Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-01-18 06:00
Subject: [religion] Back to pink unicorns, part 2 of 2
Security: Public
Tags:politics, religion
More on religion, politics and me, following this recent post and its rather robust comment thread, as well as part 1 of this post. This is where I want to discuss some of my own errors of thought, and try to establish how I want to redirect both my thinking and my rhetoric accordingly. Absolutely a work-in-progress, not a manifesto or a position statement, and as such subject to all the usual scrutiny, challenge and cross-questioning that goes on around here when I raise these subjects.

It's been difficult for me to approach this, because in a very real sense, I have too much to say. Even trying to focus it down to a re-analysis of my views has been pretty challenging. I've had continued discussions online or in real life with some of the usual suspects, with daveraines and gvdub being especially wise and tolerant of me. scarlettina and I have touched on this several times this week, with her Jewish perspective leaning in yet a different direction.

For reference, though I am a very strong atheist today, I was both heavily churched and Christian-educated (missionary schools in Asia and Africa) in my youth. My own church background is Disciples of Christ, with a strong leavening of Southern Baptist, and some small amount of later Episcopalianism sprinkled on for variety. This means my understanding of religion from the inside, such as it is, stems from a rather specific Evangelical Protestant perspective. Combine that with almost two decades of living in Texas as a nonreligious adult. The state is in some senses is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Southern Baptist Convention (at least so far as Blue Laws, alcoholic beverage rules, political expressions of faith and media coverage go). You can readily perceive my exposures, and my flinch points from that history.

Now, on to a rather lengthy exegesis of my reflections.

My first error of thought: Pink Unicornism, and arguing with the wrong people

kadath, a much stauncher and more militant secularist than I'll ever be on my toughest-minded day, pointed out I was overstretching the pink unicorn argument. She was observing this on ontological grounds, primarily, referring me to Russell's teapot as a more general and sophisticated version of the argument.

In a related vein, scarlettina suggested rather gently in conversation that simply by using the term "pink unicorn", I was essentially and profoundly trivializing the faith of the people with whom I was trying to engage. I believe this same point was made by joshenglish, and several other folks.

My initial response to her was that from an atheist point of view, pink unicorns are no more or less trivial than God, pretty much by definition. That is the whole point of the argument, after all. I asked her how she felt about Zeus as a deity. She responded that while Zeus might be logically equivalent to a pink unicorn, he was also part of an important culture that spanned millennia and spawned much of what has become our modern world.

In other words, no matter what I think of Zeus, either as an article of faith or a nominal entity in his own right, he is an important figure, if nothing else, for purely historical reasons. This cannot be said of pink unicorns.

I make this same error when I engage with blzblack, daveraines or cathshaffer, in talking about pink unicorns. It doesn't matter whether I'm right, I'm trivializing their viewpoint before the discussion can begin. It's the religious equivalent of an ad hominem attack, undermining the possibility of a useful dialog with a person of faith.

I'm picking a fight I don't actually mean to pick. For this, I apologize.

I do not apologize for my opinions. I don't even guarantee not to use the term "pink unicorn" in the future. But I do need to be much more careful and deliberate in how I employ it, because the term loads the conversational dice before they can even be cast. If I want to do that for rhetorical effect, that's one thing. But it is not productive or kind of me to trivialize the faith of others as a foundational protocol of discussion.

This leads to arguing with the wrong people, which is to say, arguing with people of faith who are willing to engage with me, to illuminate my perspective, and allowing me to attempt to illuminate theirs. Again, for this I apologize. I will attempt to remap this rhetoric in a way which engages appropriately, rather than diverting by incidental pettiness.

My second error of thought: Stepping inside the black box

A term which has been tossed around in these threads, I think originating with either daveraines or cathshaffer. Within this context, "black box" is used at least in part as a substitution for "pink unicorn". Referring, as I understand it, to the mental, emotional and spiritual processes of faith.

