Jeff Peel's Diary

22 Responses to “Religion and Mumbo Jumbo”

1. 1 Paul Rowlandson February 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm

   You equated ‘religious’ people with bibliolators, a reductionist fallacy. You appear to be as much a product of your environment as the bible-thumping evangelical or charismaniac, with the difference that you are a reactionary. They swallow it wholesale; you have reacted against it, but you seem to be still determined by it. However, as they edited your 20 minutes down to 2, what you had to say was obviously out of context and may have made slightly more sense in context. We may be evanescent, but it requires faith to believe that. As Col. Ingersoll said: “We do not know”.
   Funny that you are a ‘management consultant’, a profession that, with rare exceptions, behaves very like evangelical pastors, selling nostrums based on faith and ignoring contradictory evidence. Still, you came over as affable, intelligent, and well groomed.

   Reply
   • 2 Editor February 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm

     Thanks Paul (I think). I agree that we don’t know. It’s much more interesting not knowing to have answers that might be wrong (in the words of Richard Feynmann – as per the masthead of my blog). Also I didn’t say all people of religion were bibliolators. That wouldn’t make sense. I was commenting on a certain sub-set. And there was context – that wasn’t represented in a 90 second piece based on 20 minutes of collected content.

     As for my profession – I don’t sell irrational nostrums. I sell my time and, hopefully, my intelligence and experience. So hopefully I’m a rare exception. I also specialise in evidence based consulting.

     Reply
2. 3 Clare February 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm

   I agree that you are a reaction to your environment Jeff but in your piece you said that religious people are ‘much less tolerant than we are’.
   Isn’t that a generalisation, as there are many liberal religious denominations, and to what extent are you yourself guilty of intolerance to them?

   Reply
   • 4 Editor February 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm

     It depends on what you mean by liberal. Most people of religious faith are intolerant of similar things and life practices such as homosexuality, sex before marriage, and other Holy Book proscribed practices.

     Reply
3. 5 Clare February 24, 2012 at 7:11 pm

   What about your own intolerance Jeff? You seem to be mirroring the fundamentalists

   Reply
   • 6 Editor February 24, 2012 at 7:32 pm

     Agreed. I’m intolerant of intolerance.

     Reply
4. 7 Clare February 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm

   Very good but do two wrongs make a right? Live and let live

   Reply
   • 8 Editor February 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm

     Hmm.

     Reply
   • 9 Editor February 25, 2012 at 10:03 am

     Clare, I’ll provide a more considered answer. Intolerance of intolerance is not wrong. For example, is our intolerance of the bombing of Homs intolerant? Yes, but that is a good and ethical position. Religious intolerance of lifestyle choices such as homosexuality, or sex before marriage, or a host of other personal choices is wrong in my view. It’s also wrong for religions to demand the subordination of women’s rights. So rather than two wrongs making a right it’s about a libertarian attitude taking pre-eminence over institutional or judicial intolerance based on religious doctrine. Therefore I’m ideologically motivated – I’m a Libertarian Conservative Atheist. Odd but true.

     Reply
5. 10 Clare February 26, 2012 at 12:34 am

   Thank you for your considered response Jeff.
   Intolerance of intolerance depends on the degree of the intolerance and whether that intolerance affects the law of the land. Incitement to hatred for example cannot be tolerated
   To explain, ultimately we all have the freewill to hold whatever opinions we choose. As distasteful as we may find religious intolerance of the examples you gave, people still have a right to hold those opinions. Where it does become wrong is where people of those opinions are able to affect laws pertaining to homosexuality for example.
   There’s a lot to be said for the libertarian ideal but aggressive secularism can border on something not much better than the religious intolerance it attempts to counter. Hence my comment two wrongs don’t make a right.
   You should bear in mind Jeff that Northern Ireland fundamentalism is very much a phenomenon of that region and maybe the southern states of America. With the exception of sections of the Roman Catholic Church the intolerance you speak of is not true of Christianity in general.
   To put it bluntly, you are more intolerant, with respect, than many Christians I know.

   Reply
   • 11 Editor February 26, 2012 at 2:03 am

     So Clare, you can determine that about me after a 90 second TV programme. Interesting. Says a lot about you.

     Reply
6. 12 Clare February 26, 2012 at 9:32 am

   It’s more than the programme Jeff.
   A theme of arrogance and intolerance runs through this blog.
   Other people ARE entitled to their opinions you know.
   I was reading about the Westboro Baptist Church and their activities. As appalling as their opinions are, they are still entitled to them. What we must not become, is as extreme as them.

