Religion IV: Deus vult!

[Sci-2]

And as much as I dislike the New Atheists, the kinds of criticisms of religion people like Dawkins & Hitchens bring up aren't exactly new:

And [God] said to [Adam]: "Who is it who has instructed you?"
And Adam answered, "The woman whom you have given me."
And the woman said, "The serpent is the one who instructed me."
And He cursed the serpent, and He called him "Devil".
Then He said, "Let us cast him out of Paradise lest he take from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever"
But what sort is this God?
First [He] envied Adam that he should eat from the tree of knowledge [gnoseos]...[And] afterwards He said, "Let us cast him [out] of this place, lest he eat of the Tree of Life and live forever."
Surely He has shown Himself to be a malicious envier.
-The Testimony of Truth (2nd-3rd centuries), as quoted in Kripal's The Serpent's Gift

[Sci-2]

Some stuff showing that Christians aren't the only ones with stupid homophobic tendencies, but also stuff about Gnosticism, Weird Events, and the Spiritual but not Religious crowd:

Edgewalker: An Interview with Jeffrey J. Kripal

Jeffrey J. Kripal is an academic edge-walker, one of the most unusual and compelling scholars of religion working in America today. Rather than study mainstream religions from his perch as head of the department of religious studies at Rice University, Kripal focuses on the more informal modern world of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd, an increasingly popular orientation that Kripal calls the "religion of no religion." As such, his interests include weird stuff like superhero comics, the paranormal, and the tantric undercurrents of Esalen and the human potential movement. Lucky for us, Kripal is also one of those rare scholars whose books are not only clear but engagingly written and even a little goofy at times. Moreover, Kripal is one of the few academics willing to speak and write openly about his own mystical experiences.

Kripal's first book, 1998's Kali's Child, looked at homo-erotic and tantric dynamics in the life and spirituality of Bengal's wild nineteenth-century saint Ramakrishna. Though Kripal looked at the guru through the secular lenses of psychoanalysis and sociology, he did not try to reduce the spiritual to the materialist but instead saw them as playing off one another — a "tantric" stance that was informed in part by an ecstatic Kali-inspired mystical download he experienced while doing research in Calcutta. Though very well received by scholars, Kali's Child proved extremely controversial outside of academia, as Hindu fundamentalists sought to have the book banned and Kripal's career destroyed...

In terms of integrating the full range of human experience back into scholarly discussion, what positive signs are you seeing?

Colleagues constantly come up to me after lectures, and at very prestigious universities, and say in so many words, "I am so happy you are saying these things." It is not that they think, or that I think, that I somehow have the answers. It is simply that some of us are refusing to shut up about these things. We are talking about them, writing about them, querying them with the tools of the humanities and the social sciences — with literary theory, cultural anthropology, and the history of religions. My sense is that in fact most colleagues in the humanities and the social sciences are quite open to such matters personally but are reticent to "come out of the closet," as they fear the reaction of our peers. My reply to this is simple: "But that is what tenure is for." I do not encourage younger scholars to go here, not at least directly and so flagrantly, for the same reason.

The professional parapsychologist, stage magician, and skeptic George Hansen has inspired me here. His beautiful book The Trickster and the Paranormal is a long erudite treatment of the paranormal in the light of anthropology, literary theory, and the study of religion. He convincingly demonstrates that the paranormal is marginalized for a real reason: it is marginal, that is, it is all about the edges and gaps and conceptual abysses of our culture. It is where the structures of society and rationalism break down and enter a kind of fervent liminal or in-between zone of deconstruction, anti-structure, and, hopefully, creativity. There is also a real connection here, as with the tricksters of world mythology, to deception, fraud, and trickery. Perhaps most provocatively, George also demonstrates that to seriously engage the paranormal is to invoke it, to conjure it forth.

[Sci-2]

Officially Homophobic, Intensely Homoerotic

When will the Roman Catholic Church come out of the theological closet?