I have often been critical of specific aspects of faith. The internals, if you will, of the black box. While those arguments can certainly be conducted, and often are among persons of faith, as someone who stands outside the black box of faith, they're not my arguments to make. Or if they are, they need to be within a specific context.

I make this confusion in part because the publicly-branded elements of Christianity as presented in the media and our political sphere actually do map pretty closely to my personal experiences of religion. The same politically conservative, Southern-inflected Evangelical Protestantism that haunted my childhood is what drives Brand Christian in our national discourse. So my responses to things occur both on the political level — where I explicitly mean to respond — and on the level of my own discarded black box of faith and personal experiences, where I don't usually mean to respond.

Another reason I make this confusion is simply sloppy thinking on my own part. As I said a while back:
I stand outside the black box of religion by deliberate self selection. [Your faith] is a private matter that has no effect on me, and is of interest to me only insofar as we are friends. What happens behind the door of your home, church, synagogue, mosque, temple or forest grove is between you, your temporal lobes and your vision of your spirituality.

I meant that very sincerely. I don't always live up to it, especially when I respond somewhat reflexively to what I read and hear in the media.

Once again, I do not apologize for my opinions. And certes, as soon as articles of faith or doctrine enter the public square, for example as rationalization for a political stance, they do become fair game for comment. But faith in its own right is a separate topic, and one that if I'm going to criticize from inside the black box I need to do so by following the appropriate rules.

My third error of thought: Confusing the unified Brand Christian as a political and social entity with the wide diversity of Christian thought, faith and action

Some of the usual suspects have made some very cogent remarks on this exact topic. Especially daveraines, who as a UMC pastor has perhaps the most direct and painful experience with this issue among the group of folks who've been willing to hang in here and spar with me a bit.

Again, this is sloppy thinking on my part, because I really do know the difference between Christianity as an American political and media institution, and Christianity the religion. Except for the limited basis as noted above, I won't pretend to know Christianity from the inside, but I'm quite reasonably aware of Church history and the modern diversity of sects. I know what the Reformation was about, I know who John Calvin was, I know who John Wesley was, hell, I know who Menno Simons was. And that's me being heavily Western-centric. There's the whole constellation of Orthodox Christianity, not to mention the Irish Church, the Coptic Church, Maronites, and surely dozens of threads I'm unaware of. Christianity is about as monolithic as a box of random glass beads, and no less colorful and varied.

But the American political and media institution of Christianity, the public face of Brand Christian, is inextricable tied to that same politically conservative, Southern-inflected Evangelical Protestantism that in part birthed me. This is the Christianity of Billy Graham, the Moral Majority, Operation Rescue, Pat Robertson, televangelism, and the Republican Party. And because the people involved in this are smart operators, they always refer to themselves as Christians, and speak with the confidence that they represent the entire American community of faith. They're treated as if they do in the news media, in politics, and most specifically within the Republican Party.

This is a huge branding problem for Christians who may be apolitical, socially moderate or liberal-progressive. It's a branding problem that many of us outside the community of faith tend to reject. Why should we bother to make the distinction about a house you guys can't keep in order in the first place, after all?

I make this mistake a lot. It's unfair of me, assuming I want to engage people of faith. And given that I seek reasonable political solutions within a democratic framework, I have to be willing to engage people of faith. Otherwise I'm just another militant atheist shouting into the wind. Bluntly, my guys will never have the votes, so at a minimum, out of naked self-interest I must coalition with my moderate and progressive Christian friends.

In order to do that, I need to be able to make the distinction.

Per a comment by daveraines asking how that distinction might be effected, for now I am experimenting with using the adjective "Christianist" to refer to the political Brand Christian. Dipping into the black box a moment, I don't see much of the Gospel, or agape, or Christian virtue, in many of the political questions that get hammered by the Christianists. I don't want to give them the credibility of the Christian tradition when I refer to them. The term "Christianist" implies (at least to me) the trappings of piety without the substance, which is pretty much exactly what Brand Christian looks and smells like. So I'm shifting my vocabulary for now. We'll see how it goes.