   Reply
   • 13 Editor February 26, 2012 at 2:12 pm

     Indeed Clare – that’s why I approve and publish your comments. There’s no doubt I’m arrogant. But without arrogance we’d still be living in the dark ages. I am highly tolerant of other people’s opinions – but that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t make fun of them or criticise them. I would absolutely defend religious freedom. But I also choose to point out how religion often stultifies free thought. Northern Ireland has no monopoly on fundamentalism. The 7/7 suicide bombers were English. Osama Bin Laden was from a wealthy family and was well educated. Many members of the BNP claim to be Christian.

     Religion per se is not evil but it is often the root of intellectual slavery. It provides pet answers. It does not encourage questioning. But as a society we need to encourage everyone to question – especially the young. The word “why” is the most important in the English language.

     As for my blog. I’m surprised you think it arrogant and intolerant. Many who read it value perspectives that sit outside tribalism. I’m sorry you don’t.

     Reply
7. 14 Clare February 26, 2012 at 4:17 pm

   Maybe you have taken me up wrong Jeff. Your blog and the political perspectives in it, is to be valued for being outside tribalism in NI.
   I just think you go too far in your intolerance of anything religious.
   There are very many liberal Christians and you shouldn’t tare everyone with the Free Presbyterian brush.
   As a practicing Catholic for example I have no difficulty in disagreeing profoundly on many of the official teaching. I don’t believe homosexuality id sinful and the bibles teaching on it and many other matters are related to the culture of when those scriptures were written.
   I’m just making the point to you that the image of intolerant secularism is not an awful lot more attractive than intolerant religious fundamentalism. Having read some of Richard Dawkins writings he appears more mellow, but he isn’t reacting to his environment in quite the same way maybe.

   Reply
   • 15 Editor February 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm

     Yes Clare but this simply means you are selecting the bits you like. You are a revisionist Christian. But sometimes it’s just easier to choose to drop the whole lot. Why hang on to just the bits of belief that suit your liberalism? There was a time, after all, when Christians thought there was nothing wrong in holding slaves, or drowning women deemed to be witches, or condemning homosexuality as an abomination. How much revisionism does it require before religion ceases to have any real meaning and becomes meaningless – with no cohesive or coherent position on anything?

     Reply
8. 16 Clare February 28, 2012 at 9:58 am

   I do think you are writing off the core principles of Christianity Jeff by looking at other issues which for example Jesus didn’t comment on or consider important. The sermon on the mount for example which exemplifies the core principles that I speak of didn’t mention homosexuality.
   This is not me being revisionist or watering Christianity down, I am simply stripping away the dogma that has been attached to Christianity over the years.
   It’s true that in Roman’s the apostle Paul condemns homosexuality but as with creationism we are now enlightened by modern science and discovery. Gay people are born that way and it isn’t through choice. The culture of the first century viewed things differently, they believed the earth was flat and women were subservient.
   If anything what I am arguing makes Christianity more meaningful not less.

   Reply
   • 17 Editor February 28, 2012 at 5:28 pm

     Hmm, not sure a lot of Christians would agree with you. Sounds to me like you’re a humanist in denial.

     Reply
9. 18 Clare February 28, 2012 at 6:38 pm

   Very funny Jeff.
   If you are right then so are most of the C Of E bishops including Dr Williams.
   You appear remote from maintream Christian thinking. It’s like your comment about Christians only reading the bible. Your spending to much time with Nelson McCausland!

   Reply
   • 19 Editor February 28, 2012 at 7:18 pm

     Indeed. I seriously think the CofE (which, incidentally, ties itself in knots over women bishops, homosexuality and even welfare reform) would be better dropping god and becoming an ethical fellowship. Just like the Dalai Lama – his latest book is called Beyond Religion and is a treatise for ethical humanism.

     Thankfully, I’ve never spent any time with Nelson McCausland.

     Oh, and re. Christians only reading one book – I was referring to some Christians, not all. Because clearly some, like you, by the sound of it, are rational and decent and should simply shuffle away from the God bits and become simply kind and decent without the need for salvation and redemption.

     Reply
10. 20 Clare February 28, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    One other point Jeff, did you know that ALL 26 C of E Bishops in the House Of Lords supported the civil partnership legislation when it came to the house?
    Any comments on Richard Dawkins recent remark that he cannot say God does not exist?

    Reply
    • 21 Editor February 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm

      Yes but I bet the Nigerian members of the General Synod wouldn’t have.

      Dawkins has been consistent that he cannot say God doesn’t exist because to say God certainly does not exist makes nonsense of scientific method. We can’t say God doesn’t exist just as we can’t say with certainty that all Martians wear (or don’t wear) pink and white knickers.

      Reply
11. 22 Clare February 29, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Very amusing.
    Dawkins seemed to hit the headlines a few days ago with this.
    Anyway I enjoyed our dialogue
    Best Wishes

    Reply