[lbo-talk] M. Parenti joins the New Atheists?

[wrobert at uci.edu]

Strangely enough, Chris' approach to the conversation has a strong
following amongst a group of Lacanian academics who have taken to reading
Badiou, and through that, reading Paul (although there is also a Agamben
engagement with Paul.  I've avoided all of it to tell the truth.)  They
tend to show the same disinterest in actual religious practice and
communities.  If you brought that in, the need for a kind of recognition
of the multiplicity of the text would become glaring, I suspect, in the
same way that Balibar, for instance, showed how multiple formations of
marxist practice come out of particular readings of the beginning of The
German Ideology.  It seems to me that a field like anthropology would be a
much more productive space to explore these questions, although Spinoza's
Theological Political Treatise shows the usefulness of a historically
engaged textual analysis.  robert wood


> But most hilariously of all Mr. Doss weighs in from a Cossack-themed
> Internet cafe, authoritatively telling us what Christianity is and
> what it isn't, what's an "aberration" and what's canon.
>
> There are...thematic similarities to the way the Hegel discussions
> have historically unfolded. Traditionally, those are shutdown (or at
> least, shutdown attempts are made) by an appeal to expertise.  A
> regrettable donkey comparison was once deployed as a rhetorical taser,
> with predictably disruptive results.
>
> Now, when it comes to discussions of complex philosophical systems,
> theoretical physics or plumbing (among other topics), I have no
> problem swiveling my Dr. No swivel chair towards the person with the
> greater experience and info-store.
>
> But as Doug and Dennis Claxton have pointed out, Christianity is a
> living thing, constantly in flux, birthing new sects and
> interpretations at a dizzying rate.  Which means that, just as Doug
> posted, it's really very silly to insist upon an appeal to authority.
> I grew up Baptist before switching to SDA at around 11, moved by a
> fear that my certainly-not-evil but still, fundamentally flawed
> inherited church -- which failed to recognize the 'true' sabbath --
> was gently walking me down the road to, if not Hell precisely, some
> sub-optimal spiritual fate (therefore, the need, for yet another
> Christian group, to close the scriptural interpretation gap).
>
> Reflective people who grew up Christian -- of whatever denomination --
> intimately understand how these things work and seldom share Chris'
> really very odd, and almost wholly academic view of ever-in-motion
> Christian doctrine.
>
> One of the best ways to visualize the relationship of Christian
> academics -- official canon, doctrine or what have you -- to
> on-the-ground belief, practice and theory building is to consider Star
> Wars fandom.
>
> Only with a much longer timeline.
>
>
> Everyday, on every continent of this fun-loving planet, someone is
> arguing with someone else about what's SW canon and what's an
> "aberration".  The usually unstated punchline is that since the entire
> thing is fantasy, there is an awful lot of room for mucking about with
> the story and its ideas.  That is, intricate explanations of god's
> will and intention are no more solid than a detailed analysis of
> commerce during the time of the First Galactic Republic.
>
>
> This doesn't mean that interesting philosophical and psychological
> insights can't emerge from serious religious thought and the
> scholarship which accrues.  But telling people to shut up and read
> Aquinas (or sit at the feet of the experts who've mastered the
> master's ideas) doesn't compute.  No appeal to scholarship will -- or
> should -- stop a corner Protestant preacher from announcing that he or
> she received a revelation via a dream which will form the basis of a
> new sect.
>
> Because really, the ability to read the original Hebrew, Greek or
> Aramaic gives a scholar the ability to interpret what the ancients
> thought.  It does not bestow a veto over all current and future
> interpretations of a faith which long ago expanded beyond the confines
> of original writ.
>
>
> Also....
>
>
> Why are we discussing religion, again!
>
> I must be in...
>
> Hell!  Where you'll step on naught but hot coals and drink naught but hot
> cola!
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>