What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Liberals tend to distinguish themselves from fundamentalists by their willingness to “interpret” scripture, such as determining whether a passage should be read literally or metaphorically. But this is not entirely fair. Fundamentalists too acknowledge the occasional need for interpretation, but they handle it differently. Fundamentalist Christians, for example, are more likely to defer to the extensive writings of the Church Fathers, who took the messy puzzle pieces of scripture and attempted to systematically build from them a coherent, intellectually defensible faith. They worked to create a model in which internal inconsistencies were minimized, to the extent possible, without sacrificing the big picture. They also appreciated Ockham’s Razor, generally preferring the most parsimonious interpretation.

The approach of Christian liberals, by contrast, has been more pragmatic and idiosyncratic. Rather than building a comprehensive system from the ground up, moderates have selectively modified more traditional Christian theology reactively based upon an evolving scientific and moral landscape. They have rejected interpretations that conflict with generally accepted scientific knowledge and widely accepted moral principles. They have relaxed rules that would otherwise not allow for views according with modern sensibilities. They have ignored or written out anything in the scripture that would prove embarrassing or difficult to explain. In doing so, however, they have largely abandoned any attempt to maintain systematic integrity and coherence. The result is Gordian knot of internal contradictions.

I'd sooner have a Gordian knot that doesn't condemn women for having abortions than a straight-line, non-contradictory theism that causes its adherents to stand outside a health centre and shriek that these women are murderers.

Boru

[Soberman921]

I'd sooner have a Gordian knot that doesn't condemn women for having abortions than a straight-line, non-contradictory theism that causes its adherents to stand outside a health centre and shriek that these women are murderers.

Boru

Oh, I agree Boru. Religious liberals are far preferable to fundamentalists. My point is simply that they stand on weaker intellectual footing, which makes them vulnerable to attacks from the right when arguing scripture. I would love it if no one privileged scripture, but treated it like any other historical documents with some things worth holding onto and others discarding. But that's just not the world we live in.

[Ferrocyanide]

Oh, I guess it depends how liberal.

But by "liberal" I guess that usually means that they are more open to science, although they are equally obnoxious.

For example, I once read parts of that physician-geneticist, Francis Collins, book about God, and he is using the same tired non-evidence for the existence of God. I stopped reading when he used the incident of his daughter's rape in a chapter where he wrote how God is not stopping evil because he wants to teach us a lesson.

It seems they are not very far from being fundies.

My comment is the following:
It doesn’t matter if the person who is raped is his daughter.
The very idea that someone allows someone else to be raped is sickening.
On top of that, Francis Collins worships that guy (the jewish god).
These people have a broken moral compass.

I think William Lane Craig can be classified as an OEC (old earth creationist, liberal)

William Craig Justifies Mass Slaughter of Children in the Name of God and Jesus Christ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUMzYA3XSEc
By doccam69
Length = 3:13

[Angrboda]

I don't know that I consider evangelicals and fundamentalists a separate question. In that regard, I view them much as I view conservatives and Republicans, I suspect they're often up to no good, but in as far as they are willing to color within the lines, more or less, then I think they have that right as much as any aligned with me on the left. Extremists, perhaps are a separate question, but I don't consider fundagelicals to be extremists in the main, in the ordinary sense of the word. But as to ordinary believers, it takes all kinds to make a world, and the kinds that I'm not fond of have just as much right to be here as others that I may be more charitably inclined toward.

I have some qualms, generally, about whether religious belief and the behaviors that flow from it should be accorded special, protected status. If it weren't, it would just be another irrational hobby like bowling or anime. I can understand why it has been given protected status; I'm of mixed feelings as to whether that should continue. As long as it does, I see no reason why fundagelicals should have less of a right to it than more liberal theological movements.

[Belacqua]

Liberal theists not so much.

As I understand it, fundamentalists believe in biblical literalism, inerrancy, and infallibility. It’s a late 19th - early 20th century movement in reaction to biblical liberalism. 

But I think when we talk about it, and especially when we say how harmful it is, we’re talking about more than that. Because even literal interpretations of the Bible can differ widely, and some literal takes — like when they say to love everybody, feed the hungry, comfort the sick, and give everything you have to the poor — are not things that most atheists disapprove of. What we dislike about fundies has more to do with the ideological and political efforts they tend to be associated with, and also with their unpleasant behavior when they encounter people unlike themselves. 

