I'm in Mountain View for the summer, working on Google Translate for another internship with that company that I seem to work for fairly often. Hooray!
Unfortunately, my laptop's built-in wireless card really doesn't agree with the apartment complex's wireless. So I ordered a little USB stick wireless adapter from ThinkPenguin, and it came pretty quickly, and I plugged it in (and told wicd to look at wlan1 instead of wlan0), and it just worked! Now my wireless connection is pretty fast, and doesn't drop every five minutes! (unlike before; it was a serious pain.)
Particularly, I got this one. Their other products may also be lovely. Thanks, ThinkPenguin!
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Sunday, October 09, 2011
reading: Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero
Not too long ago, I read the very thought-provoking Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn't, by Stephen Prothero, likely because it came recommended by Dale McGowan. The discussion of the history of religious education in the US is fantastic.
The main argument of the book is that, until recent decades, we knew quite a lot about Protestantism, through instruction at home, in churches, and even in the school system. People apparently used the verb "catechize", as something you did to children. But this knowledge of what's actually in the Bible, and actual church doctrines is, these days, largely lost on us in the US, even though we're very caught up in our religious identities and church attendance is huge.
Political discourse is full of religious allusions, but we often don't get the references. I would have appreciated more examples of problems that this causes in practice -- is it really an issue for being a citizen in a democracy?
Prothero notes, early on, that Europeans are much less religious than Americans but more familiar with religious content. Dale McGowan says "faith is most easily sustained in ignorance"; knowing a thing or three about a few different religions makes it easier to not get caught up in any of them. Is the major problem caused by religious ignorance that it makes it easier for preachers and politicians to jerk people around by telling them that God says thus-and-such?
While Prothero doesn't address the question of why the more broadly-educated Europeans don't tend to be churchgoers, he does put forth a policy suggestion, that our curricula should have more information about the world's religions. And while I agree that it's probably a good idea, he doesn't say much about the sorts of changes we might see, with better religious studies education. I must admit, I have a hard time thinking of education-about-religion as anything except a strategy against the influence of seemingly-devout people.
Perhaps I'll pick up his more recent book, God Is Not One, about the fundamental disagreements between different religions, contrasting with the framing you'd get from Huston Smith or Karen Armstrong, who argue that different religions are grasping towards the same fundamental truth. I'm really curious about his personal position, because Prothero identifies himself as an Episcopalian, but hasn't thus far talked about any particular benefits of people believing any particular thing.
The main argument of the book is that, until recent decades, we knew quite a lot about Protestantism, through instruction at home, in churches, and even in the school system. People apparently used the verb "catechize", as something you did to children. But this knowledge of what's actually in the Bible, and actual church doctrines is, these days, largely lost on us in the US, even though we're very caught up in our religious identities and church attendance is huge.
Political discourse is full of religious allusions, but we often don't get the references. I would have appreciated more examples of problems that this causes in practice -- is it really an issue for being a citizen in a democracy?
Prothero notes, early on, that Europeans are much less religious than Americans but more familiar with religious content. Dale McGowan says "faith is most easily sustained in ignorance"; knowing a thing or three about a few different religions makes it easier to not get caught up in any of them. Is the major problem caused by religious ignorance that it makes it easier for preachers and politicians to jerk people around by telling them that God says thus-and-such?
While Prothero doesn't address the question of why the more broadly-educated Europeans don't tend to be churchgoers, he does put forth a policy suggestion, that our curricula should have more information about the world's religions. And while I agree that it's probably a good idea, he doesn't say much about the sorts of changes we might see, with better religious studies education. I must admit, I have a hard time thinking of education-about-religion as anything except a strategy against the influence of seemingly-devout people.
Perhaps I'll pick up his more recent book, God Is Not One, about the fundamental disagreements between different religions, contrasting with the framing you'd get from Huston Smith or Karen Armstrong, who argue that different religions are grasping towards the same fundamental truth. I'm really curious about his personal position, because Prothero identifies himself as an Episcopalian, but hasn't thus far talked about any particular benefits of people believing any particular thing.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
nice wireless card for Ubuntu: TP-Link TL-WN651G
I just got my TP-Link TL-WN651G wireless card, popped it in the computer, and it Just Worked. (Ubuntu Karmic, 9.10).