That’s the question author Mark D. Jordan (pictured at right) addresses in an insightful and thought-provoking essay drawn from the introduction to his 2002 book, The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism.

My friend Brian alerted me to this essay, one that is published online, here.

Below are selected excerpts from Jordan’s essay, though please note that the headings throughout the text are my addition.

=-=-=

Kripal's site discussing homoeroticism in the mysticism of Ramakrishna can be found here.

The sole purpose of the present web-site is to offer a portal through which readers might encounter some of my own perspectives and thoughts on the controversies that Kali's Child has spawned over the last eight years. I am fully aware that there are other web-sites that offer gross misrepresentations of both my work and my character and that call for various acts of censorship and punishment. This site is designed, not to engage all of these directly, but simply to provide another perspective, in this case, that of the book's author. I offer it in a spirit of respect, trust, and hope: respect for the sincerity and humanity of my critics, trust in the essential persuasiveness of a reasonable idea (no matter who speaks it), and hope for a more positive and culturally creative future, for all of us.

[Sci-2]

Signature in the cell?

One can run a reductio against the claim that we cannot detect design or infer transcendent intelligence through natural processes. Were we to find, imprinted in every human cell, the phrase "Made by Yahweh" there is only one thing we can reasonably conclude.

I like this example, because it is simple, clear, and illustrative of confusions of the sort that are rife in discussions of ID. Presumably we are all supposed to regard it as obvious that if this weird event were to occur, the “one thing we can reasonably conclude” is that a “transcendent intelligence,” indeed Yahweh himself, had put his “signature in the cell” (with apologies to Stephen Meyer -- whose own views I am not addressing here, by the way).

Now, it doesn’t take much thought to see that we’d think the same thing about finding “Made by Quetzalcoatl” imprinted in every cell. I doubt that any Christian ID theorist would propose that “there is only one thing we could reasonably conclude” from this, viz. that we should renounce Christianity and take up Aztec religion. More likely such an ID theorist would conclude that someone, somehow -- a New Atheist biotech cabal, maybe, or the devil -- was trying to shake everyone’s faith in Christianity. Or he might just conclude that no intelligence at all was responsible for it, and that his cognitive faculties were massively malfunctioning. Whatever he would conclude, though, the occurrence in human cells of the phrase “Made by Quetzalcoatl” would not by itself be doing the main work.

But the same thing is true in the “Made by Yahweh” scenario. The reason the reader I was quoting thinks (like many other people no doubt think) that the “one thing we can reasonably conclude” in such a case is that Yahweh put the message there, is that he already believes on independent grounds that God exists, that he is the cause of living things, that he revealed himself to the ancient Israelites as Yahweh, etc. And those independent reasons are what's really doing the heavy lifting in the thought experiment, not the “Made by Yahweh” stuff.

[Sci-2]

Leaving the Garden (in search of religion): Jeffrey J. Kripal's vision of a gnostic study of religion (2008)

A third locus of tension or conflict and potential resolution (next to those of science versus religion, and psychology versus mysticism), concerns the relation between public scholarly discourse and private experience. In Roads of Excess, Kripal analyzed five major scholars of mysticism and argued that their work should be read against the background of their own mystical/erotic experiences. Because such an emphasis on intimate biographical detail could not possibly be convincing methodologically (or responsible ethically) unless the author included himself in the analysis,the book also contained a series of chapters entitled ‘‘secret talk’’, in which Kripal described his own psychological and spiritual development, including a successful psychoanalysis and several impressive mystical experiences. Likewise, although in a different way,The Serpent’s Gift deliberately situates itself in the no man’s land (which Kripal would probably consider every man’s land)where the scholar’s ‘‘objectivity’’ overlaps or merges with his personal subjectivities; here too, it comes as no surprise that the goal seems to be a resolution or higher synthesis of some kind.

