My First Feud
Kick ass. I have a hater who's sending me all kinds of traffic. Sweet! I hate to respond in kind because his name is Bjorn. And while it's unclear where he's originally from, that name sounds Scandinavian to me, and ever since my time in Denmark I usually love Scandinavians. Minnesotans are usually pretty cool too.
But nevertheless, it would be out of character for me not to stoke the fire. He includes in his interests capitalism and Christianity, so obviously we would disagree on whether or not we should be oppressing the less fortunate and restricting civil rights. He quotes me:
There's a cool section in which he compares the human brain to a computer and religion to a computer virus. It's a clever analogy.And responds:
Actually, no it's not clever. It's older than dirt. Hey, I got another idea! Religion is like a REAL virus and people are like a person!Weird. Dirt? Was Bill Gates in on the whole dirt invention too? Anyway, Bjorn should have clicked through to the article, because there he would have found how Richard Dawkins goes on to explain in further detail that the human brain is like a computer that when first created (born, if you're slow on the uptake) is blank and needs programming. Parents are the programmers, and when religion is introduced it manifests itself in the same manner as a computer virus. You see, Bjorn, sometimes an analogy is more complex than a single sentence. Your C-student president isn't so much on board with compound thoughts but you should give it a try at least.
Your move, Bjorn. You say that "every sentance [sic] is so laced with problems, you don't know where to begin." Is that empty invective, or do you have an example?
11 comments:
If I may speak in this Bjorn's defense, I believe he's talking about the standard philosophical arguments for the mind as a blank slate, tabula rasa. There's no difference between those and Dawkin's computer analogy, except where the word "computer" is replaced with rasa. The analogy, while not older than dirt, is considerably older than Dawkins, but at least three hundred years.
...I mean, "by at least three hundred years."
One example would be your last paragraph just now. Since "you" wasn't in his original quote, it should have been in brackets.
That said, the burn on him for "sentance" was priceless.
On a more serious note, part of what your blog (by which, I can only assume your "self" as well) lacks, is the ability to argue your opponent's point of view in a way that even he would agree to (before you go on to disect it, of course).
If you want to say that you're disgusted by what you see on, what I call, the "God channels" on TV, or rail against the hatred, torture, oppression, and abuse done in the name of Christianity (or just 'religion in general') throughout history, you would find a number of thoughtful Christians right there in your corner.
One example of Christians (both of which voted against Bush) "critiquing from within" is the book titled:
"Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel"
(see Amazon.com)
A couple others would "The Challenge of Jesus" by N.T. Wright (also against the Iraq war) and "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.
If you want to read these (which are all realtively short, easy reads...nothing overly exhuastive or "academic") and then chew them up and spit them out in a rebuttal of some sort, your comments would gain a legitimacy they presently lack. However, for you to rail and rail and rail against that which you have no clue about (not that you'd even disagree with me on that, I'm sure)--it's hard for thoughtful people who place themselves anywhere on the spectrum of religion to take your spoutings seriously.
If you want to proclaim yourself 'legit' enough to be throwing words like "invective" around, ante up and do the hard work of actually engaging those with whom you disagree in an honest manner. If you don't do this, you'll be every bit the ideological buffoon you (in a number of ways, rightly) accuse Christians of being.
Well, check out the brains on Brad! I appreciate the comments, Brad. But you see, I’m not interested in engaging closed-minded Christians in a dialogue. Oh – and to my church street cred, in case you’re interested, I went to Catholic school through high school, which by the way, was all boys. Taught by nuns and the Christian Brothers, I think I’ve had, you know, a tiny bit of exposure to religion. Although, even the nuns taught evolution, so perhaps it was a more forward thinking couple of schools compared to say, Oklahoma.
Back on topic – I don’t expect to get Jerry Falwell to link to me on his blog, so it isn’t my goal to try to help the extremist Christians find their enlightenment through logic and critical thought. My goal is to exorcise the demons in my head caused by their outrageous actions. You can’t win an argument with someone who relies on a book written by some unknown men thousands of years ago and translated/interpreted a million times as a textbook. To pick a single topic, evolution has a mountain of evidence in its favor, and even if it can’t be proven right before your eyes like a physics problem, one has to at least give it some airtime in schools. These people are dead-set against it because there is a metaphorical story in the bible that says different. How do you argue with that? There’s no point. My goal is to point out their hypocrisy and idiocy to people who probably already agree with me, and that’s fine.
One Christian who’s got it going on is Jim Wallis. I love it when a preacher uses Jesus’ words against the so-called Christians. Have you picked up his book?
Sprite! A Big Kahuna Burger! (just keeping up with those "big brains" of mine)
To try to respond sort of "point-by-point", it's too bad that you're not interested in that kind of dialogue for it is that very thing that our world needs (closed-minded Christians being talked into some sense). The the easy out is certainly your prerogative, but the credo of "Don't be like far-right, conservative Christians--instead refuse to engage against the most destructive elements of our global culture while you plug your ears and hum like me!" is hardly the 'salvation' any nutball camp needs.
