European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

The essence of fundamentalism.

by Colman
Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:14:14 AM EST

It today's breakfast thread there is a frank and forthright debate going on about the cartoons again. One of the issues that has come up a few times is the misunderstanding of fundamentalism.

Let me try and explain the phenomenon a bit.

Karen Armstrong has written a lot about fundamentalist religions and she seems fairly widely respected.

Her thesis is that fundamentalism is a new form of religion that is a reaction to the modern world. It is not, as it's sales people would have it, a return to some purer, earlier form. It is something new branched off older religions and depending on modes of thought only possible to modern people.

There was, in her opinion, a distinction made between two modes of thought; mythos and logos. Logos was the rational, reality and fact based way of thinking. Mythos was the symbolic, spiritual way of thought that need not have literal truth in this world. A person that makes the distinction does not expect that religious or spiritual texts will really apply to this world nor that religion can be explained scientifically. The idea is silly.

Her contention is that the modern world concentrates entirely on the objectively true and devalues mythos.

Fundamentalism arises when a religious believer takes the mythic events of their religion and applies modern thinking to it. Either it's false and "just a myth" or it must be objectively true. If they take the second approach then they form world views that are bizarre mixes of the objectively true and objectively false. Generally these strange alloys are formed under pressure: anti-Semitism and displacement for the Jews, the slow collapse of the Caliphate and the ascension of the barbarian West for the Muslims, the rise of secularism and democracy for the Christians.

The fundamentalist religions have in common: a belief in the literal truth of some very strange myths; a belief that they are under siege from evil, unjust forces which leads to anger, fear and defensiveness; sharply drawn lines between us and them; a total disregard for the history of their religions or their traditional teachings. They've also all been exploited for personal and political gain by some truly nasty people.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

The essence of fundamentalism. | 203 comments (203 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

To grossly oversimplify of course. Go read her books.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:21:09 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Actually Ghandi's diary is relevant as empathy rather than knowledge.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:27:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Good summary. I have The Battle for God right in front of me, as it happens. Agree with most of it.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:50:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I don't - it's the only one of her important ones I don't own.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

A History of God is very good, too.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Or course, we atheists tend to feed this tendency by asking dumb questions about the reality of religious tales. Which we can't avoid asking when they're presented as literal truth.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:22:54 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

These "dumb questions" are irony in the Socratic sense. Remember what happened to Socrates.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:23:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Atheist (4.00 / 2)

By "we atheists", I presume you include yourself in that, and mean that you believe (or think? or know?)there is no God.

Just for the record, I put myself in "agnostic", as in "I don't know". All the signs (starting with the various competing versions of religion) point, to me, to God(s) being inventions of man (to offer a convenient distraction from the fear of death), but I don't know for sure that there isn't an afterlife or a supreme being or whatever.

I consider religious faith to be a personal thing. If it is brought into the public, via political activity and institutions, it becomes criticisable as anything social and political, and thus I don't see why it should not be mocked, criticised or lambasted. Indeed, as leaders of influential (and influencable) flocks, religious leaders wield a lot of power and should be especially targetted for criticism and oversight by the opinions of others.

Publicly stated religious views are no more and no less respectable that any other opinion on anything. Therefore religious people should expect me not to go and mock or criticise them in their churches or homes, but not to not discuss or mock or ignore their church when it starts opining on what is proper or not in society. A religious opinion on what constitute offensive speech is just as relevant or irrelevant as what the socialists or Kate Moss or the national rifle association have to say on the topic. They are free to say they are offended, of course, and, just like anyone else, to go to court if they think the limits of decency or hate speech have been breached, but that's it.

I will not take the pope or the imams more (nor less) seriously than the head of a trade union or of an NGO or than another blogger.

And again, with their capacity to unleash violence onto others in the name of their Gods, which their follwoers seem to take so seriously, religious leaders should be particularly careful with their words.

God is just an opinion. How's that for fundamentalism?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:11:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

See below for brief discussion of definitions of atheism and so on.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

I don't understand a thing of what you're discussing below, so I cannot see where you are discussing atheism.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:21:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

What? How is it so incomprehensible?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

It was here. Not that there was much of it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:24:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

Sorry, found that bit now. That I think I can grasp and participate to...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:25:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

I'm really curious about your reaction to the rest of it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:28:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

My mind goes blank. Really.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

Why?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

Well, if I knew, it would not be so blank!

