Moderates sheltering fundamentalists

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,
What, exactly, does Dawkins mean by "sheltering" fundamentalists?

[/ QUOTE ]Pat Robertson.

[Matt R.]

I always thought Pat Robertson was a fundamentalist.

What I'm getting at, and wondering, is how does a religious moderate (say, a non-dogmatic religious person) "shelter" a fundamentalist. I'm having trouble figuring out what he could possibly mean by shelter. I'm non-dogmatic (and moderate, I think) but definitely religious, and I don't see how the word "shelter" could be applied to what I'm doing for fundamentalists.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought Pat Robertson was a fundamentalist.

What I'm getting at, and wondering, is how does a religious moderate (say, a non-dogmatic religious person) "shelter" a fundamentalist. I'm having trouble figuring out what he could possibly mean by shelter. I'm non-dogmatic (and moderate, I think) but definitely religious, and I don't see how the word "shelter" could be applied to what I'm doing for fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]When you get upset when someone questions your faith, by calling you stupid, or what ever method they choose. When you can't defend your belief rationally. If gives other idiots the ability to say insane things without repremands. Faith, doesn't hold up well to skeptisism. If you believe that allowing you faith be immune to skeptic thought doesn't help others ricockulous beliefs be immune, I will attemp to explain that. I hope you see the similarity, and "sheltering".

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
I always thought Pat Robertson was a fundamentalist.

What I'm getting at, and wondering, is how does a religious moderate (say, a non-dogmatic religious person) "shelter" a fundamentalist. I'm having trouble figuring out what he could possibly mean by shelter. I'm non-dogmatic (and moderate, I think) but definitely religious, and I don't see how the word "shelter" could be applied to what I'm doing for fundamentalists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be offended if I said that Pat Robertson's proclaimed revelations from God show what a dumb ass he is?

[Matt R.]

Well, calling someone stupid isn't much of a method to question anything. I can defend my beliefs rationally, although I definitely don't consider a good portion of my beliefs to be proof of anything in a scientific sense. Sure, I have faith in some things such that if the universe were "random", they probably would not be true. However, I also don't think my faith should be immune to skepticism -- I'm skeptical about things in my faith all the time. Hence why I called myself non-dogmatic.

It's when the fundamentalists turn dangerous that we should tell them "hey, you need to tone it down or we're going to lock you up" (or whataver). I've been saying this forever on this forum. Dawkins can't seem to get past the idea that people should be allowed to hold their own beliefs if it doesn't harm others. The fundamentalists don't hurt others until their beliefs and actions... uh, hurt others (this must be groundbreaking or something, as I have never been able to understand why Dawkins doesn't get this). Not every religious person believes that other religions need to be exterminated... or whatever Dawkins thinks we think. Thus I have no idea why all religion leads to the "sheltering" of the dangerous religious fundamentalists. Heck, even a good portion of the fundamentalists probably think the dangerous members of their faith need to be taken care of in some way.

[Matt R.]

JayTee,
No, probably not. I'm not really familiar with Pat Robertson. But if he claims that he has revelations from God -- and then proceeds to say something really stupid while claiming god has revealed it to him -- then yeah I wouldn't object to calling him an idiot. If he's actually brilliant and his "revelations" provide some type of deep thought-provoking insight, then I may object. But somehow I doubt this and (from what I gather) he's just being pompous when he claims God talks to him. I'm trying not to judge him too much though as I've never really listened to him.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, calling someone stupid isn't much of a method to question anything. I can defend my beliefs rationally, although I definitely don't consider a good portion of my beliefs to be proof of anything in a scientific sense. Sure, I have faith in some things such that if the universe were "random", they probably would not be true. However, I also don't think my faith should be immune to skepticism -- I'm skeptical about things in my faith all the time. Hence why I called myself non-dogmatic.