To understand how that synthesis is given shape, this book should be read in tandem with Kripal’s largest monograph to date, published almost simultaneously with The Serpent’s Giftand entitled Esalen: America and the Religion of No Religion(Kripal, 2007). It is the most comprehensive study so far of the famous Esalen community in Big Sur, from which emerged the ‘‘HumanPotential Movement’’ of the 1960s and which has been a major focal point of ‘‘alternative’’ spir-ituality since that period. This book is important to understand yet another polarity that is basic to Kripal’s Serpent’s Gift, that of subjectivity versus objectivity. The presence of subjective elements and agendas in so-called objective scholarship has become a commonplace of postmodern academic discourse, certainly in the United States, and is unproblematically taken for granted in Kripal’s approach. Much more provocative is its dialectical counterpart: the suggestion that experiences and phenomena which scholars tend to dismiss as belonging to the sphere of mere subjective claims might have a much greater degree of objective reality than is commonly assumed. It is as part of such an argument that we encounter, in the final part of The Serpent’sGift, a definitely Esalenesque emphasis on (and understanding of) psychic phenomena as empirical realities that might point in the direction of the future evolution of human consciousness. In other words, the ‘‘intellectual gnosticism’’ developed in Kripal’s book not only seeks to overcome the conflict between science and religion by means of a synthesis of psychology and mysticism; it does so by trying to integrate a quintessentially American type of countercultural evolutionism in the context of a (no less American) postmodern discourse on religion.

[Sci-2]

Thoughts on the following?

Thank You, Bill Maher, for Proving Islamophobia is Real

Maher either ignores or is ignorant to the fact that Islam is the first religion that granted specific rights to women at a time in history when the notion was a foreign concept. When the Quran was revealed, it mandated that women have the right to inherit wealth and land during a period when women themselves were treated as property.

Islam delineated the distribution of assets in event of divorce so that women were not forced to rely on men for sustenance. During a time when men were taking advantage of their wives for financial gain, Islam stipulated that a woman’s earnings are hers alone, whereas her husband is obligated to provide for the family. The Prophet Muhammad’s wife Khadija was herself a successful businesswoman who was independently wealthy prior to marrying him.

Muslim women were among the first to be encouraged to keep their fathers’ names upon marriage, instead of adhering to the Western tradition of taking on the husband’s last name as is customary in patriarchal societies throughout the world. This allowed them to establish and maintain an identity independent of their husbands.

Yes, Bill Maher Is Boorish. But We Shouldn't Be Afraid to Criticize Islam.

As for criticizing Islam, it is certainly true that, given the post-9/11 demonization of Muslims by many Americans, we must be careful about choosing our targets. Moderate Muslims exist the world over—Muslims who oppose extremism, who hate the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, who oppose sharia law. There are even Muslims who agree with liberals on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

But the fact is, Islam includes troubling teachings—just as many other religions, including Christianity, do. While certainly subject to interpretation, the Q'uran does refer to many regressive-sounding ideas, including a husband's right to discipline his wife by striking her, and, as Maher mentioned on his show, proscribing the death penalty for apostasy.

But if you make this point in America, knee-jerk liberals will call you Islamophobic. If you slight Allah, either unintentionally (Katy Perry) or for comedy (“South Park”), you'll be hounded until you remove the offending material. And if you're Somali-born writer and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has said “violence is inherent in Islam” and “Islam is the new facism,” a university will refuse to confer an honorary degree to you. I cannot defend Ali's statements, but they don't discredit her wholesale. She has done important work exposing "honor violence" against women and genital mutilation, issues which most liberals would agree with her on.

[Gears of the Beast]

Thoughts on the following?

Thank You, Bill Maher, for Proving Islamophobia is Real

Ok what the fuck is that garbage? And I thought it was bad when it was Sam Harris and Bill Maher trying to make sensible points and Ben Affleck kept whining inane nonsense throughout the whole conversation.