And in the mean time, maybe I'll also succeed in being less confusing, and not condemning with blanket labels. I didn't create this branding problem, but in my own small way, I might help solve it.

(Note: To be fair, I recognize that atheism suffers from a similar branding issue. One I am just as powerless to alter. A topic for another time, but a real factor in many discussions.)

My fourth error of thought: Not believing faith is real

This is one I am not proud of, but it's significant. I'll probably never shed it. That means I'll need to work harder to compensate.

Basically, since I left my early churching, I've never really been able to believe, at a gut check level, that faith is real to anyone. I'm such a thoroughgoing secularist that the professions of faith seem too improbable to me to be taken seriously by any intelligent person. At the back of my mind, I default to an assumption that any person of faith is either credulous fool or in on the carnie scam. There's not much about Christianism, especially televangelism, to dissuade me from this view, frankly, so it's easy for me to reinforce this thinking in myself on a regular basis through confirmation bias.

The point is, per my comment about the black box above, I cannot know the sincerity of anyone's faith. If I want to engage in dialog with persons of faith, if I want to effect political changes by negotiation with people who have a faith-based position, I simply cannot allow myself to think of them as fools, even in the sly spaces of my secret heart.

Let me be clear. I don't hold faith. I truly, at a basic level, don't understand how anyone else can hold faith. But if I believe what I said above, that your faith is your business, then this is not my judgment to make. And if I believe that I want and need to engage with persons of faith, then this is not a judgment I have any right to make. And if I believe in the value of logos and mythos harnessed together, as I explain below, then I'm simply wrong to make this judgment.

When I make this particular error of thought, I violate my own principles, and I commit the same sort of judgment that drives me so crazy when I see it emanating from Christianists.

And this one's wired deep in me. It's not a cherished conviction or a strong opinion, it's a low-level gut check. I'm an adult, intelligent human being, I can choose not to listen to that gut check. But what I need to do is maintain more mindfulness to that tendency of mine, and eschew it consciously.

That's as far as I've come on the errors of thought. Surely there's more to say, but I've already burned far too much wordage on this.

I'd also like to spend a little time on (hopefully) positive statements about faith, religion and public life, stemming from these same recent assessments of my beliefs and writings.

My first assertion: That faith is real, valuable and important

Without stepping back inside the black box, I want to spell out that I think faith is real, valuable and important. That is to say, while remaining silent on the question of the existence of God, or the objective validity of any other faith, I recognize the power faith has in society and the individual, and the value it can bring to those who hold it.

We are not rational animals. People have to be taught very carefully to reason, and it took most of human history to invent the logic chain. We do not perceive the world through an inherently rational lens, and our own emotional and mental processes are not driven by rationality, again with the exception of careful training.

In that context, I don't think it's reasonable or prudent to expect people to view life on a purely rational basis. Speaking explicitly from outside the black box, to me the apparent value of faith is that it can give people a framework to process those perceptions, emotions and intuitions with which we are all flooded. When its working properly, with that framework of faith one usually acquires a moral code, some ethics, and a social framework — things generally viewed as good by society.

Even more to the point, as a writer, I would be the last to deny the power of the hidden truth, the altered perception, the secrets that the wind whispers to the night-bound trees. What for me are wellsprings of inspiration are just as likely the wellsprings of faith for another.

All of which is to say, I want to say that even though I don't understand, and overdoubt its sincerity, I have to believe that faith is real, valuable and important. The alternative is conclude that the majority of my fellow citizens and the plurality of my friends and co-workers are to a woman and man of poor intellectual rigor who have been taken in by a giant series of carnie scams. And though I sometimes speak as if I think that, I'm not willing to sign up to the proposition.

