The atheist bus

[rusmeister]

rusmeister,

With due to respect to you and Chesterton, what he was like on a personal level is frankly irrelevant to a discussion like this. I don't mean to speak for aliantha, Fist, Loremaster, etc., but it seems to me that what they are saying is that Chesterton is philosophically offensive. In other words, he does not respect opposing ideologies and thought. He appears intellectually condescending, seemingly without respect for ideologies different from his own and therefore incapable to convert those with whom he disagrees. He is, in a word, radically dogmatic. This is why Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and GK Chesteron and other apologists and polemicists are repulsive to me. I think they can be fairly grouped together.

Personally I find his tone condescending, for want of a better term. I know that if I were to ever get in a debate with him, respect for my opinions would be notably absent. He'd likely speak to me as if I were the simple child he references as opposed to someone with a fully thought opinion on the ways of things, most likely on the basis that I haven't read enough of his works to "fully understand" what he's saying. Which, of course, is meaningless in the extreme; perhaps I'll get to that after I've read enough L. Ron Hubbard to conclude that Scientology is / is not the truth of the universe.

I, on the other hand, respect him enough to allow him to think he is right as much as he wants. I'm sure his truth suits him well.

Luckily, we live in a world where my truth suits me equally well, and is equally valid, whether Chesterton likes it or not, recognizes it or not, respects it or not. For that matter, your truth suits you well, and it seems L.Ron's suits Mr Cruise quite well.

Based on my (and your own admissions of lack of) knowledge of Chesterton, I can safely assure you that you are mistaken about Chesterton being patronizing. He saw himself as the simple child, or at least that that is much more the ideal to strive for in certain respects. Humility combined with humor and brilliant reasoning is a hallmark of his writings - consider how quickly words of his were taken the wrong way based on surface impressions and the soundbites that are all that you will permit/tolerate. (It is well-known that he committed errors in details, but this does not, generally speaking, impact his overarching points.) Again, the people he debated with noted his humility and humor and therefore did not find him condescending or offensive, and that is well-documented.

The value of Lewis and Chesterton is primarily that they strike at the heart of fallacies of modern thought on which many arguments I see here are based - only they were arguments that had appeared and been defeated before, and raise their heads again generation after generation. That, for me, was powerful - that ideas I had thought quite recent turned out to be much older than I thought - from political correctness and civil rights to questions like abortion, birth control and euthanasia. I hadn't realized how far back they stretched.

I'm afraid that saying that "one's truth suits them" is a rather meaningless statement, except, perhaps, insofar as it may mean that there is no truth, so people make things up to suit themselves - something that any rational person who believes in an objective universe ought to deny (that truth can only be subjective).

[rusmeister]

I've been thinking about this, off and on, today. To be fair, I think it should be noted that Chesterton was a product of his time. It was fashionable in the mid to late 1800s to view pre-Christian civilizations as ignorant and childlike. This was the time of the Industrial Revolution, right? Nobody had ever come so far, created so much, etc.

Which plays right into what Rus is saying about those childlike pagans who had the germ of an inkling of idea, whose final and best flowering comes (of course) by way of Christianity. Because of course Christianity was the dominant religion of that best and highest expression of civilization. And so on.

I still think Chesterton is condescending. But I also think he couldn't help it, given when and where he lived.

And Rus, I ain't taking any of this personally. I'm clear that Chesterton is talking about little-p pagans -- those folks who predate "civilization". I'm a big-P Pagan.

I've also been thinking about the Father Christmas thing; I expect he was referring to the idea of the Wheel of the Year. Which is to say, at the winter solstice the sun seems to die (I know it doesn't *really* -- work with me here), and it's cold and dark and we get snow. But under the snow are the evergreens -- the promise that spring, and the sun, will come again. Not sure how that got wrapped around Father Christmas in 19th-century England, though.

I kind of want to say, "Gaaah!!!" (meaning an expression of frustration at misunderstanding that continues to prevail)

Fashion and what was popular in thought was precisely what Chesterton stood against all his life. There are few insults you could more seriously throw at him than to call his thought "fashionable" or him "a product of his time" (ie, that he would find more insulting, if he took offense at anything at all - although he would probably just laugh through his moustache and quickly demonstrate how the ideas were not fashionable at all).