It uses the Atheros chipset (Atheros AR5001X+), and Ubuntu figures it right out, with the ath5k wireless driver.
So if you're looking for an inexpensive PCI wireless card that you can use on Linux without using a binary blob and ndiswrapper, this is a good choice!
Hooray :)
It uses the Atheros chipset (Atheros AR5001X+), and Ubuntu figures it right out, with the ath5k wireless driver.
So if you're looking for an inexpensive PCI wireless card that you can use on Linux without using a binary blob and ndiswrapper, this is a good choice!
Hooray :)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
from Dan Dennett: "Preachers who are not Believers"
From a recent article by Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola, "Preachers who are not Believers", which I saw on the International Cognition and Culture Institute blog.
They managed to reach out and find some actual pastors of churches, who happen to not believe much of what their church-people probably expect they believe, and interview them. They turn out to be really thoughtful, compassionate people. With jobs that must be pretty difficult at times. Awesome paper.
From Jack, age 50, a Southern Baptist minister of 15 years:
“OK, this God created me. It’s a perfect God that knows everything; can do anything. And somehow it got messed up, and it’s my fault. So he had to send his son to die for me to fix it. And he does. And now I’m supposed to beat myself to death the rest of my life over it. It makes no sense to me. Don’t you think a God could come up with a better plan than that?”
“What kind of personality; what kind of being is this that had to create these other beings to worship and tell him how wonderful he is? That makes no sense, if this God is all-knowing and all-wise and all-wonderful. I can’t comprehend that that’s what kind of person God is.”
“Every church I’ve been in preached that the Jonah in the Whale story is literally true. And I’ve never believed that. You mean to tell me a human was in the belly of that whale? For three days? And then the whale spit him out on the shoreline? And, of course, their convenient logic is, ‘Well, God can do anything.’”
“Well, I think most Christians have to be in a state of denial to read the Bible and believe it. Because there are so many contradicting stories. You’re encouraged to be violent on one page, and you’re encouraged to give sacrificial love on another page. You’re encouraged to bash a baby’s head on one page, and there’s other pages that say, you know, give your brother your fair share of everything you have if they ask for it.”
“But if God was going to reveal himself to us, don’t you think it would be in a way that we wouldn’t question? ...I mean, if I was wanting to have...people teach about the Bible...I would probably make sure they knew I existed. ...I mean, I wouldn’t send them mysterious notes, encrypted in a way that it took a linguist to figure out.”
Sunday, November 26, 2006
What, he keeps on posting about pluralism and that Sam Harris guy?
These people, on the other hand, don't seem to see religion and religious differences as a problem. In fact, they seem like very nice, reasonable folks.
The Pluralism Project at Harvard
Interfaith Youth Core
IFYC was started in part by Dr. Eboo Patel, who gave a very nice interview on NPR, which I remember hearing on the radio when it was broadcast. He also wrote a This I Believe piece.
Sam Harris still isn't convinced, of course. But you'd think they could come up with a better debating partner for him than Dennis Prager? (there's a fairly interesting email debate between them on jewcy; he must not have read my previous post, Sam didn't, because he didn't address my concerns.)
The Pluralism Project at Harvard
Interfaith Youth Core
IFYC was started in part by Dr. Eboo Patel, who gave a very nice interview on NPR, which I remember hearing on the radio when it was broadcast. He also wrote a This I Believe piece.
Sam Harris still isn't convinced, of course. But you'd think they could come up with a better debating partner for him than Dennis Prager? (there's a fairly interesting email debate between them on jewcy; he must not have read my previous post, Sam didn't, because he didn't address my concerns.)
Saturday, November 25, 2006
"I know you don't know..."
So this fellow Sam Harris has recently come onto my radar. He's in the Richard Dawkins "religion is pretty immediately harmful and we need to get rid of it" school of thought, and he's published a pair of books (The End of Faith and Letters to a Christian Nation) in which he spells out his position. There's a video of him giving a talk out there, and I think he's a pretty good speaker...
