tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post1269499909885492009..comments2023-11-22T04:10:49.266-05:00Comments on Dispatches from Zembla: More on ReligionAlokhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-57558006657284580552007-07-28T23:25:00.000-05:002007-07-28T23:25:00.000-05:00There is always the case for an organized Vs a per...There is always the case for an organized Vs a personal religion. Organized religion has all its flaws, even if one is aware of languages and source texts of canons it is largely based on interpretation.Science for example permits individual differences on crucial unproven theories.Two scientists may hold opposing viewpoints both of which cannot be proved. This is where I find that proponents of science or rather the anti-religionists have no arguments. Dostoevsky, I'd say questioned aspects of religion in relation to ethics rather than argue against it. A shade of grey religion than a plain black and white view is what he seems to paint.In other words all the names you mention are not anti-religion but of the reexamining religion kindVidya Jayaramanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11878238708389655574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-64526808262208212602007-07-28T08:21:00.000-05:002007-07-28T08:21:00.000-05:00falstaff: Yes and many others too. poets have long...falstaff: Yes and many others too. poets have long been interested in religious questions and at the same time have always raised objections to the solutions offered by religion too. <BR/><BR/>cat: no irony there. The works of all these are nothing but challenges to religion. I wish more religious people would think about these writers and thinkers.<BR/><BR/>richard: I wasn't really talking of a rational case against religion. That is onvious and self-evident. I am more interested in the deeper and spiritual aspects of religion and the kind of critique one find in art and literature.<BR/><BR/>kubla: Dostoevsky was an intensely religious person no doubt, even a religious fanatic some would say. But in his books he presents an unsurpassed and eloquent case against religion, or at least christianity. The grand inquisitor chapter and the chapter before -- Ivan's "rebellion" monologue -- contain some of the most stirring arguments against religion and its plan of human salvation, its attempts to explain evil, suffering and human freedom.<BR/><BR/>In fact in his notebooks Dostoevsky himself despaired over his inability to find a counter-argument which can match the Ivan chapters in their intensity and literary effect. He laboured hard on the chapter about the life of the monk which follows the grand inquisitor, but was not satisfied with it in the end. <BR/><BR/>Just like Milton, he was trying to justify the ways of God to man, whereas ultimately ended up playing the devil's advocate.Alokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12947383354732747209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-31963690184344150242007-07-28T07:41:00.000-05:002007-07-28T07:41:00.000-05:00I think you have completely misunderstood Dostoevs...I think you have completely misunderstood Dostoevsky, for he IS the religious writer par excellence, obsessed with knowing God, and his Ivan karamazov is the most religious character he created for he argues with God and doesnt take anything for granted.<BR/> these days most anti religious rants are written by writers with no knowledge of the subject matter, especially in relation to Islam, not knowing Arabic etc.<BR/>there is no fashion in being anti religious for the sake of it.<BR/>And i dont really understand what you mean by anti religious writing, as if it is a new genre you are talking about. If you mean journalistic, neo convservative ranting, then that is not writing but misery.Kubla Khanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11973223751363547679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-85770029360140555552007-07-28T02:36:00.000-05:002007-07-28T02:36:00.000-05:00"a rival school of thought which is as shallow, as..."a rival school of thought which is as shallow, as comforting, and as free of all doubts as doctrinaire religion. "<BR/><BR/>Bear in mind that it is up to believers to prove their claims, not the other way round; you can't expect atheists to prove an absence but if someone tells you that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, you do have the right to ask them to justify the claim (paticularly if said supernatural entity imposes a number of doctrines that have very material consequences).Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03316636310435451222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-75358440998564543362007-07-28T01:02:00.000-05:002007-07-28T01:02:00.000-05:00Kierkegaard, Dreyer, Bresson... The irony.And yes,...Kierkegaard, Dreyer, Bresson... The irony.<BR/><BR/>And yes, Blake was a revolutionary, and a genius, but what was that stuff about "I will not cease from mental fight/Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand/Till we have built Jerusalem/In England's green and pleasant land."?Cheshire Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463645065346922684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12674755.post-39240502796154292922007-07-28T00:58:00.000-05:002007-07-28T00:58:00.000-05:00William Blake. You forget William Blake. Blake is ...William Blake. You forget William Blake. Blake is the original visionary - anti-religion and anti-science, a prophet of the imagination above all else.Falstaffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09791162324919462038noreply@blogger.com