Why the disagreements over religion?
Why the disagreements over religion?
What I have noticed for years now is that atheist members seem to feel a need to criticize and challenge the beliefs that others have about religion. When a believer posts a pro-religion article the fireworks seem to have to start. Why? As Paul McCartney wrote and sang; "Let it be." Although I was brought up in a certain religion, I'm not particularly religious now except that my personality and opinions may well have been formed originally by the tenets of that religion. I don't attend any services, I eat foods that are prohibited, I carry out no rituals, but I do identify. I am proud that my children have continued that identification and practise my/their religion even more sincerely in their professions. I respect other religions (my wife practises a different religion) provided they do not try to proselytize me or anyone, or use it as an excuse to harm anyone, for instance radical Islamic terrorism. I think of religion as a very personal thing, and in that regard, to each his/her own. I admire and respect religions that make all existence connected, such as those practised by Native Americans, and in that respect I lean towards Pantheism. As Frank Lloyd Wright believed, Nature is God.
Many people feel that their beliefs fill what would be an emptiness in their lives; religion gives them a way to deal with the unexplainable, and comforts them in times of sorrow, like family deaths. What is wrong with that?
So why the criticism, the challenges? Instead, provide justifcation for your own beliefs instead of the kind of vicious attacks that have been staining the articles on NT. I don't expect atheists to be spiritual, but I would like to hear from them about what is positive about their non-beliefs rather than only hearing about what is negative about others' beliefs.
Tags
So you prefer to be dismissive and presumptuous rather than listen to the other side.
No problem, I don't need to waste anymore time.
Alas, it is Atheists who have no evidence to end the debate and no doctrines or methods of its own to stand on. Exception: Atheists go out of their way to share their. . .disbelief. When you consider it, who is proselytizing now?
Alas, it is Atheists who have no evidence to end the debate
We don't need it. The burden of proof has been explained to you ad nauseum.
Atheists go out of their way to share their. . .disbelief. Militant atheists vainly attempt to use logic and science to marginalize religion. Epic fail.
Generally in response to theists who have gone out of their way to share their belief, and mislabel it as "knowledge".
Ho-hum!!!! Yawn. Much ado about nothing. We are what we are, because we believe what we do, because it is right for us. Works for me.
Who is online
468 visitors
Does it really matter what path you follow, so long as it leads you to being a good person?
Dear Friend Buzz: I agree.
Let each find their own path in life.
If it brings out the best in them, they have my support.
Even and particularly where we disagree.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
"So why the criticism, the challenges? Instead, provide justifcation for your own beliefs instead of the kind of vicious attacks that have been staining the articles on NT. I don't expect atheists to be spiritual, but I would like to hear from them about what is positive about their non-beliefs rather than only hearing about what is negative about others' beliefs."
I think so called christians are more likely to criticize and challenge atheists or 'non-believers'. Just because we might not believe in God doesn't make us not spiritual or not positive about our 'non-belief'. We're all part of the universe, not necessarily of God or Jesus.
P.S. to my comment - I think the 'believers' are usually the more vicious ones trying to prove what is not there.
The answer to why is found in human nature. From the Christian POV that why is found in the Bible. So is easier said than done but I'll say it anyways, since the Why is found in the Bible, then what we need to ask God is how, what, when and where can we be of any help.
Atheists have grown increasingly aggressive online, and I guess elsewhere, for some years now. I think it roughly corresponds to the popularity of the trinity of atheist authors, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. It is a feature of internet discussions, and is most likely not going anywhere.
Actually, your "trinity" is more commonly known among atheists as three of the 'four horsemen'. You missed Daniel Dennet.
Ah yes, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
It's easy to confuse the four horsemen with the trinity. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
coc violation
Perspective:
Are you critical of individuals such as Ken Ham who advocate the Earth is ~6,000 years old, that homo-sapiens coexisted with dinosaurs and that the Bible is literally true?
Ham, et. al. are aggressively trying to keep millions of people (about 10% of the nation) holding to beliefs that defy highly corroborated scientific findings. He is seeking to suppress critical thinking and keep people believing that the words of ancient men should literally run one's life.
Should Ken Ham be challenged?
Ken Ham? Here come the clowns.
I agree. But unfortunately he is an effective clown.
I think a person can be a "believer" (believe in God) and yet feel the Bible is not literally true. I see no conflict there.
(It is possible to belive the Bible is not literally true-- and that its not meant to be taken literally. Rather, much of what it says is symbolic-- that there may be profound truths there, but you can only discover them if you realiz ethe Bible is not meant to be taken literally...)
I consider the bible to be allegorical.
Krishna! I departed this article a while ago, but since it still pops up when a comment is added to it, I'd like to add something from an anthropologist:
The above quote is simply a snippet taken from a larger article written by a scientist. The subject matter for the article being evolution and Conservative Christians. So your point is a good one.
But my point was about Ken Ham, et. al. who do hold the Bible as literally true. I happen to know that people can believe without taking the Bible literally - most do not take the Bible literally. Not the point.
Well I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
My opinion is that everything should be challenged!
Sometimes, in challenging something, what the truth is can be discovered relatively quickly and easily. Sometimes its a bit more difficult. But I find it useful to assume nothing-- at least not for any long period of time.
[Not surprising, as in the MBTI system of personality types-- I am an ENTP}
I think the biggest value of religion is that it brings comfort. There is no doubt that reality is daunting. Shit happens and we are largely helpless. At any moment we could be diagnosed with a terminal disease, be killed in an accident, suffer financial ruin, lose a child, etc. In the grand scheme, there are any number of scenarios in which the Earth will become inhospitable to human life. In all, we are all on a little rock in an incomprehensibly large and complex universe that for the most part is deadly to life as we know it.
So yes reality is quite scary and religion brings comfort through the belief that there really is a compassionate uber-entity that will make everything work well in the end. My father-in-law, for example, is a devout Catholic. His religion brings him comfort. I think that is a good thing. He still operates his life sensibly - uses common sense - and is by all rights a very decent human being. I would never challenge his beliefs.
However, I cannot support the idea that we should accept as truth the words of ancient men with pens. IMO, there is no harm in believing that there is a creator entity. The abstract notion of a god is in itself harmless and is indeed possible. What is harmful is allowing the views of ancient men pretending to be God to actually influence the lives of modern individuals.
But what if it influences them in a positive way?
What if people reading some ancient words (for example "love thy neighbour") decide to embody that?
We can arrive at that way of thinking without believing in a god. Especially not a god who says "love your neighbor" one century, but says "slaughter that city" another.
That would be wonderful.
I do not believe anyone has made the point that everything in the Bible is bad or, for that matter, that religion serves no good purposes.
Nothing is 100% bad (or good).
Atheism is a reaction to overt theism. If religionists didn't feel the need to impose their religious views on everyone else, then nobody would ever hear a word from atheists outside of private and innocuous intellectual discussions.
Imagine if all religionists kept to themselves (like they claim Jesus said to do), did not try and force their dogma onto those who don't want it, did not lobby to discriminate against strangers whose lives have no bearing on theirs, etc. - imagine that world, now imagine how religionists would feel if atheists barged into their world to try and stop what they were doing in the privacy of their churches and their homes. Would that not be like poking a bear? That is exactly what they are doing to us nonbelievers. If they would stop their endless pursuit to affect the world outside of their bubble, they would never hear from atheists again.
Agreed that if an atheist knocked on my door, handed me a pamphlet and tried to recruit me to become an atheist I would tell him/her "No thank you" and close the door on him/her.
Atheists don't come knocking on your door.
Most people would have known I was joking, but I am serious about not appreciating being proselytized.
This goes way, way beyond knocking on doors.
During my long lifetime I have attended many different religious churches and temples. I did so in order to find one that gave me peace, comfort and fulfillment. However, the one thing that I found that they all had in common was that if you were not one of them you were not an acceptable being. That is when I began to practice the religion of my Cherokee ancestors. It is not judgmental, it does not require that you worship the Creator in any specific way, they do not have the right to determine whether or not you are worthy for the Creator to take you into His hands.
Whether or not you are atheist, agnostic or religious, it is what is in a person's heart and the way they live their lives that matters most. And......it is not up to any religion or religious person to sit in judgment of any human being. That right belongs to the Creator alone. Those who take it upon themselves to usurp that right are not being true to their own God.
Just my opinion.
Dear Friend Raven Wing: It is indeed a good opinion.
I am pleased you found in thew ways of your heritage what you seek.
Keeping alive a good tradition is meritorious.
For what it is worth, in Congregations in which I served as Senior Rabbi, everyone was welcome.
All were made to feel at home. Valued. Appreciated. Glad we saw them there.
No ideological litmus tests.
Our view is that what we do works perfectly for us.
To wish anyone else any less with what they are doing for them is in our viewpoint ungracious.
On any given day a large percentage of attendees were not of our religion, or of another denomination within it.
We did not care.
We are all children of the same G-d.
All members of the same human family.
No one more or less than the other.
All beloved by G-d.
We emulate our G-d as the ultimate role model.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Very true, dear Friend Enoch. The reason I attended so many different religious venues, including a Synagogue, Buddhist Temple, Pentecostal churches, to name a few, was to find out more about them, and their relationship with those who attended.
As in many things, I found the Jewish faith more in keeping with my own views, thoughts, and the religious teachings of my Cherokee ancestors. As we have found out over the time we have spent here on NT and in our joint writing projects, there are many areas where the two religious beliefs, and history, are very similar in many areas.
I have many Friends who are of various religious beliefs, and we all accept each others choice of belief. As it should be. There is no division between us in that aspect, only mutual respect, acceptance and camaraderie.
IMHO, there are far too many things in this world we as a people should be concerned with besides who is going to go to Haven or Hell. That is best left to the one who has the ultimate right to determine, the Creator, not Man.
Dear Friend Raven Wing: Not all, in fact most religions and spiritual approaches do not agree there is such a place as hell. It does not exist in Judaism, for example.
In my heritage, as in yours G-d is seen as an all merciful, all loving Source of all being. We find the idea that G-d would torment anyone He created just because some do not follow any one path to Him.
Where concepts like hell have been used are to intimidate using fear and hate tactics for the propagation of an individual tradition. That is inconsistent with a message of love and the love G-d has for all whom He created.
Let each be moved as the Great Spirit guides them. Let all embrace the warmth and humanity in each other. Let all work together where we can for the better of life for those who are descended from and follow us.
None of that in at odds with any religion, spirituality, or humanitarian approach I studied and encountered. I am in my seventh decade at this. If it were there, I would have noticed.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
I agree totally with all you said, dear Friend Enoch.
