"Fundamentalist" atheists aren’t the issue, apologists for religions are

[Silent3]

...Aslan accuses the benighted critics of religion of a far more grievous misapprehension: the assumption that words mean what they actually mean. Here I’ll quote him at length.

“It is a fallacy to believe that people of faith derive their values primarily from their Scriptures. The opposite is true. People of faith insert their values into their scriptures, reading them through the lens of their own cultural, ethnic, nationalistic and even political perspectives. . . . After all, scripture is meaningless without interpretation. The abiding nature of scripture rests not so much in its truth claims as it does in its malleability, its ability to be molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires. . . If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in your scriptures to justify your beliefs. If you are a peaceful, democratic feminist, you will also find justification in the scriptures for your point of view.”

Now we have to stop and ponder what we are being sold here. Aslan is essentially taking a postmodernist, Derrida-esque scalpel to “scripture” and eviscerating it of objective content. This might pass muster in the college classroom these days, but what of all those ISIS warriors unschooled in French semiotic analysis who take their holy book’s admonition to do violence literally?

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/

This article expresses a lot of what I personally feel is wrong with many of the defenses of religion that I hear.

The apologists for religion get angry with anyone who characterizes religion for the bad things done in the name of religion, for the awful and/or crazy things said in many religious texts, for any of the bigotry and misogyny and intolerance which is often justified in religious terms, etc. Apparently we're supposed to consider "real" religion only the good stuff, only the charity and sense of community and other warm fuzzies. All of that nasty stuff is just a distraction, not "really" religion, it's just excuses used by bad people who were going to be bad no matter what.

I'd turn that around and say that all of the good I see in religious followers is what you get from good people being good people no matter what -- in secular ways that require no appeal to the supernatural. The only thing that distinguishes religious goodness from secular goodness is the way that good religious people, whether by ignorance of their own faith, or selective dismissal or creative interpretation of scriptures and other dogma, reach the same good behavior and tolerance as a good secular humanist might possess.

As far as I'm concerned what makes religion specifically religious is the crap which is either simply absurd or downright nasty that has to be ignored or explained away as allegory and symbolism or "the culture of a different time and place" (as if stoning women for being raped was ever right anywhere or anytime).

When I criticize religion I'm criticizing what makes religion religion and not something else. If you have to turn religion into something as ephermeral and superfluous and abstracted as Aslan does in his defense of religion, is there anything left that's specifically religious and still worthy of defense?

[cbayer]

1. How exactly do you define apologists for religion?

If you are limiting it to those who actually do get angry with anyone who points out bad things about religion, then you are talking about a group is mostly composed of people on the extremes and are rarely if ever seen here.

If you are extending it to those who get angry when someone characterizes all religion using only the bad things in a very broad brush way, then that group is much larger and you will see that here.

Where have you gotten the idea that "we" are only supposed to consider "real" religion only the good stuff. I see most people here acknowledging and agreeing that much bad is done in the name of religion, and particularly by the religious right in the US. I'm not sure where you encounter the people you describe, but I don't doubt that they exist.

I agree that good people are good whether they have religious beliefs or not. It's great that religion is not necessary to be good, but it is also great that some people that are good express their goodness through their religious identity and groups.

Let me ask you this - where did all your hostility and negativity towards religion come from? You personally find religion to be crap, absurd, downright nasty and that's ok, but that's only your opinion. The problems occur if you personalize that and say that religious people are crap, absurd and downright nasty.

You have landed in your own position regarding religion because of who you are and your experiences. Would it be hard to acknowledge that others have landed in an equally legitimate but different position because of who they are and their experiences?

Somehow I doubt you will check this out, but i recommend you take a look at this site:

notalllikethat.org

[Silent3]

4. You'll have to answer my questions better before any answer to this question of yours...

"where did all your hostility and negativity towards religion come from?"

...makes sense.

I'll rephrase it: What makes religion specifically religion, not just a code of conduct, not just a form of politics or philosophy?

