Gore Vidal, whom I met last night in Manhattan Beach, California, said this on monotheism in 1988:
I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single... well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system that has worked pretty well for twenty-five hundred years. So you see I am ecumenical in my dislike for the Book. But like it or not, the Book is there; and because of it people die; and the world is in danger.
Full Version: Gore Vidal
hmm, well many, many wars were due to religion and the catholic church does have 33% of the population in the world, not to mention all the political allys. Just think of it this way, as bad as it is now it was WAY worse a long time ago. Although, should we think of science as a religion? I can humbly say that psychology is more like a religion than it is a rational approach to the mind.
how is psychology like religion?
ah I was hoping someone would ask, okay think of it this way:
- Psychologists can barely agree who is right in there own community.
- Electro shock is to cure people when it is the equivilant of being tortured.
- There are hundreds of documented cases where the psychologist can make a person weak and reliant on the psychologist for years.
- Out of the box thinking can be prescribed as insanity (sound something like a spanish inquitision doesnt it?) People who attempt to experiment with diffrent realities are often seen as dillusional.
- Some psychologists will try to "fix" people who are Gay or Lesbian.
- There are thousands of cases where people have been abused and mistreaten in insane asylums, brutal scars, bruises and deformation are some of the results.
- Freudian logic is inarguable, arguing with freuds ideas only results in being accused of one of many symptoms.
- In many instances psychologists will disempower people for the will of their family or government (make "good" citizens who are obidient and do not question authority) It may also be disempowering a child so the parents can order the kid around at will.
- Psychologists can barely agree who is right in there own community.
- Electro shock is to cure people when it is the equivilant of being tortured.
- There are hundreds of documented cases where the psychologist can make a person weak and reliant on the psychologist for years.
- Out of the box thinking can be prescribed as insanity (sound something like a spanish inquitision doesnt it?) People who attempt to experiment with diffrent realities are often seen as dillusional.
- Some psychologists will try to "fix" people who are Gay or Lesbian.
- There are thousands of cases where people have been abused and mistreaten in insane asylums, brutal scars, bruises and deformation are some of the results.
- Freudian logic is inarguable, arguing with freuds ideas only results in being accused of one of many symptoms.
- In many instances psychologists will disempower people for the will of their family or government (make "good" citizens who are obidient and do not question authority) It may also be disempowering a child so the parents can order the kid around at will.
yes but how is psychology like religion besides both being imperfect?
Alright, well look at it this way, If you disagree with a religion you more often than not are condemd to hell, if you disagree with the way modern society views the world you more often than not are condemd by psychology. Both religion and psychology are close minded in their views of the world, they see it as a black and white, good vs evil, sanity vs insanity, true vs false. It is this black and white view along with the way they deal with whatever opposes the view that makes psychology a religion.
close-mindedness is much more prevalent in religion than psychology. Many psychologists I have come across have been open-minded and are aware of the limitations of their field. Naturally there are exceptions.
It depends, not all psychologists are bad but not all priests rape kids either, so it is a tough issue.
Ok. 99% of priests are child molesters whereas 25% of psychologists are close-minded. How are they alike?
where did you get that figure?
Some psychologists are better than others. Jung was better than Freud, for example. Some are more open minded and are aware of the dangers of creating dependencies in others.
U.S. News and World Report
The Chinese under the influence of Confuscianism got whopped by the far smaller Japanese. I conclude Confuscianism cannot be all that good.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 19, 02:12 PM) 
Some psychologists are better than others. Jung was better than Freud, for example. Some are more open minded and are aware of the dangers of creating dependencies in others.
I agree Rick, but some religions are not as bad as others.
99% of priests?? O.o thats a pretty damn big number, I heard otherwise, I would like to know how they collected this information. Like were all 99% of priests convicted of molestation or how did they manage to arrive at such a figure?
it's called pulling your leg Max. I don't know exactly what percentage of priests are child molesters but you hear about it all the time.
lol thats what I thought, I mean 99% was going a bit far, lol thats why I asked where you got such an outrageous number from.