To me, all questions religious are pointless, because religion doesn't work for me, and the whole thing is a waste of time. I am not interested in art, so the only thing that I can care about is the interaction of religion with politics, where I have a very simplistic reflex: keep religion out, as it deals in absolutes, and absolutes are really dangerous in politics (the ends justify the means / you're with us or against us kind of thing).

So take all of what I write on the topic with that large grain of salt in mind.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:50:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

God is just an opinion (4.00 / 3)

...and it's too expensive...

"for a time I had a God."
"and you din't keep it?"
"oh no, you must be kidding"
"it was much too expensive to maintain"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atheist (none / 0)

Well, thats fine, but the reality of the world is that many people DO take religion more seriously than you, and not just fundamentalists. As such, this attitude, to me, is just obtuse and a recipe for conflict.

I think part of your problem, Jerome, is that you don't have contact with people who are true believers. I'm not talking about nominal Christians who might go to mass several times a year. No, I"m talking about people who really and deeply believe in some form of religious teaching.

In the US, for better or worse, one is much more likely to encounter people - at least abstractly - who are true believers. Indeed, my fiancees family is full of them. I think actually knowing this fact really will change your attitude towards people of faith. Once you come into contact with the reality of religious belief, you can't be so intolerant of it. Indeed, if I were to be, or liberals were to be, we'd be in for some pretty long years in the wildnerness.

by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 01:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (4.00 / 2)

The way that mythos combines with logos to return with a vengeance is the basic failure mode of rationalism. It is in this sense that the rise of fascism in the 1930's can be seen as a failure of 18th century enlightenment.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:26:35 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

I'm not convinced. I think fundamentalist religions exist for a lot longer.

I'd consider the Essenians in Judea two millennia ago, the Assassins one millennium ago, the various new 'heretic' sects that appeared in Medieval Europe 800 years ago, and even Luther and Calvin fundamentalists in a similar sense as those today. They, too, were not, as it's sales people would have it, a return to some purer, earlier form. They were something new branched off older religions, and did so in response to then current events and developments in society.

In particular, I would remind people of the reason Luther and other Protestants threw out some books from the Bible: contradictions, factual contradictions. This was before the Enlightement.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:27:44 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Luther and Protestants were part of the enlightenment process surely?

Why do you class the Assassins as fundamentalists?

I'm not 100% convinced either. And I'm sure I could present the argument rather better.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

The reformation happened in the 16th century. It's part of the late Renaissance. The Enlightenment is conventionally identified with the 18th century.

What happened in the 17th century that made all the difference is religious war and Newton's Principia.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Luther and Protestants were part of the enlightenment process surely?

That is only a myth permeated presently in Protestant-majority, especially 'Anglo-Saxon' countries today. Luther was not an opponent of theocracy, nor of burning heretics and witches, nor of anti-semitism. Calvin established a kind of mini-Taleban in his city. The founders of settlements in what became the USA weren't persecuted who were hunted away but persecuters, sects who took religious judgement in their own hand, hunted away. But even bloody Cromwell was a religious fanatic.

Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

BTW, not many know, Newton himself was a fundamentalist - one who rejected Athanasian Christianity (e.g. everything from the Nicean Creed), and who thought that his greates life achievement was not the theory of mechanics, not the theory of gravity, not his work on differential mathematics, but an almost forgotten book in which he attempted to reconcile the chronology of the Old Testament with that of then known ancient Middle Eastern royal lists (e.g. Egyptian, Assyrian, etc.).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

More bloody reading to do. But that's sort of what I meant.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

I have threatend before that I might do a history of Protestantism in Germany and its role in enlightenment that would quitely run against this thesis......

But I am scared (-:

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Oh, do. I'm confused now that I've read DoDo's comment.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 06:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Calvin (none / 1)

A curse on him and his fundamentalistic dogmas. One day, when I've finally read enough about him, I'll need to write down why I think his machinations are part of the problems what we at ET are struggling against: Class wars, Glass Ceilings, Class Ceilings, the lot. Another example: My mentor at the University generally went hopping mad on Calvin when we discussed why there are to this day too few female scientists, certainly in the Netherlands. Interesting thoughts.

