Blog to restore sanity

Language is interesting. In Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes, Daniel Everett recounts his experiences as a missionary living among the Pirahã, a small tribe in Brazil. Everett eventually realizes that it would be impossible to translate the Bible into Pirahã because the language lacks the words to describe anything that was not personally witnessed or told to the speaker by a witness. This is consistent with their culture; the Pirahãs place importance on immediate experience. Claims necessitate evidence. There is no story of the earth's creation, and no sense of sin. As we say in one of my languages, "no day but today." Religion is incompatible with their culture and, consequently, their language.

Let's take a look at some other language that is incompatible with religion. Taken from my own comment on my own blog: I get my values "from progressive thinking rather than ancient, dogmatic works of fiction." I guess you could say I have strong feelings about this. I use these words to get my point across, which is important, but so is productive discourse. So perhaps I can use some more neutral words (as a side note--is "dogmatic" not a neutral word? It's a simple fact that many religions contain dogmas--principles that are not to be disputed--but the word is used disparagingly these days): I don't consider the Bible to be an authoritative source due to its unverifiable claims. I view science as a reliable source of information because it provides evidence and makes its methods known. So, what about morality? Thanks to innate characteristics and personal experience, I have a general desire to be nice and not kill people. Science doesn't tell us how we should act, but it can shed light on why we tend to act certain ways. For an example, see the Veritas Forum's discussion on altruism from last year.

It gets interesting at the end of that discussion when someone asks what happens when science and religion conflict. In my opinion, Sussman's answer--basically, that they don't conflict--is a cop-out. Of course they conflict. Now, is conflict inevitable? I have long been inclined to think so. However, the fact remains that in our society, both science and religion exist. In order for them to coexist peacefully, we have to find a common language. True, there are plenty of scientists who are also religious, and have attempted to bridge the gap, but belief is complicated, and there are always people who remain dissatisfied with some detail. So, are people's various beliefs so fundamentally different that they must conflict? Maybe, but it's still fun to look for that common ground. Philip Clayton does a pretty good job, I think, in this Assembly Series talk from 2008. Sure, I yelled at the computer a few times while listening to it, but it was better than anything I'd heard on the topic before. My main issue was with his use of the word "spirituality." He seems to imply that spirituality is a requirement for being human. But guess what? I don't need to be spiritual in order to enjoy life or appreciate nature. I have emotions. I just don't believe in anything supernatural. Can we expand the definition of spirituality or find another word that is more inclusive in describing the human experience?

Sometimes when I think about it too much, I become convinced that we are all saying the same thing, just in different words.

Sometimes, I think not.

And other times, I wonder how pushy I should be in advancing my cause. And then my dad sends me an article about a conference at which that very question was addressed.

Also, sometimes I have lots to say but can't figure out how to tie it in with everything else, but if you're like me and just can't enough of this stuff, check out this article, then follow the link to the author's blog and read the comments. That should keep you busy for a while.

So, in conclusion, language is interesting, I'm not sure if sanity was restored but I tried, and I like to write about religion.

What if god were one of us?

I don't even know what that question means, really; I'm just quoting that song, but with proper grammar. Anyway, Grilled Cheesus lived up to my expectations. It was hilarious and touched on a lot of important issues. I just hope the episode's warm and fuzzy ending doesn't overshadow the fact that there are issues.

That's not to say that I don't appreciate the warmth and fuzziness. Like Kurt, I don't believe in god, but I believe in friends and family, and I am grateful that we can put aside our differences and hold hands and sing, literally and figuratively.

But, you know, there are still issues.

Okay, I think that's quite enough for now. But if you ever want to discuss/debate, just holler...

Return of the... METABLOG!

Bad thing: I discovered the page that shows me how many times my blog has been viewed.

So now I know that people are viewing it and choosing not to comment.
Here she goes with the obsessing...
Okay, but the thing is, with my last post I'm not looking for reassurance; I'm looking for other points of view. Mostly. It's true, though; the desire for reassurance is always there. Of course, I could interpret the silence as reassurance that everyone either agrees with me or has failed to come up with a strong rebuttal. But it is also quite possible that people are refusing to engage me in a conversation because they view my claims as radical or ignorant and doubt that I would understand any explanation that draws upon a religious perspective. Or maybe people are still thinking about how they would answer, and maybe they won't tell me, but would still think about it, which would be cool too.

Anyway, my main point is this: Reassurance feeds the OCD monster, but discussion feeds the intellectual monster. And maybe the OCD monster as well, actually.