Theophobia

[Canadian_watcher]

I intuited it then googled theophobia myself and found http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblaw ... hobia.html as one of the topresults (top of page 2, most of page 1 are simply definitions)

what initiative!

yes, that's what I did. I'm not writing a thesis over here.

[brainpanhandler]

If you were to, for example, inadvertently make this statement:

"But it’s not just issues of epistemology. It’s that there is a climate or a culture on the Left that rightly observes that many who would have a religious position are intellectually underdeveloped or psychologically stuck, needing a father figure or scared of the unknown."

in front of Simone Weil, would you retract it? Would you feel embarrassed? Would you insist that it's true?

Wow. I didn't expect to be thrown a softball like that.

No, no and I wouldn't have to.

[Canadian_watcher]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

[American Dream]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

Maybe time to try something different?

[Canadian_watcher]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

Maybe time to try something different?

like what?

[American Dream]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

Maybe time to try something different?

like what?

Oh maybe, engaged critical thinking...

And/or taking a break...

[Canadian_watcher]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

Maybe time to try something different?

like what?

Oh maybe, engaged critical thinking...

And/or taking a break...

you are revealing yourself to be quite the waste of time

[barracuda]

The more I look at this excerpt, the less I think it really even about religiophobia at all. What it's about is a discussion of real political strategies for getting Christians to vote democratic.

The whole thing is kind of funny, because the very words "Noam Chomsky" are like a rallying cry for a certain type of right wing christian in this country. He's a symbol of all they hate about the left, and he's among the most moderate, level headed individuals you might imagine.

The article contains no information on the opinions of secular individuals vis-a-vis faith, but derives all its data from interviews and polls with Christians who've been fed the right-wing propaganda for decades. And it seems to buy into the entire idea of the "godless left". Christians see themselves as the underdog in just about any situation, always under attack by the secular atheists, at least partly because of the propaganda of the right. If you disagree with them about religion, that is an attack. They feel under attack even as they bulldoze your house down. Realistically, how many real atheists are even in the country, let alone the Democratic party?

According to wiki, only 0.7% percent of the American population self describes as atheist. This ain't godless Canada (19%) down here, Noam. But apparently the opinions and attitudes of the most radically outspoken of those 0.7% are going to stand in for the entire democratic voting public because the christian middle class says so.

From a recent interview between Noam Chomsky and Rabbi Michael Lerner (the whole thing is worth reading):

...

What Do We Do about Religiophobia?

ML: As a side question, we in the NSP and Tikkun have found that our positions and analyses — which are in some ways more radical (going to the root) than many of the programs that you hear coming out of the Left, because we do have a class analysis and we do have an analysis of global capitalism — are nevertheless not paid much attention by the rest of the Left because of what we’ve experienced as a pervasive religiophobia. And that has also been experienced by people like Jim Wallis and those involved with Sojourners, and people around the Christian Century, and other progressive religious organizations. And I’m wondering if you have any advice to us on how to overcome that religiophobia, since it seems ludicrous to us that a secular left would not understand that, in a country where you have 80 percent of the population believing in God and 60 percent going to church at least once a month, it would be in their interest to have a unification with people who have a spiritual or religious consciousness.

NC: I think you should approach them, not just on the pragmatic grounds that it’s in their interest, but also on the grounds that it’s the right thing to do. I mean, personally, I’m completely secular, but I certainly recognize the right of people to have personal religious beliefs and the significance that it may have in their lives, though not for me. Though we can certainly understand each other at least that well, quite apart from pragmatic considerations. I mean, say if a mother is praying that she might see her dying child in heaven, it’s not my right to give her lectures on epistemology.

