dagblog - Comments for "Edsel-Like Religion Sells Snake-Oil"

My first psychology professor

Elusive Trope — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:27:22 +0000

In reply to Regarding your last sentence,

My first psychology professor in community college [talk about prestige ;) ] was a hardcore Skinnerian. He and I locked horns more than once. The whole notion that since we can't look inside the black box, we won't give it any role as agency for observed phenomenon, is just asinine.

What is significant, if we are to gain insight into something like people's proclivity to choose a Reagan over a Carter, is understanding how the individual perceives the intention of the God parent. In other words, what is happening within and through the individual's black box as a result of the individual's engagement with God.

This also means knowing the dynamics of that engagement, which of course has wide and deep diversity of manifestations. Being human, we are limited to understanding that engagement, even for ourselves, through the dynamic of human engagement. Just as we cannot fully engage another without some kind of social cues (even if it is one the smily faces we add in our text messages), our engagement with God requires some form of similar social cues.

When one of the angels in Wim Wenders film Wings of Desire attempts to comfort a suicidal individual, he places his hand on his shoulder in an effort to comfort.

Regarding your last sentence,

Verified Atheist — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:19:02 +0000

In reply to Benevolence and malevolence

Regarding your last sentence, a Skinnerian would argue that caring without acting is indistinguishable from not caring. That said, I agree that most people still find it comforting to imagine that He does care even when He doesn't act.

I would add that the author

Elusive Trope — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:08:52 +0000

In reply to Benevolence and malevolence

I would add that the author was making the argument that the worst kind of abuse was the one that did not follow any logical path: if I do this and the parent is happy, then I do it again and get smacked is much worse than always getting smacked. At least in the latter there is a consistency of behavior from the parent (God).

We want to believe that if we do this and this, then we will be rewarded in the end. On a religious level, it ultimately has to do with getting into heaven (in whatever form one believes that is), but also rewarded here on earth in the here and now. The on-going conundrum of why bad things happen to good people while good things happen to other good people and bad people is one that will keep the preachers and motivational speakers in business for as long as there are people.

People are fond of saying we cannot know God's plan, or why God does what he does. But people keep on trying to know. What is his logic? his reasoning? Just like a child who wonders why the parent just smacked them across the face when the child believes they had done nothing wrong, or something good.

Benevolence and malevolence

Elusive Trope — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:55:23 +0000

In reply to Regarding your penultimate

Benevolence and malevolence imply some emotional connection. The individual who made the assertion was writing about abusive parents. He was making the point that a child would rather have a parent who showed anger rather than indifference because at least anger showed the child that the parent acknowledged on an emotional level the child's existence.

To riff off a joke I wrote about here, when we ask God (universe) why did this bad thing happen to me (esp when I have been at least trying to be good), we would rather hear God respond "because I fuckin' hate you," than silence.

God the Watchmaker is close to creating an indifferent god, but I would say that a decent watchmaker is one who not only takes his or her timepieces seriously, but also one who engages each watch, each intricate piece of the watch and how they all interact, with a certain amount of emotional connection. One can't be a great watchmaker if one really doesn't care one way or the other if the watch is working as it should.

Regarding your penultimate

Verified Atheist — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:41:36 +0000

In reply to I'm OK, You're OK. One could

Regarding your penultimate paragraph, I'd argue that there are quite a few scientists who believe in an effectively indifferent God, AKA the God of the gaps. I know I went through that phase, where I wasn't ready to stop believing in God, so I kept trying to rationalize him as Someone who set up the universe (physical constants and what-not) and has then been watching ever since. Sure, in my mind I considered Him to be watching benevolently instead of indifferently, but if He's just watching, what's the difference? To answer my own question, I suppose a difference is that if one accepts an omniscient God who can predict the future, one can then presume that He tweaked the constants just so in order to benevolently create a particular outcome. I'm just not sure how significant that difference is in labeling His hypothetical current watching as benevolent instead of indifferent.

I'm OK, You're OK. One could

Elusive Trope — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:22:25 +0000

In reply to Edsel-Like Religion Sells Snake-Oil

I'm OK, You're OK. One could argue that the initial spread of Christianity amongst the poor, who were basically everyone, was because it offered a message of hope and promise of a better day, if not tomorrow, then in the next life. The notion that the meek shall inherit the earth besides being a radical political notion, could be interpreted, if one wished to interpret it as such, as part of a prosperity gospel.

There is a huge difference between a belief in original sin and acknowledging one's limits and deficiencies. The former is a judgment on the fundamental nature of an individual, a judgment which claims that we come into this world already corrupt and wretched. A spiritual blemish that cannot be undone. For many people, looking down on the face and into the eyes of a new born, original sin not only is a concept that doesn't resonate, it is also the complete opposite of what one feels to be true about a new life brought into this world.

It would seem that a facet of human nature, whatever that is, tends to lean towards a proclivity for the pleasant rather than the unpleasant. Which makes sense on some level. When someone only looks at one's blemishes and not on positive qualities we consider it a disorder. So is only looking on the bright side of life, as someone once sang from the cross.

History is one long story of people attempting to get other people to follow them because the world is a wondrous place or we're all going to hell in a hand basket (except for the few chosen few).

Someone once wrote that man creates angry gods and benevolent gods. The only god they don't create is an indifferent one. We are always seeking affirmation of our goodness and avoiding punishment for our wickedness (or just the opposite). Politicians and preachers will always try to leverage these internal desires for their own ends. It is not a new thing that has emerged in America. Rather America has its own unique twist on the old theme. Manifest Destiny is just a variation of the notion of predestination.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Prosperity preachers believe

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:27:59 +0000

In reply to How many preachers really say

Prosperity preachers believe that everything is OK if you truly believe everything is OK. Bounty comes to the true believer.

How many preachers really say

Aaron Carine — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:15:56 +0000

In reply to Edsel-Like Religion Sells Snake-Oil

How many preachers really say that everything is okay? Evangelical Christians seem to feel that there is serious sinning going on.

A friend of mine posted a

MrSmith1 — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:57:25 +0000

In reply to Edsel-Like Religion Sells Snake-Oil

A friend of mine posted a quote from Joel Osteen on her Facebook page the other day. It went something like, "You can't have a positive life, if you hang out with negative people." My first reaction was to ask, 'isn't hanging out with negative people what ministers and priests are supposed to spend the bulk of their time doing?' Does that compromise the positivity of their lives? My second reaction was to wonder why Mr. Osteen assumed that my hanging out with negative people would affect the quality of my own life? Does he assume that I am without principles and moral judgments of my own? Does he imagine that I am so devoid of moral fiber and so lacking of an independent spirit that I will automatically assimilate the negativity of the people that surround me? Why would he assume that? But then I realized, this was just a feeble attempt at making a memorable quote; the Facebook equivalent of a cheez doodle; crunchy but without real substance.

Americans love stories. When they aren't provided, they will make them up. A wise politician will create the scenarios that raise the questions which his policies will solve.The problem today, it seems to me, is that the GOP are using scenarios that were written 30-40 years ago, and trying to convince people that the answers to the current problems are the same as the ones which answered those scenarios of 30 years ago. Times change. The scenarios are different and the answers now are most definitely different. When the scenarios of today point to a Fusion as a possible solution, Ford shouldn't keep offering up an Edsel.

Where's the rest of the

EmmaZahn — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:54:41 +0000

In reply to Edsel-Like Religion Sells Snake-Oil

Where's the rest of the sermon? It seems to be missing its introduction and conclusion, particularly its conclusion. You end with a series of questions so why not answer them?