I will begin this entry with the observation that at one point in time, people thought that witches turned milk sour. Not understanding the science of bacteria in milk, they assumed human or not-so-benign intervention. That mystery has been solved, and those beliefs have been set aside. But there are others to which humans still are not convinced of the hypothetical answers, or there aren't even theories, so choose to assign those matters to a higher being. Belief systems (spiritual beliefs, sometimes organized as religions) come with creation stories as part of the package. A few of those organized religions want to trump science and force their creation story on the public at large, as is happening with the manipulation of science text books and the sticker mentioned above and in the news this week. Now more specifically to the discussion at this end of the thread:

Little Hawk wrote in a couple of posts:

Fibula - You mean to tell me that you think you are the largest, most significant, and most important matter in this overall existence here that we refer to as "life"? In a general sense, I mean? Do you think the World...even the Universe...revolves around you and your concerns?

and later

I said that someone would have to be insane (or unconscious) not to believe in something larger than themselves, and that is the case. I did NOT say they would have to be insane not to believe in God.

It could be any one of a great many different things, after all. There are as many versions of God out there as there are blades of grass.

If you didn't believe in something larger than yourself, Wolfgang, you would never have been drawn toward a career in science in my opinion. Science immediately posits a view of life that is considerably larger than the little self.

Little Hawk is (at the very least, for the sake of argument) creating a rhetorical cul-de-sac in which he is introducing a binary opposition and appropriating others' bodies and personal choices to illustrate his flawed point. He suggests they have to choose between the two options he (and the overarching christian community) perceives as the only choices. This is appropriation by placing the non-believer into the believer's context, and is a long-standing practice in Western cultures (probably also elsewhere, but I can't speak for elsewhere, but if I read more on Orientalism I might have something to say). It is an attempt, by setting the rules of the game, to win simply by having the opponent accept your rules, even if they don't accept your (apparently) larger argument. You might want to look into how the pope dealt with the gnostics of the twelfth century--Jessie Weston discusses them lucidly in her book From Ritual to Romance. They actually accepted the larger picture, but wouldn't play the church's hierarchical pyramid scheme by letting men dictate how other men believed in a god and who got the cash for leading the followers.

Little Hawk provided some valuable insight into what seems to drive much of the western world today, and compares it with recent German history:

The Nazis were religious, for example. Their religion was a weird pastiche of Christianity, racial theories of a master race, idolatry of a messianic individual (Hitler), nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, and arch-morality (in their terms). That was a powerful religion if ever I've seen one!

The present-day USA is mired in its own weird religion, which is a pastiche of bizarre political mythology, notions of a messianic mission to "save the World" (meaning to convert others by persuasion or force and make them be like "us"), notions of cultural superiority, extreme materialism and devotion to monetary gain, militarism gone wild, idolatry of political leaders, arch-morality (yet again!) espoused most loudly through the fundamentalist Christian outlook, an anti-Islamic crusade, the worshipping of youth, beauty, and fame...and on and on....

This is actually a very very short loop in the history of the world. I would suggest that when the U.S. fights it's battle over "terror" (the outcome of powerful opposional world views clashing--and where WE are terrorists just like they are, depending on whose view you subscribe to) and/or oil in the Middle East, we not only are ignoring human behavior in recent history, we're ignoring what has become iconic cultural history as well.

Bear with me for a moment longer. I would suggest that we have had these global battles over the same kinds of religion-plus-real-estate questions with the same combatants before--during the Crusades. And it has had a major impact on the stories we tell ourselves about our heroes. I have always questioned the binary that was set up regarding King Arthur and King John. It's like what happened later to Shakespeare's King Richard. The one who lost becomes the bad guy in the stories (which are always told by the victors). Richard was off fighting the Crusades, and John was interested in the home population. Personally, I'd have written off Richard also. As the story is told now, with Robin Hood in the mix, John is the completely bad guy, with no shades of gray to show us what he might really have had in mind. We've discussed Robin Hood and that period at great length here at Mudcat. (Bits of this represent scholarly wrangling and disarray, but I hope if you read through you'll pick up the high points of the conversation).

Holding a view of the world with or without a higher being, and who/what that higher being might be if you believe in one, and considering what was borrowed or appropriated from belief systems that held a more terrestrial and localized focus is a discussion that is goes better if those participating in the discussion step back from their own language and look at the loaded terms and automatic assumptions that are invisibly in play.

Betsy said

Unfortunately this Subject can never povide us with a modicum of certainty (based on facts), however one's Credo and Faith have been challenged but hopefully they still remain intact to the comfort of the holder.

This must be the case, and because of this, it is best to not have those "believers" who participate in the discussion give those with an opposing view (i.e., Wolfgang, or Freda, or myself) a patronizing pat on the head and the suggestion that s/he doesn't really understand what he believes.

SRS