XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.society.liberalism, alt.society.kindness   
   XPost: talk.politics.theory   
   From: chanfu@gmail.com   
      
   Hollywood Lee wrote:   
   > Déjà Fu wrote:   
   >> Hollywood Lee wrote:   
   >>> Déjà Fu wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> ps:   
   >>>> In our laboratory experiments, our staff has found   
   >>>> that the KJV Bible, the Quoran and the Book of Mormon   
   >>>> produce virtually the same BTU/hr of heat in a modern,   
   >>>> high-efficiency stove. The Torah lags by nearly 40%   
   >>>> and is not generally available in motel rooms.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (sorry, Lee - allah made me do it...:)   
   >>>   
   >>> I like Richard Dawkins' (author of the God Delusion among others)   
   >>> take on religion:   
   >>>   
   >>> --------   
   >>>   
   >>> http://www.wpr.org/book/dawkins.html   
   >>>   
   >>> Richard Dawkins talked with Steve Paulson about the dangers of   
   >>> unquestioned faith and why he thinks atheists are among the most   
   >>> intelligent people.  An excerpt follows:   
   >>>   
   >>> . . . .   
   >>>   
   >>> Q: My sense is that you don't just think religion is dishonest.   
   >>> There's something evil about it as well.   
   >>>   
   >>> A: Well, yes. I think there's something very evil about faith, where   
   >>> faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and   
   >>> actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of   
   >>> evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies   
   >>> essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your   
   >>> priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die -- anybody   
   >>> who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be   
   >>> killed -- that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it   
   >>> because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a   
   >>> very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my   
   >>> faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that.   
   >>> Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought   
   >>> up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be   
   >>> challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The   
   >>> consequences it's had historically -- the Crusades, the Inquisition,   
   >>> right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and   
   >>> people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York -- all in the name   
   >>> of faith.   
   >>>   
   >>> Q: But don't you need to distinguish between religious extremists who   
   >>> kill people and moderate, peaceful religious believers?   
   >>>   
   >>> A: You certainly need to distinguish them. They are very different.   
   >>> However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make   
   >>> the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children --   
   >>> sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith   
   >>> trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith. Now,   
   >>> the faith of these moderate people is in itself harmless. But the   
   >>> idea that faith needs to be respected is instilled into children   
   >>> sitting in rows in their madrasahs in the Muslim world. And they are   
   >>> told these things not by extremists but by decent, moderate teachers   
   >>> and mullahs. But when they grow up, a small minority of them remember   
   >>> what they were told. They remember reading their holy book, and they   
   >>> take it literally. They really do believe it. Now, the moderate ones   
   >>> don't really believe it, but they have taught children that faith is   
   >>> a virtue. And it only takes a minority to believe what it says in the   
   >>> holy book -- the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran,   
   >>> whatever it is. If you believe it's literally true, then there's   
   >>> scarcely any limit to the evil things you might do.   
   >>>   
   >>> Q: And yet most moderate religious people are appalled by the   
   >>> apocalyptic thinking of religious extremists.   
   >>>   
   >>> A: Of course they're appalled. They're very decent, nice people. But   
   >>> they have no right to be appalled because, in a sense, they brought   
   >>> it on the world by teaching people, especially children, the virtues   
   >>> of unquestioned faith.   
   >>>   
   >>> Hear the full interview at http://www.wpr.org/book/Richard%20Dawkins.mp3   
   >>   
   >> Thanks - another for the collection, which will soon   
   >> become 2 CD's.   
   >>   
   >> Encouragingly, Richard's pendulum has swung a tad   
   >> more lately. He seems more confident and his older vids   
   >> are still on YouTube. Perhaps Sam Harris has had more   
   >> influence than he expected. Vic reports a well-attended   
   >> SH appearance in Denver (of all places) a week or so ago.   
      
   > Maybe.  I suspect that Dawkins and Harris will remain marginal in US   
   > culture for a long time to come.   
      
   Of course. I wasn't proposing general acceptance,   
   just not an ensuing Klan meeting and cross-burning... ;)   
      
   >> I was hoping to post a link to Julia's "Letting Go of God"   
   >> talk, but there's only one Julia Sweeney vid left on YouTube!   
   >> I wonder if that's really because of "copyright violation"   
   >> or something more elusive. Sent her an email question   
   >> about it - no answer so far.   
   >>   
   >> Quite an interesting part of the matrix today was your link   
   >> to http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html and the apology issued   
   >> in 1992 by the Soto Zen hierarchy. The Christian Church has   
   >> still not, to my knowledge, apologized for the crusades, the   
   >> amplification of AIDS in Africa, the overpopulation problems,   
   >> the children of the poor, or "Mother Teresa" - the goddess   
   >> of death in India. We won't bother about the science dialogs.   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps because that's because the Pope is infallible by   
   >> definition and the NRB (which could also be an acronym for   
   >> "New Republican Bible") has already been published in   
   >> some sense.   
   >   
   > If we could get them to go with the gnostic materials (e.g. the Gospel   
   > of Thomas) of stick with the Beatitudes.  But no, they (with notable   
   > exceptions) got this holy vengeance thingie that they seem to prefer.   
      
   I've always admired Kater Moggin, who slipped in here   
   sometimes from alt.religion.gnostic. We seemed to see   
   eye-to-eye even though our paradigms were essentially   
   inexplicable to one another. Of course, gnostic   
   philosophy is far beyond me, but every so often I poke   
   my nose in there and find him going off about stuff   
   that makes my head ring like a church bell.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)