Okay, I'll come back to this thread, to try and make my points more explicitly, FWIW.
The proposition I made - "if the Bible, Koran, etc is such a hall of mirrors, then why not just walk away from it" - is one that could follow from the claim that religious texts are like a Rorschach test. But I don't think the proposition would be acceptable to the religious, because (as I said) there is "something keeping [people] anchored to it after all"...
To be specific, I think two things keep the religious anchored to their inspirational text:
1. It provides a common reference point for placing people in the "in group" of the religion, or the "out group" of the exploitable pitiful enemy heathens. (Plus, a more ambiguous text casts a wider net, potentially creating a larger and more flexible "in group".) 2. The text is a prop/reference in ceremonial activities that were hammered into their minds when they were impressionable (young, lonely, drug-addled, destitute, etc) and carries an emotional significance with no rational basis.
Neither of these things requires an ambiguous (or blatantly self-contradictory) religious text (even though one of them is assisted by it). But nor do these things require a coherent, or consistent one. And that's a pretty important point: The baggage of contradictions and bad instruction that a religious text can carry is a burden that the religious are compelled to carry for uniquely irrational reasons.
And so, like all rational people, they often struggle with that text, sometimes desperately or repeatedly, as they live day-to-day immersed in the religion. Sometimes the best they can do is grow a scab over the wound in their rationality and just refuse to pick at it - just as plenty of non-religious people have to do, when coming to terms with contradictory things in the "real world" (i.e. outside the pages of a religious text) like meat-eating versus nonviolence, procreating versus overpopulation, assisted suicide, addiction, birth control, keeping pets, etc.
Which leads me to the question I asked (which telemann ignored) -- What's Reza Aslan's real beef with "new atheists"? If they're barking up the wrong tree, why not let them? Why be upset by them?
Why would he (or anyone) be upset that Bill Maher is declaring that Christians who rail against homosexuality "should" also rail against eating shellfish? If the contradictions - indeed, any specific content (according to Aslan) - of the Bible is a matter of taste, then Maher can be quietly ignored, because his words would only be affirming something that the religious apparently already know, aren't affected by, aren't defined by, and don't care about.
But many of the religious are affected by these contradictions. (Not all, but many.) Pointing out the contradictions over and over is like picking at a scab. It's an annoying reminder that religious affinity is, basically, not rational, and is on some level, not suitable for rational discussion and perhaps not even for rational beings.
In other words, Aslan is upset with Maher because what he's doing is a sucker punch, and it actually hurts. In this way he is no different than dozens of other apologists I've heard over the years: He wants Maher to "play fair" (i.e. act like a religious scholar) and stop sucker punching him/his faith/the faithful. But to Maher (and to me, on my more grumpy days) this is the equivalent of an old southern plantation owner inviting guests down from New York and then accusing them of rudeness when they want to talk about slavery.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-05-19 06:11 am (UTC)The proposition I made - "if the Bible, Koran, etc is such a hall of mirrors, then why not just walk away from it" - is one that could follow from the claim that religious texts are like a Rorschach test. But I don't think the proposition would be acceptable to the religious, because (as I said) there is "something keeping [people] anchored to it after all"...
To be specific, I think two things keep the religious anchored to their inspirational text:
1. It provides a common reference point for placing people in the "in group" of the religion, or the "out group" of the exploitable pitiful enemy heathens. (Plus, a more ambiguous text casts a wider net, potentially creating a larger and more flexible "in group".)
2. The text is a prop/reference in ceremonial activities that were hammered into their minds when they were impressionable (young, lonely, drug-addled, destitute, etc) and carries an emotional significance with no rational basis.
Neither of these things requires an ambiguous (or blatantly self-contradictory) religious text (even though one of them is assisted by it). But nor do these things require a coherent, or consistent one. And that's a pretty important point: The baggage of contradictions and bad instruction that a religious text can carry is a burden that the religious are compelled to carry for uniquely irrational reasons.
And so, like all rational people, they often struggle with that text, sometimes desperately or repeatedly, as they live day-to-day immersed in the religion. Sometimes the best they can do is grow a scab over the wound in their rationality and just refuse to pick at it - just as plenty of non-religious people have to do, when coming to terms with contradictory things in the "real world" (i.e. outside the pages of a religious text) like meat-eating versus nonviolence, procreating versus overpopulation, assisted suicide, addiction, birth control, keeping pets, etc.
Which leads me to the question I asked (which telemann ignored) -- What's Reza Aslan's real beef with "new atheists"? If they're barking up the wrong tree, why not let them? Why be upset by them?
Why would he (or anyone) be upset that Bill Maher is declaring that Christians who rail against homosexuality "should" also rail against eating shellfish? If the contradictions - indeed, any specific content (according to Aslan) - of the Bible is a matter of taste, then Maher can be quietly ignored, because his words would only be affirming something that the religious apparently already know, aren't affected by, aren't defined by, and don't care about.
But many of the religious are affected by these contradictions. (Not all, but many.) Pointing out the contradictions over and over is like picking at a scab. It's an annoying reminder that religious affinity is, basically, not rational, and is on some level, not suitable for rational discussion and perhaps not even for rational beings.
In other words, Aslan is upset with Maher because what he's doing is a sucker punch, and it actually hurts. In this way he is no different than dozens of other apologists I've heard over the years: He wants Maher to "play fair" (i.e. act like a religious scholar) and stop sucker punching him/his faith/the faithful. But to Maher (and to me, on my more grumpy days) this is the equivalent of an old southern plantation owner inviting guests down from New York and then accusing them of rudeness when they want to talk about slavery.