Hurricanes... and the religious right

Yes...a beautiful hymn...even to an atheist like me!

 

Re: Re: to err is muckle bad, to circumlocute divine

Well, I think that the notion is that - at least if you're preaching to the choir, i.e., those who accept the notion that the Word of God really is God's word - then the resort to the actual word of God would, for them, at least, be a bit more valid proof than the uncorroborated, "Well, ladies and gents, I talked to God last night and this is what He said to me! Trust me on this!"

 

The notion of an old man sitting in the sky directing things on Earth. Hmmm. I'd like to see the evidence that supports the hypothesis--besides the circular logic of faith.

On a political note, the Bush Administration doesn't deserve any blame for the hurricaines. But after 4 years and oh-so-many billions of dollars spent on homeland security, I think the response is fair game. I'm not suggesting an answer, but I think it is worth of discussion. Or investigation!

Another worthy topic is global warming. The U.S., with 1% of the world's population, consumes 25% of the world's energy. And energy consumption is directly linked with pollution and, some have argued, atmospheric changes that have created warmer oceans that, in turn, have led to these kinds of conditions. Again, no answers here, but it is certainly worthy of debate.

So, where are we? Well, we have a curiously uncurious President who surrounds himself with toadies and sycophants, listening to them tell him what he wants to hear. Then, when crises hit, these utterly unprepared, ill-fit people fail miserably. That, too, is worthy of discussion. (I can't wait for the ABA's take on the Supreme Court nomination! And where is Mike Brown's Medal of Freedom already? Certainly he qualifies! ) A President who is as envrionment unfriendly as has been in a very long time, who has a VP creating energy "policy" in secret.

So, no. Don't blame President Bush or his toadies for the hurricaines. (Even if he wanted to reverse global warming--which he most certainly does not--he coudn't have done enough soon enough to prevent what we've experienced, even if the two are linked.) But blame the preparedness and response. With all the money we pay as taxpayers, we deserve better.

And don't blame God. I'd hate to think he's some grumpy single parent, sitting up there pissed about us bumping off his only kid, demanding we pump his ego with worship, only to throw down all of this meteorlogical calamity as punishment. That wouldn't make him loving, or even vengeful. It would just make him a prick. And I won't stand for my God being called that. So there.

 

Don't let 'em get off the hook!

Dang it, Dr. Douglas, there you go again giving the Republicans a free ride! When are you touchy-feely liberals ever gonna learn? Ya gotta hold folks accountable for what they do. Now, our President claims to have direct communications with the Almighty (remembmeber, he asked God if it was okay before he invaded Iraq). So, if he made ANY effort at ALL, he should have been able to turn those ol' hurricanes aside.

Hey, Pat Robertson claims to have done that once, doesn't he?

 

Too simplistic.....

Yes, billions have been spent on Homeland Security and little of it went to levee's in NOLA. However, the Bush administration did increase spending in that area and it was, in fact, newly reinforced levee's which faile. The old "weaker" levee's did just fine. Maybe some of the usual NOLA corruption led to shoddy work? Probably, considering even prior to the hurrican the levee board and others in the area are facing indictments for failure to show where $60 million went. Face it, the NOLA area is a cesspool of corruption and incompetence. Even an extremely competent FEMA wouldn't have been able to overcome that trait. The pol's in the area are already rubbing their hands in glee for all the federal dough that will be coming their way after the press screamed everything is the US government's fault. Corruption opportunity galore, let the rip off commence!!

So, 1% of the population uses 25% of the energy? Yes, but that isn't a valid argument. What would be a valid argument would be to compare or energy use with our percent of the world's total GDP output. Naturally, an industrial country country like the USA would have a much higher consumption rate per person than say a citizen of Nepal. Also, country's with a higher productivity per citizen would use a higher amount of energy per worker even though overall that trait is a benefit to the world. The energy consumption and pollutant output of one of the old 2nd world steel mills were hugely higher when compared to a modern electric arc mill in the USA. China is the 2nd largest user of fossil fuels after the USA. But with a 1 billion plus population the per capita energy rate would be miniscule when compared to our. However, when compared to our output I bet our performence is light years ahead of theirs.

Please name one president that didn't surround himself with toadies or sycophants? You won't find one. But since you disagree with Bush's politics you point that out on him.

Let's be fair in the debate....

 

Re: Re: Re: to err is muckle bad, to circumlocute divine

But if the writers of scriptures wrote under the 'inspiration' of God, isn't that really saying the same thing ' God spoke to me and I recorded what he told me- trust me on this!'?

 

Same Kinda

DTechBA,
Excellent response. But remember, using facts is unfair.

And anyone believing they have the ability to understand a diety has certainly given themselves more credit than due. Anthropomorphizing an alleged diety just shows that faiths are as subjective as the faithful. I'm sure the alleged diety is overjoyed knowing faith has been the primary demise of humanity. But then, I'd be anthropomorphizing.