The Cherokee do not believe in Hell, only in an after life with peace and joy. We also believe that there is more than death waiting for us when our flesh and bones have ceased to be. The Spirit does not die, and we each take the next steps to our own eternal journey one our Spirit is free of the human body.
As you said, the Creator is a loving and forgiving Father of all life here on earth. His children are precious to Him and as a parent He would not cast them into such eternal misery. Even the worst among us are still His children.
Before the Christians conquered and imposed their religion on the Cherokee, the Cherokee lived a life of equality. I have long admired what I have read of the Cherokee nation.
Any belief system that names the "man as the head of the household" does do harm to everyone who comes under the power of that belief system.
Europeans were astonished to see that Cherokee women were the equals of men—politically, economically and theologically. “Women had autonomy and sexual freedom, could obtain divorce easily, rarely experienced rape or domestic violence, worked as producers/farmers, owned their own homes and fields, possessed a cosmology that contains female supernatural figures, and had significant political and economic power,” she writes. “Cherokee women’s close association with nature, as mothers and producers, served as a basis of their power within the tribe, not as a basis of oppression. Their position as ‘the other’ led to gender equivalence, not hierarchy.”
Indeed, mocowgirl. And you are right about the equality of women of the Tribe. In fact, women are the ones who owned all property, possessions and assets of the family, not the men. That included the home, horses, and property. Any man who beat or abused his wife in any way was banned from the Tribe, after getting his just deserts from all the women of the Tribe.
Also, as you said, divorce was as simple as the women setting her husbands cloths outside of the entry way of their home. And the husband had no recourse. Once his clothes were set outside the home the marriage was over. However, divorce was very rare, as Harmony among the members of the family was as important as among all people of the Tribe.
And yes, the Europeans were truly astonished at the equality shared by Cherokee women, and worked to try and change the attitude of the Cherokee on that matter, as they were afraid that it would be too influencing on their own women to be treated more equal. However, the Cherokee would not budge from their own belief of equality.
Speak for yourself!
I know Atheists who arrived at that philosophy pro-actively-- not reactively!
Never in my life that I can remember have I attacked another person's religion nor lack of. I have, certainly, defended my Christian faith by those who feel compelled to ridicule.
Insofar as the "baker" goes it was his religious belief. He was not taking the gay couple's religion to task as we have no idea, at least to my knowledge, if they practiced a particular religion and it doesn't matter.
My brother died eight months ago and I was his primary caregiver. I didn't live close by, but every day I would travel to his home, hopefully, to give him some relief. It was a terrible time. On many occasions, I would find the "Watchtower" pamphlets on his table. He told me that they would come by every few days to talk to him and to see how he was doing. He said he really enjoyed talking to them....very nice people, he said.
So, you see, some might close the door on them, but to others it opens doors. They were there when some members of my brother's own family were not. I had no info available to contact them. If I had had info, I would have called them with my thanks.
I just ask them if they are one of the 144,000 that get into heaven according to JW doctrine.
I like the Mormon kids. I invite them in and give them water, no tea or cola. I ask them about their mission and where they go next. Always good visits. Kids are great! At the end of the conversation I tell them I am Baptist and have no desire to change.
In my encounters their mission was not for me to change.
They were spreading their word.
Even in 1967 in Atlanta my husband and I invited them to dinner. Two young boys who were spreading their word and spending two years out of their lives to do so. Mormons.
That was different from the people who visited my brother. I thank God they were there for him.
Angels unawares? Sounds like it to me.
Dear Friend Magnoliaave: I am sorry for the loss of your dear brother.
It has been eight months since that transition for him.
There is, and will always be a void for you.
I am please that these nice people came to visit him in his last days.
I am proud that you, as his sister traveled long distances so you could be there for him.
Good on all of you.
I am available by site private notes and personal email for such Pastoral care as you may wish of me.
Your beliefs and values will be respected.
The same for your confidentiality.
Again you all did right in his last days.
Please feel as good about yourselves and what you did as he did for and towards you all.
Peace and Abundant Blessings Always.
Enoch.
Thank you. I really do appreciate it, sir.
Rev. Matt has been there for me. Carrying me through both my sister and brother's deaths.
He just went through a kidney transplant and doing wonderfully well. He is a relatively young man with a young family. He doesn't "preach".....he speaks from his heart. Never known anyone like him.
I started taking my grandson (my avatar) to church with me when he was three years old. When he was four he didn't go to church in care while the service was going on, but stayed with me during the sermon. Bless his heart, he would look up at me while we sang "They will know you are Christian by your love" and he would just sing away. He is 16 now and still likes to go to church with me. What a treasure!
Take care of yourself, dear sir. God Bless!
What a great encounter and sharing of the spirit we are privileged to watch between people of faith. I hope either of you do not mind me being bold enough to point out that this is an example of what real faith is all about: Goodness. Mercy. Compassion. Sharing. Hope. Love. Peace. Wellness. Soundness. Joy. Grace. Unity. These and many more in the list are what unabridged spirituality is.
Dear magnoliaave, your openness to share gives me wonder and positive insights about you as a fellow spiritual traveler.
Not at all.
When I look into the eyes of my grandson, I see all that is love and goodness. Oh, he is a typical teenager, but he is one on one with the Lord. He gets into trouble with his Dad, but I know that when I am no more he will be safe.
Ah! I have no children but have aided considerably in the raising of several and we treasure each other—much to my surprise I tell you. As a result, I am often caught unawares and marvel over their care and concern for me.
I can almost touch the level of your love for this young man. And I surely well know about those "cautionary moments" when Cub wrestles with Lion for more liberty! Proud grandmother indeed!
"Moments" like these when we step aside from the object of debate and speak to each other from the heart, if only for briefly, are treasures in themselves.
To join in with another person's life when there is no family connection is the ultimate in love. No wonder they care about you!
The love I have for this kid is beyond belief. He is a gift that I treasure. I don't burden people with his photos or achievements. They will be aware of them when the time is right and it won't be by me, but will be his entrée to the world.
Oh, there is a family connection, but it is a surprise all the same. It feels amazing to know that someone cares. . . loves. . . him, her, who could just walk away. It's so good loving somebody when somebody loves you back. A singer sang (Teddy Pendergrass).
A marriage, a family, a "grand,". . .sometimes love is taken for commonplace. But, love catches the outcast and the downtrodden by wonderful surprise nearly every time it shows up!
I'm a Christian. I tell people, and I try to reflect that in my actions. I don't run around damning people (not my job) and I don't push people into a corner on faith. I've been accused of proselytizing simply by discussing my faith before. If simply discussing faith is proselytizing, I will do it. For some reason, even discussing faith has become taboo. It's not. I've made lasting friendships because I wasn't afraid to discuss my faith. Those friends are still atheists, but we met because we engaged in respectful discussion. That's the rub.
Buzz, I should have noted that I wasn't suggesting that you wouldn't engage in conversation. Just noting that some equate discussion with chasing someone down the street with a Bible.
I assumed you didn't suggest that. After all, I posted this article and have made numerous comments and replies to commenters on it.
Well, I figured it went without saying. I've not read enough of your comments to get a feel for you though, so I thought I'd throw it out there. With some folks, you need a comment and footnotes.
I have no problem with religious discussion, but I do not condone verbal coercion to another faith, and expecially forceful coercion.
Beliefs and Faith in the Creator God and/or in only one God and in Christ Jesus as the Only Son of that Only one God, ARE NOT the same as religion. That's how atheists among others, see it in their abject Ignorance of the subject matter of God, Belief and Faith.
However belonging to and/or having/practicing a Religion, even those that are condemned in the Scriptures, is one of many things/traits that Differentiates and Separates Human beings from Animals.
You see, animals have customs, habits, rites and rituals, like for example mating-rituals. What Animals don't and can't have is Religion. That's only granted to Mankind by the Creator God. And that's NOT "Religion". That's why atheists and others act and behave like the "Monkeys in the barrel" of the proverbial "Barrel full of monkeys". Which of course Fits well what most of them believe about man descending from Apes.
Beliefs and Faith in the Creator God and/or in only one God and in Christ Jesus as the Only Son of that Only one God, ARE NOT the same as religion. That's how atheists among others, see it in their abject Ignorance of the subject matter of God, Belief and Faith.
It's always funny when the fringe calls the vast majority abjectly ignorant - particularly when it's over a simple concept.
Aren't you the one who was saying President Obama is some kind of transexual freak? Very 'christian' of you.
It is beyond my imagination to understand why people involve themselves in religious conversations when there is no rational end to it. Why do I do it? Why do you do it?
There are millions of people going through unheard of hardship and here we are discussing religion. It doesn't make sense.
We Will Understand It Better By and By
For the time being we have to endure what Paul calls the "foolishness" of the Gospel message:
2 Corinthians 4:3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
None of us fully understand the "ins and outs" of this life we trek. We are travelers, ever last one of us, moving on to see what the end will be. Along the way, faith is birthed in us and from then on the faithful are tasked to study to show himself or herself approved.
magnoliaave, I totally agree. Religious or non-religious beliefs, like politics, is a personal choice. People think they must defend or attack those who do not believe or think the same as they about both, when in fact, at the end of the day, no one really cares. It just makes for very divisive and heated arguments here on NT and elsewhere that some people love to see. It's not a pretty show to see, other than to those whose only intent is to incite it.
Personally, I don't really care what other's political choice is, or whether they are religious or not. It is their choice to make those decisions, just as it is for me. I don't waste my time or my life sticking my nose in other people's personal matters such as politics and religion. Their choices do not guide my life.
All I ask, is that they equally respect my right to make my own choices in those areas.
Actually, I have seen the emergence of "militant atheists" mirroring the rise of "militant" Christians. Since the 1970's, we have seen the constant attempts by some Christians to have their religious dogma made into civil law, l regardless of the Constitution. When they can't manage that, they simply ignore the Constitution until someone sues them. The only reason that people are noticing is that before the Internet, there was no public forum where atheists could be heard. I do not think that atheists hate religion, they simply don't want to be governed by the rules of something they don't believe exists.
I do not think that atheists hate religion, they simply don't want to be governed by the rules of something they don't believe exists.