But it might just be because I'm inclined to agree with what he's saying. I've been trying to work this out systematically. There are some very clear ways in which religion-inspired positions can be detrimental to people's health and happiness -- we've got the oft-cited condoms-in-Africa and the stem cell research and the homophobia... and all sorts of positions, say environmental ones, that you would rationally take if you thought that these were the End Times, that Jesus was coming to save the day in the next 50 years or so -- which supposedly almost half the country buys into. And that's just not a healthy belief for people to have, if the rest of us want to establish a sustainable living environment for people in the long-run.
And deep down inside, I think a property of people (for now) is that we want a holy war -- we need something to rally against, some sort of emergency situation to respond to. And we think, "well, this is wrong. These well-meaning people are misled, and it's so pervasive, particularly in this country, and you can't really talk about it..." So they're talking about it, Harris and Dawkins are.
However, I think where Dawkins and Harris fall down is in two major ways:
Firstly, not all religious people take all the purported beliefs of their religion to their logical extremes (and why not is an enormously interesting issue). This is a central point in Harris' argument, and I'm trying to work out what I think about it -- he says that religious moderation and pluralism essentially ropes off faith from rational discourse and makes it okay to believe whatever you want, and nobody's going to question it, which provides cover for extremists... and as moderately-minded folks, we have trouble believing that people really believe this schlock, but he assures us that they do -- and that genocides and jihads really aren't just about economics and education like we want to believe they are, but are honestly religiously motivated.
And yet the world is full of people who identify with one particular faith and still do wonderful things for the world. Many Christians feel the need to be good stewards of the planet, they save the water and the air and the narwhals, they feed the hungry, they provide medical attention all over the world. And many are full of love and hope and tolerance, and they stand up for their gay friends and make beautiful works of art and fill the world with music.
Of course, these people might do these exact same things without religion -- maybe they're just beautiful people. But then, in a world without faith, I wouldn't be writing this post. So it goes.
Secondly: the biblical god is perhaps not in the same class of entities as Zeus or Inari, and I think it's an oversimplification to put statements like "there is a giant diamond buried in my back yard" (an example from Harris) in the same class as statements about the nature of a more abstract deity -- at least without further examination. Now the idea that Jesus is physically coming to end the world soon, maybe that's in the same category as the giant diamond, but what about the proposition that there's an inherent moral structure to the universe, or that your dead friends and family aren't really gone? Or that things Will Ultimately Work Out? ... Of course "I wouldn't want to live in a world where X is not the case" isn't really a knock-down argument to convince us of any of these things.
So anyway, BG, as we'll call it, is something a little different, with a fluid identity somewhere between that of Zeus (the old-testament local sky-god, rooting up the local fertility cults and being mad at some people while briefly favoring others), a mythological sun-hero, and something like a Lucasian Force or the Tao or even identifying with all of the world, like you might find in Spinoza.
Richard Dawkins had quipped that everybody is atheist about most of the gods that have ever been dreamt up -- some of us just go that last step. And I think that's an oversimplification, because for a lot of people, god is just that abstract-orderliness-principle... if your view of god is, like this fellow RJ Eskow puts it, the sheet music of the universe, then this isn't all that different from believing in causality and some initial state of things, is it? And don't a lot of people hold beliefs like that?
I think what Sam Harris really gets at is that it's almost taboo to talk about faith as an absurdity in polite society. Many people get really defensive about their theology, if you bring it up. There's this weird feeling of guilt, at least for me, being an unbeliever bringing this topic up. I don't believe like you believe; in fact, I think you're wrong about some pretty fundamental things and I'm trying to gauge whether it's harmful. And that's where the guilt comes from, I think -- we're faced with the prospect of explaining to our loved ones that they and some large chunk of society hold possibly-destructive beliefs. It feels wrong because we know folks who are nicer people than us (and furthermore more devoted social activists) and it's hard to find fault with them and what they believe -- no harm, no foul, right? Is it so destructive to believe in a universe that has some sort of underlying order to it, that wants, in some sense, for you to be nice to people, wherein you identify the BG with a kind and loving parent?
