Bishop of Bath and Wells Darwin Debate

[Berkut]

"We aren't really religious, but I would say we are spiritual...."

[Sheilbh]

And actually, the debate hasn't gone away--it has just moved on to more fundamental issues. Britons such as Hitchens and Dawkins are very much involved in the science versus religion debates, even if the COE doesn't fight darwinism anymore. And the COE seems to be increasing losing the fight. It is in that light I see the bishop's plea for a "respect for mystery."

Yeah but Hitchens and Dawkins normally give up fighting the CofE.  I watched Dawkins show and he interviewed the Bishop of Oxford.  In the end he found nothing objectionable in the Bishop's belief except that they didn't seem to follow the logical conclusions of the Bible.  The debate was pretty friendly and they work together against creationism.

The interview's here and quite good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ0WinCWtLs

And I don't think Hitchens and Dawkins can be classified as science in a science vs religion debate.  They're part of a non-belief vs belief debate.  As I say with the exceptions of the ethics of science, which both scientist and religious figures take very seriously.

[Barrister]

Only to the extent that religious are mutually exclusive.  Look up the word and philosophy of ecumenism, for example.

  You aren't seriously going to try and claim that there are less than two mutually exclusive religions in the world, are you?

No.  But I did want to point out that a great many religious are not, in fact, mutually exclusive of each other.

[Sheilbh]

A Catholic does believe that the Catholic Church is the only true way to salvation, but a Lutheran or an Orthodox Christian might get lucky while a Moslem or a Hindu really is screwed if he has rejected Christ.

Not necessarily.  If they reject Christ because they are unable to believe and otherwise lead good 'Catholic' lives, then they'll only be a virtuous pagan in a relatively painless part of Hell.  Saladin's sitting with Plato.

[grumbler]

That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.

I Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.


Hafiz
Source: The Gift

I don't think that this is evidence of much.  We can change just one word and show how this poem really doesn't say what you think it does:

I Have Learned
So much from Odin
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure it proves much grumbler, to say that you can change one word and thus change it's meaning.

[Viking]

And I don't think Hitchens and Dawkins can be classified as science in a science vs religion debate.  They're part of a non-belief vs belief debate.  As I say with the exceptions of the ethics of science, which both scientist and religious figures take very seriously.

Agreed, they both believe that religion, any religion, is harmful for various reasons. Dawkins has science as a reason for not believing and science as a tool against faith/belief. Hitchens treats science as a useful cudgel to bash his religious foes while his political theory is his reason for not believing.

[Valmy]

I Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.


Hafiz
Source: The Gift

That is why Hafiz is the shit.

[Malthus]

That certainly is something that many mystics believe - for example, see the poetry of Hafiz.

I Have Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.


Hafiz
Source: The Gift

I don't think that this is evidence of much.  We can change just one word and show how this poem really doesn't say what you think it does:

I Have Learned
So much from Odin
That I can no longer
Call Myself 
A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
A Buddhist, a Jew.

Giving the term "God" a culturally-specific meaning mutates rather completely what the poem is attempting to say - which is that, in his opinion, the experience of God (namely, the mystic experience) transcends cultural divisions.

You don't have to agree with that of course, but you are I think misunderstanding the basic point.

I rather suspect that when the poet talks about "God" with an uppercase "G" he does not mean the old white guy with a beard who lives in a stormcloud and rains lightning bolts on unbelievers - It's simply a lens through which he's interpreting the Sufi (or more broadly mystic) experience. The stress is on the "learned" - the point of the poem is that, if you really experience "God" directly, you must realize that the petty distinctions created by humans to contain and label that experience are meaningless (and indeed directly inimical to what "God" is). Thus, the poet can no longer call himself a Christian, a Jew, etc. (and not a "Odin worshipping pagan" either) ... even if he wanted to.

Again, one doesn't actually have to believe this is in fact true; just that this is what he's trying to convey.

the poem in full:

I Have Learned So Much

I
Have
Learned
So much from God
That I can no longer
Call
Myself

A Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim,
a Buddhist, a Jew.

The Truth has shared so much of Itself
With me

That I can no longer call myself
A man, a woman, an angel,
Or even a pure
Soul.

Love has
Befriended Hafiz so completely
It has turned to ash
And freed
Me

Of every concept and image
my mind has ever known

Note that "God", "The Truth" and "Love" are treated as basically interchangable. Doesn't work very well with "Odin", whom as far as I remember isn't very lovey-dovey (mind you, neither is the OT Jehovah).

[Valmy]

That is sort of central to my religion's beliefs on God, as an expression of the religious experience, so naturally we use alot of Hafiz.

[The Brain]

Writing like Ank doth not a poet make.

[Eddie Teach]

Writing like Ank doth not a poet make.

But drinking Coors Light does!