And it's not just that, it's the abject inflexibility-by-design approach that guides Abrahamic religions. They have a doctrine, and that doctrine is considered immutable, regardless of how extreme their interpretation of ambiguous language is. Obviously, the world is a dynamic space that cannot be governed by a single set of rules made at a single point in history. If a so called god wanted to save the earth from destructive behavior by its inhabitants, it would have no way to tell us that it is doing so. For all anyone knows, there is a god, and that god is responsible for the increase in homosexuality - because it is desperately trying to save the earth and all its inhabitants from overpopulation. Nobody would know, because that god is powerless to communicate its intentions, and its subjects are powerless to consider that such a god is capable of change. It's a zero sum situation.
I think that religion can have a huge effect on, perhaps not intelligence, but the ability to use it. Some religions might glorify the practical use of religion, whereas others might restrict it. For exmple, compare the number of Nobel Laureates achieved by persons of these religions, and take into account the total numbers of those religions.
Jews - world population - 14,000,000 +/- - Nobel Laureates 157
Muslims - world population - 1,400,000,000 +/- - Nobel Laureates 12
In my opinion, it is religion that has caused the difference there, not DNA or genetics, but education and access to it is a major factor in that difference, and it is religion that has restricted education in that case.
I don't have the statistics for comparison of atheists with persons of faith, but I would imagine there might not be a huge difference except for the problem of how it is disproportionately effected by those religions that restrict education and the practical use of intelligence.
And it is frightening to think that America is heading in that direction by the discouraging of a broad spectrum of lectures in its universities - Berkeley being a showcase for such censorship.
I'm glad you said that-- I've noticed the same thing!
I don't care whether someone is religious, or not. Or which religion they choose. (In fact I once mentioned that in an online discussion & mentioned that personally, I don't care if someone wants to worship idols! Seriously-- why should I care?)
Of course saying something like that occasionally really pisses someone off--LOL! But hey-- f*ck 'em if they can't take a joke!
What I hate is when some self-righteous, judgemental, condescending a$$hole tries to convert me to their belief system after I told them I don't want to hear it. And that goes not only for religious fanatics-- but also for some of then more obnoxious Atheist fundamentalist types as well. Those righteous Atheist types who are just as obsessed with prostelytizing their belief system as the believers are. Obsessed True believers & obsessed Atheists: Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum.
The belief itself isn't the issue. It's when that belief is pushed as a law or to justify wrong doing (slavery, denial of rights). That is where the push back becomes more prevalent. I cannot and will not ignore the violent past of the followers of a belief. Christians / Catholics and Muslims alike have a bloody history and much of it is not against each other.
It boils down to a belief is something personal. It should be kept that way.
You're all going to Hell. Except me. And maybe Enoch.
Come on....I don't want to go there!
Most are already sitting in their own personal hell.
Personally I quite enjoy the summer although the winter is nice as well.
Welll.....I'll vote for Enoch, anyway. (big grin)
Meh. I'll be in good company.
Your personal life is irrelevant to me. And your attempts to deflect from saying anything positive about atheism are duly noted.
This is not about you. My interactions with you are not about you as a person. Your constant carping on it is downright deceitful. This is not a lecture hall and I, for one, do not come here expecting one-way communication.
This is about your unwillingness to meet a debate on TRANSCENDENCE on it own grounds. You steer it into science and logic, and maybe dangerously close to scientism (acceptance that only science can explain human endeavors).
If you will not comment on the topic of spirituality with transcendent people, on an article asking directly and indirectly about spirituality as subject matter, Then what the heaven are we discussing?!
The author asked:
TiG, I could be mistaken but I do not think you dealt with the question at all throughout all you have stated. If I am wrong, point in the right direction, please.
Then you would do well not to ask where TiG goes when he "wants to commune with god". That is a very personal question, and unnecessary to the discussion, much as a similar question to me on a different article a few days ago was personal, and unnecessary to that discussion.
(I am so bored with cheap tactics such as projection.)
Not sure why I would want to deflect from saying something positive about atheism (in particular agnostic atheism). If you need me to directly state some of the things I have noted I will placate you to a degree.
Surely you recognize that agnostic atheism (and agnostic theism by the same token) are, IMO, applications of critical thinking. The closer one gets to agnosticism (and thus away from gnostic certainty and away from mere faith) the more one is likely to be using one's critical thinking faculties. To conclude that there is no evidence of a God seems to be a logical read of the facts provided by modern reality. So the positive I have described is critical thinking.
Another positive is the absence of mind-control. It is quite difficult to convince an agnostic atheist to engage in an act that he or she finds illogical (e.g. becoming a suicide bomber) because some human being says that a supreme entity really wants the suicide bombing and will show his appreciation to the martyr in the afterlife.
You get the idea, right?
I think the author is correct. Religious (and political and ideological and ...) articles tend to be controversial. The author seems surprised by this. I am not. But the author also seems to object to engaging in debate on the topic (which necessarily means being critical of religion). I disagree with the objection. Let's debate.
I am against ridiculing people but am quite in favor of posing challenging questions (topical, not personal) about religions, religious books, etc. and engaging in debate.
( I am not going to ask you to answer my question; just letting you know I did not forget about the diversion. )
It is doubtful that an agnostic atheist would follow the words of a "spiritual leader" in any number of circumstances.
Here is a video interview of a female Tamil Tiger of Sri Lanka. Their battles against the Government of Sri Lanka are nationalistic and definitely not of a religious or spiritual nature. These women are and are willing to become suicide bombers:
Watch the video:
Female Suicide Bombers from Tamil Tigers (LTTE)
Your question is simple to answer and yet again you remark about some imaginary diversion (tactic).
Kim Jung Un and Donald J Trump can go to the world's spiritual books or spiritual leaders or each discover self-transcendence, any number of spiritual books will do. Then each man ought to read for spiritual "power" and understanding. I do not have an opinion which book/s either man ought to read. Just read one or several and get positive understanding!
" The Tigers — which include 5,000 to 10,000 guerillas — are fighting to secede from the the island country of Sri Lanka. Tamils originally immigrated to Sri Lanka from southern India and make up 10 to 15% of the population, compared to the majority Sinhalese, who constitute about 75%. In 1972, the Sinhalese-controlled Sri Lankan government declared Sinhala and Buddhism the official language and religion. The Tamils, who practice Hinduism and have their own language, took this action as an affront, and Vellupillai Prabhakaran founded the Tigers soon after. The group is formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)." (Bolding mine).
You were saying?
>>
Abraham Maslow, Transpersonal Psychology, and self-Transcendence
The American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) founded the Association for Humanistic Psychology in 1959 and, then, going a quantum jump further, established the Association for Transpersonal Psychology in 1969. He achieved both endeavors with the help of his colleague Anthony Sutich, with whom he helped edit the academic journals for both associations, The J. of Humanistic Psychology and the J. of Transpersonal Psychology .
During this time Maslow was a professor at Brandeis University from 1951 to 1969, and then a resident fellow of the Laughlin Institute in California until his untimely death from heart disease in 1970 at the age of 62.
Maslow, born of uneducated Jewish immigrant parents from Russia, grew up in Brooklyn before going on to attend City University of New York, then graduate school in psychology at Univ. of Wisconsin and Columbia University. He became a very original thinker, interested in taking psychology beyond its first "two forces," Freudian theory and Behaviorism, and their obsession with psycho-pathology. He thus called his Humanistic Psychology the " third force " and Transpersonal Psychology the " fourth force " in the field of psychology.
Humanistic Psychology wants to examine what is really right with people, rather than just what is wrong with them. That is to say, it wants to focus on psychological health and well-being rather than merely on mental-emotional-behavioral disorders.
Going much further, Transpersonal Psychology is interested to explore extreme wellness or optimal well-being. It is interested in those cases of persons who have often or perhaps permanently expanded their "normal sense of identity" to include the supra - or trans -personal, the Self of all selves, the One underlying the Many. Transpersonal Psychology explicitly acknowledges and makes use of the profound spiritual psychologies of the Great Traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, mystic Christianity, Judaism and Muslim Sufism), as well as new insights and methods in the human potential and consciousness-expanding movements.
(Red text, Calbab.)
Reference:
When psychology addresses whether there actually IS a god, whether than whether people believe there is, then this might be evidence.
But it doesn't, so it's not.
Let me guess, you wish to mangle my point into something like 'all suicide bombers do so for religious reasons'? By the way, why not simply mention the WWII kamikaze bombers - one of the most famous historical suicide squads driven not by religion but by culture and national honor?
Now to get to the point I actually made: if there were no Islamic beliefs of Allah - especially those of Allah rewarding martyrs in heaven for doing his will, do you think that would affect the number of young Muslims willing to engage in suicide bombings? If thinking critically (and not accepting things on faith alone) the 'martyrs' would be reduced to those who are willing to give up their lives for the cause alone. Right? And what, exactly, would the cause be at that point? And then one must ask how many of the radical Islamic terrorists would be involved in horrific acts such as decapitation, burning alive, etc. if Allah (per their beliefs) was not encouraging them to do so?
By the way, my comments are not suggesting that most Muslims hold these beliefs. Just in case you try that route.
Dalai Lama condemns violence against Muslims
Note: I am supplying a link to a video (credit to Perrie for posting it on another article) that I am starting at the point where you can hear the Dalai Lama make the point:
Sandy, you know as well as I do that simply because someone "mouths" or so-called "historically" walked in religion in name only does not mean anything for debate purposes. The Tamil Tigers were freedom fighters (aka. nationalists .)
Did you watch the video presentation of the female suicide bombers?
This is an answer to this question from me:
Your answer, in effect, is that to speak with God they must go through books written by human beings or speak with special spiritual human beings.
Curious, is it not, that we never seem to actually reach God. The best we ever do is find the words of other human beings that claim to be the word of God. Interesting pattern, eh?
So, in your view, to get divine guidance on how to run their nations, Un and Trump should go read a book or have a word with some special people.
Are you labeling this evidence of God?
Motivated by religion. Nothing in the video contradicts that.
This is what you wrote, then you went on to scatter other words in without any mention of Muslim whether you think you implied it or not!
I do not know what the Islamic terrorists are fighting for ultimately. May be these are convoluted, complex, issues of land, state, power, anger, tribalism, religious fervor, economic, ignorance, youthful zeal, etceteras. Do you know which ones and to which degrees?
Furthermore, you can not take for granted to know why young "terrorists" or "freedom-fighters" as the case may be would do anything in the Middle East, without some evidence. Right?
Actually, that would be your material nature speaking. You maintain that God has never spoken or inspired men to write anything. Obviously, naturalists do not get to have the final say as to what men ought to believe. You comment compels me to continue: If when you look into a book on spirituality all you come away with is a dry treatise of words makes no statement against others who look at the same words and discover the meaning of life (and their life in particular).