A web site full of the bright, smiling faces of religious people doing nice things, and even "agreeing that much bad is done in the name of religion" (nice little bit of distancing done there) doesn't answer that question.

I propose that what's left when you separate out the virtues that aren't specifically religious, don't need to be wrapped up in religious window dressing, what's left that makes religion religion isn't very admirable. (And yes, that's my opinion -- just in case you feel the need to say "Well, that's your opinion!" again, as if that were conveying any useful information or criticism whatsoever.)

[cbayer]

6. I think religion has many of the aspects that you describe -

a code of conduct, a form of politics and a philosophy. The difference is generally that they include the belief in a greater power or a divine being or beings. In addition, there is generally the inclusion of faith in those beliefs, a recognition that there is no definitive proof but that the beliefs remain despite this.

I would love to see you tell Dan Savage to his face that he is nothing more than a bright, smiling face, but that's another issue.

It's not about wrapping anything up in window dressing. Some people believe and their beliefs are religious. No matter how much that doesn't make sense to you, it is the case for the vast majority of humans on this earth and something you probably shouldn't just condemn with such a broad brush. Well, that is if you consider yourself a liberal/progressive member of this society.

Your hostility and negativity are palpable. So where did it come from?

[Silent3]

8. Probably from some horrible incident in my childhood.

At least I'll go with that so long as you keep asking that question ("Your hostility and negativity are palpable. So where did it come from?&quot as if your interests are diagnostic rather than being about the issues on the table.

Why should the popularity of a superstition have any bearing on whether it's called a superstition? Is calling all superstition superstition "broad brush"?

And if you'd prefer I think of religion as something more than/other than superstition, what besides "well, most people do it!" can you offer to differentiate religion from superstition?

[cbayer]

9. Aren't you the same person that got all apoplectic about voting in a church

but couldn't even get support for your position in the A/A group?

This issue is clearly yours to deal with.

The definition of superstition does have some relationship to the definition of religion. So what? You can use the word in a negative way or in a purely neutral way to describe beliefs in things supernatural. Frankly, without proof that something supernatural does not exist, I tend to keep an open mind about it, but I am more skeptical of some superstitions than others.

I don't prefer that you think anything at all. I would prefer it if you were not so anti-religion, but I doubt I am going to get anywhere with that.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Aren't you the person who got all apoplectic about "God Bless America" being sung at ballgames?

Your issue and the way you dealt with it here sure seemed to make some DUers think you were anti-religion.

What makes your personal religious pet peeves more acceptable than others?

You chose to rant about a religious song in this forum and now you're attacking Silent3 for posting his "anti-religious" thoughts about superstition in the same venue.

I would prefer it if you were not so anti-religion

And I would prefer it if you weren't so hypocritical, but I doubt I am going to get anywhere with that.

[Lordquinton]

13. can I rec a post?

[beam me up scottie]

14. I could use some love for a new thread I'm starting in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218160599

[trotsky]

22. And the rant was about a religious song at a NON-GOVERNMENTAL event.

A freaking public baseball game.

Just another glaring example of the outlandish hypocrisy. Throw it on the mountainous heap along with the rest.

Well said, bmus.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. that is not the definition of faith.

the inclusion of faith in those beliefs, a recognition that there is no definitive proof but that the beliefs remain despite this.

Faith is belief not based on proof. It is not "the recognition that there is no definitive proof". Most religions do not teach anything remotely like "there is no definitive proof", but instead make assertions that cannot be proven and demand belief based on divine authority.

[TexasProgresive]

2. As a theist I am thankful for those who point out the evils done in the name of God and religion.

Recently I ran across this from Ronald Rolheiser OMI, "The non-believing 'pick apart bad religion' showing us our blind spots, rationalizations, inconsistencies, double standards, hypocrisies, moral selectivity, propensity for power, unhealthy fears and hidden arrogance. Atheism shows us the log in our own eye."

So keep on, keeping on. You help purify my belief.