(There’s a very left-wing commentator, who was fired from the New York Times for telling the truth about war, and was active in Occupy Wall Street, who takes many things in the Bible literally. For example, he spends one day a week teaching at a prison, just because the Bible says to do it. He is a good guy. He just published a book about his teaching experience. Our Class, by Chris Hedges. All his books are worth looking at. https://www.amazon.com/Chris-Hedges/e/B0...594&sr=1-1) 

So here is my take on the kind of person we call a fundie, and what qualities make him annoying. (Please excuse the gendered language; substitute pronouns as desired.)

~ He thinks that people who disagree with him are not only incorrect, they are bad people. 
~ His main way of interacting with people in discussion is by judging them, which he then expresses as approval or disapproval. 
~ After he has passed judgment on you, if he feels you are wrong and bad, he no longer feels a responsibility to be kind or courteous. He feels justified in being vulgar and insulting.
~ His view of the world is almost certainly very very narrow, based on a tightly restricted intellectual range. He is uninterested in and uneducated about cultures unlike his own, which allows him to keep his own views unchallenged. He has almost certainly never read any book which wasn’t guaranteed in advance to reinforce his status quo. 
~ He is unaware that ideological and metaphysical commitments are unprovable and unfalsifiable, and that therefore he is entitled to less certainty than he feels. 

I’m not sure what “liberal” means any more. I used to think I was a political liberal, but now people say the Clintons and Obama are liberals, and they are obviously evil, so I don’t know what word to use. But if we use “liberal” as the opposite of the “fundie” I described above, then this is a liberal:

~ He knows that good people may disagree.
~ He interacts with people in non-judgmental ways, and tries to see the good in them.
~ He feels that being kind to people is a good thing; how we behave toward others says something about ourselves, and is not something that changes depending on whether we judge others deserving or not.
~ He is interested in and curious about people unlike himself. 
~ He knows he may be wrong.

And of course both sets of criteria don’t apply to only Christians. There are plenty of atheists of both the fundie type and the liberal type, as I’ve described them. 

How about this: a fundamentalist makes the world smaller by circumscribing it in his ideology. He hates and denies everything outside his tiny circle. A liberal loves the big world with all its complexity, and affirms things unlike himself. 

As an example of a fundie atheist, there was a guy on this forum who recently said that rational people should still be learning, and if they are still learning they should eventually agree with him and become atheists. Anyone who could make a statement like this must live in a very narrow intellectual world. He must be completely unaware of all the rational, brilliant people — way smarter than he is — who are still religious, or who became religious. The idea that a person can just beg the question like that, and assume that “rational” equals “will agree with me” seems unjustifiable to me.

[onlinebiker]

Woo and Woo Lite..

[Alan V]

So here is my take on the kind of person we call a fundie, and what qualities make him annoying. (Please excuse the gendered language; substitute pronouns as desired.)

~ He thinks that people who disagree with him are not only incorrect, they are bad people. 
~ His main way of interacting with people in discussion is by judging them, which he then expresses as approval or disapproval. 
~ After he has passed judgment on you, if he feels you are wrong and bad, he no longer feels a responsibility to be kind or courteous. He feels justified in being vulgar and insulting.
~ His view of the world is almost certainly very very narrow, based on a tightly restricted intellectual range. He is uninterested in and uneducated about cultures unlike his own, which allows him to keep his own views unchallenged. He has almost certainly never read any book which wasn’t guaranteed in advance to reinforce his status quo. 
~ He is unaware that ideological and metaphysical commitments are unprovable and unfalsifiable, and that therefore he is entitled to less certainty than he feels. 

I’m not sure what “liberal” means any more. I used to think I was a political liberal, but now people say the Clintons and Obama are liberals, and they are obviously evil, so I don’t know what word to use. But if we use “liberal” as the opposite of the “fundie” I described above, then this is a liberal:

~ He knows that good people may disagree.
~ He interacts with people in non-judgmental ways, and tries to see the good in them.
~ He feels that being kind to people is a good thing; how we behave toward others says something about ourselves, and is not something that changes depending on whether we judge others deserving or not.
~ He is interested in and curious about people unlike himself. 
~ He knows he may be wrong.

And of course both sets of criteria don’t apply to only Christians. There are plenty of atheists of both the fundie type and the liberal type, as I’ve described them. 

How about this: a fundamentalist makes the world smaller by circumscribing it in his ideology. He hates and denies everything outside his tiny circle. A liberal loves the big world with all its complexity, and affirms things unlike himself. 

As an example of a fundie atheist, there was a guy on this forum who recently said that rational people should still be learning, and if they are still learning they should eventually agree with him and become atheists. Anyone who could make a statement like this must live in a very narrow intellectual world. He must be completely unaware of all the rational, brilliant people — way smarter than he is — who are still religious, or who became religious. The idea that a person can just beg the question like that, and assume that “rational” equals “will agree with me” seems unjustifiable to me.