It's probably about the same percentage as in the general population, probably less than 1%.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher than the general population when you consider the priest's situation and pressures and the sort of person who becomes a priest in the first place.
It is a possibility that preists may be higher, however their is equal pressure from their beliefs that they do not do such things.
I disagree. Their religion puts tremendous pressue on them not to fantasize about molesting children much less acting on it, which is bound to elicit the opposite reaction. In people without such pressure, they just don't care enough about it to bother thinking about it.
To much speculation, if you are raised in a loving, caring family and generally enjoy your childhood, do you grow up to hate your parents? Like wise if you are abused, neglected and mistreaten in every way imaginable, do you grow up to love your parents? by your logic the answer is yes for both.
In both of your cases there is no pressure, hence the opposite reaction would not be elicited.
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 01:15 PM)
The Chinese under the influence of Confuscianism got whopped by the far smaller Japanese. I conclude Confuscianism cannot be all that good.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 19, 12:43 PM)
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 01:15 PM)
The Chinese under the influence of Confuscianism got whopped by the far smaller Japanese. I conclude Confuscianism cannot be all that good.
therefore Buddhism breeds weakness and is for the non-elite and inferior classes.
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:43 PM)
In both of your cases there is no pressure, hence the opposite reaction would not be elicited.
Lies, you cannot apply one without applying to the other, there is pressure on the children to act a certain way just as there is pressure on the priests to act a certain way.
Chauvinism is of the inferior mind.
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 19, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:43 PM)
In both of your cases there is no pressure, hence the opposite reaction would not be elicited.
Lies, you cannot apply one without applying to the other, there is pressure on the children to act a certain way just as there is pressure on the priests to act a certain way.
With more experience you will understand
QUOTE(Rick @ May 19, 12:48 PM)
Chauvinism is of the inferior mind.
Discrimination is of the discerning mind.
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 19, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:43 PM)
In both of your cases there is no pressure, hence the opposite reaction would not be elicited.
Lies, you cannot apply one without applying to the other, there is pressure on the children to act a certain way just as there is pressure on the priests to act a certain way.
With more experience you will understand
Again, we have on BrainMeta egotistical people who believe they are better and instead of considering a point they simply assume you know nothing.
Therefore select the noble attitude.
Indeed Rick, indeed.
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 19, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:49 PM)
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 19, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:43 PM)
In both of your cases there is no pressure, hence the opposite reaction would not be elicited.
Lies, you cannot apply one without applying to the other, there is pressure on the children to act a certain way just as there is pressure on the priests to act a certain way.
With more experience you will understand
Again, we have on BrainMeta egotistical people who believe they are better and instead of considering a point they simply assume you know nothing.
you are comparing two situations which are not comparable. A child growing up in a loving family is not analagous to a priest molesting a child. This has nothing to do with egotism.
QUOTE(Rick @ May 19, 12:50 PM)
Therefore select the noble attitude.
which is sympathy?
Everything is relatable, because we are all never the less within the same society and thus can experience pressure on various fronts. Women have a pressure to make themselves available after so many dates or recieving a sizable gift. Men have pressure to ensure their families are well taken care of (im talking classical family structure here) and to keep their jobs lest they fail to meet their families expectations.
try being a priest or at least mentally put yourself in the place of a priest
Its more than fitting yourself into a steriotype, you need to look at the priests who molested and those who did not, then examine the diffrence and you will get your reason.
Unless you are over 30, you will not be able to come close to relating to the priest's situation and will not understand the pressures involved. Don't take it personally.
A black and white assumption, also what proof do you have to back up this claim?
experience
I also have experience, besides age is not reminicent of intelligence, knowlege or skill.