I mean, it's Wrong, of course. And I still haven't addressed Sam Harris' idea that toleration and letting people believe what they want provides cover for fundamentalists. And the propositions that the wonderful and nice people hold true might even be largely the same as the ones that folks we might label as societally destructive believe in... this is a difficult and tangly problem. The mind is vast and greatly partitioned.
So at a higher level, do we believe in truth and the search for it, or is what we believe pretty much unrelated to any objective world that might be out there? And how can you possibly sit still when you know in your heart that you have this truth that's vitally important for everybody's eternal well-being that snot-nosed AI kids on the internet are calling schlock? Doesn't religious pluralism lead the way to trivializing religion as a whole? The idea that there's some abstract higher truth that's filtered into different societies in different ways is attractive to many, but I think it breaks down when you get into the specifics of what religions are actually saying. Unless everybody's just speaking in metaphors and hyperbole most of the time.
(This last cluster, the "abstract orderliness to the world" has its problems once you try to work out the details, of course. Particularly, it doesn't square with BG as well as many would like -- you start ascribing all of these perfections to BG, maybe with an aim to working out an ontological existence proof and then you're left with The Problem of Evil or justice anyway. Let's leave this to another post, or perhaps a book.)
(although many in Christian contexts have preached against the God-as-the-Force idea in favor of a more personalitied BG, Huston Smith interestingly characterizes Hinduism as encouraging whichever idea about Brahma one personally finds more worshipable)
Here are some interesting blog posts: alls I'm gonna say is that people who argue against Sam Harris seem to mostly rely on ad hominem attacks and the idea that he has a faulty moral compass.
- RJ Eskow: Reptiles of the Mind -- giving thanks for rational atheists
- RJ Eskow: The sad state of atheism today
- Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture (seriously, Sam, wtf?)
- Steven Pinker: Less Faith, More Reason
- Marty Kaplan: Atheists for Cheney
But it might just be because I'm inclined to agree with what he's saying. I've been trying to work this out systematically. There are some very clear ways in which religion-inspired positions can be detrimental to people's health and happiness -- we've got the oft-cited condoms-in-Africa and the stem cell research and the homophobia... and all sorts of positions, say environmental ones, that you would rationally take if you thought that these were the End Times, that Jesus was coming to save the day in the next 50 years or so -- which supposedly almost half the country buys into. And that's just not a healthy belief for people to have, if the rest of us want to establish a sustainable living environment for people in the long-run.
And deep down inside, I think a property of people (for now) is that we want a holy war -- we need something to rally against, some sort of emergency situation to respond to. And we think, "well, this is wrong. These well-meaning people are misled, and it's so pervasive, particularly in this country, and you can't really talk about it..." So they're talking about it, Harris and Dawkins are.
However, I think where Dawkins and Harris fall down is in two major ways:
Firstly, not all religious people take all the purported beliefs of their religion to their logical extremes (and why not is an enormously interesting issue). This is a central point in Harris' argument, and I'm trying to work out what I think about it -- he says that religious moderation and pluralism essentially ropes off faith from rational discourse and makes it okay to believe whatever you want, and nobody's going to question it, which provides cover for extremists... and as moderately-minded folks, we have trouble believing that people really believe this schlock, but he assures us that they do -- and that genocides and jihads really aren't just about economics and education like we want to believe they are, but are honestly religiously motivated.
And yet the world is full of people who identify with one particular faith and still do wonderful things for the world. Many Christians feel the need to be good stewards of the planet, they save the water and the air and the narwhals, they feed the hungry, they provide medical attention all over the world. And many are full of love and hope and tolerance, and they stand up for their gay friends and make beautiful works of art and fill the world with music.
Of course, these people might do these exact same things without religion -- maybe they're just beautiful people. But then, in a world without faith, I wouldn't be writing this post. So it goes.
