Comments on: The Not-So-Right Reverend Rick http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/ A blog about politics. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 07:50:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: The Uncredible Hallq » Rick Warren, and why the gay rights movement shouldn’t be nice about Evangelical Christianity http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29571 The Uncredible Hallq » Rick Warren, and why the gay rights movement shouldn’t be nice about Evangelical Christianity Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:56:28 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29571 [...] lot of the discussion has emphasized what this does or doesn’t mean policy wise, from Joe Klein’s “Hey it doesn’t matter” to Reynold’s “you’ll see” to Glen Greendwald’s midly skeptical [...] [...] lot of the discussion has emphasized what this does or doesn’t mean policy wise, from Joe Klein’s “Hey it doesn’t matter” to Reynold’s “you’ll see” to Glen Greendwald’s midly skeptical [...]

]]> By: Clint http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29274 Clint Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:50:19 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29274 I guess the Obama messianic complex is fading. I guess the Obama messianic complex is fading.

]]> By: Joe Klein, Rick Warren, and Heaven « Solomon Hezekiah http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29258 Joe Klein, Rick Warren, and Heaven « Solomon Hezekiah Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:26:08 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29258 [...] Warren, and Heaven December 20, 2008 — sol Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein doesn’t like Rick Warren. Why? Because Rick Warren thinks he’s going to [...] [...] Warren, and Heaven December 20, 2008 — sol Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein doesn’t like Rick Warren. Why? Because Rick Warren thinks he’s going to [...]

]]> By: Top Posts « WordPress.com http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29232 Top Posts « WordPress.com Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:28:13 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29232 [...] The Not-So-Right Reverend Rick I am not a big fan of Rick Warren’s. He thinks I’m going to hell. He said so in mixed company, at an Aspen [...] [...] [...] The Not-So-Right Reverend Rick I am not a big fan of Rick Warren’s. He thinks I’m going to hell. He said so in mixed company, at an Aspen [...] [...]

]]> By: jayackroyd http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29227 jayackroyd Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:15:33 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29227 <i> I think it's impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die. </i> . I happen to think you're wrong about "supernatural" being at the heart of the disagreement, but I'll take this. . This is, on its face, an absurd claim. Nobody would assert that there is any uncertainty about what happens when a cockroach or a mouse or a turnip dies. Sorry, that's not so. There are Hindus who would disagree. . So let me say this, instead. The idea that there is something permanent, a soul, uniquely associated with human beings is absurd. As Ernst Mayr has said that, when asked about the source of human consciousness, he always says "animal consciousness." . Having a dog has really illuminated this for me. Early on, she illustrated how complicated consciousness is, and how much of it she had. Little things like knowing where you are and where home is is an enormously difficult problem. Solved, instantly. . So I'll say this. I claim that it is an invocation of the supernatural to assert the continuation (Or pre-existence) of an individual human consciousness after (or before) death. I'll note that people are working on the nature of human consciousness. Daniel Dennett in <i>Consciousness Explained</I> and William Calvin, in <a href="http://williamcalvin.com/bk8/" rel="nofollow">How Brains Think</a> explore the nature of consciousness. It is very hard to assert that it is independent of the medium within it arises, and any such assertions necessarily invoke the realm of the supernatural. . I think it's impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die.
.
I happen to think you're wrong about "supernatural" being at the heart of the disagreement, but I'll take this.
.
This is, on its face, an absurd claim. Nobody would assert that there is any uncertainty about what happens when a cockroach or a mouse or a turnip dies. Sorry, that's not so. There are Hindus who would disagree.
.
So let me say this, instead. The idea that there is something permanent, a soul, uniquely associated with human beings is absurd. As Ernst Mayr has said that, when asked about the source of human consciousness, he always says "animal consciousness."
.
Having a dog has really illuminated this for me. Early on, she illustrated how complicated consciousness is, and how much of it she had. Little things like knowing where you are and where home is is an enormously difficult problem. Solved, instantly.
.
So I'll say this. I claim that it is an invocation of the supernatural to assert the continuation (Or pre-existence) of an individual human consciousness after (or before) death. I'll note that people are working on the nature of human consciousness. Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained and William Calvin, in How Brains Think explore the nature of consciousness. It is very hard to assert that it is independent of the medium within it arises, and any such assertions necessarily invoke the realm of the supernatural.
.

]]> By: constantweader http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29130 constantweader Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:39:29 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29130 Any way you look at it, beginning one's Administration with a prayer from a person who condemns the majority of Americans (gays, Jews, women & men who believe in reproductive rights) but thinks Syria is a land of tolerance is a terrible, shameful signal to send to the country and the world. It is a message of EXclusion to the Nth degree, not a gesture of INclusion (Warren, BTW, is being pummeled from the right for participating in this godforsaken inauguration). I urge everyone who attends the inauguration to quietly sing "We Shall Overcome" throughout the course of the invocation. Surely tens of thousands of voices of hope, singing for equality & peace, with drown out the bigoted prayers of one man, no matter how bully the pulpit or how powerful the amplifiers. The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com Any way you look at it, beginning one's Administration with a prayer from a person who condemns the majority of Americans (gays, Jews, women & men who believe in reproductive rights) but thinks Syria is a land of tolerance is a terrible, shameful signal to send to the country and the world. It is a message of EXclusion to the Nth degree, not a gesture of INclusion (Warren, BTW, is being pummeled from the right for participating in this godforsaken inauguration).