Then again, my mentor is a Catholic.....

by Nomad on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

The idea of fundamentalism is a fairly new one (1920's). The traditional understanding of what seems to be described as fundamentalism here, is orthodoxy. But fundamentalism is first off all an inner theological attack - against other Christians, those of the historical critical persuasion. The word is only being used in a political context since the late 70's. Where it then has been used in a very muddled up way describing alsorts of people that are seen as anti-modernists.
In fact it is a label applied from the outside. At least in the beginning.

In a way it is almost like the term "politically correct". It bundles up different interests and different motivations and gives it a negative connotation.

Coming back to the difference between orthodoxy and fundamentalism - the need for literalism, which is at the heart of the original fundamentalist movement in the 20th - only came about as a rejection of modernist thought. Until Schleiermacher the literalism of the bible had never been an issue and was theologically irrelevant, this does exactly NOT mean that everybody before him was a literalist, quite the opposite.

Therefore, while orthodoxy goes back to the dogmatic decisions of faith, fundamentalism goes back to one aspect of religous tradition - reinterpreting religion and the religious teachings from that perspective.

Literalism/Fundamentalism is not an "orthodox" belief, it is a way of wanting to get access to history - and a way of interpreting expression of faith.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:50:19 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

The traditional understanding of what seems to be described as fundamentalism here, is orthodoxy.

Then I've done a bad job of explaining it. It's not orthodoxy that this is getting at, it's the literalism and the reaction to modernism.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Sorry, I was probably more reacting to DoDo I think. Every application of anything "fundamentalist" before the 1920 is very difficult and needs to go along with a clear definition of what fundamentalism is. Luther was had orthodox tendecies, but he is not a fundamentalist in the modern sense, if you equate fundamentalism with literalism.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:07:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Luther was had orthodox tendecies, but he is not a fundamentalist in the modern sense, if you equate fundamentalism with literalism.

You got me curious. Could you tell mre about how Luther was not literalist?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

When you read an original Luther translation you know he was not a literalist. He changed the text to fit his theology in many places. Haven';t got a quote right at hand, but could probably find one.

His attitude towards the apocryptic writings, (his almost exclusion of the apocalypse from the bible as well as his successful exclusion of the Makkabaer, Tobit etc,) his re - counting of the 10 commandments. there are so many things, that modern literalists would never dare do to the bible, Luther never had any trouble with.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

He changed the text to fit his theology in many places.

You mean, he translated his own interpretation? In my experience (from battling them for four years), that's exactly what modern creationists do, too - and bin Laden, too. For the former, fitting reality on the Bible and vice-versa, and to interpret the literally read Bible as coherent and without contradictions, involves very 'liberal' interpretations of certain words or sentences, it involves adding theories that aren't in the scripture, it involves a lot of out-of-context quoting. The latter also characterises Bin Laden, I'm told.

His attitude towards the apocryptic writings,

It's in the very word, 'apocryphic'. Luther rejected these by branding them apocryphic, claiming that the Church was corrupted when it decided to include them. (The two books of the Maccabees are integral part of the Catholic Bible.) I.e., in my interpretation he was not non-literalist, he rejected these writings precisely because he didn't saw them (wanted to see them) as holy scripture.

his re - counting of the 10 commandments

My memory is faint, but IIRC it was the original Latin translation that changed 11 commandments into 10.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

"in my interpretation he was not non-literalist, he rejected these writings precisely because he didn't saw them (wanted to see them) as holy scripture."

So how can Luther make the decision that they are not holy scripture? He cannot make the decision as a literalist, since the canon has no inner unity, like the Qur'an f.e.

It is therefore a theological decision and not a decision based on the letters. It is based on his interpretation of the bible.

The bible as a book does not have an opinion in regard to exclusion or inclusion of individual books.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:06:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

So how can Luther make the decision that they are not holy scripture?

