Ross Douthat is a splatter-brain. I have been a lifetime subscriber to the NYT even when I lived in Europe in the ‘80s and ‘90s. I vaguely remember his arrival (I think it was after I returned to the States) and was immediately disgusted that the Times would allow such an intellectual lightweight. He was the Times’ excuse for a “balanced” conservative. So, as with anything conservative, he is almost all pseudo.
What he “documents” in this piece is just what history always has been: change. Writers at the turn-of-the-century (19TH to 20th) had all kinds of cockamamie projections and this just follows in that tradition: mix of the obvious (Douthat’s specialty) and the otherwise splatter-set of what most intelligent people might speculate about.
On religion… well, it’s a belief system that has 2 completely regular and predictable trajectories: Rise and Fall. And these states are almost entirely a function of larger changes in society and the world. And these changes are different everywhere at every time in every other society or subculture. And when I read a line like this, it sounds like writing for writing’s sake: “In this environment, survival will depend on intentionality and intensity.”
And, honestly, for me this is the lowest of truisms: “Many of the demographers, psychologists, sociologists and statisticians I spoke to offered the same explanation: Americans simply haven’t found a satisfying alternative to religion.” Let’s be clear, a feature of human beings is that they are afraid of uncertainty and most of all death. End of rumination.
And then he goes on and says he can’t go back to the LDS church, well, human all too human, Douthat. It’s a shame that the Times keeps such a lightweight around.
And then we have David Brooks queued up. Brooks is the Ross Douthat of Judaism. His views and understanding of Israel are the classic tourist’s. He is in so many ways a vastly lighter lightweight compared to Douthat who doesn’t have to contend with something like the abject trajectory to fascism of the tribe. Nor has he ever (as I did) lived in Israel as I did twice, including 8 months in a Ba’al Tsuva yeshiva just up the stairs (in those days) from the Kotel called Aish haTorah. Nor, most of all, did he have close friends among West Bank Arabs, as I have.
Both of these characters (for me) deserve the greatest contempt. They are trying to appear to straddle their respective political-religious spectra. Why? My guess is the base impulse of all religious adherents: fear… fear of uncertainty in one’s choices, fear of not belonging and at the same time wanting to appear that they live in empirical real world. To me, they are like the Hitler apologists who refer to Hitler making the trains run on time.
“And then he goes on and says he can’t go back to the LDS church…” - for such an acerbic critic the least you could do is read Aaron’s post more carefully!
One minor gripe I have with churches and evangelism in America is how binary it is. And in one sense, most Christian’s are completely correct. They think you’ve said something equivalent to the sinners prayer (or taken the prerequisite steps to enter the kingdom of God) or you haven’t.
The NYT essay by the ex-Mormon reminded me that the more I talk to people outside of church, the more I find there is an immense amount of internal spiritual churn in people’s thoughts and hearts, much of which longs for God, church, etc.
I’m not sure how I want churches and Christian’s to go about evangelism, but I do wish that there was some understanding that many are much closer to the kingdom of God than we might suspect, and to remember that even sinners outside of the kingdom can have complex spiritual lives, some of which can find ways to be tuned into the things in the heavenly places.
Good comment. One of the best things about evangelicals is that they evangelize, and it really is binary, you believe in Jesus Christ or don’t.
I do think though we’ve gotten so caught up in doctrinal controversies we’ve poured so much into that we’ve neglected a lot of devotional and practical theology. I’ve read Baptist books from not too long ago, and it seems we used to be a lot smarter.
Read my comments above. How does the word "smarter" come into play with a purely unambiguous belief system? If not anything, the word "smart" does not seem to have a place in belief. Or?
Ok now that I’ve seen your post, I mean, kind of so what?
Fear is a universal human impulse it theoretically along with desire motivates, well, every decision, desire for some good, fear of some evil; perceived or real.
For me, the existence of a supernatural/preternatural world is basically beyond dispute. Too many men and women have seen too much that cannot be compatible with a materialist philosophy. I mean sane people under circumstances that cannot be explained otherwise. Either they’re all mad or the spiritual world is real. I don’t mean in the distant past either I mean today. Exorcists like Vincent Lampert or Chad Ripperger are not airy fairy enthusiasts; I’ve worked with their whole type kind of my entire working life, they’re engineers.
You didn’t post a link. Also, fine, say wiser. God explicitly tells the Christian to get knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. So you know what let’s stay with “smarter”. Don’t really see the issue but maybe you addressed it in the missing link.
I’ve heard people with autism have difficulty understanding symbolic language, for example describing God as “Father” conjures up images of a physical man living in a physical house with a wife and small children, so the metaphor seems nonsensical to them.
Ross Douthat is a splatter-brain. I have been a lifetime subscriber to the NYT even when I lived in Europe in the ‘80s and ‘90s. I vaguely remember his arrival (I think it was after I returned to the States) and was immediately disgusted that the Times would allow such an intellectual lightweight. He was the Times’ excuse for a “balanced” conservative. So, as with anything conservative, he is almost all pseudo.
