Comments on: The Wisdom of Doubt: The Series http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:18:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: The Mahablog » Quest for Certitude http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-523775 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 03:57:31 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-523775 [...] Excellent article at TomDispatch — this is a point I tried to make in the Wisdom of Doubt series. Quoting Ira Chernus: Candidates increasingly keep their talk about religion separate from specific campaign issues. They promote faith as something important and valuable in and of itself in the election process. They invariably avow the deep roots of their religious faith and link it not with issues, but with certitude itself…. [...] […] Excellent article at TomDispatch — this is a point I tried to make in the Wisdom of Doubt series. Quoting Ira Chernus: Candidates increasingly keep their talk about religion separate from specific campaign issues. They promote faith as something important and valuable in and of itself in the election process. They invariably avow the deep roots of their religious faith and link it not with issues, but with certitude itself…. […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » Faith, Hope, Metta http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-297489 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:49:40 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-297489 [...] Although — for reasons I went on and on about in the Wisdom of Doubt series — I object to using the words faith and religion as synonyms, I still liked this op ed by Sam Leith in The Telegraph — “The power of faith against the bullet.” This - these monks staring down the guns - presents a problem for a militant secularist in the Dawkins or Hitchens mould. I don’t mean that it has any bearing on the argument about whether there is or is not a God. Buddhist monks don’t worship anything resembling the God on whom the Dawkins guns are trained in any case; and the fact that they stare down the guns doesn’t make a difference to whether or not what they believe is true. [...] […] Although — for reasons I went on and on about in the Wisdom of Doubt series — I object to using the words faith and religion as synonyms, I still liked this op ed by Sam Leith in The Telegraph — “The power of faith against the bullet.” This - these monks staring down the guns - presents a problem for a militant secularist in the Dawkins or Hitchens mould. I don’t mean that it has any bearing on the argument about whether there is or is not a God. Buddhist monks don’t worship anything resembling the God on whom the Dawkins guns are trained in any case; and the fact that they stare down the guns doesn’t make a difference to whether or not what they believe is true. […]

]]> by: Bloodthirsty Liberal » It’s All Over, Thanks for Coming http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-297370 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:58:29 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-297370 [...] I do appreciate his quoting me directly, wherein I express my doubts about the intentions of the protests, and my sadness and outrage over the deaths that have resulted. I see he has a page called The Wisdom of Doubt. I won’t pretend that I understand the theological implications, but the expression has meaning to me nevertheless. [...] […] I do appreciate his quoting me directly, wherein I express my doubts about the intentions of the protests, and my sadness and outrage over the deaths that have resulted. I see he has a page called The Wisdom of Doubt. I won’t pretend that I understand the theological implications, but the expression has meaning to me nevertheless. […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » Religion and Liberalism http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-278678 Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:37:11 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-278678 [...] Can we say, liberalism appreciate the wisdom of doubt? [...] […] Can we say, liberalism appreciate the wisdom of doubt? […]

]]> by: The Mahablog » By the Book http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-276973 Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:52:03 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-276973 [...] When I was researching the history of fundamentalism for the Wisdom of Doubt series, I was struck by the fact that notions about absolute biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible didn’t become popular until a few years after Darwin published Origin of Species. One suspects the “faithful” didn’t reject Darwin because it violated Scripture, but rather retrofitted interpretation of Scripture to justify their rejection of Darwin. [...] […] When I was researching the history of fundamentalism for the Wisdom of Doubt series, I was struck by the fact that notions about absolute biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible didn’t become popular until a few years after Darwin published Origin of Species. One suspects the “faithful” didn’t reject Darwin because it violated Scripture, but rather retrofitted interpretation of Scripture to justify their rejection of Darwin. […]

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270181 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:21:31 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270181 No, we don't need to redefine "literal." We need to be clear what it is and then persuade people not to read scripture (or most other things, except perhaps legal documents) that way. No, we don’t need to redefine “literal.” We need to be clear what it is and then persuade people not to read scripture (or most other things, except perhaps legal documents) that way.