I kind of covered that already, but to put it more clearly: (a) by blaming the decision to include them on earthy powers who stopped following God, and (b) identify/double-check the latter looking for self-contradictions and discarding text that has them. According to my rusty memory, both of these arguments were used explicitly (but I freely submit that I may have confused Luther with other Protestants).

But, for example, what theological reason could have been there behind taking out the books of the Maccabees?

A further point: there is Luther's famous line about women and booze. But more serious arguments behind that were again literalist: the rejection of these as not Bible-based, based on counter-examples within the Bible.

Finally, a meta-point: something everyone emphasized in the debate is that fundamentalists aren't really orthodox, but introduce something new under the appearance of turning back to orthodoxy. But the other side of this is that this new they bring can also develop into something progressive, as the movement grows older. I contend that that is the case with Luther's reforms - mother-language Bibles, less hierarchic church, booze and women, discussion rather than guidance ended up as the hallmarks of a much nicer form of Christianity.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

But, for example, what theological reason could have been there behind taking out the books of the Maccabees?

That Book II suggests that praying for the dead can free them from purgatory?

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 04:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

But the other side of this is that this new they bring can also develop into something progressive, as the movement grows older.

this would certainly merrit a wider discussion.

However, I am not sure, where after 130 year of the "literal experiment" which brought us fundamentalism and an extreme pietism there is anything but restriction and limitation, that has been brought along. Give me one good example of literalism, in a progressive, modern, liberating understanding of the word "good".

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (4.00 / 2)

What was the excised commandment?

Thou shalt not make railway transport an item of worship?

Thou shalt not make extinct the flightless birds?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Exodus 20 4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth

quickly skipped by Luther....

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

here

aptly relevant...

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Also relevant.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

BTW, I wrote the comment about Newton in response to Colman before I saw this; but it seems highly relevant: Newton's attempt to beat out a clear chronology of 'real' history, accepting the Bible as correct and trying to fit the other evidence to it, seems to be just this devaluation of the mythos and application of the logos.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Part of it seems to be a dismissal of faith: the fundamentalist doesn't have faith, they have the objective truth.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:59:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

one more comment:

Fundamentalism arises when a religious believer takes the mythic events of their religion and applies modern thinking to it.

This might only be your summary, but this produces such a false dichotomy. I, f.e can very easily explain all miracles in the bible, without hurting any natural laws. Allegorically. There - no natural law has been hurt, but the religious relevance is still maintained. The need for eliminate all mythic events, because of scientific advances is missing that a myth bring an aspect to the story that a scientific explanation can never capture, since it does not have the words for it. It is the old WHY? How is fine, that's what science is for. But WHY? Random, sure, one possible answer. But the fundamental question of why is there something and not Nothing. Cannot be answered by science. Or at least I am not aware of an answer.

I am not saying that the religious answer is necessarily the right one (You can still believe in your atheism) it is however an experience that is being shared by billions of people for the last couple of hundred thousand years.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:02:15 AM EST

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

The anthropic principle is one such answer, but it is questionable whether it is a scientific answer.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

If I understand anthropic correctily it means we live in the best of all possible worlds. But that is not the contention. not, it is the best, but WHY is there a world and not nothing. But maybe I missunderstand anthropic.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

No, no.

The weak anthropic principle says that given that there is a universe with varying physical conditions in different localities, and that we are alive in that universe it is not surprising (despite asrtonomical odd s to the contrary) that we find ourselves in a locality suited to life as we know it. This is almost tautological, but not quite. It is accepted as a way out of the "we are too rare to be true" argument, but it is not an explanation of WHY, just possible of HOW.

The strong anthropic principle says that the universe exists for the purpose of spawning inteeligent observers within it. It is teleological, and hence explains WHY, but most people don't consider it properly scientific.

(more) (even more)

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Sometime I must find someone to explain this to me. I don't understand the problem that's being solved.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:25:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

Try for instance:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/49558

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:56:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I don't understand why there would be a why at all.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

What would we talk about otherwise?
If there was no why? gee all the politicians would get away with everything.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:12:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

Me not understand.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

slightly snarky comment.