You've gone on and on about how conservative Christians are trashing this world. Okay...what are you doing to change that? And I mean truly change them--winning over the hearts and minds of those who, among other things, tell Cat Stevens to hang up the guitar. Don't be as negligent and myopic as those you rail against.
As for your exposure, as with a lot of "Christians", the experiences and exposures they've had are to what I (and others) call "Churchianity". What you've encountered has been "neat" at best...but it has very little to do with the first-century countercultural revolution of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus.
You can go on and on and on about it, but you liken yourself to a tourist coming to visit America to get the real scoop on the country. However, that tourist only goes to Times Square where he is promptly mugged by gang members of [your favorite ethnic minority] and then picks up syphilis from a street prostitute to then return to his native country to spread the "truth" that about
a.) The (supposed) legitimacy of his grasp on the subject matter
and
b.) what an awful, awful place America is.
Even despite the fact that there are some truly awful parts of this country, that tourist's comments have zero "street cred" and his screaming that he has it even louder doesn't make it so. Further, anyone that's thoughtfully examined America won't give that guy the time of day until he exposes himself to some things that accurately represent America as a whole--not only presently, but throughout history.
Are there negative parts of America's history? Sure. But, if this guy does nothing more than make a laundry list of the darker points in our history, his comments on (and against) America will continue to go ignored by the thoughtful and embraced only by equally closed-minded people.
As for your middle paragraph (above):
While your goals couldn't be more admittedly self-absorbed, I would submit that you should, in fact, engage with these people; however, that you do so not "for them", but the benefit of the larger world (to include your children and friends among others). Quit trying to "win an argument" and instead "make a positive difference through meaningful dialogue".
As for evolution...get off it. In the end, it doesn't really matter. I'm with you...the 7 "days" of the opening of Genesis were never intended to convey a "7 x 24 hours = Everything" formula and it's historically irresponsible for Christians who declare as much to say that they have the "street cred" to say so.
However (and at the risk of flushing whatever street cred of my own that I might have established)...if you're not serious about making any sort of difference, if this is just your intellectual masturbation where you jerk off in the mouths of your buddies so you can high-five each other before you hit the showers, we'd all be just as well off for listening to any other polar nutball. Don't be the "same crap, different flavor" (mmm!...now with E. coli!).
If this will make you feel better, I'm up for an exchange of books (ie: I read one that you recommend and you return the favor).
You should give me your email, so I can argue with you directly, rather than publicly on the comments section of my blog.
Anyway, first of all maybe I should clear up that I have a like-minded co-editor, so you can't necessarily attribute every quote on the DoG to me.
So, again, I have to correct an assumption that you’re making. I’m not going to change the world regardless if I was the wisest person you’ve ever read. I can’t imagine that anything I say is going to keep Bill Frist from saying that Democrats are against people of faith, or keep Bush from declaring that he speaks directly with God. Furthermore, if “engaging” people who believe bullshit like that means conceding a single one of their points, then that’s not going to happen. There’s no convincing anyone who says, “the sky is green” when it’s clearly blue. The difference between this blog and the far-right Christian nutjobs is here at DoG we use facts, (unless there’s juicy gossip about Jeff Gannon, in which case we condone wild irresponsible speculation). Yes, I close my ears and say I’m not listening when they spout ridiculous ideas. And if they end up at DoG and feel alienated because I don’t concede any of their points, I ask them, just as I asked Bjorn, to point out anything I’ve said in error, any place where my logic was invalid. Anything. I can say the same to you. As far as I’m concerned, I’m engaging them in the sense that they can choose to remain closed-minded or they can read some truth. But do I think that a few Christians reading my idea of the truth, no matter how watered down, is going to change the world? No way. Never gonna happen. That’s kind of the point of religion, isn’t it? Do what we say, don’t listen to anyone who says different. Maybe some manage to think for themselves (you seem to be doing a pretty good job), but the establishment of religion wasn’t to help people through crises of spirituality or whatever, it was to control their behavior, and you know it. That remains its main purpose today as well. Whether it’s the pope telling people not to use condoms, or whether it’s Jerry Falwell saying that lesbians were the cause of 9/11.
Now, do I use the literary devices of exaggeration, sweeping generalizations, metaphor and vitriol? Fuck yes. That’s my prerogative as well. People have to be able to take a joke too.
To my past – I don’t see how you can call twelve years of Catholic school equivalent to a foreigner going to Times Square and going home. Twelve years? I would be willing to bet that I know more about bible scripture and Catholic doctrine than 90% of practicing Catholics. And I certainly know more about Jesus’ teachings than George Bush because I am familiar with Jesus' talk of helping the poor, while Bush seems to think that He was on about gays and “activist” judges.