Since I am the "fundie atheist" who made the comment, I would like to add a few points:

First, I am more like your description of a liberal than a fundamentalist, I just don't agree with your statement that "ideological and metaphysical commitments are unprovable and unfalsifiable."

Second, a lot of the brilliant people who were believers lived in the past, when we knew much less about the world than we know today. Yes, they were brilliant and rational, but no they were not correct in their religious assumptions.

Third, I did not say that “rational” equals “will agree with me.” In fact, I said just the reverse. Many theists are indeed rational. I just see them as lacking the information which will naturally change their minds if they are indeed rational.

Fourth, many religious people are ethically very good people, however messed up their metaphysics are.

So you and I disagree, although I do like most of your critique of fundamentalism as a commonly-shared series of traits.

[Belacqua]

Third, I did not say that “rational” equals “will agree with me.”  In fact, I said just the reverse.  Many theists are indeed rational.  I just see them as lacking the information which will naturally change their minds if they are indeed rational.

Let me see if I understand you here.

You seem to be saying that you have a crucial bit of information, which every rational religious person in the world lacks. But if they continue to learn they will eventually glean this bit of information, and then they, like you, will not believe in God. 

I am skeptical that you have information which every rational religious person in the world lacks.

[vulcanlogician]

Third, I did not say that “rational” equals “will agree with me.”  In fact, I said just the reverse.  Many theists are indeed rational.  I just see them as lacking the information which will naturally change their minds if they are indeed rational.

Let me see if I understand you here.

You seem to be saying that you have a crucial bit of information, which every rational religious person in the world lacks. But if they continue to learn they will eventually glean this bit of information, and then they, like you, will not believe in God. 

I am skeptical that you have information which every rational religious person in the world lacks.

What's your opinion on demonic possession or haunted houses? I've known folks who believed in ghosts and stuff like that. But otherwise they struck me as rational people.

I've also felt that, if they could see things the way I see things, they might reconsider their position on the existence of ghosts, possession etc. I feel like you perceive some haughtiness in Alan's sentiments that I don't see. But maybe that's just bias on my part because I agree with Alan's position. -shrug-

As I see it, Alan is an atheist for a reason. To him, he's concluded that God doesn't exist for a reason. If you have a reasonable belief (or lack thereof), it seems natural to think that others would agree with you if they were working with the same information that you're working with.

It goes both ways, I suppose. If someone thinks they have genuine information that suggests that God exists, it's only natural that they'd think that if an atheist had such information, they'd believe too. That's why I'm always listening to theists, to see if any can convince me. Compelling arguments have been made, but no convincing has been done. Less-than-compelling arguments have also been made. In fact, most arguments from theists are less than compelling. And I think that's what Alan had in mind when he wrote his post.

[Angrboda]

Let me see if I understand you here.

You seem to be saying that you have a crucial bit of information, which every rational religious person in the world lacks. But if they continue to learn they will eventually glean this bit of information, and then they, like you, will not believe in God. 

I am skeptical that you have information which every rational religious person in the world lacks.

What's your opinion on demonic possession or haunted houses? I've known folks who believed in ghosts and stuff like that. But otherwise they struck me as rational people.

I've also felt that, if they could see things the way I see things, they might reconsider their position on the existence of ghosts, possession etc. I feel like you perceive some haughtiness in Alan's sentiments that I don't see. But maybe that's just bias on my part because I agree with Alan's position. -shrug-

As I see it, Alan is an atheist for a reason. To him, he's concluded that God doesn't exist for a reason. If you have a reasonable belief (or lack thereof), it seems natural to think that others would agree with you if they were working with the same information that you're working with.

It goes both ways, I suppose. If someone thinks they have genuine information that suggests that God exists, it's only natural that they'd think that if an atheist had such information, they'd believe too. That's why I'm always listening to theists, to see if any can convince me. Compelling arguments have been made, but no convincing has been done. Less-than-compelling arguments have also been made. In fact, most arguments from theists are less than compelling. And I think that's what Alan had in mind when he wrote his post.

In the field of social psychology, illusory superiority is a condition of cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates their own qualities and abilities, in relation to the same qualities and abilities of other people. Illusory superiority is one of many positive illusions, relating to the self, that are evident in the study of intelligence, the effective performance of tasks and tests, and the possession of desirable personal characteristics and personality traits.

Wikipedia || Illusory Superiority

I just learned that there are around a half-dozen hypotheses for explaining this effect. I'll need to investigate.