I understood your question why there had to be a why in the first place to literal..... (-:

but since I gentically are unfunny I had to try and make a serious point in conjunction with a joke.

consequence... belly flop.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

my excuse, English is not my mothertounge....

I also might not have understood what exactly you were refering to

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Just can't quite disentangle the joke and the serious point: I could read it as "without myth/religion there is no ethics" and then I'd have to get cranky.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

No, would not want to make you cranky...

Serious point was, Why? is a most important question. especially with politicians.

snarky point was you seem to imply that the question is futile. ->"What would we talk about otherwise"

~Sorry a bad joke/snarke, does not get better by having to explain it - I then cannot even hide behind the

eh, that's just a snark..

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Serious point was, Why? is a most important question. especially with politicians.

But maybe not with the universe.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Yes, I gathered that that might be your point, ok then I did understand correctly - and would indicated my difference in opinion.

It might not have everyday consequences with regard to our existance, it might even be completely inconsequencial. but it still is strange.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Nature is stranger than anything human imagination can come up with, which is why, for shock value, science beats myth hands down.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:56:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Definitely not with the universe.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

As a gentically unfunny person myself, your joke actually made me laugh.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

aaah, the voice of reason.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Ugh, string theory. I have to find a different explanation of the problem.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:10:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I hope you don;t want to imply that there is equality between mythological stories and ID? ID is fake science, plenty of mythologicalistic science, but it is neither science nor myth. As it lacks fundamental requirements to be either.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

At issue was the anthropic principle in cosmology, no more or less.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:37:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Sorry only read the introduction - decided that the article you linked to was way beyond me ....

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Just take this abstract...
The Physical Review: The eighteen arbitrary parameters of the standard model in your everyday life (1996)

Contrary to popular conception, the purpose of particle physics is to understand the everyday world. The current theory of fundamental interactions among the quarks and leptons depends on eighteen parameters, which are a priori arbitrary. Were these parameters different, our world would be changed dramatically. By exploring the connection between these parameters and everyday phenomena we can better appreciate the challenges confronting contemporary particle physics. Until we can explain the origin of these parameters, we cannot say we truly understand why our everyday world is as it is.

The point is this: the standard model of particle physics depends on 18 arbitrary parameters (not counting the masses of the elementary particles, I believe), and then there are a couple of purely gravitational parameters important in cosmology. These 20 (or 30-something if you include the masses) parameters appear to need to be tuned to a very high accuracy in order to be compatible with the macroscopic world we live in. If each parameter is tuned to 10% accuracy, the likelyhood of all parameters being in the range required for life as we know it to be possible is one part in one billion billion, give or take a couple of zeros. If the parameters need to be tuned to 1% accuracy, the likelyhood drops to one part in a trillion trillion trillion, again give or take a couple of zeros.

So, how do you explain our incredible luck?

The weak anthropic principle is an attempt to "explain" this as an observation bias. That is, it is possible that many universes support life, but of very different kinds. In any one universe, living beings within it will reason that, for life as they know it to be possible, dozens of parameters need to be carefully tuned. But that does not mean that, for any kind of life to be possible the parameters need to be tuned. It only means that living things will look around and find the universe strangely suited to hosting them, all the more so if you thow in the insight that life evolves to adapt to its environment.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

For large values of questionable as far as I understand it. But that's a whole other diary.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:15:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I'm either doing a really bad job of writing today or you're reacting to someone else again. Probably the former.

What I meant was the believer accepts the modern devaluation of myth, applies it to their religion, says that myth is valueless, my religion is valuable, so my religion isn't myth - it's literally true.

Your point is exactly the one the fundamentalists miss.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

the believer accepts the modern devaluation of myth, applies it to their religion, says that myth is valueless, my religion is valuable, so my religion isn't myth

This seems pristine clear to me Colman, and thoroughly reflects my position. Could not have put it in a better way even if I had tried.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

So you accept your religion and all it's texts as literal truth?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:03:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Exactly the opposite. I accept that some of the myths may not be true, but I don't mind. Taking everything at face value would be foolish.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:07:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

The believer takes the ancient myth and reckons their relevance to his modern belief/religion may be limited : that does not demean the belief.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:08:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Which is not what the fundamentalist does, of course.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Completely lost now : is that what fundamentalists really do ???

