Discussion in 'Religion' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Oct 15, 2017.
Where I am now & other places I have lived in the US it is quite common.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
i remember this man who was talking about religion and he was pushy about it, not as in a let me share with you info about god but obnoxious.
what i noticed was that his intent was not about god so much about his fundie version of god with an added touch of megalomania of himself. so in essence, he was pushing himself and his values (far right) as god. there was an intent to subjugate any other idea or religion as inferior. i felt intensely and personally violated, like he intended that, like they want to crowd you out or infect/force you with theirs so no other is allowed to exist. something about his attitude made me wish the ground would open up and swallow him.
it's a pattern. same type of person/nature as my family. like i would know if they had met, they would even unconsciously identify with eachother. it's like a breed/type of person. different race, different looks, same inside.
now, to be clear, there are far right like this who are exactly the same except they aren't christian or religious so it's not so much the religion as much as the type of person.
My last sentence was referring to the immediate preceding paragraph--preaching of extremists vs. fruitful discussion on science forums--not the random questioning about belief.
I've lived for a couple of years in a few Southeastern U.S. locales--a misguided consequence of my love for the works of Flannery O'Conner, E.A. Poe, and Faulkner--and traveled throughout a good deal over the years. European bands often have this fascination with touring the American South and I'm obliged to... oblige.
It was never all that clear to me whether Southern Fundies animosity towards me was a product of my not being God fearin', or more a consequence of what that implies to them, i.e., having "New York values," not being sufficiently racist, homophobic, sexist, and the like. Once, while biking through a fairly posh neighborhood in Asheville, NC, with my dog, Parmalee, a woman started shouting at us from her yard, telling me to put my dog on a leash (his discipline and devotion to the task at hand were unparalleled) and calling us a "menace" and a blight on the neighborhood. I told her to "fuck off" and continued on my way. Two minutes later, her husband was literally trying to run me over with a pickup truck.
I think a lot of those guys are just itching to antagonize the Other, and will use any excuse to justify their actions.
Sorry if I misunderstood. Some atheists seem to be insulated from what seem common experiences to me.
I have had such experiences in the South. And the North, West & Midwest US.
I've recounted this tidbit countless times, but I'll do so again: Douglas Hofstadter (in G.E.B, I think) recounts how his uncle, Albert Hofstadter--a noted Heidegger scholar and translator--would often try to get Douglas into Heidegger. Douglas, whom I have a lot more respect for than Daniel Dennett, notes that to this day, he can't make any sense whatsoever out of Heidegger. And he's a brilliant guy, it's simply that his mind doesn't work that way.
An awful lot of people (and I won't point fingers) don't seem to appreciate this.
For me, Maturana and Varela's The Tree of Knowledge is like this. There's something there, and it often seems relevant to whatever it is that I am thinking about, but I just can't quite... get it.
Wait--what does this have to do with social stratification? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Can you imagine all of the disciplines--mostly in the social sciences, but also including literary criticism, strains of philosophy, etc.--that simply would not exist were everybody wholly incapable, or unwilling, to indulge? That's not what i really mean to say, but it really has more to do with a critical examination of one's presuppositions and the willingness to abandon such.
Vicki Hearne is the one writer who has exerted the most influence upon how i think. Her work pre-dates what is now called Animal Studies, or Critical Animal Studies, which incorporate everything from ethology to biological sciences and neuroscience to psychoanalysis, literary and cultural criticism, and philosophy (mostly Continental but also the more thought-prone strains of Analytic, from Wittgenstein to Stanley Cavell to Cora Diamond).
This work demands a suspension, especially amongst academic types who typically have little or no real world experience working with animals, and a coming to appreciate their cultural manifestations (from games and politics to arts and music, and even something akin to religion). This really demands a letting go of the prescribed assumptions.
And, yeah, there's really no need for Devil's Advocacy, or the granting of powers, faculties, attributes--just the simple acknowledgement that Morgan's Canon is as much a "law" as is Occam's Razor (it ain't, and it often stifles critical thinking and the necessary blind leaps).
In "The Etiquette of Freedom," Gary Snyder describes how "will"and "wild" have a common derivation, yet have come to mean something almost wholly antithetical to one another. Especially in such contexts where they're trying, or pretending, to be real precise-like.
Separate names with a comma.