My second assertion: The critical importance of balancing logos and mythos

Logos is the empirical world, the logical truths, that which can be measured, distilled, analyzed. Mythos is the dreamtime, the realm of the spirit and the subconscious, that which is alogical, even atemporal. One way to think about logos and mythos in in terms of the Apollonian-Dyonisian dialectic. Mr. Spock is the apotheosis of Apollonian culture in American popular media, and he is paired with the Dyonisian avatar that is James T. Kirk. (See here for a bit more. I don't entirely agree with the analysis, but it covers the bases.) Modern, Western culture has emphasized mythos to the significant expense of logos in many of our core social, economic and political institutions; and to some degree for good reasons. Mythos can't file a flight plan or develop new antibiotics, for example, nor can it solve for the value of pi. On the other hand, the human mind cannot live by logos alone.

As I've been thinking through this topic of late, I increasingly have come to conclude that this issue lies at the heart of the argument I'm actually trying to conduct in my public discourse. I myself have often lost track of it along the way, in the process of indulging in the various errors of thought outlined above.

In a nutshell, we have a problem in modern, colloquial English. The word "truth" is used indiscriminately to refer to demonstrable assertions and objective facts on the one hand, and articles of faith on the other hand. A critical distinction between empirical reality and the longings of the spirit, logos and mythos, has been swept away for many, especially Christianists among whom the search for moral certitude stereotypically trumps any tolerance for ambiguity.

This confusion is the root of my statement, "Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it's true." Except my statement misleads, because I myself am collapsing logos and mythos when I do this.

The reality is that world is ambiguous. Not at a metrics layer, where an angstrom is an angstrom and a UTC second is a UTC second, but within the realm of human experience. Our minds are complex, requiring both logos and mythos to feed our inner lives. I am a raging atheist, but I find my mythos in writing and reading. (I once told daveraines that most of my fiction was an argument with the God I don't believe in.) I suspect that even the strong atheists like Dawkins and Myers get their mythos fix somewhere.

We as a culture need to maintain the distinction, while also honoring a balance between these two forces. I as a person need to do this. A collective understanding of how matters of mythos inflect logos, and how matters of logos inflect mythos would render irrelevant much of what drives me to distraction about religion in politics. The entire societal argument about the teaching of evolution, for example, is nothing but a confusion of logos and mythos.

Fitting it all together

I can't even begin to say how I'll fit all this together going forward. I'm trying to adapt my thinking to my real goals — better decision making in the public square and the political sphere, and specifically decision making that's rooted in rational analysis and policy discussion rather than Christianists myths and false certitude.

I continue see the world the way I do — via a profoundly empirical view — but I'm not out to deconvert anyone from their faith. I am out to urge people of all faiths and perspectives to see the world as it is, understand and acknowledge the consequences of their own beliefs, and work together to mutual improvement instead of the mutual detriment that Christianism (not to mention the worst excesses of other faiths) drives us toward like Garadene swine running screaming into the sea.

It's not like I've got much else on my plate.

Post A Comment | 30 Comments | | Flag | Link

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Laura Anne Gilman
User: suricattus
Date: 2010-01-18 14:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
It doesn't matter whether I'm right, I'm trivializing their viewpoint before the discussion can begin

And with that admission, you've brought me, at least, back into the discussion. Even though I agreed with many of your points, I was having a "wow, arrogant much?" reaction to many of your posts that made me leave without reading further. I suspect I wasn't alone in this.

So, thank you.

*continues reading*
Reply | Thread | Link

barry_king: Awww
User: barry_king
Date: 2010-01-18 14:38 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Hi, you don't know me, but I've been following your 'blog for a short while now. Good luck with your chemo. We're rooting for you and hope it treats you with some degree of gentleness.

A lot of these errors of thought, as you call them, I'm noticing can also be seen as matters of limited perspective. You cannot know what is in the black box, for example, yet the black box is an actual thing in your life, if an intangible one, and effects you through indirect means: laws, opinions, actions of strangers, etc. It's not "lack of data" but "unknowable items".