Jesus Christ, I don't really need to go through all the ways in which Islam is a disgustingly sexist religion in theory and in practice right? Not only is that article blatantly dishonest but it completely overlooks and trivializes the suffering of Islamic women who are beaten and raped everyday. It is a religion that practices the institutional oppression of women. And please if you think those are just the "radical" ones then do yourself a service and do some research. The author wants to talk "FGM", of course genital mutilation of children (male and female) is a problem in Islam - it's also a problem in other forms of putrid superstition such as Judaism and African tribal religions too that doesn't mean Islam does not have a problem with it.

Just to give you an idea: (I know that this is the case in Iran, I have no idea if this is the case in other theocratic countries with sharia law) A girl who is a virgin is not allowed to be executed under the law. So when they sentence a young girl to death they rape her first and then execute her.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Thoughts on the following?

Thank You, Bill Maher, for Proving Islamophobia is Real

How is anything she says relevant for our time? Yes, Islam has had historical moments of glory. But it is without question the most oppressive, violent, and anti-civilization religion in the world today.

[Gears of the Beast]

Yeah if we pretend like it's 1100 CE then Islam is the most advanced religion out there, congrats.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yeah if we pretend like it's 1100 CE then Islam is the most advanced religion out there, congrats.

But abortion clinics are being bombed by Christians every day!!

[Sci-2]

But abortion clinics are being bombed by Christians every day!!

I don't know if this is a good comparison. Christianity isn't necessarily better, in fact it's arguable that any edge it eeks out over Islam is due to being "tamed" by secular democracy.

See the American reactionary influence in Uganda and the subsequent homophobic reactions in that country.

[Gears of the Beast]

It's almost certainly because Christianity has been (as I like to say) dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, it doesn't mean we can't objectively evaluate Islam and see that it is a force for disproportionate evil compared to Christianity today. Furthermore, I think Ramsay is spot on in his point (it may have been taken from Sam Harris in the Bill Maher video haha) that 'liberals' will tell you all about the horrible stuff white Christians have done but when Islam is mentioned the cognitive dissonance (or moral relativism?) sets in and suddenly you're just being Islamophobic - racist even for daring to point out any number of things that are clearly wrong with Islam today.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I don't know if this is a good comparison. Christianity isn't necessarily better, in fact it's arguable that any edge it eeks out over Islam is due to being "tamed" by secular democracy.

See the American reactionary influence in Uganda and the subsequent homophobic reactions in that country.

That's all true - Christianity has had many barbaric eras, and the religion still has bigots and violent adherents. But reasons notwithstanding, it is still much "better" than Islam in today's world. Even Uganda, to take your example, is a million times better than the Islamic State. A funny aspect of that whole controversy is that Uganda sparked an uproar and media shitstorm for something our Arab "allies" do routinely

It's almost certainly because Christianity has been (as I like to say) dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, it doesn't mean we can't objectively evaluate Islam and see that it is a force for disproportionate evil compared to Christianity today. Furthermore, I think Ramsay is spot on in his point (it may have been taken from Sam Harris in the Bill Maher video haha) that 'liberals' will tell you all about the horrible stuff white Christians have done but when Islam is mentioned the cognitive dissonance (or moral relativism?) sets in and suddenly you're just being Islamophobic - racist even for daring to point out any number of things that are clearly wrong with Islam today.

Haha, yea Harris kind of made the same joke about the abortion clinics. But I've mocked it in the past since it is always the go-to example used by the "what-about-the-evil-Christians" crowd

Btw, and if anyone cares, I'm also an atheist. So this isn't coming from some bias for a certain "team"

[TerraPrime]

Some variants of Islam is more sexist than some variants of Judaism-Christianity. But at the same time, some variants of Judaism-Christianity is also more sexist than some variants of Islam.

The reaction from Affleck is well-placed. He was not denying that there are terribly sexist elements and terribly intolerant elements. He's disputing the broad strokes used to paint Islam. If we're talking about groups like Daesh and Boko-haram, then yes. But if we're talking about mainstream Islam as practiced in the bigger cities of Indonesia or Pakistan, then no. I think it's probably right to say that the most socially liberal Christianity is more liberal than the most liberal end of Islam, and the most conservative end of Islam is more conservative than the most conservative end of Christianity. But once we dig deeper with a finer distinction we can see that broad generalizations are often not helpful.

