Christian Missionary Loses Faith Living with Brazilian Tribe

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The problem with theology...

It's perfectly true that there are a lot of sophisticated theologians whose intellectual approach to faith has nothing in common with that of the idiots of todays organized religion. But the problem is that the idiots outnumber the theologians by a million to one. The religion that most influences the real world is not the gentle faith of say: the Talmudic scholar; it's the blind fanaticism of the Muslim Cleric and the closed-minded ignorance of the Christianist.

To be sure, there have been times when a deeper, more thoughtful faith has influenced the world for good - Gandhi and ML King are the canonical examples. But no matter how much good this sort of faith may do, it is far outweighed by the combination of violence, tribalism, and plain old stupidity we see in the name of God every day.

 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
The problem with theology...

It's perfectly true that there are a lot of sophisticated theologians whose intellectual approach to faith has nothing in common with that of the idiots of todays organized religion. But the problem is that the idiots outnumber the theologians by a million to one. The religion that most influences the real world is not the gentle faith of say: the Talmudic scholar; it's the blind fanaticism of the Muslim Cleric and the closed-minded ignorance of the Christianist.

To be sure, there have been times when a deeper, more thoughtful faith has influenced the world for good - Gandhi and ML King are the canonical examples. But no matter how much good this sort of faith may do, it is far outweighed by the combination of violence, tribalism, and plain old stupidity we see in the name of God every day.
No doubt that there is much wrong done in the name of God every day. But this pales in comparison to great good that is done in the name of God. Step out of your box for a second, cast aside your stereotypes, and take 10 minutes with Google to take an honest look at the big picture...and you will plainly see that there is tremendous good being done in this world every day in the name of God.

Homeless shelters, soup kitchens, counseling from A to Z, disaster and emergency relief, as well as food aid and health care for those living in abject poverty throughout the world. You sir are surrounded by people of 'gentle faith' and are unaware of them...perhaps you only see the fanatics because that is what you want to see?
 

AreaCode7O7

Senior member
Mar 6, 2005
931
1
0
Capitalist American Disputes Concept of Poverty Living with Brazilian Tribe

Missionaries and government officials see Pirahã society as poor and seek to help by giving them money and modern technology. "The Pirahã aren't poor. They don't see themselves as poor," he says. He believes capitalism and religion are manufacturing desires. "One of the saddest things I've seen in Amazonian cultures is people who were self-sufficient and happy that now think of themselves as poor and become dissatisfied with their lives. What worries me is outsiders trying to impose their values and materialism on the Pirahã."

Chomksy-influenced Linguist Disproves Universal Grammar Living with Brazilian Tribe

Chomsky had recently refined his theory to argue that recursion - the linguistic practice of inserting phrases inside others - was the cornerstone of all languages. (An example of recursion is extending the sentence "Daniel Everett talked about the story of his life" to read, "Daniel Everett flew to London and talked about the story of his life".) Everett argued that he could find no evidence of recursion in Pirahã. This was deeply troubling for Chomsky's theory. If the Pirahã didn't use recursion, then how could it be a fundamental part of a universal grammar embedded in our genes? And if the Pirahã didn't use recursion, then is their language - and, by implication, other languages - determined not by biology but by culture?

There are so many interesting things in this article; why do you title it with the most inflammatory (and one of the least relevant) parts of the article? One person's loss of faith is unremarkable. The potential revolution of a lingual theory is much more distinct and relevant.