I would imagine all the faithful believe they have a special relationship with their diety. So, the alleged diety is playing a joke on a lot of people. Either someone is wrong or the believers will be future neighbors. Each group claims to have the "word". And for simplification I'll say each believer gravitates toward the religion they believe fits their needs, when given a choice. So, who decides the validity of the "word"?

I'm not being disrespectful, just inquisitive.
Is this a violation or a statement or a question? I think my beliefs are real. And the ironic thing is no one can prove me wrong.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: to err is muckle bad, to circumlocute divine

Note that I said at least if you're preaching to the choir - i.e., to other Christians, who accept the notion that the Bible is the Word of God. Note that I never said that the Bible is the Word of God. Only that presumably Christians would agree. [Note: people of other religions can have other words of their other gods. And people with no god can have no word of their no god. So it's all pretty much subject to interpretation.] But, if a given group more or less agrees upon who God is and which writings are His Scripture, then knowledge of that Scripture means that if someone says, "God said this in the Bible," it is readily checkable whether the Bible said this or not, while "God said this to me last night" is not verifiable because there are no independent witnesses.

 

Same

Ted,
There are no independent witnesses with scriptures. Because a group gathers, after someone writes something, and agrees these writings are "Divine" does not give them anymore validity than if a single person makes a similar claim. No matter what is written. There is no verification other than so-and-so documented this on a specific date and we agree on this.

I understand your argument, but several folks can only be witness to the writing not to the accuracy or inspiration of same. All they are agreeing to is the recording of the statement. And the writer asking that his statement be trusted as truthful. Was ist der Underschied?

 

Re: Same

Did you even read what I wrote? People of other religions can have other words for their other gods and people of no religion can have no word for their no god! I never asserted that Christian Scriptures are divine, only that certain persons belonging to a certain religious group believe that they are.

 

Well, from one point of view it would seem that God screwed him.

But this stuff might be more psychological than philosophical.

I think that most people kind of go through their lives without ever thinking about how easily everything could be upset.

Accidents, disease and disasters remind people of the fragility of their lives and about how close to annihilation they really are.

Once events have focused somebody's mind squarely on that existential reality, the fact that they and their loved ones are still there, still intact, can seem like something of a miracle.

 

My wife (raised Conservative) has a bumper sticker:

"God is an imaginary friend for grownups."

I don't actually agree with her on this (therefore I go to shul and she doesn't) but I see her point.

 

Same

I never asserted you considered anything divine. I was referring to your statement concerning statements in the bible being verifiable. Did you read what I wrote? The reporting and acceptance of the report do not verify anything except that it was written. The same as saying, "Take my word for it". You can say someone's word was taken because it was documented and someone else agreed. Lighten-up Ted, I'm agnostic. Verification (the word) is what I was questioning.

 

Re: Same

Let's see if I can rephrase what I said in such a way as to hopefully not seem too thin-skinned and without seeming like too much of a grump. What was said was that if two or more people accept the same scriptures (whichever scriptures those might be) as the words of the deity (whichever deity that might be), then they can verify whether their deity presumably said that in his/her/its/their word. Of course, others outside their group can dispute whether said group's scripture is the word of the deity. All of which means that the difficult thing about religious arguments is that, as you've duly pointed out, they're based on faith ("trust me on this"). That is, religious arguments will likely never be solved if the persons disputing religion aren't starting with the same scripture (or if one accepts no scripture at all). And, even then, when both parties accept the same scripture, often widely varying interpretations often lead to religious arguments remaining unresolved. But, back to the original point, if the preacher says, "God spoke to me last night," generally speaking, we don't know for sure because there were likely no witnesses. But if the preacher says, "God says this in the Book of Isaiah," we can read the Book of Isaiah to see if Isaiah really did say that (and the question of whether Isaiah having said something necessarily means that God said that same something might be debatable, to say the least, to those outside the group but likely accepted by those inside the group).

 

Same

I understand your entire statement and agree. I just didn't want you pissed at me over a word. I was stuck on your last sentence to Davidhume. I'm saying that whether written or not, the statements are equal in credibility. They are both based on faith.

I don't think religious people believe their God quit communicating once the Bible was completed. So, either way it's a "trust me" situation. That is what I think he was saying. Any alleged truth would be based entirely on faith, not fact. If they believe communications have been severed, what is the purpose of prayer?

 

Same

Ted,
After sleeping on this, I've decided we have too much time on our hands. The whole argument was/is a waste of time. I was being too particular with your wording. The entire thing should be a Seinfeld episode. I got dizzy running in circles. Whatever we were discussing, you win. No Dramamine.
Trust Me,
Clay

 

Clay: I think you win on this one. You correctly point out that God saying such and such with resort to some particular scripture is just as much a faith ("trust me on this") issue as claiming that God spoke to me last night. The only thing more verifiable about the resort to scripture (whichever one that might be) is whether scripture says that, which is not necessarily the same thing as whether God says that. I'm not pissed. - Ted.