It's basic logic that unknowable assertions render the entire logical process null, so they cannot be incorporated logically into a world-view, nor can they be ignored. Faced with this choice, I'm not sure what you're describing is really a denial of the assertion of the existence of God, but an affirmation of the unknowability, and a statement of faith in empirical evidence and the scientific method. Am I mischaracterizing the drift of your assertions?

I haven't read all the discussion, but I assume somebody mentioned Gödel and the logical limits of systems of knowledge, beyond which faith in Occam's razor is not different from, say, faith in the Beard-in-the-Sky. It's not a bad faith; it's served us well in many ways. And in many ways taken us to the limits of moral depravity—Like all faiths tend to do the more they acquire history.

So I wonder if many of the complications are in the separation of the thing I am guessing you share (i.e. faith in SOMETHING) with most of your fellow sapients with their right to assume you share the same form of faith. In short, your quibble seems to be with the arrogance of the ignorant. Is that germane to this thread?
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-18 14:46 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
In short, your quibble seems to be with the arrogance of the ignorant. Is that germane to this thread?

In a word, yes. And thank you.

(To be belabor the obvious, the point of this particular post is to try to deal with some of my own ignorant arrogance.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: mevennen
Date: 2010-01-18 15:05 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I can see why you think faith isn't real, because it does not make a lot of sense from a rational perspective.

I would, in fact, prefer not to be a deist, but the force of reason is not strong enough from an emotional point of view to bring me out of deism and into atheism. This may be a psychological or neurological quirk: I don't know. As it is, I think the case for not holding a faith is more compelling than the opposite, and yet I continue to believe. This is not an issue of comfort unless one holds the view that holding an uncomfortable position is of some value, albeit neurotic. I don't find my religion a comfortable one: the opposite, in fact. I doubt any Christian can look at Haiti and find it easy to maintain that the Christian god is a loving one; acknowledging Baron Samedi as a possible factor is theologically easier but hardly reassuring.

Given that my doctorate is in epistemology, I don't think that the 'intellectual rigour' argument holds water in my own case, and I am sure that it doesn't in the case of many people. Arguing from reason is useless when it comes to faith, in either direction. Thus one reaches an impasse, relying either on psychological explanations, or empirical ones which may be entirely subjective (and likely, are).

Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-18 15:08 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Well put. Your last bit, "Arguing from reason is useless when it comes to faith, in either direction. Thus one reaches an impasse, relying either on psychological explanations, or empirical ones which may be entirely subjective (and likely, are)" points back to what I'm reaching by talking about logos and mythos. I'm starting to think that more effort at integrating the two (for they are fundamentally irreconcilable) would be a very good thing for me personally, and for the culture as a whole.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand

User: chris_gerrib
Date: 2010-01-18 15:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've been lurking on this thread for a while. As a (somewhat out of practice) Roman Catholic, I find the Evangelical / political strain of Christianity very irritating. (At times I've felt like a moderate Muslim trying to defend his faith from somebody who thinks all Muslims are Underwear Bombers.)

I would suggest that "Brand Christian" better describes the Evangelical / political type of Christianity. Because, it is a brand, and very corporate. The televangelists especially are creating companies, de facto for profit no less, to accomplish their goals.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: etcet
Date: 2010-01-18 15:32 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've seein "Christanist" employed previously elsewhere, for exactly the same effect Jay is reacing for - the sense of "you people are being assholes in the name of your professed religion, not practicing it" (see also: islamist, jihadist, etc).

I personally think it's important to cast aspersions on this kind of thing, and wish there was a much louder public denunciation of it from more moderate faith-holders, especially here in the US. I've lost count of the number of personal acquaintences who say "Pat Robertson is a fucking jackass, and doesn't speak for me," but I have yet to see ONE person of political prominence say likewise.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand

User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-01-18 17:11 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Jay--I share some of the painful background stuff you've mentioned, in that my Christian roots include the Disciples of Christ/Southern fundamentalist background. Hell, I went to a Disciples college for two years (Northwest Christian College, now Northwest Christian University), and the tension between the intellectual (which was very strong and good) and the emotional/drink the Kool-Aid/political elements was extremely strong. My very rational Old Testament professor ended up having to spend hours of class time arguing rigorously for a figurative interpretation of Genesis with backwoods wannabe preachers who insisted it had to be literal. But the OT prof held to the finest standards of Higher Criticism (I am not not not gonna try to spell it in the correct German term, it's been years and daveraines probably can provide it here) and held firm.

