niftydrifty

Part 2 of 4
I’ve had another look thru the early chapters in Hitchens’ book, like you suggested, and found this statement in God is Not Great:I challenge you to explain how Jesus’ ministry is incompatible with the “nebulous humanism” described by me in the OP. If religion has “mutated” into a nebulous humanism, it is only because some have led it astray onto false paths, and that Christ’s religion was meant to be a “nebulous humanism” to begin with, if all else can be demonstrated to be false. Hitchens is right to call it admirable. In my opinion Christianity began as a nebulous humanism. It never should have mutated. And if it ever did, the mistake was exposed, so that the true essence of it may carry on.

I dislike the label “moderate.” It relates beliefs like my own with those whom I believe are mistaken or even blatantly wrong. The beliefs of religious “moderates” aren’t a diluted version of the beliefs of Fundamentalists. It can often be a different set of beliefs, altogether.

A few days after you made your posts, last Saturday, Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on my door. I didn’t turn them away. I spoke to them. When they told me with intense concern about how “they want to teach evolution in schools,” and about how that apparent fact harmed the prospect of so much good, including world peace, I asked them whom the “they” were, and how anything that they had just said, could possibly be true. They had no good answers, and fumbled around as if they had never been asked these questions before. I pointed out how I believed their scripture quotes were taken out of context. They acted confused, and somewhat shocked, especially, to hear that I was a Christian! We spoke for a while, and they left me with some reading materials. They asked if they could come back. I replied that it would likely be pointless for them to do so, as we appeared to have completely different opinions about what religion actually is, and nothing I could ever say would make them change their opinions about it. They agreed, and left.

So, it seems, I am actually in complete agreement with you, Dawkins, and Harris on the subject of fundamentalism and creationism. And even evolution. And yet it doesn’t contradict my faith. How can this be?

Many, perhaps even most, Christians don’t “get” Christianity. I’m not the only person to have noticed. That’s what the book that I linked to in the OP is all about. I suppose you might find it funny to hear about how religious people claim that their own version of spirituality is the only true version. But aren’t we all doing that?

It isn’t “just me” against everyone else. Countless religious people agree with me. And, there are also “moderate” Muslims.

Earlier, and in a different thread, you made a similar statement, and remarked that my ideas about spirituality and religion appear to be only mine. This isn’t true. Here are some more examples of people that are religious, but that are also evolutionists. Some of these people are even my friends.

Statement from a Christian Evolutionist
Quintessence of Dust
Book Announcement
Ken Miller's Evolution Page
POLKINGHORNE.ORG
Darwin's Forgotten Christian Defenders
http://www.berea.edu/specialproject/...th/default.asp
Writings of Allan H. Harvey
Ockham's Razor - 15/11/1998: Evolution, Theology and Creation Science
Faith & Reason Ministries
http://groups.msn.com/ChristiansForEvolution
CIN - Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man - Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996
www.meta-library.net
Theistic Evolution - One Christian's Perspective
DMD Publishing Co.
Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies
I disagree. It’s not a useless term in this debate, because we’re debating the New Atheists’ claims. They use the term “religion.” I address their claims about religion. Do they (or do they not) overgeneralize and mischaracterize many people in the religious community? Are there religious beliefs for which the New Atheists have not yet formulated valid arguments against? Do the NAs misunderstand spirituality? My answer to all of these questions is “yes.”

From my perspective, spirituality is religion.
Where are those arguments? I have yet to find one that isn’t a swift generalization made, before going on to spend dozen, or rather, hundreds of pages on fundamentalism. When I read these books I find glaring generalizations and misrepresentations. If my understanding of spirituality were the same as that of the NAs, I’d be a nonbeliever, as well.
I haven’t had no experience with Sam Harris, but you’re right that it has been little. I’ve been interested in the “new wave” of atheist literature. So I read all of The God Delusion. And since then, I have progressively read less and less of the other authors, as I’ve worked thru them. So much of what they have to say rehashes the same old points and is of very little use to me. I do like Sam Harris the best, but ran out of much steam before I got to him. Still, even in the talk in the video link that you posted, so much of what Sam has to say, is very distasteful and too overly generalized. His arguments are great, against fundamentalism. And how is anything about what he says about “spirituality” any different that of any other naturalist? I’ve heard it all before.

Naturalism (philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I think that’s excellent. It obviously has much to do with his more developed temperament. I did not know this. But I believe he’s wrong to say that there should be an “end of faith.” I believe Harris is wrong that Christianity can’t legitimately lead anyone to similar experiences. However, if by “end of faith,” he means faith resembling Natural Theology, then I agree. But not all faith. Many might even call the thing Harris wants a sense of oneness with, “God.”

I agree, that they “tend” to. Most do, but not all. Does religion have to be what most people think it is?

I also think this is excellent, Lachean.

Here’s a link that may interest you if you haven’t discovered it already: Spirituality without Faith
My whole argument is that religion can also get at this thing you’ve had, that has humbled you, and me, and even Sam. I believe many get it wrong. I believe that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al, are correct to criticize much of what is wrong with “religion.” I actually reject many of the same versions of religion that they do, and I’m vocal about it, also (as I shared in relating my visit with the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Much religion has had it coming, and much of the work the NAs are doing is helpful in this regard. But I also believe the mistake is to regard all religion this way, and to not make note of the distinction between a spirituality like I described in my OP, which exists for thousands, if not millions of people, and the religion of crackpots, creationists, religionists, and cultists. They may smell the same, but they really are worlds apart. And, if a distinction is to be made, to try to be accurate about it. I don’t believe that the few times the NAs actually have made the distinction, that they’ve ever gotten it right. Fair enough?
It seems to me that we’re somewhat talking about the same thing. A spiritual sense like I spoke about is an advanced moral sense, that is “logical,” to the point where it rejects our innate learned prejudices. All human beings have cognitive biases and comfort zones, etc. It might be true that one “does not need spirituality” in order to get to such a point, and the end result would be the same. But this is where our similarities end. Part of “faith,” imo, is admitting that we can’t do it alone. We “give up,” and take the “leap of faith,” putting our trust in the belief system that it may lead us to the more transcendent state, iow, “the Kingdom of Heaven.”
I regard “religionist” as a negative term: one that zealously clings to belief as if nothing else matters, or nothing else will ever do. If those kinds of people are the religionists, then I would expect that the things I am saying about spirituality would not resemble anything that any religionists might believe. I don’t really understand how what most of any people believe has to do with anything. Truth isn’t decided by a democratic process. I used the word “truth” just now, because I have been trying to get at what I believe is true about spirituality and religion. Consider what I said about religion / science in the OP. Can metaphor and allegory be subjected to literal truth arguments?