tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post115779841921680503..comments2023-09-19T10:04:11.022-05:00Comments on Hitting Bedrock: To hell with "moderation"Tobyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17890488229980159198noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1158323024644321822006-09-15T07:23:00.000-05:002006-09-15T07:23:00.000-05:00Fred,By way of comparison, it would sound odd to s...Fred,<BR/><BR/>By way of comparison, it would sound odd to say: "political liberals and theological liberals are both liberals". This is because in both cases the sense of the noun ("liberal") is relative to the context set by the adjective--what "liberal" means depends on whether you're on a political, theological, or whatever spectrum.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's <I>one way</I> it could go; the language could be meant otherwise. I don't really want to argue about <I>the correct</I> interpretation or use of "religious extremist" or "moderate", because, like I said, people take it in different ways. My post addresses one way it could be taken.<BR/><BR/>Clearly this language doesn't lead you to misunderstand the varieties of religious faith in the way Harris does--well, good. Rather than argue about who's using the term correctly, let's say that your distinction is just different from the one I attack in the post. That said, in most cases the two distinctions look exactly the same, not only because the same words are used, but also because they are co-extensive: everyone more or less agrees about who counts as a "religious extremist", and who counts as a "religious moderate". The difference is in the conclusions you think you can draw after applying the labels. Often this is indeterminate until someone actually gets into a somewhat deep discussion about religion, at which point the labels can (not will, but can) suggest a certain way of thinking about things.Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17890488229980159198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1158250220730579232006-09-14T11:10:00.000-05:002006-09-14T11:10:00.000-05:00Actually, I disagree with your interpretation of t...Actually, I disagree with your interpretation of the grammar. IMHO, the more obivous interpretation of "religious extremist" would be an extremist who is religious (the same kind of interpretation that you would give "religious ice-cream man" - clearly not someone that hold particularly "ice-creamy" religous views). <BR/><BR/>That being said, I agree that in this case the extremism would likely be considered to be of a religious kind. But really, almost any term at all can be misconstrued. I think Harris is just wrong in this case about the meaning of the term, as accepted by the general English speaking populace. Similarly, I think the meaning you've given for the terms is also incorrect.<BR/><BR/>Here is where I think you've made your mistake. You wrote: <I>"a religious extremist... is clearly someone who is extremely religious"</I>. No. I don't think that this reflects common usage at all. "Religious extremists" are those that have extreme religious views. Those are two quite different things. This is not about having an extreme or moderate committment to God. Rather, the distinction is over what that committment entails.<BR/><BR/>If it entails going out and smiting the unbeliever, that might be considered extreme (it is by me at least). Whereas if it means quietly living a life of faith, that would be considered (very) moderate.<BR/>The actual degree of committment to God is totally irrelevant. Both of these people could be totally committed to God, yet differ in how that belief impacts their behaviour. Furthermore, there is no way to know whether someone is actually committed based on their behaviour.<BR/>Either of these people could be total believers or closet atheists, and we'd never know the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1158112682380048642006-09-12T20:58:00.000-05:002006-09-12T20:58:00.000-05:00Fred,I agree that there is a clear sense in which ...Fred,<BR/><BR/>I agree that there is a clear sense in which Phelps is an extremist. He is extremely all sorts of things.<BR/><BR/>But sticking the words "moderate" and "extremist" after the adjective "religious" (or "Christian" or whatever) is <I>at least suggestive</I> of the understanding of the term that e.g. Harris has, and this is what's problematic.<BR/><BR/>No, not everyone who utters those words <I>has</I> to mean it in just that way... but there seems to be a strong tendency to do so (which Harris exploits in his attacks on "religious moderates").Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17890488229980159198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1158111411771054142006-09-12T20:36:00.000-05:002006-09-12T20:36:00.000-05:00Ummm.. I always used the extremist/moderate distin...Ummm.. I always used the extremist/moderate distinction not to state that someone was extreme/moderate in their religious convictions, but in other aspects of their life, which may or may not be part of their religion. Phelps, for example is an extremist, but many of the ways in which he is extreme are only loosely (if at all) tied to religion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1157958844609791422006-09-11T02:14:00.000-05:002006-09-11T02:14:00.000-05:00I don't want to get into weighing the relative mer...I don't want to get into weighing the relative merits of theological liberalism and conservatism, largely because I don't think that's a particularly useful spectrum, either.<BR/><BR/>(Though those terms are clearly more sensible than "moderate" and "extremist".)<BR/><BR/>I called myself a theological liberal early on, but I don't think I like that category any more. A lot of theological liberals seem inclined to deny original sin, but I think original sin is theologically central. Just this might be enough to want to lump myself in with the conservatives, who are more likely to take the concept of sin seriously. But for me to adopt the conservative label would be misleading in all sorts of other ways.Tobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17890488229980159198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28883993.post-1157828790948233762006-09-09T14:06:00.000-05:002006-09-09T14:06:00.000-05:00Jesus was fully man and fully God. To really know ...Jesus was fully man and fully God. To really know Him, you must get to know both sides.<BR/><BR/>Liberals naturally tend to see the humanity of Christ. The challenge for them is to search for the divinity.<BR/><BR/>Conservatives naturally tend to see the divinity of Christ, and need to consciously seek an understanding of his humanity.<BR/><BR/>RLP sees the shortcoming of conservatives who don't go beyond their natural understanding, but he doesn't understand that he's doing the same thing, but from a different starting point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com