Better to allow those two leaders a chance to look. If it is just words then no harm no foul. If it affects one or both men the entire world will be better off for the efforts.
"No."
It is a portion of an article on Abraham Maslow:
And you returned with an answer that suggests there are suicide missions that are not based on religion. Apparently you missed my point. Seems to me you still do not understand my point. Not sure there is a resolution here Calbab. I think I am being clear but somehow nothing seems to stick. Maybe you should try to have a discussion with someone else.
Where is your evidence that explicitly states these female fighters and suicide bombers are fighting for religious control?
In the video, she clearly states: "freedom fighter," "suicide bomber," "homeland," "national leader is commander, father, mother, leader, everything to me."
They seem to be engaged in a political initiative justified by religious beliefs. I wonder if most people would shrug like you just did on the question of how the absence of religious beliefs might affect what we call radical Islamic terrorism. After all, when engaging in acts of terror the mantra "Allahu Akbar" would no longer apply. Seems to be a really big part of it.
Do you have genuine evidence of divine contact? Or are you going to point me to books or special people?
So what value is it to this discussion?
I returned with what you wrote, period. It is not that complicated to figure out what you wrote or what you meant.
Apparently, none for you. But much for Mr. Abraham Maslow and others who value his work.
It emphasizes the utter lack of respect you consistently put on display for spirituality and religion points of view.
You have your natural world books already. Right? You won't find God or spirit in them, in my opinion.
And it could be any combination of a set of fighters bound by any combination or blending of issues saying, "Allahu Akbar!" The phrase is a convention (and you should know that).
I have a sick relative who is bedridden who shouts "Allahu Akbar!" often, willy-nilly. No jihad. No martyrdom. No nothing. Just an exclamation signifying conventional use.
Why do they deserve respect, if their value cannot be demonstrated?
Uh ... Calbab? Not your strongest rebuttal.
The fact that the producers of the video chose not to address religious issues is not evidence that religion was not an issue.
When I challenge claims I do so with a matter-of-fact comment. No FSM nonsense or equivalent.
I agree. But we already know that. That is, one can scour the evidence provided by reality and come up with nothing that evidences a supreme entity. Certainly that does not mean there is none, but the lack of evidence is hardly something one can easily dismiss.
Those who claim evidence always seem to speak of it in vague terms and the evidence is always a personal experience - a feeling - a vision, etc. This does not go very far. Now maybe these people have these experiences, but it is very strange that with the sheer number of people on the planet we have not a single formally recorded, verified contact with God.
You understand the skepticism, right? Don't complain that skeptics do not see things your way. That is to be expected. It is not disrespect, it is simply lack of belief. Sorry.
The Palestinians fight over land. Osama Bin Laden wanted "Yankees" to leave Arab lands:
TiG, it is not my intention to debate Islam with you or any one else. As I stated above, as the Dalai Lama stated in the video above, people fight under different banners, different causes, and different sets of issues. We do not know the full motivations of these foreigners only what has been told to you and me.
Supposition. You are not allowed to suppose it there.
I can not stop you from being a skeptic. Indeed, many believers today once were agnostic or outright atheists. When I myself was agnostic, I could not help my own doubts. But I won't dwell on that for now.
From the author:
I didn't. I provided a link stating that religion was a motivation. You choose to ignore it, and use your video as your only source of information. That's on you, not me.
I am curious. We believe it the existence of god to be unlikely. What justification do you think we need to produce, other than the fact that nobody has been able to produce evidence of any god? Why do you not think that those claiming that a god or gods do exist should not justify their rather extraordinary beliefs with some sort of objective evidence?
I gave you a link to the Dalai Lama, and the quote to look for. What? Does the Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader, lack value too?
It is all I can do. If you just want to argue then you do not need me.
The Dalai Lama has an opinion. Him being the Dalai Lama does not make his opinion fact.
It's the author's quote and I think you misread it.
I can offer quite a few justifications for lack of belief that the Bible is the divine word of God. Thus it follows that if one is not convinced of biblical divinity, the God of the Bible is not accepted as truth.
On the flip side quite a few individuals seem to happily accept the Bible as divine and in so doing accept its definition of God. Why do people simply accept this? Because it is ancient? Because it is popular? Because it is comforting?
It is not because of evidence (or, IMO, logic).
Oh come on Calbab, Sandy asked you a very clear question that is independent of any other commentary.
OKAY THEN.
I don't think terrorists think of themselves as terrorists. I believe they think of themselves as freedom fighters, the resistance, martyrs, etc, but no matter what colour they paint themselves, they're still terrorists and murderers.
You really expected me to acquiesce to your appeal to authority?
How so? I was asked for justification for my beliefs. I do not believe there is a god. My justification for such a belief is the lack of evidence for the existence of gods. I do not believe any other justification is necessary, and wish to know why you do, and what justification would suffice. What about that seems unclear to you?
Let her ask the author.
Read the author's quote again. It's plain and its simple. Here I will provide it again:
YOU chose to repeat the author's question. If you have a different interpretation of it, let's hear it. To me, Buzz wrote in fairly clear, intelligible English, and I answered in the same (with, I admit, some typos
). I think, however, that both the question and my answer to it are fairly easy to understand, for those who choose to do so.
Some could choose not to understand, I suppose.
Hi Buzz, I won't argue that point.
No. I have every expectation that you will continue to argue for argument sake.
You're very diplomatic. LOL
No. I continue to disagree with you, and state my reasons for doing so. YOU have asked me and others to validate our views, and then you resent us for doing so.
Very odd, but not at all surprising.
Expect logical fallacies to be pointed out when you engage in them.
HA! Honestly, it has been a long day; it's late, and I do understand (and accept) the complexities of world politics.
Good night, Sandy. (It's really, really, really, rea— late where I am.)
"OKAY THEN." That sounds like my nephew when he was much younger and didn't hear what he wanted to hear - although he would say FINE!
I am absolutely convinced the Creator gave us something that can connect us at certain times.
I always doubted people who claimed to have experienced an event which convinced them of an existence of God.
Until one day. In the early morning hours one night, somewhere around 3:30 - 4:00 AM, I heard my cousin shout my name. It was loud and crystal clear. I awoke, turned on the light and looked around. No Marcus. It was odd, I hadn't thought of Marcus in years. I had another hour of sleep, so I went back to bed.
Later that day, in the afternoon I got a call from my mom. She told me my cousin Marcus had died in Germany that morning. He was a reservist for the 101st Air Cav and part of the initial troop build up for the Iraq war. He flew a Cobra Attack Helicopter. Also, he had been a reservist going into the Balkans as well. He loved flying those helicopters.
During his layover in Germany, Marcus saw something he couldn't resist. We shared a similar weakness. The need for speed. He was offered the chance to ride a high performance motorcycle that we could not get here in the States. It was either an Aprila or MV Augusta. I don't remember. Unfortunately, the ride turned fatal.
At the instant my mom told me of Marcus' death, I was and remain convinced I knew/know when he died. This experience altered my view of the gifts the Creator has given us. The primary religions of the world do not teach these things. Religion and learning about the Creator can be two different things, in my mind.
So you think that there's a god, and that the only thing it ever did for you was let you hear a dead relative yell your name? Wow. Maybe it should use its super powers to a little more constructively. The world is full of starving children, disease, natural disasters, and all kinds of other calamities, but thank god you got a shout out in a dream.
1. If you want to have a discussion with me, discuss what I stated, not what you want to pretend I stated. I.E. don't try to put words in my mouth.
2. If you want to have a discussion with me, you can cut the sarcasm.
3. Where did I state my cousin was dead when I heard his voice?
4. Where did I state the Creator did something right then and there?
5. I come across your arguement often when people complain about the Judeo/Christian God (יהוה/YHWH/Jehovah). I think most people would want the problems you mentioned addressed so these things would become history.
I am not a theologian, however, there are scriptures that may be worth considering. I will only mention a couple here. Also, there is no need to think of them in Kalvinistic terms.
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in [the power of] the evil one.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Luke 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. (This is when Satan tempted Jesus during the 40 days in the wilderness. If you continue reading you will notice Jesus did not refute satan's ability to make good on the offer)
Revalation 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el*+ and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail,* nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon+ was hurled, the original serpent,+ the one called Devil+ and Satan,+ who is misleading the entire inhabited earth;+ he was hurled down to the earth,+ and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation+ and the power and the Kingdom of our God+ and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!+ 11 And they conquered him+ because of the blood of the Lamb+ and because of the word of their witnessing,+ and they did not love their souls*+ even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea,+ because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”
Imagine that.
So according to the NewTestament, when does this situation come to an end?
Probably don't need a scripture for this, as satan, his fallen angels and anyone else following him.
P.S. Do you know the meaning of Hallelujah?
1. Don't quote me scripture if you want me take you seriously.
2. eh - forget it. This is pointless.
Does God approve of your open marriage?
Maybe Dave can pray the question to his cousin, so he can ask God and get back to him.
First, what is your definition of an open marriage?
Please, re-read item 1 and 2 in my first reply to you.
Thank you for sharing, Dave. I understand. Many people have many individual stories about life-changing moments and permanent life-changing states that happen. indeed, many are former skeptics:
"Was skeptic."
You don't see it as a bit of a leap to go from a shout in a dream to evidence of the creator of the universe?
Let me add some context, in my own personal anecdote. True story, btw. One night I was fast asleep, and though I don't remember the dream I do remember that I was getting nudged in the dream every few seconds, and I couldn't figure out what was nudging me. The nudge happened several times, then I started to hear my name being repeated in the dream, but I couldn't see anyone around me. Suddenly I awoke when I really heard my name being called, as real as if someone was standing next to the bed trying to awaken me at 3am. I was seriously startled, since we had nobody else in the house except me and my lady lying next to me still sleeping. I laid still, afraid to look at who just spoke my name, when I felt the nudge again. Scared shitless, I turned to look, and the dog was bumping the bed trying to wake me up to go pee, staring me dead in the face. The dog was sick with cancer, and had never done this before. Of course the dog cannot talk, but my brain was talking to my unconscious self to wake up and let the dog out. The mind is a curious and complicated thing. Hearing your name in your sleep is hardly a reason to jump to the conclusion that a creator created the universe and is trying to tell you something in your sleep. There are billions of people in the world, with more being born and dying every second that ticks by. Concluding that this supposed creator is randomly focused on you for even a brief moment is a bit absurd.
Thank you Calbab. It surprised me.