QUOTE(Guest @ May 19, 02:03 PM)
experience
I know! Lindsays a priest, ask her about it 
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 19, 02:07 PM)
I know! Lindsays a priest, ask her about it
Currently, I am involved in helping start a new congregation in Markham, just north of Toronto. It is part of a movement advocating the principles of Progressive Christianity. Check out:
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/ccpc/ccpc8points.aspx
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we:
1. center our faith on values that affirm the sacredness and interconnectedness of all life, the inherent and equal worth of all persons, and the supremacy of love expressed actively in our lives as compassion and social justice
2. engage in a search that has roots in our Christian heritage and traditions
3. embrace the freedom and responsibility to examine traditionally held Christian practices and beliefs, acknowledging the human construction of religion, and in the light of conscience and contemporary learning, adjust our views and practices accordingly
4. draw from diverse sources of wisdom, regarding all as fallible human expressions open to our evaluation of their potential contribution to our individual and communal lives
5. find more meaning in the search for understanding than in the arrival at certainty, in the questions than the answers
6. encourage inclusive, non-discriminatory, non-hierarchical community where our common humanity is honoured in a trusting atmosphere of mutual respect and support
7. promote forms of individual and community celebration, study, and prayer which use understandable, inclusive, non-dogmatic, value-based language by which people of religious, skeptical, or secular backgrounds may be nurtured and challenged
8. commit to journeying together, our ongoing growth characterized by honesty, integrity, openness, respect, intellectual rigor, courage, creativity, and balance.
ah thanks for clearing up the confusion 
so would you say as our guest claims that there are extra pressures on ministers to preform ellicit acts?
so would you say as our guest claims that there are extra pressures on ministers to preform ellicit acts?
Max, because Gore Vidal--BTW, he is a distant relative of Al Gore--recently visited Toronto (May 2007), I just happened to note this thread started by Rick, way back.
In this thread, after I made it clear whom I am--a male and a retired minister of a liberal-thinking church--you asked me a question, which I missed:
ah thanks for clearing up the confusion So would you say as our guest claims that there are extra pressures on ministers to preform ellicit (sic) acts?
I presume you mean 'illicit'? That is, acts not permitted by law. I answer: Clergy, IMO, are human beings. As such we are subject to the same temptations, as are all human beings, to please ourselves. Being licit in our thoughts, words and deeds is a constant struggle and, alas, our personal responsibility.
I speak only for Christian clergy, such as celibate RC priests and Protestant married clergy when I say: Too often, lay Christians--especially those who go to church--make the false assumption that we Christian clergy, have a divine master, God, who makes sure that we behave ourselves. Despite all the praying, there is ample proof that this is simply not true. There are times I wish there were such a God.
BTW, I feel that Gore Vidal uses extreme language to state his position--I presume he is an atheist who sees no value in monotheism, or in the so-called sacred books, like the Bible and the Koran, etc.
Of course, perhaps the majority of us Christian clergy and laity are, relatively speaking, licit in most of our actions. However, the fact that a fairly large number, in both categories are not, gives us all pause to ask: If there really is, as is the claim of strident monotheism, one all-knowing, all-powerful and loving God in control of all things, why does he allow ANY of his "faithful" clergy and laity to become criminals, let alone victims of crime?
I differ from GV. I believe that there are, ironically, several man-made monotheisms, not just one, and each of the "true" Gods--by whatever name--are also man-made cartoon characters about as real as Jupiter, Zeus, Superman, Batman, whatever.
Having said that, what interests me is trying to understand the nature and function of the god-concept, and why it is that we, including the current spate of strident atheists--are so interested in it?
QUOTE
Gore Vidal, whom I met last night (May 2006) in Manhattan Beach, California, said this on monotheism, in 1988:
Vidal said: "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single... well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system that has worked pretty well for twenty-five hundred years. So you see I am ecumenical in my dislike for the Book. But like it or not, the Book is there; and because of it people die; and the world is in danger."