ML: But it’s not just issues of epistemology, because there we could have a good debate; it’s that there is a climate or a culture in the Left and the liberal arenas that simply assumes that anybody who would have a religious position must be intellectually underdeveloped or psychologically stuck, needing a father figure or scared of the unknown, or some other psychologically reductive analysis. That approach — a kind of ridicule of anybody who could possibly think that there was a spiritual dimension of reality, when it’s pervasive, pushes people away even if they agree with much of the rest of what the Left is saying. How does one raise that issue? How does one deal with that issue among lefties who are simply unaware of the elitism and offensiveness of these suppositions? There was a time when it was extremely difficult to raise the issue of patriarchy, sexism, or homophobia, because people thought, “well that’s ridiculous, it’s just not true, it’s not happening” — there was a huge level of denial. Do you have any advice for us on how to deal with that level of denial that exists in the culture of the Left? In my own study of this — I’ve done a rather extensive study of the psychodynamics of American society, which involved over 10,000 people — we found that this was a central issue for a lot of middle-income working people, who agreed with much of the Left’s positions, but felt dissed by the Left.

NC: Well, the way you approach people is to explain to them that not only is it not in their interest to diss other people, but it’s also morally and intellectually wrong. For example, one of the greatest dangers is secular religion — state worship. That’s a far more destructive factor in world affairs than religious belief, and it’s common on the Left. So you take a look at the very people who are passionately advocating struggling for atheism and repeating arguments that most of us understood when we were teenagers — those very same people are involved in highly destructive and murderous state worship, not all of them but some. Does that mean we should diss them? No, it means we should try to explain it to them.

http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/overcomin ... am-chomsky

[American Dream]

the only mystery for me is whether you are being purposely obtuse or whether I should start being easier on you for your lack of intellectual capacity.

Maybe time to try something different?

like what?

Oh maybe, engaged critical thinking...

And/or taking a break...

you are revealing yourself to be quite the waste of time

Why are you doing what you're doing?

[MacCruiskeen]

If I have to choose between (say, just for example)

a) Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gerrard Winstanley, William Blake, George Herbert, Michael Polanyi and Father Daniel Berrigan

and

b) the smug, bullying, patronising moral and intellectual giants - those Apostles of Positivism! - who are giving C_w such an absurdly hard time on this thread,

then I have absolutely no doubt whose side I'm on.

And I also know who sounds both more rigorously rational and more credibly intuitive.

[American Dream]

If I have to choose between (say, just for example)

a) Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Gerrard Winstanley, William Blake, George Herbert, Michael Polanyi and Father Daniel Berrigan

and

b) the smug, bullying, patronising moral and intellectual giants - those Apostles of Positivism! - who are giving C_w such an absurdly hard time on this thread,

then I have absolutely no doubt whose side I'm on.

And I also know who sounds both more rigorously rational and more credibly intuitive.

I don't think any of the people in your a list would be likely to support David Icke.

Though I do agree with what I think you're suggesting- that socially engaged- and intellectually grounded- spiritual principle as manifested in practical work towards social justice is worthy of respect and emulation.

I think though that if the figures that you named saw that their conversations were just degenerating towards hurling insult, they would probably want to take a break.

[Saurian Tail]

I intuited it then googled theophobia myself and found http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblaw ... hobia.html as one of the topresults (top of page 2, most of page 1 are simply definitions)

what initiative!

yes, that's what I did. I'm not writing a thesis over here.

This is Extraverted Thinking in action ... finding a handy example to use as a discussion starter ... thinking is enhanced and logic unfolds through interaction with others. To the extraverted thinker, the introverted thinker is hiding information which he or she must uncover (through provocative means if necessary).

Whereas the introverted thinker presents a quintessential example in order to demonstrate a level of competence with the materials ... thoughts spring fully formed with defenses prepared. To the introverted thinker, the extraverted thinker's thoughts are scattered and they must be pinned down (through various challenges of logic).

-ST

[The Consul]

It would seem that any discussion of theophobia, if nothing else. soon proves the scant trace of theodicy in man. It only leads to the ontological argument anyway, which has never caused anything but mayhem in the minds and civivilizations of man. Oh, listen, outside the window now, methinks I hear a rally cry still!

[Canadian_watcher]

ST - that is really interesting theory. (I'm not being sarcastic .. I say so because I might have put myself in to a position with you where I am obliged to point that out.. sorry about that)

I consider myself to be an introvert. I test as such consistently as well. I can't really put myself into either of the boxes you've described above though.. so I wonder about the theories of introversion and extraversion in general. hrm....

[Canadian_watcher]

I've been holding off thanking several posters in this thread.. but .. I really want to do so.

You all know who you are.