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Actually, you're not accepting the first step, really. You're accepting that myths are ok.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:10:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

help someone ! :) It seems I cannot write proper English anymore. I do not agree on the fact that myths are necessary because some people (the weaker) cannot live without them, that was what Karl Mark meant when he talked about religion being like opium (to alleviate suffering and that stuff) whereas the stronger can do without religion. To me that is not only rubbish but paves the way to fundamentalism.

Being a believer or not is not about choice, trust me ...

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

You are perhaps conflating Marx' and Nietzsche's critiques of religion? For the former, it's a matter of predicament; for the latter, of character strength.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are right (none / 0)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I've been incredibly careful not to say that.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:27:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I don't mind, really.
What I mind is having the fundamentalist label applied to me.

Fundamentalist Catholics do not acknowledge Vatican 2, for which they theoretically should be excommunicated if the religious dogma was strictly applied, which is not something I favour.
There is nothing in the New Testament stating that divorced people cannot attend the communion, still this has been the case for a long time, not to mention the fact that people who committed suicide were considered doomed, which is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.
These are dogmas produced by the Church as a secular institution.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:36:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Nobody applied that label to you.

I'm not sure that rejecting Vatican II qualifys you as fundamentalist, though there's a whole lot of batshit crazy stuff that the fundamentalist Catholics believe in. Including restoration of the European monarchies in some sections.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Nobody applied that label to you.

here, here (I have lived in britain for too long....

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

That is a pretty accurate decription of fundamentalist thinking. the assumption that myths are o.k and retain their pre-modern wholiness by ignoring reality

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:18:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

But I never said that myths were OK !!!!

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Urk. Right. Time to back off and try that again I think.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

OK, I'm responding to:

Exactly the opposite. I accept that some of the myths may not be true, but I don't mind. Taking everything at face value would be foolish.

The point is that the myths have value and religious significance even if they're not literally true. It doesn't matter that the book of Genesis is a myth: it has religious value anyway. It doesn't matter that the detail of Christ's life may or may not be true: it still has significance and value.

Remember I don't mean myth here as a pejorative.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I agree on that. I seem to find it difficult to discriminate between the various concepts used here. Sorry about the misunderstandings and the inconvenience caused.
What I stick to is that it is barbaric to stage wars in the name of God (any God), and in that I claim that religion should remain a private issue, not a tool to justify conquest and quest for power. This in an ideal world, of course.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:42:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I thought I had answered to Colman. Sorry if I missthreaded

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:38:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

No pb. There are so many intersecting posts that even the parent link does not help much.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:44:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 1)

What I meant was the believer accepts the modern devaluation of myth, applies it to their religion, says that myth is valueless, my religion is valuable, so my religion isn't myth - it's literally true.

modern devaluation of myth - check
applies to my religion - check
says that myth is valueless - no, rephrases, reapplies and attempting to regain the the myth to make it valuable again
my religion is valuable - check
my religion uses mythology - check
my religion isn't myth - check

it is literal - no it is not.
because the myth has been regained the outside support of literalism is not necessary.

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

You can still believe in your atheism

How? It's a lack of belief, not a belief. I really wish we could call a convention that would make sense of the word for people who don't believe there is a God but don't have a positive believe there isn't one.

Actually I want to call the people who have positive belief in the non-existence of God anti-theists.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:18:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is lack of belief.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:26:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

I don't want to get into that here, but check the definitions in the OED.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Atheism is a belief. Agnosticism is lack of belief.

Nope. Atheism is lack of belief, Agnosticism is belief in the lack of knowability.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

To expound on that, though many people assume so, atheism/theism and agnosticism aren't alternatives, they intersect. (I met some theists who were overjoyed when I explained this, as they already considered themselves that but believed there is no terminology for their views.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (none / 0)

Nope again.

Atheism is belief (or opinion, that's where it gets tricky) that there is no god.

Agnosticism is knowledge that there is no proof either way.

