I probably went a little overboard here. I don't mean one can't speak of a subject without treating it in encyclopedic or exhaustive fashion, only that one can't criticize something that has been reduced to a caricature of itself. (e.g., reductionism)
> . . .
> until you have grappled with the true item in all its profundity. Since
> god does not exist, the proposition is literal non-sense from the
> beginning.
Doesn't this reduce religion to superstition?
> This is also clear on an empirical basis, that is the utter refusal of
> most of the world's religions (and particularly those who are the most
> bitterly opposed to the left and therefore, it goes without saying, the
> most dear to the heart of the self-hating left) to acknowledge even the
> possible truth of other versions of the belief in god.
It's not obvious that each religion is so intolerant of others, though some clearly are. But what does this have to do with anything?
> . . . My
> concern in this post, however, is Max's *theological proposition*, which
> involves "ideas," ideology, and historical-social analysis, not the
> practicalities of political work.)
>
> When Max speaks of "profound," he must mean (and since he hasn't
> explained, I have no recourse but provisionally to put words in his mouth)
> whatever feelings and/or social opinions Christians have attached to the
> idea of god as they hold it -- that is, the various traditions of
> Christian theology.
Philosophy, art, music, literature; not only 'feelings and social opinions.' And not only Christian, of course.
> Now it happens that I know more about that than for its own sake I would
> want to know. But one cannot spend half a lifetime studying English poets,
> all too many of them (including the ones that particularly interested me)
> either Christian or what one might call serious nominal Christians, as
> well as (worse) Christian critics of christian poets, without beginning
> almost feeling that one has achieved a doctorate in religion rather than
> literature. Now all that theological study paid off for me in one sense. I
> got published and therefore for the last 10 years of my career taught 9
> hours of lit a semester instead of 12 hours of composition. If you want to
> get deep into profundity, Max, while giving yourself an introduction to
> christianity that also serves the more useful purpose of introducing you
> to a very great poem, I suggest you read some or many of the
> following (I stopped when I reached Ev" in the alphabet):
Fine. I never claimed to be an expert. Several eons ago I was a pretty good English major so I can appreciate the relevance of your citations.
Since there is substance to these works, notwithstanding your affirmation of the non-existence of God, doesn't that contradict your first assertion that if God doesn't exist there is no profundity in religion?
MBS