[pinto]

3. Interpretation is an inherent characteristic in our lives, imo. Happens all the time.

We all see things through our own lenses and experiences. What broadens that experience is other interpretations, communications and the common back and forth we all share.

The article is quite a rant. Rambling somewhat but worth a read.

To your comments - I don't think religion needs defending nor attacking. Nor does atheism. And I don't think anyone needs to take the role of "apologist" for either. That's a simplistic assumption.

And I don't think either or anyone should be so downgraded and labeled as you do in your post.

The histories of religions are raft with atrocities as well benefits. That's well known. As are the histories of most of humankind.

[Silent3]

5. You've sidestepped the central issues I've raised...

...for some generic feel-good diplomacy, e.g. " I don't think religion needs defending nor attacking. Nor does atheism."

Again, what makes religion religion, and not politics or basket weaving, but specifically religion? When you boil religion down to that, what's left that worthy of praise, not worthy of criticism?

[pinto]

7. I miss your question.

[rug]

12. Tayler has demonstrated he is an apologist for literalism.

Yet Aslan accuses the benighted critics of religion of a far more grievous misapprehension: the assumption that words mean what they actually mean.

Hence the term fundamental atheist.

There are so many better criticisms of religion out there. It's a shame he's tethered himself to one that rises or falls with the validity of literalism.

[Silent3]

15. Even taken figuratively, religious texts have a lot of nastiness that's hard to excuse.

Once you've jumped through hoops to dismiss all of that, of what good is the stuff that can be uniquely called religion, when what it takes is a good secular sense of morality and ethics to figure out what to keep, what to cut, what to ignore, what to reinterpret, etc.?

Then only "hence" that really predicates "the term fundamentalist atheist" is "because I want to go 'neener, neener, you're a fundamentalist too!". Even if it's some kind of error or unfairness to characterize religion by literalism (which is very distant from the point of the OP article anyway), there's nothing "fundamental" or "fundamentalist" about doing so.

[rug]

17. Your problem is you see it as a moral code. At it's root it's an encounter with the divine.

Since you dismiss that, your confusion is understandable.

The term fundamentalist, like it or not, comes from the literal words, without the benefit of context, scholarship or anything else but the raw words. And that's precisely what Tayler is writing about.

[Silent3]

18. When you dismiss religion as a moral code, you're off in an intellectual la-la land...

...which has very little to do with what the majority of religious followers would say is a big purpose, if not THE purpose and value of their religion. You're guilty of what the OP author rightly derides as "essentially taking a postmodernist, Derrida-esque scalpel to 'scripture' ".

As for fundamentalism, you're still missing the point that to be a fundamentalist yourself you'd have to be following your OWN crazy extremist literalisms of your OWN rules and texts, not, fairly or unfairly, judging the religion of others by the literal meanings of THEIR rules and texts.

Being a fundamentalist Christian would make you think the world was created in six days. Thinking that a Christian, must believe, or is obligated to believe, the world was created in six days isn't being a fundamentalist anything. That might be an error of some sort, but it isn't fundamentalism.

Would a Hindu who follows a very liberal version of Hinduism, yet who thinks all Christians believe the world was created in six days, be a fundamentalist Hindu? If not, why is an atheist who thinks so about Christians a "fundamentalist" atheist?

[rug]

19. The Rotary Club has a moral code.

What religion has is a God. It also has morality but if you miss the first sentence you've missed the whole thing.

Now, assuming your opinion is that all scripture is no more than the work of humans, who are you - and Tayler - really complaining about?

An atheist who considers literalist and fundamental religion to be the essential trait of all religion becomes himself or herself a fundamentalist.

The opposite of a fundamentalist theist is a fundamentalist atheist.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist.

[Silent3]

20. So the liberal Hindu I posited who thinks of Christianity in fundamentalist terms...

...is a fundamentalist Hindu or a fundamentalist Christian or a liberal Hindu fundamentalist non-Christian?

Things get very confusing using your bullshit assertion "becomes himself or herself a fundamentalist".