You could have given me this reply instead of sarcasm based on things I didn't say. Then we could have had a discussion.
Not if you're going to use scripture to make your points.
You know, one thing about these sites that I highly agree with by the way, so do note that, is that we do not divulge our personal information to any great detail. So, therefore, we really do not know how old one another are or many verifiable life events of one another. We do not know and we should not know. Still, because we come daily and often we are a loosely hanging community of people exchanging ideas on our own "marketplace block."
Now I said all that to say that when we share here, we leave some, maybe a great deal of detail out as a matter of necessity. Consequently, if we value one another, we do, because we keep coming back to hear, learn, more about each other, then we ought to allow in a real sense that the other person is being sincere in some approachable sense.
This does not mean we are right in our conclusions and we can debate and talk to clear different issues, comments, problems, nuances, etceteras up. However, to read someone's account of an occurrence that happened which caused wonder in their life —and we know we all have wonder moments whether we are honest to say so or not— and to immediately move to say it ain't so, belies the wonder moments in our own life.
Now then, Hal I do not know your age or your life details. Of course, I know all these things about myself. So when I tell you something and you can intuit that I am coming from my heart across the great distances we are scattered, you can accept it or just ignore it. What you can not do is tell me it is not so, or dumb it down, in this case, to a pissy dog bowels. Or some other thing that is not tapping the same vein of insight.
Science explains the natural world. Science makes no claim beyond the natural world. Logic uses rules to explain the real world quite effectively. Neither of these two are in any competition with transcendence. As a result of this, we should look to a different discipline: Spirituality.
Hal, I do not know that you can accept spirituality at this stage of your life. I say that with all sincerity. I did not always have this inner quality myself.
That was a whole lot of deep mumbo jumbo there. I'm not going to reread it multiple times to try and decipher what your point is, so I'm going to assume that it was an attempt to knock me and my understanding of the world around me down a couple pegs. What you (Calbab) don't know about me would fit neatly inside the world's biggest cruise ship, so thank you for acknowledging that.
The fact remains that Dave made a connection between a dream and a creator of the universe. That is about as spiritual as the decision to believe in god based on seeing an orb on a polaroid picture. People sometimes get so emotional about an experience, that they stop asking questions and let the buck stop at god. Even the notion of a creator of the universe is hopelessly flawed. What did the creator create the universe with? Stuff it borrowed from another universe? Who created that universe?
Hal, first let me acknowledge how appreciative I am that you accepted my comment in a good spirited manner. I am humbled by this.
I can not be for sure about this, for the distance is too wide between the several of us, but in my opinion Dave related a "moment" in life that made him go "hmm." In my own life I have had plenty such moments. I'll give you one:
I smoked for 18 years daily up to two-packs thereabouts a day. I quit smoking in 1993 and have not even placed a cigarette in my mouth since. After the first year non-smoking I could sit in the presence of other smokers without the hint of a yearning.
Now then, I bring this up because of how it came about that I quit smoking. It came about in my life that I was looking for a "course change" and I had no direction laid out to take. One day I picked up the Bible and was reading it for several days wondering about this thing and that thing when this man walked up to me - introduced himself and we chatted. The details are unimportant. Anyway he invited me to his Church. (Turns out he is a minister.) For personal reasons, I told him no-not at this time. However, the reading did not end. I kept it up.
Back to the cigarettes. One day, and I am going to leave out a significant detail for brevity sake, I came to the conclusion I wanted to quit smoking (sick and tired of it), and I had heard all the stories about withdrawals , the starts and stops etceteras. I spoke in the quiet in my own mind, "I will try to endure this awful quitting experience."
Hal, it took me only one week to quit smoking for good. I ended smoking on a Sunday morning and by Wednesday I had an "attack" that set me to thinking, setback, but then it went away and I have not smoked since. I list it as one week because I understood that I was in a stable condition by then. I quit some other things too (details).
Guess what? Real accounting. That minister came back, we talked, I went to visit his Church, I am not there now this many years later, but my own life experience is different. I end this (I left much out) with this: I asked some of the members that first year about my cigarette quitting experience, and they explained a spiritual process familiar to them called " sanctification ," seems it happens to people at some point on the road to coming to faith. (Much changed about me on the way to that first day to Church, —details you know.)
Things that make you go, "Hmm." Hal, life can be full of them. Look beneath the surface of activities. To this day, I look back at moments I had forgotten and remember just how close I had come to death and it did not happen: I got away more than several times.
Your other deep questions about the universe inception is great to ponder, and probably beyond the scope of this article. Write one, I will gladly come discuss it with you!
No problem. We all have extraordinary occurrences that defy the natural (common) set of experiences.
That is just one of my personal life stories. Someone will say to me that it is, "anecdotal" (it is) but it occurred - it helped change me directionally in life and as a result it becomes a true ingredient in my life's 'batter.' I would be a liar to deny it ever happened.
I'm not mocking the "hmmm" moment. That's exactly what I thought when the dog was staring at me while I searched to room for who was calling me. My lady and I still laugh about it to this day, in memory of poor Salem who we had to put down soon after that incident.
If believing in God is what helps someone quit being a drunk or get off drugs, then I guess that it was of some benefit to them. However, they need to understand that some people do it every day without that crutch. That notion is not evident in what Dave had to say:
I am absolutely convinced the Creator gave us something that can connect us at certain times. ... I always doubted people who claimed to have experienced an event which convinced them of an existence of God. ... Until one day.
His anecdotal evidence left him "absolutely convinced" of a Creator and its gifts to humanity. Nobody should be that easily convinced of such a monumental statement.
I gave you my vote up overall,. . . and a laugh at the mention of "Salem." (-:
No crutch needed. I understand the background packed in that word coming from an atheist. No offense taken, nevertheless. I do need you to fully understand this interestingly common thing in life; words can get entangled with actions we take such that one man's crutch is another man's deliverance. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One woman's pit - another woman's step-stool.
Let me again speak out of turn to overall opine that sometimes it only takes one event to enlighten a person spiritually.
You have kind of posed a Catch 22.
You posed a question as to why God allows certain things. This question is usually posed regarding the Judeo Christian God YHWH or commonly referred to in English as Jehovah.
What is the only reference material available to us concerning the Judeo Christian God and the things he has done and haven't done.
Where do you expect the answers to come from?
When someone makes a political claim and you have doubts, do you ever ask for a link? This is really no different.
Can you tell me what convinced me of a Creators existence? Hint, I can tell you the dream you relayed is not an equivalent to this discussion.
Reference material? The bible is a hodgepodge of writings by multiple authors over many generations, that have been modified, supplemented and edited thousands of times by countless scribes and politicians of its day to suit their tastes and needs. In this era of instant photo reproduction, people lose sight of the fact that scripture was all tediously reproduced by hand, and copies were so rare that nobody had the ability to compare two copies other than the scribes themselves. This was a perfect breeding ground for alteration of "God's infallible and inspired word". If there is a god (which there's not) then it would understand that it needs to find another way to communicate. The fact that it won't (because it can't, because it doesn't exist) is practically proof of what a farce the bible, and Christianity itself, is.
Prove it. Your link please!
No links. Just read anything Bart Ehrman has ever published. A former evangelical Christian who is fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic, and who converts to agnosticism when he has the rare opportunity to view several ancient versions of scripture in their native languages, is a good source.
Let's try something. Give me a snippet of what you read by Bart Ehrman and I will set a hound loose on its trail. Otherwise, the field is too broad. Now then, if Ehrman made such a clear statement it should be searchable in this day and age!
Incidentally, to be clear, are you "appealing to authority" with this specific assertion? You must not have an issue with that sort of thing. Right?
I'm sorry, but a snippet is not a fair way to portray Bart Ehrman. His research is decades in the making, and summed up in the many books he has authored. If you are not familiar with him, I can say that he is not some anti-religionist, he's just vastly more well studied on theology than just about anyone in this country. The problem with theology is that the more you know about it, the more you understand how wrong it is. I can tell from your contributions here that you would enjoy some of his books. If you're into audiobooks (I am), most of his are read by himself, which is the best way to enjoy an audiobook. You can tell that he's not out to tear down Christianity, he's just sharing what he has discovered on his life's journey.
I need something to track down the gist of your comment that Mr. Ehrman writes this:
He may have stated these or similar words and I would love to know the when/where/how (context) of his words. I spent 2016 on NewVine discussing portions of videos, maybe an audiobook (Youtube) or two, and statements from Mr. Ehrman on the existence of Jesus Christ.
To be clear, are you "appealing to authority" with this specific assertion? You must not have an issue with that sort of thing. Right?
Do you seriously think that the Bible was written by one apparently extremely long-lived author, and has been transmitted faithfully and in its entirety with no editing, inaccurate translation, or political interference over thousands of years?
No. I do not. However, context is everything. Do you agree? This really should be a separate article on texual criticisms of the Bible. Oh well.
In what context does Hal's claim become not true?
I can relate some of what I recall from his books in the story of Jesus and the prostitute though. This fable does not exist in the most ancient of Aramaic manuscripts, and the writing style is clearly out of sync with the scripture it is attributed to. Oddly enough, one of the most quoted verses in the bible is from this fable, the whole "let ye who is free from sin cast the first stone" business.
I did find a good article from 2006 that you should read. Here is your snippet:
His text for today is the Gospel of John.
Thought to be the last written of the four Gospels that form the narrative of Christ's life, death and resurrection, it forms a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The problem is that it is distinctly different from the other three Gospels.
Ehrman looks the professorial part -- a not-too-tall man with a receding hairline, dressed in casual slacks and sport coat over a sweater. His shoes are scuffed. He is energetic and possessed of a gregarious personality that endears him to the student body. (He holds informal office hours on Wednesday nights in a local bar/restaurant.)
But as he paces back and forth across the stage, Ehrman ruthlessly pounces on the anomalies -- in this Gospel, Jesus isn't born in Bethlehem, he doesn't tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there's no last supper. "None of that is found in John!" The crucifixion stories are different -- in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he's perfectly composed. Key dates are different. The resurrection stories are different. Ehrman reels them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition.
"In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine," he says, his voice urgent. "In John, you do." He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ's ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning. "You shouldn't think something just because you believe it. You need reasons. That applies to religion. That applies to politics . . . just because your parents believe something isn't good enough."
Have you considered the biblical writers are writing to different target audiences? Speaking from different aspects about the man, Jesus? We are looking at a sum of the Prophets, Apostles, and Gospels. During their lifetime those men did not have such luxury. It's these armchair "revisionists" Scholars (who write books for fortune) that are the most disturbing.
