January 6, 2007

Seems to Me that Mrs. P Ought to Take Her Husband Aside and Explain to Him What a Fool He Is.

Justin Katz

Via ("beautifully put") Andrew Stuttaford, from the Pub Philosopher (emphasis added):

Having a history degree, she also knows that the world could not have been made in 4004 BC and she has studied enough science to know that much of what is written in the Bible cannot possibly be true. ...

We are drawn to religion by our feelings rather than our thoughts. The sense that, for all our clever inventions, there may still be things that humans will never know and the desire to hedge our bets just in case keeps many of us from declaring ourselves to be atheists.

With respect to the phrase I've italicized: has this guy no clue what God's capabilities are supposed to be? Has he no ability to see beyond his modernist filter?

With respect to the second quoted paragraph, I can only say, "uh, no." Mr. Philosopher has apparently not met any of those many converts (usually to Catholicism, to my experience) for whom religion is, above all, an intellectual exercise. (Personally, if I may confess it, here, it is more often my intellect that corrects my feelings toward religion.)

And as for the "hedging bets" thing, what sort of God does this fellow think us to believe in? Apparently one who rewards superficial fealty to Him, rather than frank openness — a strange preference for a God who is reputed to know our every thought.

But I suppose all may be forgiven when one's audience is mainly looking for folksy confirmation of its superiority.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I'm a firm believer that religion is an opiate to the masses created by those in power to subjugate the common people and 'boogey man' them into behaving when nobody was looking.

That being said, I rigorously defend people's right to practice any religion they please and find the current 'separation of church and state' to be an absurd distortion of the text, and intent, of the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at January 6, 2007 7:54 PM

It's edifying to know, Greg, that you believe a majority of Anchor Rising's contributors to be among the opiated masses. Of course, you'd have to step beyond Karl Marx's cliché in order for us to evaluate your beliefs.

Posted by: Justin Katz at January 6, 2007 7:59 PM

In my experience, lots of people think that lots of other people are very dumb, and lack the faculties to properly reason out a usable reality. The problem isn't one idea or another, it's people acting like pricks.

Posted by: Nick at January 7, 2007 2:58 AM

There's nothing wrong with being medicated as long as you realize you are. As long as you can step back and recognize that organized religion has been responsible for most of the worst things that man has ever inflicted upon each other.

The Crusades. All in the name of the Lord. Of course. Who's going to travel 3,000 miles away to kill people they don't know and don't hate in the name of Steve from up the street? The Powers That Be had, and continue to have, a vested interest in making sure you have the "Fear of God" to pacify and incite, as necessary.

Posted by: Greg at January 7, 2007 5:39 PM

First, whenever I hear the religion canard you just brought up, I counter with "So, how religious were the communists?" You know, Stalin and 30 million people and all that.

Second, just because atrocities are done in the name of religion and even at the behest of those identified as religious leaders, doesn't mean that the problem is religion, per se. Rather, the men who committed or promoted violence--no matter the reason--are the ones to blame and who are "responsible".

Now, if you want to say that religion has often been used as an excuse or as a means of legitimization, you're right. But it's just one of many casus belli that have been used throughout history. In a war between two groups, each tries to portray their opponent as "the other" and religion is often the most convenient method that leaders can use to make a distinction between "us" and "them". There were plenty of battles amongst Christians during the Crusades.

Posted by: Marc Comtois at January 8, 2007 9:33 AM

Hey, far be it for me to try to convince you to stray from the sheeple flock. Just don't think I'm less of a person because I don't say "Baaaaaa".

Posted by: Greg at January 8, 2007 9:51 AM
Just don't think I'm less of a person because I don't say "Baaaaaa".

But you do, Greg. It just happens to sound like the Marxist version of "baaaaaa".

Posted by: smmtheory at January 8, 2007 11:49 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.