To evolution – that’s exactly the sort of thing that one would give up on if one has to create a meaningful dialogue with these freakshows. But as I pointed out in an old post, I have an engineering degree. Science has always been an important part of my life. When it comes to educating our children, there is no compromise between science and fairy tales. There is absolutely NO PLACE for creationism in a biology or science class. I’m fine with teaching creation myth in literature, philosophy, religion classes or what-have-you. But creationism should never be taught as science. And I’m not going to condescend to people who believe in creationism by pretending that I think there’s even a figment of reality in the story. And I’m certainly not going to compromise on the issue of teaching children science or not. You may be aware that Bush has declared all-out war on science, whether it’s denying global warming, changing or omitting numbers from environmental studies, teaching kids that AIDS can be spread by sweat and tears. All of that and more. And science is one area on which I will not compromise. And if that’s what needs to be done to create your so-called meaningful dialogue with these faith people, you might as well forget it. Some things are black and white.
Any blog, almost by definition, is masturbation. I like the metaphor. I believe what I believe, and I think I have a few compelling arguments now and again. But if I thought it should be required reading for others, I would be going around hyping myself - but I'm not. Read it; don't read it. I'm happy either way. I'm pleased that you feel compelled enough to come back and make meaningful debate with me. It's certainly more than I can expect from anyone on cable news.
hey man, sorry to make all of this "jerry falwell" traffic for your blog. if you don't want it, i'll take it down..but since you seem to like it, and since i think you run an excellent blog, i'm putting a perminant link to you in my sidebar. once again, just let me know if you don't like all the controversy.
your points:
1)yes, i'm from minnesota, born and raised, and i've never been to any of the various countries that my name implies. my parents just have strange taste.
2)ok. the analogy isn't STUPID, it is just that it is so far from original, that it fails to be cool (in my humble opinion). yes, i should have read the whole article. my apolgies.
3)as you do, i like to use exaggerations, and sweeping generalizations...which applies to my "so laced with errors" comment. I was basically, trying to say taht you and i disagree about....well....politics and religion at the least.
I will keep an eye on your blog, and if i see things i really disagree with i'll make a comment, but for now, i think wazoo and brad have said many of the things I have to say already. cool?
I would be willing to bet that I know more about bible scripture and Catholic doctrine than 90% of practicing Catholics.
I'm sure you would win that bet. However, the percentage of how much that ties in with the first century is still in the single digits. For all of your "facts" and boldness in proclaiming "the truth" (more on that in a bit), surely you can recognize that Rome isn't all that and a bag of chips and isn't in touch with much of what sorts of agendas Jesus and Paul were calling people to. So you know Catholic doctrine. Big whoop. That's like me saying I'm a really good hopscotchist...and then saying that because of that, I'd be an excellent pilot. Sure, there's hand-eye coordination involved in both, as is balance...the the two become radically disconnected after that and the qualifications of one hardly permit one to speak into the other with much credibility.
As for "truth"...you're fuckin' killing me, man!
Try the link below on for size (the address will probably disappear off the screen, but you can click on it, copy, and paste it into a new window). The guy's a hardcore liberal, supporter of MoveOn.org, (Christian, yes...but he's certainly right up your alley)--and he leaves you in the kiddie pool on the complexities of "truth". If you absolutely must, skip about 60% of the way down and begin with the paragraph that starts "About truth:" (though the rest of the article is certainly one of those "things that make you go 'hmm'".
http://www.anewkindofchristian.com/archives/000018.html
As for going solo over e-mail...I'd hate to deprive others of the privilege of peeking in on all of this. However, like Bjorn offered, if this isn't something you'd like in your sphere, I would respectfully wish you a pleasant day if you'd rather not.
Brad, you say: "...Jesus and Paul were calling people to. So you know Catholic doctrine. Big whoop."
That's our point! That Christianity as practiced by the Jerry Falwell, Pope Benedict, President Bush, and the like aren't practicing the teachings of Jesus. They're advancing their own agenda, an agenda that I find hurtful to many. That's the point.
When I rail against Christianity, I'm not really talking about Jesus. And when Bush lowers taxes on the rich and cuts Medicaid, neither is he. Jesus was a brilliant philosopher; it's a shame all the things that have been done in his name.
I come to this conversation from an interesting standpoint, because I became a Christian, fell away from Christ for some time, due to many personal reasons and a fascination with existentialism, and ultimately have just recently found faith again. Many of your opinions concerning Christianity are the exact same ones I used to hold, which ultimately drove me away from the faith for quite some time. I considered most Christians to be small-minded, closed-minded, and judgmental. Yet I know now that I was being terribly unfair to God at the time, judging him by the mistakes of fallible human beings. Yes, the church has made many mistakes in the past, yet that is simply an element of the church's humanness, making redemption even more sweet and gracious. Ultimately though, Christianity is not a religion. It is a personal, radical, transformative relation to a forgiving savior. To call Christ a philosopher is absolutely inaccurate - he never taught by dialectic or logical arguments. He taught by parables, by stories and by his life. His humanness is our humanness. He suffers with us, he suffered for us. This is what makes Him so amazing, and much more than just one more philosopher.
It seems to me that most of your opinions are very much informed by post-modern, slightly existentialist, assumptions about truth and reality, particularly your assumption that you have your own version of "truth" which no one is going to change.
"But our beliefs must not be relegated to the status of private opinion. The only thing worth believing is the truth. When we believe we have apprehended the truth, we must hold it with universal intent".
-James Sire
Post a Comment