Mild forms of agnosticism and atheism intersect.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:24:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The essence of fundamentalism. (4.00 / 2)

It's a mess. And we can go around in circles arguing about it. There are not enough words to describe the beliefs.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 09:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A/theism, agnosticism (4.00 / 2)

Nope again. That is a simplistic classification that is neither clear on the terms nor encompasses the whole spectrum of opinions. (It also kind of aggressively attempts to define others' views for themselves.)

Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Some atheists will go as far as claim in some form that there are no gods, others won't. On atheist sites I frequented, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" were adopted for distinction when the philosophical battles raged.

Agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of gods is unknowable. There are differences regarding whether it is practically or theoretically unknowable, and what "to know" means. (The way you defined it, with "knowledge", implies a rather extreme form I rarely encountered.) Non-agnostics usually also reject agnosticism on the basis of one or another different concept of "to know" and "proof".

Theists, weak atheists, and strong atheists each can be either agnostic or non-agnostic. I met with ardent proponents of all six variants. But all six encompass a number of very different views. To just take non-agnostic strong atheists who'd seem a single strang to many: some think science disproves theism, others that the very definition of "god" is nonsensical, others are convinced of a general theory of the cultural genesis of religions, still others argue that a statement is false by default unless its maker presents proof (which in the case of gods didn't happen), yet again others make the Moral Argument (God is supposed to be moral + the world is immoral => God doesn't exist), still others argue with internal contradictions.

Myself, I am a non-agnostic weak atheist. (I won't detail my rejection of the various forms of strong atheism, as well as of agnosticism, but false dichotomies and special pleading to save what would be trivialisms would feature prominently.)

Actually, even the above classification doesn't encompass 'em all. Some atheists argue that belief is not the issue (the Sun is a god in some religions but we others still believe the Sun exists), worship is.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:25:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

Thanks. I did not like your introducing the notion of "belief" for agnosticism in your earlier comment. I understand your classification, esxcept this one: how can you be a non-agnostic weak atheist??

Weak atheist: you don't believe in god, but don't say there isn't one
non-agnostic: it's possible to know whether god exists.

How can you both know and not know if god exists?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

It is possible that there could be positive proof of a god. There just isn't. Mind you, you need a good definition of god to come along.

I don't believe in unicorns, but I accept it's possible someone could produce one. I don't not believe in unicorns, not do I believe it's impossible to prove they exist.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

I do not see how a positive proof of the existence of god could exist. Hence Pascal's bet.
That's the strength of religions : making you believe something that cannot be proved altogether.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:59:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

He could drop by for coffee.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 1)

Possibly with his birth-cert.

I'm not being entirely frivolous here: there are possible positive proofs that something god-like could exist - depending on your definition of god.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

Pascal's bet has two problems. One is that some gods require honesty in belief. Another is that it is a false dichotomy: if you believe in god A, that doesn't shield you from the wrath of god B should religion B have been correct.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

OK, so, do I have this right?:

you don't believe in god, don't know if there is one of not, but are willing to be convinced either way if a good proof comes along.

That's me as well, then. What were we arguing about, exactly, throughout the day?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

Were we arguing? I thought of it as clarifying.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

I agree - we were looking at different definitions of fundamentalism and at the history of the term.

whistle, whistle,

has the teacher gone, Colman?

Here take that, and you DoDO, buh, argh, uff, autsch

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

I don't think that Jérôme was even able to follow that part of the debate, which is sort of strange.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

sigh I really am not funny, I thought I may make you smile, but then you are just keeping on the thread...

with regards to Jerome,

wouldn't know - don't feel competend to comment

...

hehe, another funny comment, as if that had ever stopped me...

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 01:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

You made smile ; Jérôme is not available as far as I know...:)

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

Sorry,
I forgot the most important word : ME.
You made ME smile.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

See his remarks way upthread.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

Well I saw them, but religion is a topic I am <s>fundamentally
<s> unable to argue over with Jérôme. I am a fundamentalist tolerant.
OK, enough with this.

When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill

by Agnes a Paris on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

I don't believe there is a god. I could be wrong. That's all. I don't know if there is one - or many - but I have no reason to believe there are any. I'm just not claiming access to absolute truth.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A/theism, agnosticism (none / 0)

That sums up my view well. I think it's a discussion that will go on for thousands of years and perhaps never be settled.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]