From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Why Douglas Graham thinks every religious scholar has been sadly misled
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:35:48 GMT

In article <l9ne5mINNo6p@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>(Douglas Graham) writes to Brian Kendig:
>
>                       But I still don't think we've gotten to the meat
> of *why* you think it is a valid philosophy.  Perhaps, by way of
> illustration, you could point out a philosophy that you consider
> invalid, and briefly explain why you think so.
>
>It seems to me that you do not allow for any "valid" 
>philosophies other than your own. I think philosophies
>can be like music; just because you don't like one
>genre doesn't mean that it isn't useful/pleasing to
>someone else. IMO, by saying that only your philosophy
>is valid, you are being patronizing.

So, am I to understand then that you think that there are no
invalid philosophies?  What does it mean then to call a given
philosophy valid?  That was what I was trying to get at with
my question to Brian.

> Brian Kendig stated:
>
>  By making the blanket statement that any philosophy that teaches that
>  you're inherently sinful is (in your opinion) wrong, you're
>  demonstrating that you're missing some subtleties of the religion.  If
>  that's all it is, then why does *anyone* join it, and why would
>  *anyone* act so happy about calling himself or herself a Christian?
>
>Douglas Graham replied:
>
> BTW, the real reason that the religion tells people that they're sinners
> is to destroy their self esteem.  When things go wrong in their lives, they
> blame themselves rather than the real culprit which is the ruling class.
> That works out passably well for the ruling class, but not so well for
> the "sinners."  Eric Fromm wrote a book about how Christianity evolved
> to enslave the people, but I can't remember the title of it just now.
> 
>You don't seem to answer Mr. Kendig's question, instead supplying
>yet another method of how "religion" conspires to injure its
>followers. I agree you have a good point about how historically
>certain organized religions have been used for political power-
>plays, but is seems to me that it misses the point.

Perhaps that's because you deleted the intervening paragraph where
I did attempt to answer his question.  It's quite possible that
I didn't do a particularly good job of it, but I think it would
be only fair on your part to criticize the actual attempt, rather
than the rant that came afterwards.

>IMO, the "real reason" SOME religions "tell" their followers 
>that they are sinners, is that these people ALREADY feel
>estranged (i.e., the original meaning of "sin"). They feel
>estranged from their own essential nature, they feel estranged
>from kith and kin, and they feel estranged from the society
>and world at large.

Are you reasonably certain that this is all going through the
head of a 3 year old in Sunday school?  I think not.  In fact,
I don't think this makes any sense at all.  People feel estranged,
therefore it would be nice if we told them that they are sinners?

>Perhaps everyone has an unconscious desire
>to go back to the "mystical oneness" we all shared with our
>mothers when we were infants.

Certainly.  If I'm not mistaken, this would be the yearning for security
that I alluded to below.  What does this have to do with being a sinner?

>  Brian Kendig wrote:
>
>  Don't you think there must be something else the religion has to
>  offer, even if it's only a warm fuzzy feeling inside, that has kept it
>  alive through the ages?
> 
> Douglas Graham replied:
>
> I have already explained in previous articles why the religion has
> persisted for so long.  I missed (at least) one thing, and that is
> that this idea of a big daddy in the sky offers people a false sense
> of security, which probably does translate into a warm fuzzy feeling
> inside.  However, that sense of security exacts a terrible toll.
>
>Again what bothers me here is not how you feel about 
>religion: (obviously, if it doesn't work for you, forget
>about it) it's that you seemingly attempt to presume what
>is valid for everyone else. 

Is there any particular reason that you stuck this paragraph at this
particular place in your article?  It doesn't seem to have much to
do with the surrounding text.

> I am saying that every single religious scholar and every martyr of
> every religion has been sadly misled.  Come on guy.  Either there is
> a God, or there isn't.  If, as you currently believe, there isn't,
> then this all falls out naturally doesn't it?  If that's too much to
> wrap your mind around, then trying thinking about whether or not the
> scholars of some of the other religions, past and present, have been
> misled.  What is so special about Christianity?
>
>Of course, if you have studied religiona at all, you could be
>considere a "religious scholar" and it is you who has been
>ever so sadly misled.

Good point.  By "religious scholar", I was thinking of those academics
who spend their lives rationalizing their own particular religion.
There are probably those who study it from a more detached perspective,
and my comments do not apply to them.

>Surely any one who believes in a cause greater than themself
>(and that can be anything normally considered "good" ) who
>acts beyond immediate selfish interests is not "sadly misled".
>
>Here's an example: in the town of Chartres in France many
>years ago, the entire town got together to build what is
>now considered to be one of the finest examples of cathedral
>architecture in history. The stonemasons, carpenters, 
>glass-blowers, and even the cleaning crew all did so knowing
>that it would not be finished in their lifetime. The did
>it for "the glory of god".
>
>Even if you deny the existence of god (which I am not
>commenting on one way or another), I don't think you
>can deny that these people came together to work together
>for a common good: to create a work of art for future
>generations.
>
>So I don't think you can say they were sadly mistaken. To
>say they were, is to deny them to define themselves as
>they wish.

By claiming that they were sadly mistaken, I meant that spent
their lives believing nonsense.  I was unaware that "sadly
mistaken" could be taken to mean that they were incapable
of building cathedrals.  My apologies for the seeming ambiguity.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.