Vidal said: "I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam- good people, yes, but any religion based on a single... well, frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion but an ethical and educational system that has worked pretty well for twenty-five hundred years. So you see I am ecumenical in my dislike for the Book. But like it or not, the Book is there; and because of it people die; and the world is in danger."
In this thread, after I made it clear whom I am--a male and a retired minister of a liberal-thinking church--you asked me a question, which I missed:
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 20, 2006, 02:15 PM)
ah thanks for clearing up the confusion
So would you say as our guest claims that there are extra pressures on ministers to preform ellicit (sic) acts?I speak only for Christian clergy, such as celibate RC priests and Protestant married clergy when I say: Too often, lay Christians--especially those who go to church--make the false assumption that we Christian clergy, have a divine master, God, who makes sure that we behave ourselves. Despite all the praying, there is ample proof that this is simply not true. There are times I wish there were such a God.
BTW, I feel that Gore Vidal uses extreme language to state his position--I presume he is an atheist who sees no value in monotheism, or in the so-called sacred books, like the Bible and the Koran, etc.
Of course, perhaps the majority of us Christian clergy and laity are, relatively speaking, licit in most of our actions. However, the fact that a fairly large number, in both categories are not, gives us all pause to ask: If there really is, as is the claim of strident monotheism, one all-knowing, all-powerful and loving God in control of all things, why does he allow ANY of his "faithful" clergy and laity to become criminals, let alone victims of crime?
I differ from GV. I believe that there are, ironically, several man-made monotheisms, not just one, and each of the "true" Gods--by whatever name--are also man-made cartoon characters about as real as Jupiter, Zeus, Superman, Batman, whatever.
Having said that, what interests me is trying to understand the nature and function of the god-concept, and why it is that we, including the current spate of strident atheists--are so interested in it?
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 25, 2007, 07:14 PM)
and why it is we, including the current spate of strident atheists--are so interested in it?
Because it is the greatest cause of conflict and suffering in the world, past and present.
Corporate greed may be giving unwarranted faith a run for its money.
QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jun 25, 2007, 10:49 AM)
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jun 25, 2007, 07:14 PM)
and why it is we, including the current spate of strident atheists--are so interested in it?
Because it is the greatest cause of conflict and suffering in the world, past and present.Check out the work of David Sloan Wilson: Though he is an atheist he does see the value of and a role for positive and healthy religion.
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/...lution-for.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson
IMO, David Sloan Wilson is a panentheist/unitheist. His "atheism", I believe is simply the result of the premise of monotheism. Most theists, but not all, speak of God as if he is a personal and father-like being, who wills, acts, senses, sees, hears and rules all nature as if He were a loving heavenly Father. They think of nature as just a collection of material things under the command of God. Wilson rejects this.
As a unitheist--a doublet for panentheism--so do I.
For the sake of new readers I need to summarize unitheism: As a unitheist I think of GØD (not G�D. I could use G?D) as being itself, to which only the verb "to be" applies. In other words, GØD, not G�D, is not a masculine-like heavenly figure, a heavenly father who wills, speaks, listens to and hears our prayers and acts in ways like the ancient Greeks believed the gods on mount Olympus did.
GØD simply IS. As such, GØD is that which is in and through all that is, all of nature--physically, mentally and spiritually. Nature, IMO, is more than just a collection of bits and pieces. It is dynamic and holistically alive.
WILSON'S VIEW
QUOTE
...In Wilson�€™s view, Darwin�€™s theory of evolution by natural selection has the beauty of being both simple and profound. Unlike quantum mechanics or the general theory of relativity, the basic concepts behind evolutionary theory are easy to grasp; and once grasped, he argues, they can be broadly applied to better understand ourselves and the world �€” the world both as it is and as it might be, with the right bit of well-informed coaxing.