I now realize I was present for a significant part of the founding of the Christianist agenda and organizational politics, and if I go back and crossreference my yearbook from those two years, I'll probably find out that I once upon a time had personal friendships going with some of the Dominionist leaders. I will say that this experience had me running away from faith and church life for many years, and I still have issues going into a Disciples-type church today, even for a major life ritual. Your standard, run-of-the-mill conservative Catholic church lacks the triggery issues that come up for me in even a liberal Disciples setting. So yeah, I can understand your reaction--except, for me, the faith issues are a gut check and I've gotta have that mythos in my life.

More on this over at my place. I've been thinking on a response, and it's almost ready to be written.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2010-01-18 18:34 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Wow, what a post. Either chemo hasn't degraded your thinking ability or else you started with watts to burn.

Can't respond in detail yet (I think slowly) but a few random notes:

- I like "Christianist" but I love "Brand Christian" and may start using it as appropriate.

- I'm going to have to play with the specific terms "logos" and "mythos." I understand, I think, how you're using them, but will have to play with the Gospel of John's beginning: "the *logos* became flesh and dwelt among us."

- who the hell is Menno Simons? (All you Mennonites: kidding! kidding!)

I will come back to this post, I hope adopting some measure of your intellectual humility (though probably not, alas).
Reply | Thread | Link

User: daveraines
Date: 2010-01-18 19:01 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
This was me.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Josh English
User: joshenglish
Date: 2010-01-19 01:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Religion is culture and community centered around commonn belief, yes. I'm not sure I ever thought of it that way before, but that's really what it is.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
User: swan_tower
Date: 2010-01-18 20:05 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Props to you for this -- taking a cold hard look at your errors, acknowledging them, and vowing to try harder. That's something precious few people are capable of doing, or even willing to attempt.

Beyond that, I don't have much to say, so I'll just comment on terminology: I personally like the use of "Christianist" to distinguish the politicized branch of religion from the broader community it claims to speak for. We need some kind of distinction between the two, and that one is both established and easy to grasp.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: anghara
Date: 2010-01-18 20:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Another great post, Jay, much to think about - and I oh-so-absolutely agree with your Christian-as-politician "Brand Christian" label and all that it stands for. I don't know that it exists, in this particular form, anywhere outside the good old U S of A.

I'm not setting myself as an expert or anything, and I'm certainly not one of the card-carrying "faithful", but the Orthodox church is my own bailiwick and my own back yard and I do know some few things about it... willing to answer such questions as I can if anyone cares to ask any.

In the meantime, well done, sir. Even with the pink unicorns safely coralled, well done, sir.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: gvdub
Date: 2010-01-18 20:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I appreciate the thought that you've been willing to put into this while dealing with other, far more immediate and pressing issues.

Many mainstream Christians (and certainly all purchasers of Brand Christian) would probably not think of me as a Christian, since my own process of discernment has led me to believe that what's important is that I follow as best I can the teachings of Jesus the rabbi regarding how to approach the world, while leaving the questions of salvation and redemption hanging (Hey, if I spend my life trying to be as good a human being as I can manage, then end up shoveling flaming crap for all eternity because I didn't do it quite the right way? Well, that's the breaks. I think it's more important to try and make the world a better place now). Than again, Friends (Quakers) have always hewed far closer to a Gnostic/mystical approach of direct experience rather than the ritual/liturgical one of most other Christian traditions.