[Darzin]

Yes I think that it is a little unhelpful to generalize so much. Is Islam on average more conservative than Christianity yes very much so I wold say, and I disagree with most of it's tenants and morality. That said I think the hijab gets overplayed as a symbol of sexism more so than it is. In the sense that most girls who wear it are not forced to wear it. And that in terms of opportunities for women in most Muslim countries outside of the gulf or Afghanistan I don't think it's particularly more sexist than say India or Latin America. I just feel like people feel like Wahhabis are somehow real Muslims and all the rest are somehow watered down versions of "true Islam" When really the history is a lot more complicated than that. All of Islam is not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, and there are strains of Christianity in America where women are regarded as chattel and forced to cover up. Does Islam have a higher percentage of ultra-conservatives yes, does Sunni Islam have problem with terrorist ideology yes. However, when looking at Islam people often compare to the west these are not Western countries and when you compare them to other non-western countries with religions other than Islam they don't stack up to badly.

[Stannisaurus2]

That said I think the hijab gets overplayed as a symbol of sexism more so than it is. In the sense that most girls who wear it are not forced to wear it. And that in terms of opportunities for women in most Muslim countries outside of the gulf or Afghanistan I don't think it's particularly more sexist than say India or Latin America.

Doesn't India in general has huge issues with sexism (well to the extent that you can generalize to 1-2 billion people)? I remember reading about rapists going regularly free even with evidence and the lack of public toilets for women being an issue. Never being to the country though so I could be wrong.

[Wise Fool]

But abortion clinics are being bombed by Christians every day!!

Oh, I get it. It's not really every day. So Christianity isn't as bad, because Christians only bomb things occasionally.

Sure, you might not have a bias for Christianity, because you're a FREETHINKER YO, but like Gears you definitely have a bias against Islam, and watching you two high-five each other over it is kind of nauseating.

[Darzin]

Doesn't India in general has huge issues with sexism (well to the extent that you can generalize to 1-2 billion people)? I remember reading about rapists going regularly free even with evidence and the lack of public toilets for women being an issue. Never being to the country though so I could be wrong.

That was kinda my piont most non-western nations have a pretty big sexism problem, I was more criticizing the singling out of Muslims not denying a general problem. All of this happens in India and no one talks about how much Hinduism is inherently anti-women.

[Sci-2]

That was kinda my piont most non-western nations have a pretty big sexism problem, I was more criticizing the singling out of Muslims not denying a general problem. All of this happens in India and no one talks about how much Hinduism is inherently anti-women.

Hmmm, the question would then be are people sexist in the name of Hinduism?

And on a deeper level, to what extant do religions inform/preserve/motivate misogyny or other bigorties that may not be directly inspired by scripture? Are liberals and conservatives dancing around a larger problem than Islamic militancy by avoiding the depth to which a variety of problems are, in fact, religious problems?

(This is not to say religion is evil, or anything like that. As mentioned in a previous post, religious thinking is tied into the American Civil Rights movement. In fact, giving the history of human rights I wonder to what extent religion brought us the humanistic characteristics - limited as they might be - of the 21st Century)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Wise Fool

I have a bias against extremist forms of Islam that attempt to argue that their religious freedom includes the right to enslave and rape women:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

From the article:

"One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday.

The title of the article sums up the ISIS point of view: "The revival (of) slavery before the Hour," referring to Judgment Day.

The fourth edition of the group's English-language digital magazine called "Dabiq" said that female members of the Yazidi sect, an ethnically Kurdish minority living mostly in Iraq, may legitimately be captured and forcibly made concubines or sexual slaves.

The rationalization for a return to slavery -- repudiated around the world -- coincided with the release of a Human Rights Watch report on crimes committed by ISIS against the Yazidis in Iraq based on interviews with 76 displaced people in Dohuk.

This not all Islam, just the Daesh who make this absurd argument.