Just look at our own world today. Granted we have better tools and better understanding on how to safeguard the validity of our written materials. But, then we have hackers entering into well-stocked document 'vaults', revisionism, fake news perps, and an all-around crowd of people parsing every true expressed by man (and woman)! If I may, Donald Trump is a prime example of this happening. This one man has questioned the validity of CNN so much so that there is likely a "generation" of people who will never trust anything that network airs. Keep in mind, CNN provides news to international markets. President Trump is literally, single-underhandedly, ruining that network for millions of Americans and world viewers!
So what am I saying?
1. You have to consider the source.
2. You have to consider the motivation/s. (Such as arthur book sales, paid lecture circuits, internet clicks, etceteras. Atheist, similar to religion is a product in the hands of self-interested people.)
3. You have to consider that writers who are CLOSER to the time period are better KNOWERS about near events than a historian or so-called, "historian" a thousand or more years removed.
Enough for now. This subject is a big-ticket discussion and I don't want to cramp up all at once.
No offense, but you can't characterize Ehrman's research without knowing the breadth it it, and having a background on his arc from religiosity to agnosticism. We're talking about mounds of research over decades, involving texts so sacred that very few researchers ever have the opportunity to even look at them, even if they could translate them. This is a guy who devoted his life to understanding the origins of scripture, and I took him where he didn't expect. This isn't a matter of a few misquotes, it's a matter of more discrepancies than there are words in the Bible - literally.
I should mention though, I don't agree with Ehrman on one distinct point. He believes that Jesus was an actual person, whereas I believe his life is a work of fiction. He certainly doesn't believe Jesus did any of the magical things attributed to him, but he does think he was a real person. If Jesus was just a regular guy at one point in history, then who gives a crap whether he was real or not. That just means that the fantastical narratives were just lies about a real person instead of a fictional one.
Er', if you are going to strongly validate his work then invalidate it for something he states work-related, then how can YOU trust he is not wrong about something else?
::
It is about time I point out something else to the atheists on this site that they make not have considered: Faith is not some journey into a vacant state of acceptance. True there are many "said-believers," that is, they speak with their mouths only and are limited in faith. Then, there are "spirit-filled" believers and these believers are CALLED. That is, they are sealed in their faith. Now, what (or who) do you suspect does the calling?
I am hesitant to have this style of discussion with atheists because eventually somebody (and s/he knows who they are) will declare it proselytizing in an effort to shut down the whole point.
But Hal, you are pushing the discussion into the "what is abiding faith?" realm. . . .
Now, what (or who) do you suspect does the calling?
Who called you to determine what profession to go into, what book to check out at the library, what to make for dinner, who to vote for, etc? It's no different. The subconscious mind directs what the conscious mind desires. Those who feel the calling to god are experiencing the same kind of influence as those who feel the calling to politics, or to art, or to veganism. I think you're making more of it than it is.
I don't consider what you are doing as proselytizing, other than maybe for Deism. I've never taken issue with anyone professing Deism, or Pantheism, or the Einstein or Spinoza concept of god. I don't agree with them personally, but none of them do any harm to mankind as a species. It's those who claim to know what an unknowable god wants of us that are the problem. Particularly those who pick and chose select parts of their religion's doctrine that they will honor, while disregarding anything too inconvenient for them. They can take their doctrine and roll it up real tight, and shove it up their ass.
Emphasizing this point.
Oversimplification. Men we believers (not others) call prophets, apostles, penned books with quantitative and qualitative meaning that men and women today find valuable to their own life arrangements and circumstances.
I am no mere deist or pantheist. I am definitely a theist.
In addition, to use your comparison, it is a SPIRITUAL calling and thus to a deeper purpose—not easily casted aside.
Hal, do you understand?
Well, after all, the goal is to live to the glory of God—not perfection in this world. Which we are told even in the books of the Bible we can not achieve apart from existing in the physical presence of God.
Well Mr. Theist, you just ruined a decent conversation. And you were doing so good. There is a religious group here that you can go to to muse about scripture, but it's a wet blanket for this conversation.
This is a sufficient enough 'house' for the both of us, thank you very much. It is interesting to me that Atheists and Secularist want to discussion religion and spirituality and Bible, but only on their terms. Hal, you blinked. (-:
My suggestion: In a fair-minded debate, the participants must have a working understanding of both sides of the debate.
Hal if you want to understand the "stickability" found in the Bible, you have to to try to. Whether or not that is your thing is up to you to decide. No apologies on my side for knowing the "issues."
Not believing is not the same as not understanding.
To which god should we give such glory?
The god who killed all of his creations except Noah and family?
The one who commanded rape and genocide?
The one who sent a bear to kill kids who made fun of a bald guy?
The one who demanded the death of his own son?
To Buzz, there's one reason for disagreements about religion - those who claim piety, and who frequently tell us that atheists are immoral or amoral people, worship a god who, according to them, committed or commanded atrocities.
I've never murdered anyone. Never raped anyone. Never owned a slave, much less forced one to bear my (or my husband's, considering I'm a woman) child. Never committed incest (pretty common theme among god's people) nor adultery. And yet, because I don't believe in the existence of a god who either commanded or condoned many of those things, according to his believers, I am immoral. I do not accept that, and when accused of immorality on those grounds, I will protest.
Hal if you want to understand the "stickability" found in the Bible, you have to to try to.
I'm trying to think of anything good that is sticky. That's actually not a bad word for the Bible. I hate it when I step in stickable things.
I've always liked the expression "One man's fish is another man's poisson." (One needs to know a little French to get that.)
I was a little disappointed when I went to the live action "Beauty and the Beast". Lefeu (sp?) says something about "je ne sais quoi" and Gaston replies "I don't know what that is." I was the only one in the theater who laughed.
LOL
Ah-ha! I got your drift, Buzz!
I didn't really mean anything by it; it just seemed to fit in with your quotes. I said it for fun. Glad you got it.
Indeed!
HA!
If you can not tell us positive things about being an Atheist, then I have a question: What does Atheism stand for? This is an attempt to start a conversation about the other side of the aisle: The Village Atheists.
Atheism does not stand for anything. It is simply a label for those who are not convinced there is a god.
One of the reasons atheists engage theists is curiosity. Given no evidence of a god and the total reliance of the religious on ancient books whose veracity have been formally and methodically questioned, atheists wonder why so many continue to believe based solely on faith.
Why?
After all, it is possible that there is a supreme entity. Why not just run with that rather than believe that the extremely unlikely gods of the ancients are actually real?
Atheism stands for no - thing? That might help explain all the negativity against Believers who have something positive to confess and centuries old organizations. My curiosity is piqued too:
Is it because Atheism is no - thing that there is a need in the "community" to hi-jack science and logic to fill the void?
In what way? How is lack of belief an explanation for anything other than an individual not being convinced in the existence of a god? Is your lack of belief in Zeus, Ra, Jupiter, and hundreds more an explanation for anything other than you are not convinced that any of these ancient gods exist?
To see how silly this is, consider this: is theism an explanation for your obvious hostility? That is not a question I would ask - it is simply reflecting your comment back to you.
Seems you are working overtime trying to not understand this simple concept.
Thinking of "overtime," you spend an extraordinary amount of your time demanding evidence from people of faith! Moreover, science and logic want their disciplines back from Atheists.
Since Atheism is no-thing, why are you and your friends exploiting science and logic in attacks against Religion and Faith?
As to other gods, you 'mouth' then rage against each 'god' more than any Believer I know of. Hostility? How quick you are to unpack your halo and don your gleaming robes!
You say, Atheism does not stand for anything. I say it has no basis. Okay, is this the same as stating:
Agnostic-Atheism means, not knowing nothing.
Why quote a question if you are going to just ignore it? Bizarre.
Correct on atheism not standing for anything. But 'atheism has no basis' is funny. You mean the lack of evidence is no reason to be unconvinced that a god exists? :)
No (answering the question's intent in spite of its syntax). ( Your double negative translates into Agnostic-Atheism = knowing something. )
I used the double negative for emphasis. Deal with that.
:) Well alrighty then.
Why should atheism stand for anything but a lack of belief in god, which is, well, atheism?
There are conservative atheists, liberal atheists, moderate atheists, racist atheists, nationalist atheists, misogynistic atheists, kind atheists, and evil atheists. Why? Because one can be any of those things, and still not believe in god. Our lack of belief in god is separate from any of those other characteristics.
So, some people really, really believe? And this is evidence of what, exactly?
True, atheism is so simple. Atheism = lack of belief that a god exists. That is it. And, as the cliche goes, everyone is an atheist regarding all gods except maybe one. Everyone is a Zeus atheist (I think that might be true by now) and I doubt Jupiter, Apollo, Athena, etc. are fairing much better. But at one time they were THE gods - they had temples, sacrifices, rituals, the whole deal going for them.
Atheists simply have not found a reason to believe in any god. There may be a god, but for now many simply are not convinced by the evidence (or, rather, the lack thereof).
If only you could demonstrate that God is doing the calling. You would be famous. Truly! You would be the first man in recorded history to illustrate in a formal (i.e. credible) setting that God exists AND that God is engaging you (and thus others).
Spirituality Sandy, spirituality. Can you hear it?
When you are called, you will certainly know about it. It is called "Faith" for a reason . Happens everyday somewhere on the planet a believer, or believers, is born .
Non sequitur
All righty, then.
You addressed me. I just want you to know that I read your comment. I'm not going to take sides in this discussion. My intention in posting the article was the hope that all sides could make peace with each other and accept that there are many different beliefs but we can still get along with each other notwithstanding. I did make it clear, however, that I do not agree with the necessity to convince another that only THEIR belief is the right one, nor will I tolerate proselytizing.
I don't mind admitting that I am 80 years old, which has been plenty of time for me to have experienced many great life adventures, and I have taken full advantage of them.
At this point I'll repeat my first comment:
Does it really matter what path you follow, so long as it leads you to being a good person?
You still got nothin'.
But unfortunately, that is what is happening. And not just here, but in our political system, as well. If you had any idea how many times a day I see "if we just hadn't taken god out of the schools, such-and-such wouldn't be happenning." Now, we both know the folks who feel that way would have an issue if any but the Abrahamic god were the god in schools, and they'd object if that god were taught without adding Jesus or with the addition of Muhammed. Too many people want a theocracy, and continually try to impose one, while fighting the teaching of science (look up the Scopes monkey trial).