What he “documents” in this piece is just what history always has been: change. Writers at the turn-of-the-century (19TH to 20th) had all kinds of cockamamie projections and this just follows in that tradition: mix of the obvious (Douthat’s specialty) and the otherwise splatter-set of what most intelligent people might speculate about.
On religion… well, it’s a belief system that has 2 completely regular and predictable trajectories: Rise and Fall. And these states are almost entirely a function of larger changes in society and the world. And these changes are different everywhere at every time in every other society or subculture. And when I read a line like this, it sounds like writing for writing’s sake: “In this environment, survival will depend on intentionality and intensity.”
And, honestly, for me this is the lowest of truisms: “Many of the demographers, psychologists, sociologists and statisticians I spoke to offered the same explanation: Americans simply haven’t found a satisfying alternative to religion.” Let’s be clear, a feature of human beings is that they are afraid of uncertainty and most of all death. End of rumination.
And then he goes on and says he can’t go back to the LDS church, well, human all too human, Douthat. It’s a shame that the Times keeps such a lightweight around.
And then we have David Brooks queued up. Brooks is the Ross Douthat of Judaism. His views and understanding of Israel are the classic tourist’s. He is in so many ways a vastly lighter lightweight compared to Douthat who doesn’t have to contend with something like the abject trajectory to fascism of the tribe. Nor has he ever (as I did) lived in Israel as I did twice, including 8 months in a Ba’al Tsuva yeshiva just up the stairs (in those days) from the Kotel called Aish haTorah. Nor, most of all, did he have close friends among West Bank Arabs, as I have.
Both of these characters (for me) deserve the greatest contempt. They are trying to appear to straddle their respective political-religious spectra. Why? My guess is the base impulse of all religious adherents: fear… fear of uncertainty in one’s choices, fear of not belonging and at the same time wanting to appear that they live in empirical real world. To me, they are like the Hitler apologists who refer to Hitler making the trains run on time.
“And then he goes on and says he can’t go back to the LDS church…” - for such an acerbic critic the least you could do is read Aaron’s post more carefully!
Any pointers? Or does this require a textual exegesis?
Lauren Jackson is the NYT writer who was a Mormon. Ross is famously Catholic which you should know if you’ve been reading him regularly.
And?
And the word "his" does not apply to Lauren Jackson.
And - your own words suggest you didn’t understand these basic facts.
One minor gripe I have with churches and evangelism in America is how binary it is. And in one sense, most Christian’s are completely correct. They think you’ve said something equivalent to the sinners prayer (or taken the prerequisite steps to enter the kingdom of God) or you haven’t.
The NYT essay by the ex-Mormon reminded me that the more I talk to people outside of church, the more I find there is an immense amount of internal spiritual churn in people’s thoughts and hearts, much of which longs for God, church, etc.
I’m not sure how I want churches and Christian’s to go about evangelism, but I do wish that there was some understanding that many are much closer to the kingdom of God than we might suspect, and to remember that even sinners outside of the kingdom can have complex spiritual lives, some of which can find ways to be tuned into the things in the heavenly places.
See my post here. I would like to hear about the base impetus to believe in religion at all. And compare it to my analysis. Cheers.
Good comment. One of the best things about evangelicals is that they evangelize, and it really is binary, you believe in Jesus Christ or don’t.
I do think though we’ve gotten so caught up in doctrinal controversies we’ve poured so much into that we’ve neglected a lot of devotional and practical theology. I’ve read Baptist books from not too long ago, and it seems we used to be a lot smarter.
Read my comments above. How does the word "smarter" come into play with a purely unambiguous belief system? If not anything, the word "smart" does not seem to have a place in belief. Or?
Ok now that I’ve seen your post, I mean, kind of so what?
Fear is a universal human impulse it theoretically along with desire motivates, well, every decision, desire for some good, fear of some evil; perceived or real.
For me, the existence of a supernatural/preternatural world is basically beyond dispute. Too many men and women have seen too much that cannot be compatible with a materialist philosophy. I mean sane people under circumstances that cannot be explained otherwise. Either they’re all mad or the spiritual world is real. I don’t mean in the distant past either I mean today. Exorcists like Vincent Lampert or Chad Ripperger are not airy fairy enthusiasts; I’ve worked with their whole type kind of my entire working life, they’re engineers.
Now which religion is true is another discussion…
“Exorcists” and “engineer” in the same statement and as an equivalency. Wow. Long live the Middle Ages!
Countless eyewitnesses, and that’s what you’ve got? Why even reply?
You didn’t post a link. Also, fine, say wiser. God explicitly tells the Christian to get knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. So you know what let’s stay with “smarter”. Don’t really see the issue but maybe you addressed it in the missing link.
Edit: misunderstood, see your post above, sorry!
So you have met this guy “god”? Can you give me his phone number or his address and zip code or email address?
I’ve heard people with autism have difficulty understanding symbolic language, for example describing God as “Father” conjures up images of a physical man living in a physical house with a wife and small children, so the metaphor seems nonsensical to them.
In all seriousness, are you on the spectrum?