"Child" and "Childlike" are generally compliments, NOT insults, in his terminology.

Christianity was something that was actively persecuted for 300 years by a pagan civilization that WAS the final and best flowering of the ancient world. It became dominant only in the final decay of that civilization; too late to save it (again, well-outlined in TEM). (and there is still the question of nominal vs active belief - I'm sure that could be applied to pagan, as well as Christian civilization)

Those "little 'p' pagans" didn't 'predate' civilization - they founded it. It was something that extended through thousands of years, before failing completely and its civilizations collapsing, both its religions and philosophies.

Not nitpicking here - but all of those points are ones where I have serious objections to what you say, and I think you fundamentally misunderstand what he said, and I am saying.

[Loredoctor]

The value of Lewis and Chesterton is primarily that they strike at the heart of fallacies of modern thought on which many arguments I see here are based - only they were arguments that had appeared and been defeated before, and raise their heads again generation after generation.

The value of Neitzsche, Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, Sartre, Camus, Ayn Rand, Michael Ruse, Nuemann, among many others is that they strike at the heart of the fallacies of religious thought. The value of LM, Malik23, aliantha and Fist & Faith (forgive me if I have missed anyone) is that they can respond to your posts in a reasonable manner and have shown the fallacies in your own arguments (like I have done now and then). The difference I note between them and you is that there is not an over reliance on quoting Chesterton or Lewis (not to confuse the analogy: over reliance on any atheist or agnostic to quote one or two individuals).

More to the point, and why I listed several atheists above, you need to show diversity in sources at least, because it appears you lack some originality in thought - as much you respect Chesterton. It 'does not fly' in today's society where one repeatedly falls back on the same source - one that it is 'outdated' (read: not up to date with modern ideas) in the philosophical arena. I do not mean to sound rude, but it's something I have noticed - this need to run to Chesterton.

Finally, just because you say that he's not condescending does not mean he isn't. His quotes do come across that way. Dawkins is actually a very nice and funny fellow, and I happen to think his books are not as inflammatory as some claim (sorry LM). But I'm not going to quote what others think of him just to say that he's not.

[aliantha]

I kind of want to say, "Gaaah!!!" (meaning an expression of frustration at misunderstanding that continues to prevail)

Oh good! You feel my pain when I try to respond to *your* posts.

Rus, we're coming at this from different viewpoints. That 300-year history of persecution against Christianity you talk about is where the rest of the world's religions have been living since Christianity's ascension. Yes, Paganism too. Despite your claims to the contrary, pagans/Pagans never went away. Otherwise why would Chesterton feel compelled to pooh-pooh their ideas 2000 years after Jesus' birth? Why is he bringing them up if they had already (to paraphrase your words) "collapsed and failed completely"?

Christianity is *one* world view. But it's ONLY one. And the others could be equally valid, as none of us knows the mind of God. That's the major thing that the rest of us are trying to get across to you. Well, I should stop trying to speak for others on this board <bows to F&F> -- it's the major thing that *I'm* trying to get across to you.

Although I think we may have conclusively proven one thing with this off-track discussion: quoting Chesterton here ain't gonna win you any converts.

I think your most compelling posts are those where you speak from the heart about your own experiences. (Which, btw, is what the rest of us are doing when we're not arguing about Chesterton and Lewis with you. )

[rusmeister]

Hi guys, and thanks for your responses!

I'm feeling a great sense of futility.

I wonder to what extent communication is possible in this format. Both understanding what others are trying to express of their knowledge and experience and trying to express my own...

One of the things I liked at KW was the relatively high level of intellectual discourse. I think I outlined pretty well in an earlier post kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=670828#670828 where that discourse gets derailed, where building and learning and simple communication cease. When we speak about religion and philosophy we are talking about life itself, something that is extraordinarily difficult to compress into posts. (Thus my insistence on the necessity of accessing outside references, for example.)

I firmly believe that if one wishes to prove one's own position right, they must face and defeat the best thought and the best arguments of those they disagree with - not merely the mediocre ones . It requires an enormous amount of knowledge to effectively do this, and when it comes to faith, nothing can replace personal experience, something that cannot be effectively transmitted at all.

Claims and counter-claims. LM, you speak of my fallacies, when I see precisely the opposite - and my feeling is that it is my arguments that have gone completely unexamined. If the "up-to-date" modern ideas are wrong, it doers not matter whether Chesterton's ideas (which are mostly my ideas as well) "fly" or not. It matters who's right. As to why I reference Chesterton so much, I am putting myself through a 'course' - basically reading all of his works, and I constantly find so much relevant stuff that I bring it to the table. I expect to finish, more or less in a year or so. (I finished Lewis a few years ago.)

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.
(BTW, to answer your question, neo-paganism began to raise its head in the wake of the "Age of Reason" - as I would think you ought to know - but it really was dead for one to one and a half millenia, depending on how and where you count.)

But it seems that intellectual debate is a waste of time; that given the rigidity of positions that we will just go back and forth forever. The one thing I would hope gets across from me is that we ALL have dogmas, even if some of us like to imagine that we do not.

Again, my thanks for the courtesy of your responses!

[rdhopeca]

Hi guys, and thanks for your responses!

I'm feeling a great sense of futility.

I wonder to what extent communication is possible in this format. Both understanding what others are trying to express of their knowledge and experience and trying to express my own...

One of the things I liked at KW was the relatively high level of intellectual discourse. I think I outlined pretty well in an earlier post kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=670828#670828 where that discourse gets derailed, where building and learning and simple communication cease. When we speak about religion and philosophy we are talking about life itself, something that is extraordinarily difficult to compress into posts. (Thus my insistence on the necessity of accessing outside references, for example.)

I firmly believe that if one wishes to prove one's own position right, they must face and defeat the best thought and the best arguments of those they disagree with - not merely the mediocre ones . It requires an enormous amount of knowledge to effectively do this, and when it comes to faith, nothing can replace personal experience, something that cannot be effectively transmitted at all.

Claims and counter-claims. LM, you speak of my fallacies, when I see precisely the opposite - and my feeling is that it is my arguments that have gone completely unexamined. If the "up-to-date" modern ideas are wrong, it doers not matter whether Chesterton's ideas (which are mostly my ideas as well) "fly" or not. It matters who's right. As to why I reference Chesterton so much, I am putting myself through a 'course' - basically reading all of his works, and I constantly find so much relevant stuff that I bring it to the table. I expect to finish, more or less in a year or so. (I finished Lewis a few years ago.)

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.
(BTW, to answer your question, neo-paganism began to raise its head in the wake of the "Age of Reason" - as I would think you ought to know - but it really was dead for one to one and a half millenia, depending on how and where you count.)

But it seems that intellectual debate is a waste of time; that given the rigidity of positions that we will just go back and forth forever. The one thing I would hope gets across from me is that we ALL have dogmas, even if some of us like to imagine that we do not.

Again, my thanks for the courtesy of your responses!

Rus, I can feel your futility. But I have to point out a contradiction in your desires.

by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.

This, in and of itself, is not conducive to intellectual debate, as you describe it. When there is no possibility of either side being right, then no debate can occur. There is only preaching followed by denial. If there is no possibility for you to accept my beliefs or arguments at any point, why is there a need for debate? What can I possibly say to you that will matter? And why do you then even care to discuss?

Further, because your debate desire continues to demand that we fully understand your viewpoint and your research before engaging you on the aforementioned intellectual level, those of us who would like to debate you are left holding a library's worth of reading to do before we are even worthy to stand at the podium. Which I continue to maintain is ridiculous, unless you are also intending to review every published scientific journal on the origins of the universe, or hear every story told by Native Americans regarding their beliefs, etc etc.

Personally I feel that your desire will never actually occur; not only here, but anywhere, where you encounter people with strongly held beliefs who are not willing to simply succumb to the overwhelming nature of your data, quotes, arguments, and passion for yours. You are not truly after a debate, in my opinion, and the circumstances under which you approach this would make one extremely difficult in any event.

[rusmeister]

Rus, I can feel your futility. But I have to point out a contradiction in your desires.

by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.

This, in and of itself, is not conducive to intellectual debate, as you describe it. When there is no possibility of either side being right, then no debate can occur. There is only preaching followed by denial. If there is no possibility for you to accept my beliefs or arguments at any point, why is there a need for debate? What can I possibly say to you that will matter? And why do you then even care to discuss?

This does not make sense to me. If a person debates, then he most certainly can believe in the possibility of one side being right - his own side. Now what you seem to be suggesting is that he (I or you) may admit no error anywhere, ever, even if it is universally agreed to be so, and this is not conducive to debate. Now in my own case, it is possible that I may make errors in fact and accept correction, even apologize. But if you think that debate requires that both sides be equally ready to admit that their worldview is wrong, then I disagree strongly. That just means that someone doubts the truth of their own propositions. It is possible to not doubt and engage in debate. But if a person's dogma (often unknown to them) states, for example, that there IS no truth and nobody can be right, then they would find the insistence of one who believes he really IS right to prevent debate because the dogma they hold excludes that possibility. If a person is unaware of their baseline dogmas, they will rule him but he won't know it.

Further, because your debate desire continues to demand that we fully understand your viewpoint and your research before engaging you on the aforementioned intellectual level, those of us who would like to debate you are left holding a library's worth of reading to do before we are even worthy to stand at the podium. Which I continue to maintain is ridiculous, unless you are also intending to review every published scientific journal on the origins of the universe, or hear every story told by Native Americans regarding their beliefs, etc etc.

You exaggerate the case, and use subjective terms: "library's worth", "worthy" which present my position unfairly.
I do hold that if one has little to no knowledge but merely opinion then they really can't say much about topics of great depth. On my education post I linked to I offered the example of a 20-year old beginning medical student's opinions on the medical profession vs the opinions of a grizzled 55-year old doctor with 20 years hospital practice and 15 years private practice and special and extensive experience in malpractice. It is clear that the one can speak far more authoritatively than the other on the topic. That is part of the problem here - people attack Christianity based on their personal experience, while knowing little to nothing of the history and theology of the established traditional Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, the history of the Councils, how the Bible was formed, who exactly were the early Christians, what happened to Christianity from 400-1500, what is iconoclasm , the significance of the Filioque, how did that and Papal authority split up Christendom, how did that later lead to the Reformation, which resulted in Protestantism, how and why did Protestantism break up into what you see today, etc etc. A logical person would admit that not knowing about those things is somewhat of a disqualifier to speaking intelligently on the topic. Most people here are speaking from what they have seen and experienced personally, but not knowing any of the history or theology, they do not truly understand it, any more than the 20-year old medical student may see a mess in medicine and pharmaceuticals, be outraged and have opinions, but just plain not understand much about how things work or how they got that way.

Personally I feel that your desire will never actually occur; not only here, but anywhere, where you encounter people with strongly held beliefs who are not willing to simply succumb to the overwhelming nature of your data, quotes, arguments, and passion for yours. You are not truly after a debate, in my opinion, and the circumstances under which you approach this would make one extremely difficult in any event.

Hopefully, my above responses make clear how I object to your conclusions. If one is not willing to "succumb to" learning anything, then they will only be speaking from their own personal experience - a horribly limited thing. (I could point again to LM pointing to D. Morgan expressing his own ignorance (based on his own, limited, personal experience) of the theology and depth of meaning behind Christ's words ("My God, my God...")


Again, on debate, you object to my inflexible position, not seeing that yours is equally inflexible. Thus, the futility.

An edit addition here - I don't think I know everything. I think the Church knows everything (related to spirituality, morality and the nature of man and purpose of life)) and that it is on me to submit myself to It and learn from It. So I have a lot to learn, from the Elders (Startsy) of Optina, for example, and the writings of St John Chrysostom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optina_Pustyn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

Just so you don't think that I am saying that I have all the answers or know everything - but I know where to look!

[Fist and Faith]

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent.

My belief is in a whole, of which your belief is only a part. Your belief may be perfectly good for you. It may be the only answer your psyche is able to accept. And that's all perfectly good and acceptable in my belief. That is not an inconsistency in my belief. It is the very nature of my belief. Just because your belief does not allow for others doesn't mean it's not possible for others to allow for yours.

[rdhopeca]

Rus, I can feel your futility. But I have to point out a contradiction in your desires.

by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.

This, in and of itself, is not conducive to intellectual debate, as you describe it. When there is no possibility of either side being right, then no debate can occur. There is only preaching followed by denial. If there is no possibility for you to accept my beliefs or arguments at any point, why is there a need for debate? What can I possibly say to you that will matter? And why do you then even care to discuss?

This does not make sense to me. If a person debates, then he most certainly can believe in the possibility of one side being right - his own side. Now what you seem to be suggesting is that he (I or you) may admit no error anywhere, ever, even if it is universally agreed to be so, and this is not conducive to debate. Now in my own case, it is possible that I may make errors in fact and accept correction, even apologize. But if you think that debate requires that both sides be equally ready to admit that their worldview is wrong, then I disagree strongly. That just means that someone doubts the truth of their own propositions. It is possible to not doubt and engage in debate. But if a person's dogma (often unknown to them) states, for example, that there IS no truth and nobody can be right, then they would find the insistence of one who believes he really IS right to prevent debate because the dogma they hold excludes that possibility. If a person is unaware of their baseline dogmas, they will rule him but he won't know it.

Further, because your debate desire continues to demand that we fully understand your viewpoint and your research before engaging you on the aforementioned intellectual level, those of us who would like to debate you are left holding a library's worth of reading to do before we are even worthy to stand at the podium. Which I continue to maintain is ridiculous, unless you are also intending to review every published scientific journal on the origins of the universe, or hear every story told by Native Americans regarding their beliefs, etc etc.

You exaggerate the case, and use subjective terms: "library's worth", "worthy" which present my position unfairly.
I do hold that if one has little to no knowledge but merely opinion then they really can't say much about topics of great depth. On my education post I linked to I offered the example of a 20-year old beginning medical student's opinions on the medical profession vs the opinions of a grizzled 55-year old doctor with 20 years hospital practice and 15 years private practice and special and extensive experience in malpractice. It is clear that the one can speak far more authoritatively than the other on the topic. That is part of the problem here - people attack Christianity based on their personal experience, while knowing little to nothing of the history and theology of the established traditional Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, the history of the Councils, how the Bible was formed, who exactly were the early Christians, what happened to Christianity from 400-1500, what is iconoclasm , the significance of the Filioque, how did that and Papal authority split up Christendom, how did that later lead to the Reformation, which resulted in Protestantism, how and why did Protestantism break up into what you see today, etc etc. A logical person would admit that not knowing about those things is somewhat of a disqualifier to speaking intelligently on the topic. Most people here are speaking from what they have seen and experienced personally, but not knowing any of the history or theology, they do not truly understand it, any more than the 20-year old medical student may see a mess in medicine and pharmaceuticals, be outraged and have opinions, but just plain not understand much about how things work or how they got that way.

Personally I feel that your desire will never actually occur; not only here, but anywhere, where you encounter people with strongly held beliefs who are not willing to simply succumb to the overwhelming nature of your data, quotes, arguments, and passion for yours. You are not truly after a debate, in my opinion, and the circumstances under which you approach this would make one extremely difficult in any event.

Hopefully, my above responses make clear how I object to your conclusions. If one is not willing to "succumb to" learning anything, then they will only be speaking from their own personal experience - a horribly limited thing. (I could point again to LM pointing to D. Morgan expressing his own ignorance (based on his own, limited, personal experience) of the theology and depth of meaning behind Christ's words ("My God, my God...")


Again, on debate, you object to my inflexible position, not seeing that yours is equally inflexible. Thus, the futility.

An edit addition here - I don't think I know everything. I think the Church knows everything (related to spirituality, morality and the nature of man and purpose of life)) and that it is on me to submit myself to It and learn from It. So I have a lot to learn, from the Elders (Startsy) of Optina, for example, and the writings of St John Chrysostom.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optina_Pustyn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starets
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

Just so you don't think that I am saying that I have all the answers or know everything - but I know where to look!

Let me put it this way. Debate should require that both sides have a chance to be correct.

Let's take what most of us would consider a universal truth...that only human females may naturally give birth to humans (I'll admit it's hard to pick one ). Under what circumstances would there be a need for debate? What would the person taking the opposing side way that has any effect or any bearing on the debate, as there is no way the opposing side can win?

Now let's take something else...that the world would be better without weapons. Now you can take both sides of the story, because there is at least a possibility that both sides can be right.

I am saying you are approaching this debate from the first standpoint, while I, who allows for you to be right under certain circumstances (such as your own viewpoint), am approaching this from the second. From your standpoint, since you already know the universal truth...what's the point of a debate?

I exaggerate your proposal of our reading materials only to make a (valid) point (which by the way is good debate technique).

And finally, my only inflexibility is on one point: your absolute insistence that I am wrong based on "universal truth". Everything else I grant that to you is quite possibly true, but may not be to others.

That said, I agree with you on one point: this discussion has served its purpose and outlived its usefulness.

[rusmeister]

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent.

My belief is in a whole, of which your belief is only a part. Your belief may be perfectly good for you. It may be the only answer your psyche is able to accept. And that's all perfectly good and acceptable in my belief. That is not an inconsistency in my belief. It is the very nature of my belief. Just because your belief does not allow for others doesn't mean it's not possible for others to allow for yours.

Hey Fist, I appreciate your expressing what you believe - the one inconsistency I think you've missed is that "beliefs of others" would not be able to accept a belief that is absolute and that also excludes their beliefs from being equally true (although obviously all have varying degrees of truth). This really really reminds me of "Miracle on 34th St", where everyone assumed that there could be no such thing as Santa Claus and took it as an unexamined given; in the same way, many people assume that there cannot be one worldview that really does encompass all of the truth and reject the idea that it may have really been found out of hand.

[aliantha]

That is part of the problem here - people attack Christianity based on their personal experience, while knowing little to nothing of the history and theology of the established traditional Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, the history of the Councils, how the Bible was formed, who exactly were the early Christians, what happened to Christianity from 400-1500, what is iconoclasm , the significance of the Filioque, how did that and Papal authority split up Christendom, how did that later lead to the Reformation, which resulted in Protestantism, how and why did Protestantism break up into what you see today, etc etc.

You're asking rather a lot of me. Think about it in reverse: if I handed you a book list of Pagan authors and asked you to read them before you expressed another opinion on *my* religion, what is the likelihood that you would do it? If you cracked open even one of them, I expect you would spend only about 15 seconds reading before you hurled the book across the room in disgust. Right?

I'm working on a course of study that I've devised for myself, which keeps me pretty darned busy: the Czech language; Celtic, Slavic and Native American mythology and folktales; books for my Pagan study group -- right now we're reading "Witching Culture" by Sabina Magliocco, but before that we studied the Tarot; oh yeah, and reading fantasy for fun. All that is in addition to the full-time job, the kids, the cat, my other hobbies (knitting, writing fantasy, cruising the Watch), and so on. I kind of don't have time to read books in the history of a religion I'm not a member of, just so I can have adequate credentials to engage in a debate with somebody on a message board.

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent. So I fully understand that you believe in the validity of multiple world views. But the Christian does not. Therefore he (I, Chesterton, or any Christian) will always reject it out of hand - or cease to be a Christian. It doesn't make any sense for you to expect me or them to do otherwise.

You're right, of course. I realized it after I submitted my last post.

(BTW, to answer your question, neo-paganism began to raise its head in the wake of the "Age of Reason" - as I would think you ought to know - but it really was dead for one to one and a half millenia, depending on how and where you count.)

But that's what I'm saying. It never died, it just went underground. Want a book list?

[Fist and Faith]

Ali, by its very nature, a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth - can not also recognize claims to the contrary as valid - it is certainly inconsistent.

My belief is in a whole, of which your belief is only a part. Your belief may be perfectly good for you. It may be the only answer your psyche is able to accept. And that's all perfectly good and acceptable in my belief. That is not an inconsistency in my belief. It is the very nature of my belief. Just because your belief does not allow for others doesn't mean it's not possible for others to allow for yours.

Hey Fist, I appreciate your expressing what you believe - the one inconsistency I think you've missed is that "beliefs of others" would not be able to accept a belief that is absolute and that also excludes their beliefs from being equally true (although obviously all have varying degrees of truth). This really really reminds me of "Miracle on 34th St", where everyone assumed that there could be no such thing as Santa Claus and took it as an unexamined given; in the same way, many people assume that there cannot be one worldview that really does encompass all of the truth and reject the idea that it may have really been found out of hand.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that I have "a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth -" and it can also recognize claims to the contrary as valid. That does not make my faith inconsistent. You believe that a faith that claims to be the whole Truth cannot accept contrary claims as valid. But that is not necessarily the case, even though it is in the case of the version of Christianity that you believe in.

[rusmeister]

My belief is in a whole, of which your belief is only a part. Your belief may be perfectly good for you. It may be the only answer your psyche is able to accept. And that's all perfectly good and acceptable in my belief. That is not an inconsistency in my belief. It is the very nature of my belief. Just because your belief does not allow for others doesn't mean it's not possible for others to allow for yours.

Hey Fist, I appreciate your expressing what you believe - the one inconsistency I think you've missed is that "beliefs of others" would not be able to accept a belief that is absolute and that also excludes their beliefs from being equally true (although obviously all have varying degrees of truth). This really really reminds me of "Miracle on 34th St", where everyone assumed that there could be no such thing as Santa Claus and took it as an unexamined given; in the same way, many people assume that there cannot be one worldview that really does encompass all of the truth and reject the idea that it may have really been found out of hand.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying that I have "a faith that really claims to be the truth - the whole Truth -" and it can also recognize claims to the contrary as valid. That does not make my faith inconsistent. You believe that a faith that claims to be the whole Truth cannot accept contrary claims as valid. But that is not necessarily the case, even though it is in the case of the version of Christianity that you believe in.

What I mean by "contrary" is that which contradicts; that which denies. And as it does in my case, as you point out, both propositions cannot be true. Your claim cannot also encompass mine, and that is precisely what I mean by "contrary" and "contradict".

[rusmeister]

That is part of the problem here - people attack Christianity based on their personal experience, while knowing little to nothing of the history and theology of the established traditional Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, the history of the Councils, how the Bible was formed, who exactly were the early Christians, what happened to Christianity from 400-1500, what is iconoclasm , the significance of the Filioque, how did that and Papal authority split up Christendom, how did that later lead to the Reformation, which resulted in Protestantism, how and why did Protestantism break up into what you see today, etc etc.

You're asking rather a lot of me. Think about it in reverse: if I handed you a book list of Pagan authors and asked you to read them before you expressed another opinion on *my* religion, what is the likelihood that you would do it? If you cracked open even one of them, I expect you would spend only about 15 seconds reading before you hurled the book across the room in disgust. Right?

I'm working on a course of study that I've devised for myself, which keeps me pretty darned busy: the Czech language; Celtic, Slavic and Native American mythology and folktales; books for my Pagan study group -- right now we're reading "Witching Culture" by Sabina Magliocco, but before that we studied the Tarot; oh yeah, and reading fantasy for fun. All that is in addition to the full-time job, the kids, the cat, my other hobbies (knitting, writing fantasy, cruising the Watch), and so on. I kind of don't have time to read books in the history of a religion I'm not a member of, just so I can have adequate credentials to engage in a debate with somebody on a message board.

Dobry den! Mluvim nemots Czesky!

I do understand your response (on reversing positions), and on the surface, it is reasonable.

First of all, I have no problems with existing pagan histories and authors up to the time of Christ. (So Plato, Aristotle, etc, are fully admitted.) However, I think it would be hard to demonstrate a continuous history using primary sources. Again, I acknowledge that here and there small groups existed, sometimes appearing and disappearing - but such instances are simply exceptions to an overwhelming rule.

Next, dollars to donuts practically all of your books are modern, mostly 20th century to present (as I note Magliocco to be).
That, for me, would say all I need to know.

The difference from Lewis and Chesterton (also 20th century) is that the latter draw on a tremendous and continuous tradition ranging from Augustine and Chrysostom to Aquinas to MacDonald.

(BTW, to answer your question, neo-paganism began to raise its head in the wake of the "Age of Reason" - as I would think you ought to know - but it really was dead for one to one and a half millenia, depending on how and where you count.)

But that's what I'm saying. It never died, it just went underground. Want a book list?

I would be interested in a book list of authors who wrote between 300 AD and 1800 AD. I just think it's going to be a very short list.

I understand that most are willing to invest time, for weighty reasons. But neither can they claim to know enough to knock Christianity based merely on their own experience. And here, and for the reasons I have referred to, I don't see Paganism (Neo or otherwise) as on the same footing as Christianity, and that goes for scholarship as well.

[aliantha]

Rus: For you to presume that anything that anyone has written on pagan spirituality since 1800 is not worth reading is presumptuous in the extreme.

I'm done. Nice talking to you.

[rdhopeca]

But neither can they claim to know enough to knock Christianity based merely on their own experience. And here, and for the reasons I have referred to, I don't see Paganism (Neo or otherwise) as on the same footing as Christianity, and that goes for scholarship as well.

I don't see how you can "claim to know enough" to knock Paganism either, dude. It's just that your ignorance of Paganism is on an equal footing with our supposed ignorance of Christianity.

Your arrogance continues to astonish me.

[Fist and Faith]

There were lots and lots and lots of Ch'an/Zen writings in that time period. Have you researched it thoroughly enough to dismiss it, rus? Or do you dismiss it based merely on your own experience?

Your claim cannot also encompass mine, and that is precisely what I mean by "contrary" and "contradict".

In my system, my system can also encompass yours. My system says that some people need absolutes. Some people cannot accept that many paths are equally valid, perhaps because you would not be able to choose one without worrying that you should have chosen another.

But yes, I understand that in your system, mine cannot also accept yours.

[rusmeister]

There were lots and lots and lots of Ch'an/Zen writings in that time period. Have you researched it thoroughly enough to dismiss it, rus? Or do you dismiss it based merely on your own experience?

Your claim cannot also encompass mine, and that is precisely what I mean by "contrary" and "contradict".

In my system, my system can also encompass yours. My system says that some people need absolutes. Some people cannot accept that many paths are equally valid, perhaps because you would not be able to choose one without worrying that you should have chosen another.

But yes, I understand that in your system, mine cannot also accept yours.

Understood. I think it's all been said clearly enough.

On Chan/Zen, note where you have to go to find paganism. I have been speaking about what was known as Christendom - everywhere Christianity effectively spread. Where it did, paganism ended. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Paganism only reappeared when people began voluntarily and openly abandoning Christianity.

I think my point about lack of any continuous pagan history also hits home. That's not personal arrogance. It's a fact. If everything has to be speculated on by modern scholars because there aren't primary sources from those periods, then it's...speculation, filled with a lot of what I believe to be wishful thinking (that today can help you pull down $75,000 or more at a university position under the guise of serious scholarship). Certainly there are facts, and artifacts, but not enough to justify the modern claims.

This comes back to history vs the historians. The whole trouble with our understandings of history is that we rely too much on historians, and their interpretations of history, and not the history itself - that is, the primary sources. (At the same time, we've been taught to completely pooh-pooh what is historically true in folk tales and legends.) And there's nothing arrogant in that.

[Avatar]

think my point about lack of any continuous pagan history also hits home. That's not personal arrogance. It's a fact. If everything has to be speculated on by modern scholars because there aren't primary sources from those periods...

Because it was violently suppressed by the church?

--A

[rusmeister]

think my point about lack of any continuous pagan history also hits home. That's not personal arrogance. It's a fact. If everything has to be speculated on by modern scholars because there aren't primary sources from those periods...

Because it was violently suppressed by the church?

--A

Avatar, what does that matter to to my point? If the histories being created today are dependent, not on primary sources, but on artifact and speculation, does not the fact remain that the histories are largely the creation of historians?

Sure I could debate some aspects of violent suppression, concede others, and possibly even condemn them (and even omit the previous violent suppression of Christians by pagans), but that would just distract from the point that the Pagan histories referred to today are purely modern and dependent on other modern sources. My opinion on that basis: said histories consist of a great deal of fabrication with extremely limited bases on genuine historical scholarship (which would require an abundance of primary sources to justify all of the scholarly claims).