Comments on: Getting all ‘religious’ : Thinking Aloud: Simon Barrow http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/20/getting-all-%e2%80%98religious%e2%80%99-thinking-aloud-simon-barrow/ Politics, Commentary, Culture, Technology. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:00:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Simon Barrow http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/20/getting-all-%e2%80%98religious%e2%80%99-thinking-aloud-simon-barrow/comment-page-1/#comment-7346 Simon Barrow Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:37:56 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/20/getting-all-%e2%80%98religious%e2%80%99-thinking-aloud-simon-barrow/#comment-7346 However, the 'transcendent realm' envisaged by the non-theistic noetic idealist, the Romantic proponent of 'the sublime', the deist, the apocalyptic realist theist, the critical Thomist, the non-realist post-theist (and many, many other 'types' I could mention) are not helpfully similar. They differ in relation to what they mean by the god(s) they believe or disbelieve in, they differ in terms of their epistemic procedures, their appropriation of narratives, their doctrinal (or non-doctrinal or anti-doctrinal) attributes, and so on. That means they have very different ways of conceiving of and acting in the world. Wholly opposite sometimes. Nor is it true that the language or practice of philosophies of transcendence are inherently "beyond the reach of objective analysis". They may well employ tools beyond the merely empirical or forensic, but that is a different matter. The "apparent" is neither fair nor enough. I understand that many people find these distinctions (and the observations of people and communities from which they are derived) difficult or tiresome, but they are of great practical importance... unless we are content to live in a world of warring stereotypes - which may have some uncomfortable relation to contests and wars of a more immediately consequential kind. However, the ‘transcendent realm’ envisaged by the non-theistic noetic idealist, the Romantic proponent of ‘the sublime’, the deist, the apocalyptic realist theist, the critical Thomist, the non-realist post-theist (and many, many other ‘types’ I could mention) are not helpfully similar. They differ in relation to what they mean by the god(s) they believe or disbelieve in, they differ in terms of their epistemic procedures, their appropriation of narratives, their doctrinal (or non-doctrinal or anti-doctrinal) attributes, and so on. That means they have very different ways of conceiving of and acting in the world. Wholly opposite sometimes.

Nor is it true that the language or practice of philosophies of transcendence are inherently “beyond the reach of objective analysis”. They may well employ tools beyond the merely empirical or forensic, but that is a different matter. The “apparent” is neither fair nor enough.

I understand that many people find these distinctions (and the observations of people and communities from which they are derived) difficult or tiresome, but they are of great practical importance… unless we are content to live in a world of warring stereotypes - which may have some uncomfortable relation to contests and wars of a more immediately consequential kind.

]]> By: Matt M http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/20/getting-all-%e2%80%98religious%e2%80%99-thinking-aloud-simon-barrow/comment-page-1/#comment-6780 Matt M Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:54:24 +0000 http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2008/02/20/getting-all-%e2%80%98religious%e2%80%99-thinking-aloud-simon-barrow/#comment-6780 "To say that the apocalyptically Christian Pat Robertson and a peaceful non-theistic Buddhist hermit are part of the same thing because they can both be labelled ‘religious’ is numbingly illiterate." While I think that Dawkins' take on religion is somewhat crude at times, I think that where he does conflate people such Robertson and Buddhist hermits he does so on the basis that they both anchor certain beliefs about the world in claims about a transcendent realm apparently beyond the reach of objective analysis - which seems fair enough. As an advocate of freedom of/from religion I'm a supporter of groups such as Ekklesia and I'm looking forward to your future columns here. “To say that the apocalyptically Christian Pat Robertson and a peaceful non-theistic Buddhist hermit are part of the same thing because they can both be labelled ‘religious’ is numbingly illiterate.”

While I think that Dawkins’ take on religion is somewhat crude at times, I think that where he does conflate people such Robertson and Buddhist hermits he does so on the basis that they both anchor certain beliefs about the world in claims about a transcendent realm apparently beyond the reach of objective analysis - which seems fair enough.

As an advocate of freedom of/from religion I’m a supporter of groups such as Ekklesia and I’m looking forward to your future columns here.

]]>