I urge everyone who attends the inauguration to quietly sing "We Shall Overcome" throughout the course of the invocation. Surely tens of thousands of voices of hope, singing for equality & peace, with drown out the bigoted prayers of one man, no matter how bully the pulpit or how powerful the amplifiers.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

]]> By: uhhuhh http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29123 uhhuhh Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:30:05 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29123 I fail to see how Obama is trying to "change the nature of public discourse" by selecting a bigoted bloviator who repeatedly declares that my same-sex relationship is morally equivalent to my raping a child. Nor do I understand why Obama responds to criticism of that choice by telling gay people that WE need to disagree without being disagreeable. Excuse me? All I see is simple hypocrisy that orders progressives to grin and nod at expression of even the most virulent bigotry if spewed by the right but to never, ever criticize Barack Obama from the left. Sorry, that's not the kind of change I voted for, and it's not the kind of change I'll ever accept. I was viciously slandered enough by the Bush Administration. I won't put up with it, not for one second, from the Obama Administration. And it's time Obama learned that lesson before he triangulates and panders to bigots again. I fail to see how Obama is trying to "change the nature of public discourse" by selecting a bigoted bloviator who repeatedly declares that my same-sex relationship is morally equivalent to my raping a child. Nor do I understand why Obama responds to criticism of that choice by telling gay people that WE need to disagree without being disagreeable. Excuse me? All I see is simple hypocrisy that orders progressives to grin and nod at expression of even the most virulent bigotry if spewed by the right but to never, ever criticize Barack Obama from the left. Sorry, that's not the kind of change I voted for, and it's not the kind of change I'll ever accept. I was viciously slandered enough by the Bush Administration. I won't put up with it, not for one second, from the Obama Administration. And it's time Obama learned that lesson before he triangulates and panders to bigots again.

]]> By: rose83 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29122 rose83 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:28:42 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29122 jayackroyd, Okay this is my last post on the topic: I've reached my monthly quota for religious conversation. -- First I think the use of the word "supernatural" is not at the heart of our disagreement. It's probably pretty tangential. IMO, the heart of our disagreement is that I think it's impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die. Thus atheism is as faith-based as Mormonism. -- Anyway here is a definition of supernatural I found: "1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil . 2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)" -- There is a kind of judgment, an assumption implied in the use of the word supernatural. If consciousness existed in a non-physical form, I don't think the best word to describe it would be supernatural. It just means that our current theories about consciousness are inadequate. Judging by that dictionary definition in 2a., the atomic bomb must have appeared supernatural to some of its victims. My point is that supernatural isn't the ideal word to describe something that - if true - merely indicates the limits of human intellect. Considering the assumptions and history tied to the word, supernatural is probably an adequate but not ideal word choice to describe religious views of life and consciousness. -- And now I'm going to do what any good agnostic/waffler does: Christmas shopping! jayackroyd, Okay this is my last post on the topic: I've reached my monthly quota for religious conversation.
--
First I think the use of the word "supernatural" is not at the heart of our disagreement. It's probably pretty tangential. IMO, the heart of our disagreement is that I think it's impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die. Thus atheism is as faith-based as Mormonism.
--
Anyway here is a definition of supernatural I found: "1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
.
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"
--
There is a kind of judgment, an assumption implied in the use of the word supernatural. If consciousness existed in a non-physical form, I don't think the best word to describe it would be supernatural. It just means that our current theories about consciousness are inadequate. Judging by that dictionary definition in 2a., the atomic bomb must have appeared supernatural to some of its victims. My point is that supernatural isn't the ideal word to describe something that - if true - merely indicates the limits of human intellect. Considering the assumptions and history tied to the word, supernatural is probably an adequate but not ideal word choice to describe religious views of life and consciousness.
--
And now I'm going to do what any good agnostic/waffler does: Christmas shopping!

]]> By: jayackroyd http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29099 jayackroyd Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:35:38 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29099 The heart of our disagreement, Rose, is in the use of the word "supernatural." Why do you say this is the wrong word? The heart of our disagreement, Rose, is in the use of the word "supernatural." Why do you say this is the wrong word?

]]> By: jennielah http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/18/the-not-so-right-reverend-rick/comment-page-5/#comment-29096 jennielah Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:30:30 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9059#comment-29096 Excellent post, Joe. Thank you for being reasonable when so many people right now aren't. Excellent post, Joe. Thank you for being reasonable when so many people right now aren't.

]]>