I realize that nobody is gong to change their mind by reading the comments on this article, nor will anything said here stop the attempts to change the situations that exist today. So all I can do is repeat my first comment when I posted this article"
Does it really matter what path you follow, so long as it leads you to being a good person?
What is accomplished here, however, is that most of what has been posted has been civil, which in iteself is a good thing.
I'm quite familiar with the Scopes Monkey Trial, first learning about it from the movie "Inherit the Wind". (You will find that I am a classic movie buff.)
Not to me, as long as folks realize that their religious beliefs are personal to them, and act accordingly.
Just look at what that dumb bitch Betsy Devos is trying to regarding schools.
Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America’s Schools to Build “God’s Kingdom”
Trump’s education secretary pick has spent a lifetime working to end public education as we know it.
It’s Christmastime in Holland, Michigan, and the northerly winds off Lake Macatawa bring a merciless chill to the small city covered in deep snow. The sparkling lights hanging on trees in downtown storefronts illuminate seasonal delicacies from the Netherlands, as well as photos and paintings of windmills and tulips, wooden shoes, and signs that read “Welkom Vrienden” ( Welcome, Friends ).
More than 150 years ago, Dutch immigrants from a conservative Protestant sect chose western Michigan as the setting for this idealized replica of Holland, in part because of its isolation. They wanted to keep American influences away from their orthodox community. Until recently , Holland restaurants couldn’t sell alcohol on Sundays. Residents are still not allowed to yell or whistle between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. If city officials decide that a fence or a shed signals decay, they can tear it down and mail the owner a bill. Grass clippings longer than eight inches have to be removed and composted, and snow must be shoveled soon after it lands on the streets. Most locals say rules like these help keep Holland prosperous, with low unemployment, little crime, good city services, and Republicans at almost every government post. It’s also where President Donald Trump’s pick for education secretary, billionaire philanthropist Betsy DeVos, grew up.
Sitting in his spacious downtown office suite, Arlyn Lanting is eager to talk about his longtime friend, who entered her Senate committee vote Tuesday on track to become the nation’s top-ranking education official—despite a contentious hearing marked by her stiff, underwhelming responses to pointed questions from Senate Democrats. DeVos, who is married to Amway scion Dick DeVos ( Forbes says his father, Richard, is worth more than $5 billion), was seen as a controversial choice because of the family’s history of heavy spending on right-wing causes—at least $200 million since the 1970s to think tanks, media outlets, political committees, and advocacy groups. And then there’s the DeVoses’ long support of vouchers for private, religious schools; conservative Christian groups like the Foundation for Traditional Values , which has pushed to soften the separation of church and state; and organizations like Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy , which has championed the privatization of the education system.
But Lanting, a tall, 75-year-old businessman, investor, and local philanthropist, is quick to wave off the notion that DeVos has it in for traditional public schools. “Betsy is not against public schools,” he says. “She does believe that teachers in charter and private schools are much more likely to lead the way toward better education—the kind that will actually prepare students for our current times and move us away from standardization and testing. But Dick and Betsy have given money to public schools, too.”
Lanting is a warm and generous host who’s eager to point out his favorite Bible verse, painted right there on his wall: “‘I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the Truth’ (3 John 4).” He and Betsy DeVos were both raised in the tradition of the Christian Reformed Church—a little-known, conservative Dutch Calvinist denomination whose roots reach back to the city’s founders. They went to the same grade school in the city’s private school system, the Holland Christian Schools, which was established by members of the church. Like many people I met in Holland, Lanting wasn’t a Trump supporter initially—he voted for Ben Carson in the primaries—but he couldn’t bring himself to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton, whom he calls “a professional spin doctor.” “Trump is much more likely,” Lanting says, “to bring Christ into the world.”
For deeply devout people like Lanting and DeVos, education plays a key role in that mission. Since her nomination, DeVos hasn’t had much to say about her faith—or whether she plans to defend the separation of church and state in public schools. (DeVos declined Mother Jones ‘ request for an interview, but a Trump transition team spokeswoman replied in an email, “Mrs. DeVos believes in the legal doctrine of the separation of church and state.”) However, in a
Added Dick DeVos: “As we look at many communities in our country, the church has been displaced by the public school as the center for activity…[I]t is certainly our hope that more and more churches will get more and more active and engaged in education.”
Indeed, critics argue the DeVoses are attempting to expand the definition of “school choice”—typically understood as giving parents the ability to pick any traditional public school or charter school in a district—to allow taxpayer money to follow students to any private school via vouchers. Some critics of school choice argue that charters, which are publicly funded but governed by appointed boards and often run by private companies with varying degrees of state oversight, can skim high-performing students from traditional public schools, leaving them with more high-needs kids and less money. But the push for so-called “universal school choice” could take that a step further by eventually leading to a radical redirection of funds from traditional public schools to private schools, many of which are Christian: Trump’s signature education proposal calls for dedicating $20 billion in federal money to help families move away from what he has called our “failing government schools” and instead choose charter, private, or religious schools.
Although the DeVoses have rarely commented on how their religious views affect their philanthropy and political activism, their spending speaks volumes. Mother Jones has analyzed the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation’s tax filings from 2000 to 2014, as well as the 2001 to 2014 filings from her parents’ charitable organization, the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. (Betsy DeVos was listed as a vice president of the Prince Foundation during those years, though she claimed at her confirmation hearing that this was “a clerical error.”) During that period, the DeVoses spent nearly $100 million in philanthropic giving, and the Princes spent $70 million. While Dick and Betsy DeVos have donated large amounts to hospitals, health research, and arts organizations, these records show an overwhelming emphasis on funding Christian schools, evangelical missions, and conservative, free-market think tanks like the Acton Institute and the Mackinac Center that want to shrink the public sector in every sphere, including education.
The couple’s philanthropic record makes clear that they view choice and competition as the best mechanisms to improve America’s education system. Overall, their foundation gave $5.2 million from 1999 to 2014 to charter schools. Some $4.8 million went to a small charter high school they founded, the West Michigan Aviation Academy . (Flying is one of Dick’s passions.) Their next biggest beneficiary, New Urban Learning—an operator that dropped its charter school after teachers began to unionize—received $350,000.
But the DeVoses’ foundation giving shows the couple’s clearest preference is for Christian private schools. In a 2013 interview with Philanthropy magazine, Betsy DeVos said that while charters are “a very valid choice,” they “take a while to start up and get operating. Meanwhile, there are very good non-public schools, hanging on by a shoestring, that can begin taking students today.” From 1999 to 2014, the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation gave out $2.39 million to the Grand Rapids Christian High School Association, $652,000 to the Ada Christian School, and $458,000 to Holland Christian Schools. All told, their foundation contributed $8.6 million to private religious schools—a reflection of the DeVoses’ lifelong dedication to building “God’s kingdom” through education.
Most people I meet in Holland tell me that it’s hard to understand the DeVos and Prince families without learning about the history of Dutch Americans in western Michigan. In the mid-1800s, a group of mostly poor farmers known as the “Seceders” rebelled against the Dutch government when it tried to modernize the state Calvinist church, including by changing the songbooks used during worship and ending discriminatory laws against Catholics and Jews. In 1846, an intensely devout Calvinist clergyman named A.C. van Raalte led several hundred settlers from the Netherlands to the United States.
While the Seceders accounted for just 2 percent of the Dutch population at the time, they made up nearly half the country’s immigrants to the United States before 1850. Those who ended up in western Michigan overcame hunger and disease to clear thickly wooded, swampy land and endured much colder winters and deeper snow than in their native Netherlands. In the city of Holland, they re-created their Dutch villages. And just like back home, their church was essentially their government, influencing almost every part of farmers’ lives.
Eleven years after the first Seceders came to Holland, one-third of the Dutch community broke off from the Reformed Church in America and created the Christian Reformed Church. What really solidified this split were disagreements over education, according to James D. Bratt, a professor emeritus at Calvin College and the author of Dutch Calvinism in Modern America . Members who stayed in the Reformed Church in America supported public schools; Christian Reformed Church members believed education was solely the responsibility of families—and explicitly not the government—and sent their kids to religious schools. Many church members became staunch opponents of unions by the time New Deal-era legislation protected the right to strike and allowed for collective bargaining, which they viewed as socialist intrusions that diminished the authority of the church and contributed to bigger government.
Along with opening Holland Christian Schools , the church and its faithful established Calvin College in nearby Grand Rapids. Betsy DeVos, 59, is an alum of both and was raised during the 1960s and 1970s in the Christian Reformed tradition. (Her brother, Erik Prince , is the founder of Blackwater, the private security contractor accused of overbilling and human rights abuses during the Iraq War, and he now advises Trump on intelligence and defense, according to the Intercept.) During those years, that often meant growing up in a home that forbade dancing, movies, drinking, working on Sundays, or even participating in the city’s May tulip festival. Holland Christian Schools’ ban on teaching evolution wasn’t lifted until 1991, according to Larry ten Harmsel, the author of Dutch in Michigan .
When the 1960s cultural revolution rocked the nation, many members of the Christian Reformed Church—including Betsy DeVos’ parents, who would become one of the richest couples in Michigan thanks to Edgar Prince’s automotive parts company—allied themselves with the evangelical movement. The Princes would go on to contribute to some of the country’s most powerful far-right religious groups, like the Family Research Council. Betsy and Dick DeVos, who are now members of the Mars Hill Bible Church, a well-known mega-church outside Grand Rapids, eventually focused on funding education reform groups and think tanks that push for vouchers, contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations seeking to privatize education and blur the separation of church and state. These include:
• Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty: Betsy DeVos once served on the board of this Grand Rapids-based think tank, which endorses a blend of religious conservatism and unrestrained capitalism. It is headed by a Catholic priest, Robert Sirico, who has argued that welfare programs should be replaced by religious charities. In a paper titled “America’s Public Schools: Crisis and Cure,” a former Acton advisory board member named Ronald Nash wrote , “No real progress towards improving American education can occur as long as 90 percent of American children are being taught in government schools that ignore moral and religious beliefs.” In November, Acton came under fire for an essay on its website whose original title was “Bring Back Child Labor.” (The title was quickly changed.) The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation contributed $1.28 million from 2000 to 2014, and the Prince Foundation donated at least $550,000.
• The Foundation for Traditional Values: Led by James Muffett, the organization is the education arm of Citizens for Traditional Values , a political action group whose mission is to preserve “the influence of faith and family as the great foundation of American freedom embodied in our Judeo-Christian heritage.” On the website dedicated to Muffett’s seminars, a page devoted to a lecture titled “The Greatest Story Never Told” states , “There was a time when schoolchildren were taught the truth about the Christian influence in our foundations—but no longer.” The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation contributed $232,390 from 1999 to 2010.