Now, assuming your opinion is that all scripture is no more than the work of humans, who are you - and Tayler - really complaining about?"

I'm saying (and Tayler is saying something similar it seems to me, though I won't presume to speak definitively for him) that the end result of treating all of this human writing/human oral traditions/etc as if it were divine, building this thing called "religion" around it, is absurd and unnecessary at best, dangerous at its worst, and altogether a perfectly legitimate object of criticism wherein that criticism is no different than criticizing political views or any other elements of human institutions and human thought, without such criticism being batted away as "racism" or any other such easy dodge meant to put religion on a shielded pedestal.

Edit: Oh, yeah. You're trying to get away with acting as if this is all specifically about literalism again, which is also bullshit, and which I already addressed.

[rug]

21. He would share the same misunderstanding of Christianity that you and Tayler do.

(Oh, is that another "bullshit assertion"? I don't think I can stand up to the logical force of that argument.)

Now, after you calm down, you may realize that no one is saying religion is immune from criticism. I prefer, however, that it be intelligent and knowledgeable criticism, and not simply a gloss on a preformed rant.

[Silent3]

23. When you said "becomes himself or herself a fundamentalist" that was nothing more than...

...an assertion on your part. It makes no logical sense from the meaning of the words involved, and you offer no support for this other than simply declaring it true.

What more argument is necessary to say a man isn't wearing a hat than to point to his bare head and say, "Look, no hat!"? I pointed to where there was nothing more than a bald assertion, and unless you can show me where the "hat" was hiding, I've done all I need to do.

That I colorfully added "bullshit" to "assertion" doesn't detract from my point.

No, no one is trying to say religion is totally immune from criticism, but they sure are trying to shield it from a great deal of criticism by shouting "racism!" (even when the makes no sense at all) and "bigotry!" when religion is criticized, trying to have it both ways that religion is deeply important and means a lot (when that suits the apologists), and then pretending that religion is practically content free, having very little intrinsic meaning at all beyond what believers brings along themselves (when that's the most convenient defense).

[rug]

24. If you are critiquing the literal meaning of scripture, you are on the same turf as a fundamentalist

When you go from that as a springboard to an generalized attack on religion, that's all you.

[Silent3]

25. The critique in the OP goes well beyond the issue of literalism...

...critiquing the attitude that scriptures and other religious dogma (such as spoken traditions) are to be considered to have practically no meaning at all but whatever the believer chooses to apply himself or herself.

One doesn't, for example, have to believe, nor even contend that the believers themselves believe, that there was literally a man named Abraham who had a literal son laid out on a literal sacrificial table to wonder why the hell, even as metaphor, a psychopath like that, fictional or not, would be central to three of the world's current largest religious traditions.

It's repugnant in literal form. It's repugnant even as an exaggerated example of devotion or an exaggerated ideal of devotion.

[Silent3]

26. Oh, and no...

Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

...even when it might be wrong to tar all believers for literalism (which ISN'T what's happening in the OP) when some aren't literalists, it would be a confusion of the critique only, a far, far cry from being a literalist fundamentalist oneself. That's pointing to the "turf", not living on it and building your own house there.

No, the real reason you call any atheist a "fundamentalist atheist" is purely for the effect of spiteful derision, "neener, neener, you're a fundamentalist too!".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. Good points, Silent3.

QUOTE FROM OP:
I'd turn that around and say that all of the good I see in religious followers is what you get from good people being good people no matter what -- in secular ways that require no appeal to the supernatural. The only thing that distinguishes religious goodness from secular goodness is the way that good religious people, whether by ignorance of their own faith, or selective dismissal or creative interpretation of scriptures and other dogma, reach the same good behavior and tolerance as a good secular humanist might possess. END QUOTE

What good deeds can be accomplished by religious people that could not be accomplished by non-religious people? As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing. Religion is not necessary for the accomplishment of any good deeds or speaking of kind words.

Christopher Hitchens asked this same question, and got the same answer I did: Nothing.

[djean111]

27. Well put. And true.