Empiricism and faith are not mutually exclusive, in my mind. I have had the empirical experience of being compelled (and by that, I'm not referring to any external compulsion, but an insistence from what Friends refer to as "that still, small voice within") to stand and share a message at meeting. As a musician, I have frequently had the experience of being 'played through'. Both have been direct, very specifically physical experiences. I'm sure that somebody can come up with some perfectly good, ex post facto rationalist explanation for all of that, but they weren't there. I was. Besides, if we're all holographic projections of 2-dimensional data floating on the event horizon of the universe, the Buddhists were right and it's all Maya, anyway.
Reply | Thread | Link

Michael Curry: brutal
User: mcurry
Date: 2010-01-18 20:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think you may have used the term "Christianist" for awhile once before, and I think that or "Brand Christian" are both much better markers for what your target usually is than just using "Christian."

As for the rest of it, lots of interesting thoughts in there, and, as an atheist myself, I appreciate you taking the time to write out all of this, some of which has got me thinking about a few things.
Reply | Thread | Link

Laurel Amberdine: angels
User: amberdine
Date: 2010-01-18 21:33 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I appreciate this very much.

Over the years I've friended/unfriended you numerous times, because I couldn't take what felt like a personal slap occasionally appearing among my friendslist posts. Eventually I gave up and switched to manually typing the URL to check on you. It'll be nice to be able to more easily reconcile the kind, thoughtful person I think you are with what you appear to be saying.

If you are interested, I'd be happy to attempt to explain the contents of my personal black box of faith, from the perspective of a raised-atheist, highly-skeptical, science-loving Catholic convert.

And I think Christianist is a great term.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: e_bourne
Date: 2010-01-19 00:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The "buddy" theme of Logos and Mythos is as old as time. Men gravitate to the tale of opposites. Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Arthur and Lancelot. Felix and Oscar. Jack and Tyler Durden. Spock and Kirk. The list goes on forever. Now they're calling them "bromance" but it's still the same. The meeting and reconciling of male opposites. Enkidu the wild man and Gilgamesh the logical god.

What need it meets I don't know.
Reply | Thread | Link

Josh English
User: joshenglish
Date: 2010-01-19 01:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Let me be clear. I don't hold faith. I truly, at a basic level, don't understand how anyone else can hold faith.

This is a failure of imagination that I suffer from, cast in a different "how can anyone...". For me, it is how can anyone vote for republicans?

As for the word "truth," religion suffers from missing an important point. Truth (capitol T) was the purview of the religious leaders. When scientists started looked at things outside of the religious view that could dismiss their questions, they had to redefine the word "true."

Fundamentalism arose when the literalists encountered this new definition of "truth." They took the scientists' definition, then screwed with the axioms of science so they could claim the Bible is True.

Anyway, I am once again impressed with your ability to take these discussions and personal thoughts and make them understandable.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: cathshaffer
Date: 2010-01-19 01:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Thank you for this, Jay. I am impressed and deeply moved, and also intrigued. It would take quite a lot to unpack everything that you have said here, but I will say I agree strongly with your thoughts on logos and mythos. It is also helpful to me to understand that you believed, deep down, that people of faith were somehow faking it. It may help me in the future to understand the writings of other atheist/liberal/secularists. I had always taken it as a given that in these kinds of discussions, everyone accepted and understood that everyone else's beliefs and perspective were sincere.

It has occurred to me recently that this kind of dialog is possibly the most important thing that can happen in western civilization today. It is no longer possible to live in isolated cultural groups. We *must* learn how to live together in multicultural societies. When you think about it, mainstream, consensus american culture does not have much to recommend it--excess consumption, mcdonalds, being selfish and entitled and obnoxious. It is in our subcultures and regional cultures that we shine, and if putting up with the crazy voodoo priestesses means we get to have mardi gras, beignets, and jazz, that seems like a pretty good deal. It's important to remember that politics and policy are not about who is right--it's about how to help people get along with each other and live in peace.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: sheelangig
Date: 2010-01-19 05:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
"It's important to remember that politics and policy are not about who is right -- it's about how to help people get along with each other and live in peach."

This. Most definitively this.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link | Expand

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances