GeorgeW

I have no problem with teaching theology (about, not promoting any one) in public schools (i.e."Some Christians believe . . .). I think public schools should teach science. When they teach theology as science, science as theology, or conflate the two, I object. George

To answer the title of this thread, that is a reason to cry. George

The term 'creationism,' as I understand it, refers to someone who believes that life was created by a divine agent, in its present form, 5.773 years ago. While I am absolutely convinced that this is wrong, on some level, I think I might be a 'creationist.' I have difficulty accepting that we and the universe are the product of gazillions of random events. I feel like there may have been a creative force of some kind that put a series of systems in place (like gravity, evolution, etc.) that resulted in our present form and existence. So, maybe I am a somewhat agnostic, borderline 'creationist.' George

Dennis, welcome. I look forward to your participation in the discussions here. George

Paul, I don't disagree with anything you have said. I guess my main point is that today we have new form of community that is to some extent replacing old forms. It is qualitatively different and whether this is good, bad or neutral remains to be seen. George

I am reading a very interesting book now titled "Connected: How Your Friends' Friends' Friends Affect Everything You Feel, Think and Do." One thing that becomes very clear is the profound influence that social connections have on us (good and bad). Since we were living in caves, this has been largely face to face. To the extent that these connections become frayed or disappear, I wonder what will happen. In some cases, virtual communities (such as this) can be additive. But, I know of people who have almost closed themselves off from tangible face-to-face relationships and live social lives almost exclusively on FaceBook and the like. George

Good point. It does facilitate associating only those of like mind and avoiding those who may think differently. In the real world, we must deal with those who think differently. We occasionally even find that they have some valid points of view. George

I think it remains to be seen whether Internet 'friends' (sometimes virtual friends) will provide the same benefits as real communities. George

That is a valid concern. The 'bowling alone' phenomenon cannot be healthy. What has happened in Europe with the increased levels of secularism? In the UK, there is a pub culture that may have partially filled the gap, but what else and what about elsewhere? George

This is a link to an article about the decline of religion generally and Protestantism specifically in the U.S. http://www.nytimes.c...clining.html?hp It says that the second largest religious group now in the U.S. are "the nones;' those with no religious affiliation.What I also found interesting is that only a small portion of "the nones" are actually atheist or agnostic. I would guess that this would be more true of first-generation 'nones.' Probably the children of 'nones' would grow up to be agnostic or atheist. There are several explanations offered for why religion is declining in the U.S.: 1. People are disillusioned because of the political involvement of evangelicals in social issues like gay marriage. 2. The 'bowling alone' phenomenon, i.e. people are becoming less involved in community activity. 3. Americans are just becoming more secular like in Europe and Canada. My guess is the answer is all of the above. George

It is misleading for reasons I mentioned (twice). George

So, you think it is a respectful term? Come on, give me a break. George

It implies that a person who believes in a God will believe anything, even something as absurd as a "flying spaghetti monster." That is false. Boyer shows how things like this would maximally violate our ontological categories and would not be within the realm of reasonable propositions about gods. George

Pacal Boyer (in Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought) examines OCD and religious ritual. He says that "Many authors have noted the similarities between this condition and ritual performance [in religion]." In examining the question, he says, "Most anthropologists concluded that such similar features [OCD and religious ritual] may well be coincidence." Since there are many people without OCD who engage in religious rituals, religion would not appear to cause OCD or be the result of it. I am unaware of any studies that correlate people with OCD with religious rituals. The similarities, IMO, do not imply that religious ritual is a manifestation of OCD any more than other repetitive behaviors like brushing our teeth, bathing, eating several meal a day are. Also, most religious ritual is a group activity. To my knowledge OCD is an individual activity - I am not aware of any 'Southern Compulsive Hand Washers Convention.' In addition, as Haidt has noted, group rituals are not limited to religion - we see them in sports, politics, civic organizations, etc. In fact, it is hard for me to envision any social institution with no rituals. George

I realize that this has become a meme. But that doesn't make it any less derisive and falsely misleading. George

Steve, I don't know that it does fall within this discussion. What do you have in mind? (BTW, thanks for supporting the forum) George

Right. Our collective focus and identity can lead to good or bad. Ritual, in itself, is neither benign nor malevolent. George

Joseph, So true. So much truer than many of us realize. I am in the middle of a very interesting book now about the effect of social connections ("Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks" by Chistakis and Fowler). We are strongly influenced in many ways -- physical health, mental health, emotions, happiness, etc. -- by those we are connected to. Interestingly, in some ways, we more influenced by friends than "inherited relationships" like family. And, the influence is not just direct, we are influenced, in declining degrees, by our friend's friends and our friend's friend's friends. George

Raven, I have not heard this, but Haidt (in "The Righteous Mind") writes quite a bit about ritual. He sees ritual broadly as a mechanism for uniting a group of people and raising them above their individual focus to a collective focus. We see this in sports, nationalism and other activities as well as religion. At sporting events we have ritual songs, cheers, attire. We have national anthems we sing together, pledges of allegiance, flags we wave, etc. Many social and fraternal organizations have their rites. These all serve to bring a collection of individuals into a united community. George

Raven, This may be one of those instances (I think rare) where reason can overcome our inclination to be revulsed by sexual activity that deviates from the norm. George

Also, Rand received her education at a public university in the USSR. In fact, it was the liberalized policies under communism (which she detested) that allowed her as a Jew and a woman to be admitted to the university. She was in the first group of women admitted. George

Okay, we'll start the clock and begin the discussions in two weeks. George

I found it difficult to agree with much that she says. One of her favorite sayings to her disciples was "check your premises." I found myself, while reading the book, often saying to her, 'Ayn, check your premises.' FWIW, had someone written Haidt's book during her lifetime and she had read it (although she didn't read material contrary to her philosophy), her premises would have been completely refuted. She would never accept the idea that humans are social animals. In her view, we are stickily autonomous individuals and reason is the only basis of action. George

Great, welcome to the book club (actually, this particular book club). George

I recently finished this book by Jennifer Burns, a historian. It is a nice historical review of Ayn Rand, her philosophy and her life. It is neither an apology nor a hit job. The person that comes through is brilliant but not a nice person. Ayn Rand was imperious, egotistical, vengeful and petty. I suppose this is appropriate for someone whose philosophy is so extremely individualistic. I read a couple of her books “Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” many years ago in another millennium, but have forgotten much except for the general libertarian philosophy (which I do not embrace). Given the recent emergence of the Tea Party and Paul Ryan who cite Rand as an inspiration, I thought it would be worthwhile to read more about Rand. (FWIW, Mitt Romney's 47% comment was very Randian.) Several things, relevant to PC, came out of the book. Rand was not just an atheist but she despised altruism, which she described as “evil.” And, she held general disdain for “Christian ethics” and “charity.” To her, it is all about the self, the individual. As an example, one of the characters in one of her books says, “The only good which men can do to one another and the statement of their proper relationship is – Hands off!” Actually, reading her denunciations makes me feel better about identifying as a Christian. She saw Christianity as basically altruistic. Where she sees this as a negative, I see it as a positive. If anyone is interested in learning more about Ayn Rand and her philosophy, this book is an objective, scholarly examination meticulously researched (it was an 8-year project). I would not hesitate to recommend it. George