It's when the fundamentalists turn dangerous that we should tell them "hey, you need to tone it down or we're going to lock you up" (or whataver). I've been saying this forever on this forum. Dawkins can't seem to get past the idea that people should be allowed to hold their own beliefs if it doesn't harm others. The fundamentalists don't hurt others until their beliefs and actions... uh, hurt others (this must be groundbreaking or something, as I have never been able to understand why Dawkins doesn't get this). Not every religious person believes that other religions need to be exterminated... or whatever Dawkins thinks we think. Thus I have no idea why all religion leads to the "sheltering" of the dangerous religious fundamentalists. Heck, even a good portion of the fundamentalists probably think the dangerous members of their faith need to be taken care of in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]I can repsect that calling people stupid isn't a appropiate method. But just take a look at DN pulling an old post from davids about belief in the nesseciaty, not suffiencecy of requiring a belief in jesus to get to heaven. Moderates jumped on that. And they should not have. It's a rather silly belief to hold, that requires the holder to underesitmate what God is capable of. The folks at Ken Jennings forum did the same thing.

But it does harm other. Pat Robertson can pick up the phone and talk to the president of the united states, and other policy makers. It's scary that he can. I would certainly join you in any endeaver attemping to "lock up" Pat Robertson.

[Matt R.]

Yeah, I thought it was troubling that "moderates" (are they really moderates?) couldn't analyze David's post for its actual content. They saw it as an attack on their faith, and didn't really realize what he was getting at (a specific belief). Their emotions got control of them and they jumped to conclusions about what the post was saying without really thinking about it fully.

The problem with generalizing such behavior to all religious people is that it's NOT an inherent property of religion. It's an emotional defense mechanism -- they misinterpreted the actual intent of David's post (maybe it came off as a bit too arrogant) and attacked things that he wasn't even saying. The problem is that *everyone* does this from time to time. Religious or non-religious -- so it's wrong to generalize that it's only the religious that get in an uproar when defending their faith. I'm sure even the very best scientists and the very best minds on the planet "get in an uproar" when their research/work/ideas get criticized. They may not even stop to analyze what the opposing argument is saying, and jump to the conclusion that that the argument is wrong without even thinking about it. This often stems from them thinking the critique is saying something that it isn't (like with the outcry over David's post) and misconstruing the real argument.

As far as the Pat Robertson thing goes, I don't exactly know what he says to the president that makes you assume he's encouraging him to take action in such a way that harms others. I would think it is more of a problem with the president (and the U.S. as a whole for allowing him to remain in office) allowing others to dictate how he changes policy when the "others" have retarded reasons for thinking such-and-such policy is a good one. This isn't a problem with religion, it's a problem with allowing dumb people in high places where they can affect others. There are plenty of dumb atheists too.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion has very little to do with ethics, it's a metaphysical question.

I do not demand "respect" of my beliefs - in fact, I think they should be challenged and any flaws pointed out. (That's precisely the reason I post on this forum).

Other religions should also not be quarantined from discussion or criticism either. Further, they have an obligation (intellectual at least) to defend the claims they make and to justify them.

The chance of my religion being "true" is next to nil - it's just the best I can do at the moment....

With all that in mind - can someone explain to me how I am doing anything wrong in continuing in my faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm about as anti-religious as they come, but I can't say you're doing anything wrong. FWIW, I would classify you as a liberal believer rather than a moderate believer.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
If parts of the bible aren't meant to be taken literelly, then there is no good reason to think that ANY of the bible should be taken literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can go along with this, but it doesn't imply any sort of mockery. The question comes down to HOW the picking and choosing is done. If it is done as part of an honest quest to find ultimate truth, ie. the true nature of God, with the intention of acting accordingly, then there is no mockery. Any erroneous interpretations would be just another example of the sinful and imperfect nature of man.

If OTOH it were done to purposely dupe people, then yes, it could lead to a mockery, with no human objective authority to call out Mr. Deceptor and righteously force him to eat his kaka.

So no, there is no objective, black-and-white way to tell the difference between case A and B, that is currently attainable for us humans at least.

But the good news is there doesn't have to be. If we have faith in God to sort it out in whatever incomprehensible way He chooses, that should be satisfying enough to a true believer.