If everyone preferred that it happened, wouldn’t it still be wrong?
How do you define "wrong"? How do you determine it? If it's possible for something to be "wrong" when everyone including you thinks it's right, then how can you have any confidence in any of your own moral judgments?
I think it's something of a prerequisite for posting in a public forum like this, even under a pseudonym. But I'm assuming there are plenty of lurkers here -- should the mascot be expected to represent them as well?
Yeah, as I was typing that, I was already realizing that it didn't really fit what you described, but I couldn't stop my momentum at that point. I'll check out Mr. Wilber - thanks for the reference.
Shazbot, it's like the folks here are gathered around the table playing Apples to Apples, and you're a chess player who's stumbled onto the wrong table, and Kyle has just decided that the best match for "bathmat" is "Elvis Impersonator", and you're insisting that unless he provides a 15-step deductive proof conclusively demonstrating that this is indeed the the best match, he should withdraw his ridiculous decision.
It's OK that you'd rather play chess than Apples to Apples, but it's also OK that other people prefer the latter. If you'd rather play chess, perhaps you should find a table where chess is being played.
Not to take you away from your paper, but have you seen Scott Peck's four stages of faith? It may not exactly describe your progression, but it sounds similar, perhaps, roughly...? I think much of the debate here is between Stage III-ish people and Stage IV-ish people.
Religious language doesn’t always translate well into secular language If a language doesn’t and can’t translate into others’ language, it is meaningless.
The language that Kyle's using here is understandable to those who have the requisite background and experience -- he's not talking about a private language.
Have you ever tried to explain what romantic love feels like to someone who has never experienced it? I think that's the sort of difficulty that Kyle's talking about.
That kind of social stigma and ostracizing is exactly what works on a segment of the population
"Works" in what way? Which segment? It certainly can be effective in getting people to keep their opinions hidden. Perhaps that's an effective long-term strategy, but I think you have to make the argument for it rather than take it for granted.
I think you're being wildly uncharitable to him. He feels that in the long run, more and better progress will be made by calmly engaging with people like Broussard and giving them some space to adjust than by yelling at them and teaching them to just keep their thoughts to themselves -- the latter tactic is more likely to harden their views than change them. Maybe he's wrong, but he's not obviously wrong.
But isn't Matt Welch just criticizing the criticizers the same way they're criticizing Broussard? In what way is he calling for censorship any more than they are?
Typical Sunday School stuff -- the curriculum was based around the lectionary texts each week. Read the passage, have a little discussion, do some sort of activity/game/craft, have a snack. I had 2nd, 3rd & 4th graders.
It wasn't really a problem for me -- it was just like telling stories, and since ours is a theologically (not to mention politically) liberal church, it's not like I had to insist that every story in the Bible is literally true (and the kids never asked about historical accuracy). And I'm fine talking about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit with an internal sense that they're personifications of perfect love, compassion, and wisdom.
My bigger problem was that the provided curriculum was kind of boring, and to be a good teacher would've required putting in several hours of preparation each week instead of just skimming through the material 15 minutes before the class started. Plus my co-teacher and I weren't big on discipline, and it was a little painful to see the occasional parent visitor try to hide his/her dismay at the sight of the kids sitting on or under the tables, scribbling on the whiteboard, crashing toy cars into each other, etc., instead of sitting obediently in their seats.
You're insisting on looking for simple binaries and bright-line definitions in what's really a complex continuum that you have no direct experience of. Terms having to do with group membership have no irreducible, essential definition, except in those cases where some person or organization has the explicit power to grant or withhold the membership.
People become part of religious communities for a wide variety of reasons. Between and even within congregations there's substantial diversity about the nature of God and what the truth-claims of the given religion really mean. And at any moment among a given congregation, there's a wide variety in the level of faith in those claims even to the extent that there's a common understanding of them. Sermons on doubt, and on what faith means in the 21st century, are staples from many pulpits. Your hypo doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it does, because you're excluding a vast middle ground.
Well, I should have said "I think of myself as Christian" -- I also rarely get asked. And now that you mention it, I'd be quicker to identify myself by denomination than just by "Christian", and perhaps I put a mental asterisk at the end.
But really, I think it's a fair label. IMO being a Christian has much more to do with community, empathy, humility, and service than with abstract beliefs about the ontological status of God. Not that I'm any good at those things, but the aspiration is there.
Oh, I meant to add -- and I call myself a Christian. Would you not? I'm sure fundamentalists would deny me that label, and I'd understand where they're coming from even though I disagree, but it would be a little odd for an atheist to say that with any sense of authority.
