Varieties of Religious Experiece

Just a few notes on the subject, hoping to move on. It's almost impossible to say anything about religion invokes anything but a spirited defense of whatever your listener thinks about it. The actual exchange of ideas on this subject is, for the most part, impossible.

• One lesson I got from slogging through Medieval philosophy was the centuries-old attempt to figure out what was true about God without admitting that it was all about human experience - the proverbial elephant in the room. Failure to take this into account largely accounts for the deadening boredom of most church services and the surprising success of the evangelical movement and the "black" Church.
• While community and authority are more important than doctrine in holding a religion together "on the ground" - in the congregation, we must also acknowledge that we all accept the authority and bow to community standards every day of our lives. So-called "religious" people are no different in this respect.
• Digging in heels, denying evidence, defending nonsense arguments is such a common behavior of humans that we are startled when it's not present. We do it ourselves all the time. Of course, we deny it and claim it's only other people who are pig-headed and illogical.
• "Faith" is not about the facts of the world. It's about how you feel about the facts. Feeling guides what facts you think are relevant and what acts you regard as "right". If you are a normal, sane, person, this is the way your mind works whether you call it "faith" or not.

As remarked elsewhere, the religious person re-defines God, spirituality, and morality in such a way as to make it impossible to determine "faith" from disbelief. For example, How would the world be different if God did not exist? Faith demands belief in spite of the lack of evidence. This means, on a daily basis, there should be no place for "God" around the table when issues of public policy are determined (such as abortion). I recently ran into another facet of this issue when a room full of "modern skeptics" were unable to consider the possibility that there was more variation of opinion inside the Catholic Church than outside it or that the behavior of Catholics vis-a-vis birth control is no different from anyone else. The fact that religion makes little or no difference in the behavior of actual people is taken for hypocrisy and widespread schadenfreude among the disbelievers. The subtle truth - denied by both sides for different reasons - is that religion makes no difference.

It often looks very different in the public sphere. "God" or His self-appointed messengers claim a special place "around the table". Paradoxically, these people seem to be especially ignorant of the source of their authority (The Bible), cherry-picking verses to support their position and ignoring the rest. Why is it that they can choose and others can't? It's a matter of interpretation - human judgment. For some reason, this observation is taboo in public discussion, leaving the religious right to claim the "high ground" and speak for a God of their own creation. "Liberal" Christians speak very softly on this issue, for the simple reason that they know that their faith makes them feel good but makes little or no actual difference in how they conduct their lives.  Among Liberal Christians and the pastors who lead them, religion itself is a taboo subject. Nobody wants to be the first to say the emperor has no clothes.

Those of us who have had the good fortune to obtain a solid education in the Bible and the history of the Church have a special role to play in this situation. In theory, we can speak respectfully to those who imagine that "God" has special authority - even over those who don't believe He exists. Like all mythology, Christianity has evolved - sometimes at breakneck speed - but it always seems "eternal" to those who are exposed to it in 5-minute snapshots. We should be able to share "Biblical" concerns for justice, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness that form (or should form) the core of Christianity (or any civilized culture). When hard-core Christians are willing to meet us on these grounds, there is no need to debate theology or be rude about their interpretation of reality.

Whatever this is, we are all in it together!

Assimilation and Atheism 101

Interesting discussion between leading atheists 
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali

A wide-ranging discussion of subtle issues with atheism, including an unusually subtle treatment of why people accept religion - the process of assimilation and the difficulty in freeing people from assimilation.

• Risks associated with criticizing Islam;
• When to take the gloves off - being polite to people who have been indoctrinated;
• Vetting the authorities;
• How liberal kids get assimilated to radical Islam;
• Sam Harris speaks eloquently about the powerful meme of Islam;
• Dawkins doesn't understand that everyone doesn't think like he does;
• Dennett refers to the "narrative arc" in TV shows and movies, which primes a person for assimilation;
• The appeal of Islam to intelligent, liberal women;
• Ali calls Islam a form of madness;
• Dennett compares crime committed for religious reasons with drunk driving
• Harris points out that religious delusion is excluded in DSM 
• Are religious people just lazy;
• Dennett makes the important point that religious people "just go along", they are not intellectuals;
• Harris makes the point that theologians are not lazy. Making sense of religion is hard work;
• Dawkins is unsympathetic - regards believers has having their ears stopped up;
• Harris points out that crazy Christians understand crazy Muslims better than atheists do. Atheists don't take belief seriously;
• Ali points out realization of individual identity as a core challenge to Islam. "Submission to Allah" is basically surrender of individuality;
• Dawkins makes a similar point about the depth and scope of the "bossiness" of religion, far beyond reason. Why do religions make things so hard for believers?
• Dennett points out the parallel between religious hokum and "viral" memes - "infectious stupidity". 
• Dawkins- quotes Chesterton- when people stop believing in religion, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything;
• Harris makes the point that, for example, there is nothing in Science to fill the "Santa Clause Hole";

The discussion is continued without Ayann, adding Christopher Hitchens

• doubt - the idea that doubts are "normal";
• faith - nice discussion of how belief without evidence becomes evidence and a barrier to further evidence;
• Dennett calls it all a "bag of tricks" - cons could be used to sustain anything;
• Harris points out how easy it is for Christians to spot the "bag of tricks" in other religions;
• Theology is like stamp collecting - theologians "take in each other's laundry";
• Dawkins again displays his lack of appreciation of myth;
• Dennett confusing myth with metaphor;
• Harris points out the pride of religious people when they maintain their faith in spite of the "hammer blows" that destroy all its premises;
• Dennett complains that the professionals "know better" but the problem with the flock is that they have ceded authority to the professionals. The buck stops with the professionals. The pastor's job is to know what he's talking about;
• How is scientific authority different from religious authority? Competitiveness, structure of the discipline, predictions, puzzles vs. mysteries, glorification of "mystery";
• giving up the demand for intuitive understanding; 
• religious moves are not allowed in debates. For example, if you say this is just what I believe, you disqualify yourself from the debate;
• Harris: "Is there a single sentence in the Bible or Koran that shows it's not a work of a human author?" If these are not "magic books", Christianity and Islam collapse.