Secondly: the biblical god is perhaps not in the same class of entities as Zeus or Inari, and I think it's an oversimplification to put statements like "there is a giant diamond buried in my back yard" (an example from Harris) in the same class as statements about the nature of a more abstract deity -- at least without further examination. Now the idea that Jesus is physically coming to end the world soon, maybe that's in the same category as the giant diamond, but what about the proposition that there's an inherent moral structure to the universe, or that your dead friends and family aren't really gone? Or that things Will Ultimately Work Out? ... Of course "I wouldn't want to live in a world where X is not the case" isn't really a knock-down argument to convince us of any of these things.
So anyway, BG, as we'll call it, is something a little different, with a fluid identity somewhere between that of Zeus (the old-testament local sky-god, rooting up the local fertility cults and being mad at some people while briefly favoring others), a mythological sun-hero, and something like a Lucasian Force or the Tao or even identifying with all of the world, like you might find in Spinoza.
Richard Dawkins had quipped that everybody is atheist about most of the gods that have ever been dreamt up -- some of us just go that last step. And I think that's an oversimplification, because for a lot of people, god is just that abstract-orderliness-principle... if your view of god is, like this fellow RJ Eskow puts it, the sheet music of the universe, then this isn't all that different from believing in causality and some initial state of things, is it? And don't a lot of people hold beliefs like that?
I think what Sam Harris really gets at is that it's almost taboo to talk about faith as an absurdity in polite society. Many people get really defensive about their theology, if you bring it up. There's this weird feeling of guilt, at least for me, being an unbeliever bringing this topic up. I don't believe like you believe; in fact, I think you're wrong about some pretty fundamental things and I'm trying to gauge whether it's harmful. And that's where the guilt comes from, I think -- we're faced with the prospect of explaining to our loved ones that they and some large chunk of society hold possibly-destructive beliefs. It feels wrong because we know folks who are nicer people than us (and furthermore more devoted social activists) and it's hard to find fault with them and what they believe -- no harm, no foul, right? Is it so destructive to believe in a universe that has some sort of underlying order to it, that wants, in some sense, for you to be nice to people, wherein you identify the BG with a kind and loving parent?
I mean, it's Wrong, of course. And I still haven't addressed Sam Harris' idea that toleration and letting people believe what they want provides cover for fundamentalists. And the propositions that the wonderful and nice people hold true might even be largely the same as the ones that folks we might label as societally destructive believe in... this is a difficult and tangly problem. The mind is vast and greatly partitioned.
So at a higher level, do we believe in truth and the search for it, or is what we believe pretty much unrelated to any objective world that might be out there? And how can you possibly sit still when you know in your heart that you have this truth that's vitally important for everybody's eternal well-being that snot-nosed AI kids on the internet are calling schlock? Doesn't religious pluralism lead the way to trivializing religion as a whole? The idea that there's some abstract higher truth that's filtered into different societies in different ways is attractive to many, but I think it breaks down when you get into the specifics of what religions are actually saying. Unless everybody's just speaking in metaphors and hyperbole most of the time.
(This last cluster, the "abstract orderliness to the world" has its problems once you try to work out the details, of course. Particularly, it doesn't square with BG as well as many would like -- you start ascribing all of these perfections to BG, maybe with an aim to working out an ontological existence proof and then you're left with The Problem of Evil or justice anyway. Let's leave this to another post, or perhaps a book.)
(although many in Christian contexts have preached against the God-as-the-Force idea in favor of a more personalitied BG, Huston Smith interestingly characterizes Hinduism as encouraging whichever idea about Brahma one personally finds more worshipable)
Here are some interesting blog posts: alls I'm gonna say is that people who argue against Sam Harris seem to mostly rely on ad hominem attacks and the idea that he has a faulty moral compass.
- RJ Eskow: Reptiles of the Mind -- giving thanks for rational atheists
- RJ Eskow: The sad state of atheism today
- Sam Harris: In Defense of Torture (seriously, Sam, wtf?)
- Steven Pinker: Less Faith, More Reason
- Marty Kaplan: Atheists for Cheney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)