I listened to John Adams' Christian Zeal and Activity on Radio 3 in the car this morning and I think I can see how the words appeal to many people. I'm surprised no one has ever been able to identify the man giving the sermon (which had been on the radio in the USA). Perhaps there have been so many radio programmes like that over there.

He's not unique in that, though, is he? Don't most people define 'faith' as 'believing without asking/waiting for proof', or something along those lines?

Derrida's just pushing at that definition, I imagine (although I haven't yet listened to the talk you linked to: thanks for reminding me). Derrida's interested in the gap between 'ideal' concepts and more pragmatic ones - cf. also the difference between 'justice' and 'reconciliation' I mentioned above.

I think Derrida would question how secure some of your distinctions are there. 'Linguistic' as opposed to what? 'Makes it clear that they're speaking in ...': how precisely do they make it clear?

Oh, what a messy statement that was indeed.  I shall not be able to tidy it up, I fear, without great (and unenjoyable) expenditure of effort; at least the first part.  As to the second question.


I think that in most social contexts I can think of it can be done. Well, when a government official writes a policy report, many people would regard an objective, informative, style to be the most important one, whereas in some trendy wine-bar late in the evening swooning about one's love of Monet, clearly nobody's going to take one literally unless one has an extremely commanding tone (that might, in any event, rather destroy the mood).  As soon as I claim to be producing art (or it is seen that I am), or engage myself what I would consider to be mystical activities, then all demands of rigor or literal sense that I might place on myself  otherwise are essentially off (though I might not abandon them entirely).  (I'm not entirely happy with the preceding paragraph).


Yes, this is what he was getting at.  But I don't know if the majority of practicing believers, would have such a minimal sense of Religion.  But insofar as it might be seen to exist in this way, it's entirely compatible with a scientific outlook, to the extent that one is able to suspend the serious entertaining of one's beliefs when rationality excludes their reasonable possibility.

Okay; I will have to read more then.

By minimal, I was thinking that it doesn't necessarily get brought in to the domain of application of rational (moral/scientific/social/whatever) thought in the same way that a faith which attached to a book which makes claims about the natural universe is.

I quite liked George's description also.  Whether it is a solid base or not possibly depends on one's definition of what constitutes a solid base I imagine.  In some sense, I can agree with the statement, but only interpreted emotionally.

Will respond to the other part on the other thread.

Indeed.  I should have said "people who would attest to a belief in god".  I hope that clarifies things


That's perhaps a bit misleading.  Richard Dawkins, for just one instance, has spoken of the possibility that a God exists, but said that he thinks it very unlikely.  One must be careful whether one interprets the statement metaphysically or empirically.  Are people who LACK any belief in something you would identify as being god atheists or not?  I would count them as being so. On the other hand, as spoken of here before, someone who expresses belief in good might also raise point that one can believe in god while postulating that his 'existence' is something entirely different to any other sort of existence that we know.

Not sure what you mean by this.


That's a bit reductionist for me; the style of the worship is not one chosen by it's participants because of its style; and deism isn't a necessity in any event for being a member of some religions.

Many religions claim many gods, some claim none.  Or are these, by definition, not religions?  Or is this your personal interpretation of these other religions?


Why is it futile to try to explain the creation?  (clearly if someone claimed to be able to explain anything of it right now; one would have right to be extremely skeptical, but I see no reason why such efforts, in general, are in principle futile, if that is what you are saying).

"And yet, Dawkins is as reluctant as any evangelical fundamentalist to recognise the importance of an element of doubt, or doubt of doubt, in religious faith, or to accept that much of the content of religious faith is metaphorical, poetic and symbolic rather than factual in a scientific sense. He is convinced that faith is in all circumstances absolute, seamless, literal."

I can't help but think this is a mis-characterization (I agree that Dawkins mis-characterizes as well a lot).  As a scientist, he deals with doubt on a regular basis; trying to prove ones self wrong is an important part of science.  And thinking about the validity of one's technique. 

He does accept the metaphorical nature of a lot of religious belief, I am pretty certain; but then if the religious belief is metaphorical it is not, in some sense religious belief is it? (along these lines, one would have to accept that the catholic church plays a metaphoric

"Dawkins claims, however, that religious believers deserve neither respect nor rights in any circumstances."

This is blatantly false (for one instance see the "root of all evil" documentary when he says that he very much respects the british clergy person he spoke to).

The last paragraph makes amends for a lot of things, maybe. 

But saying that somebody should not say something because the message might end up inducing precisely the opposite effect in others is not, I think a valid point.  If one believes something in this society, one should, indeed, publish it and have people discuss it.  Saying that people should not discuss things openly in this society because it might put people off outside who do not agree with free speech is a bit off the mark I think.


As for the catholic church having "latent propensity towards pluralism in the ideal of non-judgmental universal love", the universal love thing is there from the get-go; God loves everyone.  The church doesn't, of course; in practice it hasn't, at various different levels; the same is true of its non-non-judgmentality. What does it mean for it to be latent then, if they explicitly have policies of non-judgement and universal love in their doctrine already, and yet in practice such things make absolutely bugger-all difference?

I was just reading this article reviewing a sermon (the text of which I can't find online but which was published in the Times a week back) that the archbishop of Ireland gave in Knock then:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/bradys-vision-of-past-is-as-illusory-as-crystalgazing-1066235.html

He still thinks, from what I recall, that secularism in Ireland has ultimately failed and that he believes that the "old times" were superior in many ways to these.   It should be noted that whatever about religious belief, that the catholic church is *definitely* not in favour of secularism, given that it's been putting pressure on the Brazilian government to teach Catholocism in its schools (can't find a reference for that at the moment, but pretty sure I read it recently), and some of the things are detailed in the article above.  He also talks about his disapproval of tarot-reading &c. which was curious to read coming from a man who has, as a member of the catholic church, to formally give lip-service to a wide variety of equally odd beliefs to get by.  Maybe he's just criticizing what he can afford to.

"The God Delusion is liable to persuade religious fundamentalists that a pluralist secular society is every bit as hostile to the practice of faith as they ever thought it to be."

They can find proof in anything, even really small things, pointing to their insidious effect.  I would think the military incursions would count rather more than mere books and comics published, but that's just me. 

I was reading a document that my sister had a year or two ago about the; a Muslim tract talking about the DECADENT lifestyles of Americans.  How they regularly eat PORK, and then how they often SWAP WIVES.  And then, how they frequently have parties where they eat PORK, and then SWAP WIVES afterwards.

What a terrible lifestyle these Americans have indeed!

Here is the link I promised.  There are some things he says that are impossible to disagree with.  There is no doubt that we tend to belong to the religion that goes with our own particular culture - by sheer accident of birth.  Personally I don't think that matters.  I've never thought there is only "one path".  There are obviously many but we're all heading in the same direction after all.  I don't think for one minute that there is only one "right" way, although I concede that others do.

The point of this link though was with regard to your remark about Dawkins showing respect for religious leaders or religious people.  At some point in this link he implies - well actually he says that people who are atheists are more intelligent.  So basically he thinks that religious people are thick.  Not very respectful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v3RWRyNq3w