reply to post by CornShucker
Oh darn. Well, maybe I should check out the manual in the OP...I haven't done so yet, primarily because I don't rely on a manual in any sense, but
I'm kinda curious now.
edit on 17-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
I've held off on a direct response to the link in the OP because I know it can be a "Hot" button issue. A quick scan of this thread will bear that
out. Always.... I try to give the caveat that I'll never be a biblical scholar. As a matter of fact, one of our customers was a minister that
started out a great friend of my boss and they wound up unable to stand each other. This was back around the time of Windows 2.0 just to give you
some idea. The really deep reference stuff the minister wanted to use was all DOS stuff. I created a menu of batch files (including help files) that
allowed him to pick what he wanted and then restart his system. That wasn't good enough. In the end, when he moved away, he sued my boss for the
cost of undoing everything I'd done for him. Really, my main point is that it was reference stuff that I would never have gone into. Yes, I know
that opens me up to criticism but I know a lot of secular professionals that understand given points "in principle" without telling you which book,
which page and which paragraph.
The article in question (OP) is:
Learn to De-Convert the Faithful With
Practical New Book
by Alan Litchfield
Before I say anything serious, I'd like to share one of the reviews I found on Amazon:
"A book so great you can skip it and just read the footnotes. Pure genius." -- Christopher Johnson, co-founder, The Onion
Laughter is good for the heart/soul whether you are a person of faith or not. We're all only here for a short while and I believe with all my heart
that Life is for the living. The Mormon missionaries that used to visit got VERY uncomfortable the afternoon I asked them if they'd ever pictured
Christ laughing, but I've never understood why. They, themselves, told me Christ loved children. Kids are a hoot... How can you envision someone
who loves kids and not imagine them ever laughing???
But I digress... (it's chronic, sorry 'bout that)
The author, Boghossian, brings up the argument often used by people of faith:
“Why take away faith if it helps get people through the day?”
Boghossian argues (my emphasis):
"This is a common line among blue-collar liberals whoʼve not been indoctrinated
by liberal academic values. Iʼve never really understood
how removing a bad way to reason will make it difficult to get through the day. If anything, it would seem that correcting someoneʼs reasoning would
increase their chances getting through the day. When one has a more reliable form of reasoning they are then more capable of crafting conditions that
then enable them to navigate lifeʼs obstacles. When one embraces reason only then they can legitimately have hope."
I find that an extremely interesting choice of words...
The YouTube discussion/debate between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux includes a remark from Joseph (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "After a
certain point, education becomes indistinguishable from indoctrination."
The actual discussion can be seen Here
. It isn't completely germane to this thread. I AM
curious as to which is more important to Mr. Boghossian and his liberal academics, Education or Indoctrination? The second of the two comes
dangerously close to the goal of unquestioning minds that he claims to so disdain in those very people his book seeks to convert. Makes it kind of
hard to respect his opinion.
The author of the article linked in the OP, Alan Litchfield, comments that:
During the previous three months the Christian apologist Tom Gilson at thinkingchristian.net
published no fewer than 11 blog posts criticizing Boghossian’s views and his book.
Gilson finally gets to an interesting question:
"But the skeptic will ask: Sure thatʼs what you Christians say, but what good is that “knowledge” connection if everything you think you
know is all false?"
Gilson is getting close to the correct question, but is still disturbingly far from an appropriate answer.
Between the two of them, I can't help but feel the same vibe as I've described with my former co-worker who all but beat people over the head with
Let's take a look at both statements but flip the narrative...:
#1. (I'm condensing for brevity...) "I'm helping them. When someone learns to look at things 'correctly' they are better able do deal with day
to day life. After all, the wages of Sin are Death."
#2. If I ask a skeptic, "Sure thatʼs what you skeptics say, but what good is all that “Knowledge
” if everything you think
is all False and you find the grave wasn't the destination you expected?" Have I not done what I've been asked to do as a Christian? The more
learned are welcome to correct me, but I'm pretty sure that every man is free to turn away, as he chooses...
So, in summary, my question is this:
Who would you prefer to be identified with, a religious fanatic that virtually grabs someone by the shirt and shakes them while screaming that they
have to turn away from all they thought they knew and be born again or someone who virtually grabs someone by the shirt and screams in their face that
religion is the sign of the mentally weak, spiritually sick and that they can see the LIGHT if only they'll open their minds and listen to
I've got a real problem with both. My standard talk to all the people I did IT work for was that if someone told them they had all the answers when
it came to computers, they should run like H*ll the other direction because they were either talking to a Liar or a Fool!!!
In a polite, civil world (which Mr. Boghossian claims to want) shouldn't there be a point where it is possible to say, "Let's just not go there"
and be left alone?