(no subject)
A couple of oddities/complaints:
1. The Golden Compass. I loved this book. I loved it in the third grade, and I loved it again last weekend when I breezed through it, captivated by every page. What I don't love is the outcry from the "Christian community". It's ludicrous. The primary problem they have is the "death of God" which comes in later novels (and is not in the movie) but they can't see this as a work of fantasy. I've found it particularly useful and reasonable, since the best thing we can do is continue to question the authorities within our religion, to examine the fruit per se. There is no "dust", polar bears don't talk or wear armor, and our souls don't take the form of a familiar, so how on earth would we see this book as reality and not simply take away the "lesson" or more ironic "moral" from the story? Instead we scream and kick and shout and try to close it down, yet promote the Narnian series because it promotes "Christian" values. Then the argument is made that he says religion is bad. Perhaps. But it appears that he stresses the way religion is used by men to commit evil acts. How could anyone deny that as truth? The nazi's, the kkk, the Inquisition, the crusades. All of these abused the power of the church. I won't say religion is responsible for the horrible things in the world however (as Hitchens illogically suggests). That said, I honestly think it's a great fantasy novel and that people should get past their prejudices and at least read the thing before crying out against it. I'm stoked for the movie.
2. I forgot what I was going to put here, so I suppose I should address my comment about Hitchens. In his debate with D'Souza (available on youtube) and in his book about religion, he promotes the idea that religion is at fault for many problems and claims that humans are naturally good. There is a pretty obvious contradiction in these statements, since the faults with religion primarily come from the people within it, not necessarily from the religion itself. For instance, his favorite events to bring up are the middle ages actions of the Catholic church. Yes, they were horrible and did occur through the church, but it was through the acts of deluded men who used the church as a tool to accomplish their own goals. The subjection of people in the church is not the fault of the religion, but of those who are in power. Hitler is a great example here, especially his influence on German Christians and his use of propaganda to unconsciously modify or manipulate behavior. Here, Hitchens is ignorant both to the history of propaganda and behavioral psychology. A quick trip to B.F. Skinner's work "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" will inform him that it is quite possible to use various sources of materials to condition an unaware audience to act in a certain way. In other words, it's possible to modify the behavior of others without them knowing. Political scientist Jacques Ellul would then fill in the gap with his work "Propaganda" (which I highly recommend to all peoples, even though it's a bit dated and some information has changed). The primary function of propaganda is to modify behavior. A common misconception is that all it does is change an opinion. If it stopped there, however, it would not explain the behavioral control that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, or various American presidents have had over their citizens. (this extends to most places including France and Rwanda for strong examples). The church is also capable of using similar methods and functions (many listed here in a previous post) in order to "control" the people within the religion. As Skinner and Ellul both note, this isn't inherently bad and can be quite a good thing, but when it's abused and takes away freedom from a person it becomes what I would call "evil". Thus, the long history of abuse of religion is the result of a person's actions rather than the inherent nature of religion itself. Hitchens argument becomes self defeating when he blames it for problems rather than the people who use it. A similar case can be made for contemporary Islam in the middle east, where fault lies with the radical leaders who manipulate the behavior of their believers.
That's enough for now.
1. The Golden Compass. I loved this book. I loved it in the third grade, and I loved it again last weekend when I breezed through it, captivated by every page. What I don't love is the outcry from the "Christian community". It's ludicrous. The primary problem they have is the "death of God" which comes in later novels (and is not in the movie) but they can't see this as a work of fantasy. I've found it particularly useful and reasonable, since the best thing we can do is continue to question the authorities within our religion, to examine the fruit per se. There is no "dust", polar bears don't talk or wear armor, and our souls don't take the form of a familiar, so how on earth would we see this book as reality and not simply take away the "lesson" or more ironic "moral" from the story? Instead we scream and kick and shout and try to close it down, yet promote the Narnian series because it promotes "Christian" values. Then the argument is made that he says religion is bad. Perhaps. But it appears that he stresses the way religion is used by men to commit evil acts. How could anyone deny that as truth? The nazi's, the kkk, the Inquisition, the crusades. All of these abused the power of the church. I won't say religion is responsible for the horrible things in the world however (as Hitchens illogically suggests). That said, I honestly think it's a great fantasy novel and that people should get past their prejudices and at least read the thing before crying out against it. I'm stoked for the movie.
2. I forgot what I was going to put here, so I suppose I should address my comment about Hitchens. In his debate with D'Souza (available on youtube) and in his book about religion, he promotes the idea that religion is at fault for many problems and claims that humans are naturally good. There is a pretty obvious contradiction in these statements, since the faults with religion primarily come from the people within it, not necessarily from the religion itself. For instance, his favorite events to bring up are the middle ages actions of the Catholic church. Yes, they were horrible and did occur through the church, but it was through the acts of deluded men who used the church as a tool to accomplish their own goals. The subjection of people in the church is not the fault of the religion, but of those who are in power. Hitler is a great example here, especially his influence on German Christians and his use of propaganda to unconsciously modify or manipulate behavior. Here, Hitchens is ignorant both to the history of propaganda and behavioral psychology. A quick trip to B.F. Skinner's work "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" will inform him that it is quite possible to use various sources of materials to condition an unaware audience to act in a certain way. In other words, it's possible to modify the behavior of others without them knowing. Political scientist Jacques Ellul would then fill in the gap with his work "Propaganda" (which I highly recommend to all peoples, even though it's a bit dated and some information has changed). The primary function of propaganda is to modify behavior. A common misconception is that all it does is change an opinion. If it stopped there, however, it would not explain the behavioral control that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, or various American presidents have had over their citizens. (this extends to most places including France and Rwanda for strong examples). The church is also capable of using similar methods and functions (many listed here in a previous post) in order to "control" the people within the religion. As Skinner and Ellul both note, this isn't inherently bad and can be quite a good thing, but when it's abused and takes away freedom from a person it becomes what I would call "evil". Thus, the long history of abuse of religion is the result of a person's actions rather than the inherent nature of religion itself. Hitchens argument becomes self defeating when he blames it for problems rather than the people who use it. A similar case can be made for contemporary Islam in the middle east, where fault lies with the radical leaders who manipulate the behavior of their believers.
That's enough for now.