XPost: alt.philosophy.zen, alt.society.liberalism, alt.society.kindness   
   XPost: talk.politics.theory   
   From: stumper@newvessel.com   
      
   Déjà Fu wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   Good for you.   
      
   It's about time for you to realize that   
   you cannot talk your way to Nirvana.   
      
   Do you worship?   
      
   --   
   ~Stumper   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)