If you thought it was all lies and falsity, but you practiced Catholic practices (even though you believed you shouldn’t) you wouldn’t really be a Catholic, right?
I (with my family) have been a member of a particular protestant church for about 20 years now. I'm there almost every Sunday, I've taught Sunday School, I've served in leadership roles, I sing in the choir. I also don't believe in the existence of God, except perhaps as a metaphor. My pastors are aware of this and aren't particularly bothered by it, and I'm not the only one in this category at my church (although we certainly have plenty of members with more traditional beliefs). I find church life to be immensely rewarding -- the actual metaphysical stuff is really only a very small part of the overall experience, and anyway a lot of the liturgy reads just as well metaphorically as literally.
I'm not sure if that was meant as snark, but I actually think it would be an interesting exercise -- take a big municipality and see if we can get a list of *all* the sanitation regulations for restaurants, along with the perceived benefits and the costs in compliance and monitoring for each one. That's the level that a serious discussion of regulations should take place, not the typical "they're important!" "they kill businesses!" slapfight.
1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
As I recall, the Buddha gave one of his lovingkindness meditations to his monks as a way for them to ward off their fear of the spirits in the forest they were in.
Re the parenthetical in #3: from (a little) experience and (more) hearsay, they're not so bad, as long as you don't just assume that they speak English (which, sadly, I witnessed Americans doing on more than one occasion).
The Great Vowel Shift, to linguistics grad students better known as the Great Vowel Movement. It applied only to long vowels, and one common way that vowels became long in Middle English was from the loss of final "e" and the compensatory lengthening of the previous syllable -- so the loss of "e" pre-dated the vowel shift.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Self Criticism!”
How do you define "wrong"? How do you determine it? If it's possible for something to be "wrong" when everyone including you thinks it's right, then how can you have any confidence in any of your own moral judgments?
On “Thursday Night Bar Fight #9: Furries Unite!”
Is it just me, or is there a lot of pride here?
I think it's something of a prerequisite for posting in a public forum like this, even under a pseudonym. But I'm assuming there are plenty of lurkers here -- should the mascot be expected to represent them as well?
On “The Two Extremes of the Gun Debate”
PEG had an interesting post on this topic a few months ago.
On “Questioning Faith”
No problem, glad you liked it. I don't know if his opinion is supported by any research, but the categories make sense to me.
"
Yeah, as I was typing that, I was already realizing that it didn't really fit what you described, but I couldn't stop my momentum at that point. I'll check out Mr. Wilber - thanks for the reference.
"
Shazbot, it's like the folks here are gathered around the table playing Apples to Apples, and you're a chess player who's stumbled onto the wrong table, and Kyle has just decided that the best match for "bathmat" is "Elvis Impersonator", and you're insisting that unless he provides a 15-step deductive proof conclusively demonstrating that this is indeed the the best match, he should withdraw his ridiculous decision.
It's OK that you'd rather play chess than Apples to Apples, but it's also OK that other people prefer the latter. If you'd rather play chess, perhaps you should find a table where chess is being played.
"
Not to take you away from your paper, but have you seen Scott Peck's four stages of faith? It may not exactly describe your progression, but it sounds similar, perhaps, roughly...? I think much of the debate here is between Stage III-ish people and Stage IV-ish people.
"
Religious language doesn’t always translate well into secular language
If a language doesn’t and can’t translate into others’ language, it is meaningless.
The language that Kyle's using here is understandable to those who have the requisite background and experience -- he's not talking about a private language.
Have you ever tried to explain what romantic love feels like to someone who has never experienced it? I think that's the sort of difficulty that Kyle's talking about.
On “Collins Comes Out”
Well, if the topic is Welch or Reason rather than this particular article then I'll happily bow out -- I don't care about them one way or the other.
"
That kind of social stigma and ostracizing is exactly what works on a segment of the population
"Works" in what way? Which segment? It certainly can be effective in getting people to keep their opinions hidden. Perhaps that's an effective long-term strategy, but I think you have to make the argument for it rather than take it for granted.
"
I think you're being wildly uncharitable to him. He feels that in the long run, more and better progress will be made by calmly engaging with people like Broussard and giving them some space to adjust than by yelling at them and teaching them to just keep their thoughts to themselves -- the latter tactic is more likely to harden their views than change them. Maybe he's wrong, but he's not obviously wrong.
"
But isn't Matt Welch just criticizing the criticizers the same way they're criticizing Broussard? In what way is he calling for censorship any more than they are?
On “Should I Desire That You All Follow My Religion?”
Typical Sunday School stuff -- the curriculum was based around the lectionary texts each week. Read the passage, have a little discussion, do some sort of activity/game/craft, have a snack. I had 2nd, 3rd & 4th graders.
It wasn't really a problem for me -- it was just like telling stories, and since ours is a theologically (not to mention politically) liberal church, it's not like I had to insist that every story in the Bible is literally true (and the kids never asked about historical accuracy). And I'm fine talking about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit with an internal sense that they're personifications of perfect love, compassion, and wisdom.
My bigger problem was that the provided curriculum was kind of boring, and to be a good teacher would've required putting in several hours of preparation each week instead of just skimming through the material 15 minutes before the class started. Plus my co-teacher and I weren't big on discipline, and it was a little painful to see the occasional parent visitor try to hide his/her dismay at the sight of the kids sitting on or under the tables, scribbling on the whiteboard, crashing toy cars into each other, etc., instead of sitting obediently in their seats.
On “The Curious Martyrdom of Tim Tebow”
IIRC, a few teams were considering picking him up if he was willing to play TE, but he said no.
On “Should I Desire That You All Follow My Religion?”
You're insisting on looking for simple binaries and bright-line definitions in what's really a complex continuum that you have no direct experience of. Terms having to do with group membership have no irreducible, essential definition, except in those cases where some person or organization has the explicit power to grant or withhold the membership.
People become part of religious communities for a wide variety of reasons. Between and even within congregations there's substantial diversity about the nature of God and what the truth-claims of the given religion really mean. And at any moment among a given congregation, there's a wide variety in the level of faith in those claims even to the extent that there's a common understanding of them. Sermons on doubt, and on what faith means in the 21st century, are staples from many pulpits. Your hypo doesn't prove nearly as much as you think it does, because you're excluding a vast middle ground.
"
Dude, wtf?
"The Boy Scouts are mostly about camping, camaraderie, and leadership".
"So is everyone who lives a life filled with camping, camaraderie, and leadership a Boy Scout?"
"
Well, I should have said "I think of myself as Christian" -- I also rarely get asked. And now that you mention it, I'd be quicker to identify myself by denomination than just by "Christian", and perhaps I put a mental asterisk at the end.
But really, I think it's a fair label. IMO being a Christian has much more to do with community, empathy, humility, and service than with abstract beliefs about the ontological status of God. Not that I'm any good at those things, but the aspiration is there.
"
Oh, I meant to add -- and I call myself a Christian. Would you not? I'm sure fundamentalists would deny me that label, and I'd understand where they're coming from even though I disagree, but it would be a little odd for an atheist to say that with any sense of authority.
"
If you thought it was all lies and falsity, but you practiced Catholic practices (even though you believed you shouldn’t) you wouldn’t really be a Catholic, right?
I (with my family) have been a member of a particular protestant church for about 20 years now. I'm there almost every Sunday, I've taught Sunday School, I've served in leadership roles, I sing in the choir. I also don't believe in the existence of God, except perhaps as a metaphor. My pastors are aware of this and aren't particularly bothered by it, and I'm not the only one in this category at my church (although we certainly have plenty of members with more traditional beliefs). I find church life to be immensely rewarding -- the actual metaphysical stuff is really only a very small part of the overall experience, and anyway a lot of the liturgy reads just as well metaphorically as literally.
On “Dr. Frankenstein Crafts a New Party”
Yeah, we'd avoid a lot of excessive comments if Shaz and Michael would just respond with "99" whenever they don't understand a Jaybird comment.
"
I'm not sure if that was meant as snark, but I actually think it would be an interesting exercise -- take a big municipality and see if we can get a list of *all* the sanitation regulations for restaurants, along with the perceived benefits and the costs in compliance and monitoring for each one. That's the level that a serious discussion of regulations should take place, not the typical "they're important!" "they kill businesses!" slapfight.
On “Redefining Limits: The Hidden Value of Hard”
Some religious parallels to the opposite of fear:
1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
As I recall, the Buddha gave one of his lovingkindness meditations to his monks as a way for them to ward off their fear of the spirits in the forest they were in.
On “Vive La France!”
Re the parenthetical in #3: from (a little) experience and (more) hearsay, they're not so bad, as long as you don't just assume that they speak English (which, sadly, I witnessed Americans doing on more than one occasion).
On “How Does Pat Cahalan Become Pat Callahan?”
"A language is a dialect with an army & navy."
"
The Great Vowel Shift, to linguistics grad students better known as the Great Vowel Movement. It applied only to long vowels, and one common way that vowels became long in Middle English was from the loss of final "e" and the compensatory lengthening of the previous syllable -- so the loss of "e" pre-dated the vowel shift.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.