]]> by: felicity http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270176 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:09:48 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270176 Oops. ...to CONVINCE the world that its 'literal'... Oops. …to CONVINCE the world that its ‘literal’…

]]> by: felicity http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270175 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:58:31 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270175 I assumed your definition was the standard one - didn't think I had to mention it. I believe that a literal reading of something, according to the standard definition, is not reading. Rather like my reading something written in a language I don't know. What is referred to as critical reading by most is how I would define reading, period. The point - it's not really several thousand miles away - is maybe I'm on some sort of crusade to rid the world of the belief that its 'literal' reading of something is not, in fact, conducive to understanding what it may actually mean. It seems like the best thing to do is to redefine 'literal.' I assumed your definition was the standard one - didn’t think I had to mention it.

I believe that a literal reading of something, according to the standard definition, is not reading. Rather like my reading something written in a language I don’t know. What is referred to as critical reading by most is how I would define reading, period.

The point - it’s not really several thousand miles away - is maybe I’m on some sort of crusade to rid the world of the belief that its ‘literal’ reading of something is not, in fact, conducive to understanding what it may actually mean. It seems like the best thing to do is to redefine ‘literal.’

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270157 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:48:53 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270157 <i>Your definition doesn’t cut it with me. </i> It's not "my" definition. <a href="http://www.dowlingcentral.com/MrsD/area/literature/Terms/figspeech.html">It's the standard one</a>. What you are describing is more often called "critical" reading. I think you -- or your friend -- got them confused. In any event, you seem to be missing the point by several thousand miles. Would you like to stop arguing about what "literal" means and consider the actual point? Your definition doesn’t cut it with me.

It’s not “my” definition. It’s the standard one. What you are describing is more often called “critical” reading. I think you — or your friend — got them confused. In any event, you seem to be missing the point by several thousand miles. Would you like to stop arguing about what “literal” means and consider the actual point?

]]> by: felicity http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270151 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:41:04 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/03/the-wisdom-of-doubt-the-series/#comment-270151 "If you're including the context..." of course has nothing to do with literal. Your definition doesn't cut it with me. I certainly agree that most people believe that words have intrinsic meanings - certainly not by themselves but as parts of a sentence, I hope - and that is the problem that my friend hoped to correct by defining 'literal' in a different way. Eons ago I taught English and it was about that time that 'new' math and 'new' English were introduced into the curriculum. Nouns became class I words, verbs class II and so on. A word had no classification apart from the sentence it was in. So the word 'run' was neither a verb nor a noun nor...Used in a sentence he could be classified. In the same way that it is ridiculous to quibble about the fact that there is no mention of a 'right to privacy' in the Constitution and therefore we don't have one - there is no mention because in 1787 'privacy' pertained to toilet functions and we hardly need guaranteed a right to go to the toilet - to hold that a sentence all by inself has an intrinsic meaning is ridiculous. “If you’re including the context…” of course has nothing to do with literal.

Your definition doesn’t cut it with me. I certainly agree that most people believe that words have intrinsic meanings - certainly not by themselves but as parts of a sentence, I hope - and that is the problem that my friend hoped to correct by defining ‘literal’ in a different way.

Eons ago I taught English and it was about that time that ‘new’ math and ‘new’ English were introduced into the curriculum. Nouns became class I words, verbs class II and so on. A word had no classification apart from the sentence it was in. So the word ‘run’ was neither a verb nor a noun nor…Used in a sentence he could be classified.

In the same way that it is ridiculous to quibble about the fact that there is no mention of a ‘right to privacy’ in the Constitution and therefore we don’t have one - there is no mention because in 1787 ‘privacy’ pertained to toilet functions and we hardly need guaranteed a right to go to the toilet - to hold that a sentence all by inself has an intrinsic meaning is ridiculous.

]]>