Wilson has long been interested in the evolution of cooperative and altruistic behavior, and much of the book is devoted to the premise that �€œgoodness can evolve, at least when the appropriate conditions are met.�€� As he sees it, all of life is characterized by a �€œcosmic�€� struggle between good and evil, the high-strung terms we apply to behaviors that are either cooperative or selfish, civic or anomic. The constant give-and-take between me versus we extends down to the tiniest and most primal elements of life. Short biochemical sequences may want to replicate themselves ad infinitum, their neighboring sequences be damned; yet genes get together under the aegis of cells and reproduce in orderly fashion as genomes, as collectives of sequences, setting aside some of their immediate selfish urges for the sake of long-term genomic survival.
Cells further collude as organs, and organs pool their talents and become bodies. The conflict between being well behaved, being good, not gulping down more than your share, and being selfish enough to get your fair share, �€œis eternal and encompasses virtually all species on earth,�€� he writes, and it likely occurs on any other planet that supports life, too, �€œbecause it is predicted at such a fundamental level by evolutionary theory.�€� How do higher patterns of cooperative behavior emerge from aggregates of small, selfish units?
With carrots, sticks and ceaseless surveillance.
In the human body, for example, nascent tumor cells arise on a shockingly regular basis, each determined to replicate without bound; again and again, immune cells attack the malignancies, destroying the outlaw cells and themselves in the process. The larger body survives to breed, and hence spawn a legacy far sturdier than any tumor mass could manage.
Wilson has long been interested in the evolution of cooperative and altruistic behavior, and much of the book is devoted to the premise that �€œgoodness can evolve, at least when the appropriate conditions are met.�€� As he sees it, all of life is characterized by a �€œcosmic�€� struggle between good and evil, the high-strung terms we apply to behaviors that are either cooperative or selfish, civic or anomic. The constant give-and-take between me versus we extends down to the tiniest and most primal elements of life. Short biochemical sequences may want to replicate themselves ad infinitum, their neighboring sequences be damned; yet genes get together under the aegis of cells and reproduce in orderly fashion as genomes, as collectives of sequences, setting aside some of their immediate selfish urges for the sake of long-term genomic survival.
Cells further collude as organs, and organs pool their talents and become bodies. The conflict between being well behaved, being good, not gulping down more than your share, and being selfish enough to get your fair share, �€œis eternal and encompasses virtually all species on earth,�€� he writes, and it likely occurs on any other planet that supports life, too, �€œbecause it is predicted at such a fundamental level by evolutionary theory.�€� How do higher patterns of cooperative behavior emerge from aggregates of small, selfish units?
With carrots, sticks and ceaseless surveillance.
In the human body, for example, nascent tumor cells arise on a shockingly regular basis, each determined to replicate without bound; again and again, immune cells attack the malignancies, destroying the outlaw cells and themselves in the process. The larger body survives to breed, and hence spawn a legacy far sturdier than any tumor mass could manage.
For the full article, check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/books/re...04b6538&ei=5070
BTW, HH, I agree that strident monotheism has given the world much pain and suffering, but I am sure your question does not imply that atheism-based and materialism-based communism and fascism gave us a world filled with sweetness and light, eh?
BTW, about my use of the the symbol �. when I write GØD (not G � D). Wikipedia has an interesting article on its use in the Scandaniavian languages.
(BTW, this, and other threads, sometimes--it is not consistent--changes the math symbol, 0 with a / through it, which I use. Does anyone know, why? It seems that my signature stays consistent.)
Meanwhile, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98
Note, also, its use in maths. I use it to point to what I call the ultimate micro and/or macro--the no-thing, and the every-thing--beyond what we commonly call, nature. Compare this with what physicists call the String Theory.
(BTW, this, and other threads, sometimes--it is not consistent--changes the math symbol, 0 with a / through it, which I use. Does anyone know, why? It seems that my signature stays consistent.)
Meanwhile, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98
Note, also, its use in maths. I use it to point to what I call the ultimate micro and/or macro--the no-thing, and the every-thing--beyond what we commonly call, nature. Compare this with what physicists call the String Theory.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.