• Focus on the Family: Both the DeVoses and the Princes have been key supporters of Focus on the Family, which was founded by the influential evangelical leader James Dobson . In a 2002 radio broadcast, Dobson suggested that parents in some states pull their kids out of public schools, calling the curriculum “godless and immoral” and arguing that Christian teachers should also leave public schools: “I couldn’t be in an organization that’s supporting that kind of anti-Christian nonsense.” Dobson has also distributed a set of history lessons claiming that “separating Christianity from government is virtually impossible and would result in unthinkable damage to the nation and its people.” The Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation gave $275,000 to Focus on the Family from 1999 to 2001 but hasn’t donated since; it gave an additional $30,760 to related groups in Michigan from 1999 to 2010. The Prince Foundation donated $5.2 million to Focus on the Family and $275,000 to its Michigan affiliate from 2001 to 2013. (It also gave $6.2 million to the Dobson-founded Family Research Council, a former division of Focus on the Family that became an independent nonprofit in 1992. The FRC has fought against same-sex marriage and anti-bullying programs—and is listed as an “ anti-LGBT hate group ” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.)
Additionally, the DeVoses have given millions of dollars to the Willow Creek Association , a group for church leaders “who hold to a historic, orthodox understanding of biblical Christianity” in more than 90 countries. WCA made headlines in 2011 when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz canceled an appearance at an event sponsored by the association after a Change.org petition called it anti-gay (a claim WCA vehemently denied). And both the DeVoses and the Princes have been major benefactors of the Haggai Institute , an Atlanta-area organization that trains professionals abroad to become Christian missionaries in their home countries because, as the director of its Brazilian bureau explained to Christianity Today in 2013, foreign governments don’t mind “allowing their people to be part of leadership training, whereas they would never allow their people to be in an evangelistic seminar.”
Meanwhile, the DeVos clan is perhaps best known for hard-nosed political activism against organized labor. In 2007, coming off Dick DeVos’ unsuccessful gubernatorial bid in their home state of Michigan, the DeVoses focused their advocacy and philanthropy on controversial right-to-work legislation that would outlaw contracts requiring all employees in unionized workplaces to pay dues for union representation. Back in 2007, such a proposal in a union-heavy state like Michigan was considered a “right-wing fantasy ,” but thanks to the DeVoses’ funding and insider knowledge—Betsy was once the state GOP chair—the bill became law by 2012.
Right-to-work laws, now on the books in 27 states, have been a major blow to the labor movement—including teachers’ unions, the most powerful lobby for traditional public schools and against charter schools (whose instructors often aren’t unionized). But that hasn’t kept Betsy DeVos from trying to further weaken unions. In January 2016, when Detroit educators demanded a forensic audit of their district’s murky finances and protested classrooms plagued by mold, roaches, and rodents, they used sick days to make their point—Michigan’s public-sector workers have long been barred from striking. A month later, DeVos wrote a Detroit News op-ed arguing that teachers shouldn’t be allowed to stage sick-outs, either.
Which brings us back to the blurring lines among “school choice,” charter schools, and vouchers. Betsy DeVos has spent at least two decades pushing taxpayer-funded vouchers for private schools to the center of the Republican Party’s education agenda, thanks in large part to Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
In the mid-’90s, Mackinac leadership suggested a long-term strategy on how to make unpopular voucher policies more palatable for mainstream America. Its then-senior vice president, Joseph Overton , developed what became known as the Overton Window , a theory of how a policy that’s initially considered extreme might over time be normalized through gradual shifts in public opinion. Education policies were placed on a liberal-conservative continuum , with the far left representing “Compulsory indoctrination in government schools” and the far right representing “No government schools.”
Charter schools, then, became a Trojan horse for voucher advocates: Once public school supporters got used to the idea of charters, activists would attempt to nudge public opinion closer to supporting tax credits to pay for private schools. In Michigan, Detroit has been at the heart of the charter push, which began when Gov. John Engler signed charter schools into law in 1993. Three years later, then- Detroit Metro Times reporter Curt Guyette showed how the Prince Foundation, as well as the foundation run by Dick DeVos’ parents, funded a carefully orchestrated campaign to label Detroit’s public schools as failing—and pushed for charters and “universal educational choice” as a better alternative. Betsy DeVos has since written about the need to “retire” and “replace” Detroit’s public school system and pressed for expanding charter schools and vouchers.
In 2000, she and her husband helped underwrite a ballot initiative to introduce vouchers in Michigan. Though the couple poured millions of dollars into the effort, 69 percent of voters rejected it. The following year, Betsy DeVos focused on a new strategy: Instead of appealing directly to voters, she created a political action committee, the Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP), to channel funding toward nonprofits and legislators pushing school reform policies. By 2002, GLEP had more money than Michigan’s biggest teachers’ union, the United Auto Workers, or any Democratic-affiliated PAC in the state, according to Politico .
Michigan now serves as one of the most prominent examples of what aggressive, DeVos-style school choice policies look like on the ground, especially when it comes to expanding charters. About 80 percent of the state’s charter schools are run by for-profit companies—a much higher share than anywhere else in the country—with little oversight from the state. In 2011, DeVos fought against legislation to stop low-performing charter schools from expanding, and later she and her husband funded legislators who opposed a proposal to add new oversight for Detroit’s charters.
Detroit, in particular, provides a cautionary tale of what happens when the ideology of market-driven “school choice” trumps the focus on student outcomes. The city’s schools—where 83 percent of students are black and 74 percent are poor—have been in steady decline since charter schools started proliferating: Public school test scores in math and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have remained the worst among large cities since 2009. In June, the New York Times published a scathing investigation of the city’s school district, which has the second-biggest share of students in charters in America. (New Orleans is No. 1.) Reporter Kate Zernike concluded that lax oversight by the state and insufficiently regulated growth—including too many agencies that are allowed to open new charter schools—contributed to a chaotic system marked by “lots of choice, with no good choice.”
A 2015 study from Michigan State University’s Education Policy Center found that a high percentage of charter schools also had a devastating impact on the finances of poor Michigan school districts like Detroit. Researchers reported that, under the state’s school choice and finance laws, it was hard for districts to keep traditional public schools afloat when charters reached 20 percent or more of enrollment. While per-student public funding follows kids to charters or other districts, traditional public schools still have fixed costs to cover, like building expenses and faculty salaries. Charter growth also increased the share of special-needs students left behind in traditional public schools, and the extra costs for educating such students weren’t adequately reimbursed by the state.
Charter schools and school choice are now accepted by nearly two-thirds of Americans, but almost 70 percent still oppose using public funding for private schools. With most states under wholly Republican leadership, though, and big-name charter advocates like former DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee now in support of sending public dollars to religious schools, the stage is set for a new effort to both lift state caps on charter schools (22 states have some kind of cap limiting the number of charters) and expand vouchers (14 states and the District of Columbia have active programs).
It’s hard to tell how many more charter advocates will support (or simply overlook) the inclusion of vouchers for private schools in choice policies, but one thing is clear: The prospects for an aggressive policy push for “universal choice”—including funding more religious schools with taxpayer money—have never been better.
On my last day in Holland, a retired public school teacher named Cathy Boote gives me a tour of the city she has called home for 37 years. Dressed in a black cashmere sweater and a white winter jacket, Boote is a self-described moderate Republican who was raised a Calvinist and went to public schools before later teaching art in a nearby district. In her close to four decades of working in public schools, she saw how the decline of the automotive industry and the hollowing out of the middle class affected poor and working-class kids she taught. “When parents have to work longer hours and more jobs and get paid less, there is more stress at home,” Boote reflected. “That means less time to read and do homework, and more time spent watching TV and online rather than learning.”
“Betsy’s father, Edgar Prince, is considered the patron saint of Holland,” Boote says as our truck rolls over heated asphalt —a unique underground grid of tubes that circulates hot water beneath a small section of the city’s downtown and melts snowflakes just as they touch down. It was Prince who helped bring this innovative system here, suggesting the heated streets in 1988 and forking over $250,000 to cover nearly a quarter of the cost. Like Boote, most Hollanders I talked to credit Prince’s vision for the city’s transformation into a tourist destination.
Prince’s mix of business acumen and his desire to protect “our people” put him on the trajectory that made him one of the wealthiest men in Michigan. In 1965, he left his job as chief engineer at Buss Machine Works after workers decided to unionize. He opened his own company that eventually specialized in auto-parts manufacturing and became one of the biggest employers in Holland. When Prince Corp. was sold for $1.35 billion in 1997, two years after his death, some 4,500 former employees received a combined $80 million in bonuses. “Most people here feel that you build your own family. You don’t need a union to build a competing family,” Boote explains, adjusting her glasses. “You treat your employees well and they don’t need to complain. Complaining, protesting, is bad. You work hard and you don’t complain.”
Boote’s truck takes a sharp turn into the predominantly Latino section of town, with large Victorian cottages, fenceless yards, and mature trees. Most kids in this neighborhood go to public schools. In the two decades since school choice was implemented in Michigan, white student enrollment in Holland’s public schools has plummeted 60 percent, with a nearby charter school becoming their top destination, according to an investigation by the Ann Arbor-based Bridge Magazine . Latino students are now the face of the system, and 70 percent of all its students are poor, more than double the district’s poverty rate when school choice began. Bridge Magazine found a similar pattern across Michigan: White parents tended to use the choice system to move their kids into even whiter districts, while black parents gravitated to charter schools made up mostly of students of color. Meanwhile, the Holland Christian Schools are predominantly white.
We leave downtown and drive along Lake Macatawa for about three miles before parking in front of a huge, castlelike mansion. This is Betsy and Dick DeVos’ summer home—a three-story, 22,000-square-foot estate that has eight dishwashers, 10 bathrooms, and 13 porches.
As we look out at the stone-and-shingle house, Boote reflects on how most people around here—her family, Betsy DeVos’ family—grew up hearing about their proud Dutch immigrant ancestors who overcame deep poverty. DeVos went on to attend a small, elite, mostly white private religious school and a college with similar demographics. She married into a rich dynasty.
“‘Look at us. God has given to us. I can fix this. All you have to do is be like me.’ You can understand how you might think that way, if you grew up here,” Boote says later, as we take one final glance at the mansion over its tall, iron gate. “If you come from the small, sheltered, privileged environment of Holland, you are most likely going to have a very limited worldview—including how to fix education.”