.

    Anselm’s argument seems like a theological rabbit pulled from a rhetorical top hat. Yet when you ponder the logic. it is surprisingly strong. Philosophers of the caliber of Descartes and Leibniz have accepted the validity of Anselm’s ontological argument and given their own versions of it. Others, such as Aquinas and Kant, have considered the argument defective. But not one of them takes Hitchens’ line, which is to accuse Anselm of arguing that everything that can be conceived must exist.

    This is emphatically not what Anselm is saying. He is not so foolish as to claim that if you can imagine a unicorn, therefore a unicorn must exist. Anselm’s argument only applies to one special case. God is defined, even by atheists, as a being of the highest conceivable perfection. Now such a being can exist only in the mind, or in the mind and in reality as well. Anselm argues that it is greater or more perfect to exist both in the mind and in reality, than to exist in the mind alone. Therefore God must exist, because otherwise he would not be a being of the highest conceivable perfection.

    As centuries of commentary on Anselm confirms, this is an argument that seems hard to accept, and yet it is not very easy to refute. Hitchens certainly doesn’t do it. I have a mixed view of Hitchens’ arguments, but his real strength is in launching witty and pungent barbs at Christianity. Having shared the podium with him in the past, I know he’s an agile debater. But so am I, and I’m ready for this one. Perhaps one good thing that can come out of all these atheist books is that they bring God back into the mainstream of American cultural debate. It’s long overdue.

  19. #19
    Senior Member starterwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    SSM ON
    Posts
    2,469

    Default Re: Speedster - don't get prissy.

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> the majority of the church has been wrong from time to time. Remember Athanasius against the world</div></div>

    But the this has nothing to do with the Magisterium.

    It does have something to do with the human side of the Church getting things wrong from time to time. I even mentioned this a while ago when talking about that aspect of the Church that deals with the laws, etc, and how the Church runs as a political organization (for even though it is first and foremost a spiritual organization, it can nonetheless not help but take on some human capacities when it is ran on earth by humans. Politics is one such human reality that is the Church).

    If the Church ended up getting the Arianism question correct then the Athanasius episode shows how the human portion of the Church struggles with questions and issues, but in the end the Holy Spirit provided right guidance and Truth.

    </div></div>

    Wow.
    Ice cream doesn't have bones.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts