Link seems dead, so here's Google's cache: linkage And again, in case anyone misses it: THIS IS A PARODY SITE
Well of course resistance is reflexive, and more so because the Christian Faith is so embedded and incorporated into modern society(Christian Lobbyists for example.) The problem I find so prevalent today is that everyone generalizes religious followers (and non followers if you will) into two and only two distinctive categories: Zealot Non-beliver/Atheist. There sadly is no middle ground to speak of, and while many may proclaim their faith in their religion is ultimate or they have no faith at all, I have rarely seen anyone who will admit that they sort of believe. So this site attracts pretty much those who are truly zealots, those who are truly anti-religious, and those who are in between but because of the rather small spectrum in modern society are willing to be the former two.
Personally, I sit firmly in the camp of uncertainty. At times, I've leaned toward the idea that nothing exists beyond the material world. But then what I call spiritual empiricism has intervened: some overriding experience or perception, or insight through study, that suggests there is more to existence. I detailed a few of these halting moments in an essay called "On Subjective Evolution," which was published in the San Francisco magazine, Proof, and later reprinted in a collection of shorter pieces (mostly fiction). The idea was to convey my experiences/perceptions at close range rather than speculate about intangibles such as life after death -- not because doing so would be inherently wrong, but because my experiences alone could be verified (subjectively). Such moments might be interpreted credibly by readers as lucid, distorted, universal or insane -- it doesn't really matter. The point was to present them exactly as I observed them. I've also studied numerous religions with an eye to common traits and truths, and gleaned what I could of their virtues and/or flaws. I've also been respectful of the idea that some practitioners don't appreciate their religion's being viewed as a selection of appetisers from which to extract favorite bits. However, I disagree with the idea that one should not talk about one's beliefs. "Shoving beliefs in other people's faces" is to be avoided if that means forcing people to pay attention, or privileging one's beliefs over those of others. But I rather like hearing about people's core convictions, and trying to imagine the circumstances under which I might have come to believe in the same things. It's the same question that fiction writers ask themselves: What would it feel like to be someone else? Not a fanatic or delusional person, as seen outwardly by weary bystanders, but rather a confirmed religious person seen from the inside. What experiences, upbringing and flights of thought could have made an agnostic like me embrace Hinduism, Orthodox Christianity or Islam? How does a deeply religious individual interpret and experience life -- not on paper, but moment by moment? Such questions continue to interest me apart from any political or social pressure, or beliefs I might entertain personally. The trick is to get people to reveal how they think rather than advertise what they endorse.
My main, and probably only qualm with religion are the minority of it's followers that condemn other religions. Other than that it(religion) fascinates me, the whole ideals and such. Of course, I could never bring myself to believe it, which I personally find utterly regrettable, but I can still appreciated it.
My main, and probably only qualm with football are the minority of it's followers that react violently to a challenge from an opposing fan. OK, so that's not my only qualm with football, but you get my point. We can try to ban religion all we want. The problem of course isn't actually religion, it's the fact that we're human. We've been beating each other up since the beginning; by now we've become quite good at coming up with reasons to justify our actions. -monkey
Did somebody say Christianity? DON CUPITT'S NON-REALIST MODEL! /runs (Just kidding, I have read the thread really and it make me laugh )
I don't want to ban religion, that would be impossible. Rather I would love to see a way where religion would not get in the way of actual thinking.
You're confusing the vast majority of religious people with fundamentalists. It is quite possible for people to have faith in any of the various religious flavors and still apply logical thought to the world around them. Fundamentalists aren't really religious, despite their protestations otherwise. I would argue that they are using religion as an excuse to broadcast their hatred or project their closeted homosexuality. -monkey
Just happened to see this post on a thread I thought had died. Funny you should type the name Don Cupitt. While I respect his Nietzschean need to topple the various idols in his past belief-systems and philosophical pantheons, I tend to think his argument works better open-ended -- i.e., without leading to premature conclusions about Christianity, humanism or the rest. None of those evolving positions and wildly encompassing beliefs can be summed as representative of a single tendency. He's smart enough not to do that in passing (since he's quite aware of the evolution of ideas and faiths) but he often does so in toto. However, the thrust of his argument is quite close to what I believe: It's because we're identical to, not apart from, the physics of things that we can't possibly be objective. Attempts to look at life from the outside can be edifying and useful, but will fail in the largest sense because existence is subjective and absolute knowledge, if it exists, is not. I also think his embrace of Searle's biological naturalism should have led him to evolutionary psychology, which would have allowed for his non-realist model and taken away the boolean limitations that still force him to reject rationalism's virtues. Perhaps Cupitt occupies the place in current thought that Carlyle did for the Victorians: A place where lapsed Christians may revel in spiritual principles that are neither compromised nor in conflict with skepticism (because they affirm it instead of refuting it). I tend not to need him myself, but respect those who do. It's no accident he's tried to form his own societies in the past, as did Coleridge and Wordsworth before him. Surely he is a romantic, despite his famous fluctuations and status as a priest. His commitment is awesome, don't you think?
My Irrational Thoughts on Don Cupitt To the Person Who Supplies My Subject Headers: When you have time, please change the above to "My Non-Rational Thoughts on Don Cupitt." Thanks in advance, Prestidig ========================================= Don Cupitt: Thoughts on the Futility of Thought ======================================== To the Person Who Supplies the Titles for My Thoughts on Thought: I realize it's close to the holidays now, what with the silver-bearded chairs, exploding venison loaves, suppurating elf-sofas and so on, but when it's extremely convenient, could you possibly change the above to "Thoughts on Non-Rationalism"? Thanks again, Presti-whoon-whoon-swe-e-e-e-grogan-wha-a-a-a-gh, Esq.
