(no subject)

[prog]

I think I'm going to up(?)grade my personal religious label from "nonreligious" to "skeptical". It takes my lack of faith in the supernatural to a more aggressive stance without crossing all the way over into "atheist". Skepticism says neither "I have no opinion" nor "you're a deluded sheep"; it says "prove it". (As a bonus, it also gives me a definitive answer to whether or not I believe in God; "I'm skeptical" works on two levels here.)

The trigger is that I lately feel I can no longer afford to have no opinion on religion, as fundamentalism is becoming increasingly dangerous to my own civilization. Fundamentalists from a different civilization trying to attack us is one thing; domestic fundamentalists trying to erode secular government I enjoy is another. But the two working off of each other in a frighteningly anti-intellectual vicious cycle? OK, you've got my attention now.

Not that I know what I'm going to do about it yet. But it seems like a proper internal recalibration before continuing.

Comments

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

It seems as though even many Christians are beginning to distance themselves from the Bush Jr. administration. In the hand-picked fundamentalist college where Mr. Bush was delivering one of his two commencement speeches this year, a third of the faculty signed a petition protesting his appearance.

Christians, who generally support the teachings of Christ, are beginning to discover that the Bush Jr. adminstration, while counting on their votes, does not share their values.

[prog.livejournal.com]

This is heartening, but what really concerns me is how science education has been under a (perhaps unprecedented?) organized assault for a couple of years in this country, on several fronts. Sadly, I don't think that many members of that college's faculty would be too keen on signing a petition opposing the teaching of "intelligent design" in public science classes. (I could be wrong. But I bet I'm not.)

[cortezopossum.livejournal.com]

The fact that this even comes up for a debate just goes to show how many people, academicians included, don't even know what "science" is.

[prog.livejournal.com]

Don't you know? It's a loosely organized collection of opinions and conjectures as to how nature works, with a centuries-long tradition of literature and ceremony. We should embrace science and its adherents with the same tolerance that we extend to people of all other faiths.

[glowingwhispers.livejournal.com]

Do you have much familiarity with Dutch culture? I've always found Calvinists to be a completely different type of Christian. They tend to be conservative, separtists and aim for logical coherence but never fundamentalist or evengelical.

[xymotik.livejournal.com]

But but but...dude, how can you say we came up from slime? If you only read the Purpose-Driven Life (#23 best-seller on Amazon after 2.5 years, slightly ahead of the Star Wars Ep. III novelization), you would know that God created you for His pleasure, and you please Him through worship! It's so blindingly obvious! Everything is created exactly as God plans--God put that little spot on my right ass cheek. He even made homosexuals be homosexual so they would have the life-long mission to Not Be Gay. And if you were born poor or have some painful hereditary disease, God planned it that way! How can all these God-deniers hate America so much? I already bought a Bush Fish to show my support for God's agent on Earth!

Seriously, it's really difficult for most of us lib'ruls to grasp just how archaic the mindset of today's right-wing Protestant fundies is; it's essentially a seventeenth-century worldview. That book (straight out of Orange County, southern California, I might add) has sold millions of copies and is evidently huge among the evangelical Bush supporters (including my recently-deceased aunt, who apparently didn't go through with the treatment for cancer because she was a lesbian and she thought God was stickin' it to her).

I don't really have too much of a point here, except to rant and say that uh, it like, sucks a lot that they're getting involved to this extent in govt. They also think that the End Times are happening now and we can hurry things along a bit in Iraq and elsewhere. Talk to one of kyroraz's friends in Maine and you might be enlightened.

Can I get a witness?

But if I finish my chores, and if you finish thine,
then tonight we're going to party like it's 1699.

[prog.livejournal.com]

Seriously, it's really difficult for most of us lib'ruls to grasp just how archaic the mindset of today's right-wing Protestant fundies is; it's essentially a seventeenth-century worldview.

Yep, much like those on the other side of the planet who dream of restoring the Caliphate. It's stunning how very much the same the two groups are, and coming to accept this fact has helped rouse me into feeling I should seek to do something about it.

My point is that I feel, for me, like it's time to move beyond ranting, and start looking for ways to act. The core fundamentalists might be immutable in their beliefs, but what they're trying to do, though, is proselytize to the nation through entirely inappropriate avenues. I think that we the Reality-Based can and should resist this with equal strength -- and I'd like to think we can do it with greater strength, because truth is actually on our side, god dammit.

[glowingwhispers.livejournal.com]

Not to be offensive but your stance, beyond being passive, strikes me as dangerously lazy on two fronts: (1) by asking the inquiry to come to you rather than taking full responsibility for your own position and (2) by being reactionary against the present cultural-political situation.

Are you so exhausted that you feel like you can't continue? The path of the cynic -- and here I mean to invoke the classical greek definition of the failed idealist -- seems like a sorry, heart-breaking stance that claims many bright young men. Perhaps spending time replenishing your energies rather than recalibrating your outlook might prove more fruitful in the long haul, no?


But that's just my humble suggestion from the big blue yonder. Again, I don't know you and I am not meaning to be offensive. Please ignore this reply if you find my comments off base and/or inappropriate.

[prog.livejournal.com]

I agree, which is why I am calling myself a skeptic and not a cynic. (Indeed, I avoid calling myself a cynic except when I'm being self-deprecatory.) I'm not sure if you misread me, or if you're saying the terms are similar enough to cause confusion.

I mean "skeptic" in the tradition of Carl Sagan, describing those who -- like researchers applying the scientific method -- base their worldviews on evidence and rational observation, and remain open-minded enough to adjust these worldviews accordingly should new evidence arrive... but not a moment sooner.

As Sagan put it, "One should keep his mind open, but not so open one's brain falls out."

[glowingwhispers.livejournal.com]

Hmm, so you think you're being more skeptical than cynical? The tiredness of your tone makes me question the semantics of your proclaimed positon.

[prog.livejournal.com]

If I sound tired it's because I just woke up to these concerns. (oh ho ho)

My whole point is that I'm slowly shifting my ponderous bulk into a stance that's more prepared to directly challenge fundamentalists' campaign to gain ground in my country's culture through false and insidious means, rather than continue to sit back and frown at them from my deep-Blue fortress.

[glowingwhispers.livejournal.com]

Now I'm beginning to understand your position. There's been a couple of books recently that have defended the morality of being an aetheist. Rather than it be some 'poor cousin' religious stance, I find that I'm running into more non-dualist advocates like myself.

As an aside, have you heard that the hottest new religion sweeping common wealth countries is Jedi? On the next census, I'll really have a tough choice on what to put.

http://www.gonmad.co.uk/jedicensus/