The crusades, the Inquisition, and witch burnings to name a few. Christianity has a checkered past. Time and time again I hear this past sited as a reason why Christianity is the plague of humanity. I think this is ridiculous. There are plenty of better reasons so could we just let this one die? Yes, Christianity was involved in some really violent, really awful events and we do hold a certain amount of responsibility, but at the same time I think everyone needs to remember context. First of all, these events took place in the past. I think people seem to forget one little fact about the past: it was really freakin’ violent! Everyone was killing and maiming each other on a regular basis. It wasn’t just Christians.
Also, it just happens to be that a large portion of the population was nominal Christians at these times. Many of these people said they were Christians because everyone was. As a result, many things were done in the name of Christianity that were more political than anything else.
I realize these were horrible things and that these sins will always be on our shoulders, but I think it is illogical to put the blame on Christianity when it had more to do with greedy or power-hungry people.
Other aspects of this that Leif mentioned were slavery and forcing our culture on aboriginals. As to slavery, I think that was also a cultural situation where everyone was doing it and we only see it as bad from our world-view where the idea of equality has a much stronger foothold. As to forcing our culture, this was a much more charitable option than what most other people wanted to do, which involved killing them all off.
And I would also argue that this forcing of culture still exists today and it is not exclusive to Christianity. How often have you heard someone complain about asian drivers or about the conditions of black and Hispanic neighborhoods or consider how we Canadians complain about how natives raise their children or their work ethic. In all of these situations, and many more, people basically want to force their culture on another culture. It is a much bigger problem and is not a result of Christianity.
Christianity has some skeletons in its closet that I’m sure most Christians regret today but which have been held against them unjustly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
The question of historical sins is not an attempt at holding someone accountable today for something which occurred in the distant past so much as it is an attempt to learn from our mistakes. So we agree slavery is wrong in the past, and this leads us to condemn it today.
The question is then, does religion teach today, ideas which are harmful; as we see them being so in the past (like slavery)?
The question of God ought not to be decided by historical record, but rather from a philosophical stance: meaning, someone who criticizes religion for causing situations like this is criticizing the idea not the events themselves so much. They are not saying religions is bad because it did bad things in the past; they are saying religion is bad because it teaches harmful ideologies.
The reason why religion’s sordid past is a good reason to reject it, is not a placing of blame, but rather a realization that religion purport and propagates harmful ideas (the ‘us vs. them’ ideology is one example).
It is the way a religious person thinks which is dangerous.
"It is the way a religious person thinks which is dangerous."
What? That is an amazing comment.
As for the topic at hand: For every horrible thing that has been done in the name of religion, at least in Christianity's case there has been those within the movement who have acted to reform it, and they have done so not from outside the faith but from within, critiquing it by its own standard from which its deviated.
There may be things today that need correction, but that correction will most likely find its impetus from a movement to reappropriate the Christ-life for our times and situation, not because the religion will take a lesson from the page of the supposedly clear-thinking unreligious.
Joel is very correct when he says that we must learn from the past. History is full of atrocities that all people can hopefully learn from.
"The reason why religion’s sordid past is a good reason to reject it, is not a placing of blame, but rather a realization that religion purport and propagates harmful ideas (the ‘us vs. them’ ideology is one example)."
true, there is a certain amount of this that exists, but I think it is individuals that create this mentality as the ideals of Christianity encourage people to reach out to others, especially those who disagree. If there is an us and them mentality it develops out of human weakness. It is easy to fall into, many atheists feel the same way towards religion, so I would not be so hasty to lay the blame so completely on one people group.
Further, I would like to bring up some historical sins of atheism. One is what the nazis did to mentally ill and handicapped people. These people were systematically killed by doctors and nurses because they threatened to taint the gene pool.
Similarly, in North America Eugenics was taught which lead to the systematic sterilization of the mentally ill as well as attempts to do likewise to the lower classes. These ideas are based on atheistic, evolutionary ideals which teach us that the most important thing is the advancement of our species through whatever means possible. I imagine that few Atheists today would agree with Hitler or the other early pioneers of Eugenics, but the concept is a part of that history and a logical train of thought that develops from those beliefs.
So you see, it is also the way a non-religious person thinks which is dangerous.
I agree that atheist today would not hold to Eugenics, we have seen that such an ideology is bad, same with Social Darwinism; we have agreed that it is bad and this is why we do not teach it anymore. We have also encountered and learned from our mistakes about Stalin’s version of Communism; all of which share a common link in the atheistic worldview and the scientific theory of evolution.
We have learned from our mistakes and no longer teach these ideas; can the same be said of religions which teach ‘us vs. them’ ideologies?
Do religious groups still teach ‘holiness’ and religious segregation?
Do Protestants believe that Catholics are really saved?
Do Alliance members think themselves equal with United Church members as being theologically sound?
Do Christians allow the same possibility of miracles to occur in other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Mormonism?
Do Christians believe other religions are just as possibly true as other religions with richer pasts, longer histories or similar stories?
Do Christians believe that when other religious people pray they are not praying to the real God?
Do Christians believe that other Holy Books like the Quran and the Hindu Vedas are just as legitimate as their own, in their attempt to root their believe system in Revelation?
Do Christians still teach that evolution is a systematic plan to wipe religion off the face of the earth?
Do Christians still teach that people should not read certain books, go to certain educational institutions because they contain dangerous ideas?
Do Christians preach that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who live in this way are not living the way God intended for people to live?
Do they teach that Christians need to be an example to the rest of the world, to be holy as God is holy and in so be a bright sinning light to non-believers?
Do Christians in comparison of their own religions to others, suggest that other religions are caused by demons and are only distractions to the one true religion?
Do they teach that Christianity is not compatible with other religions?
Do Christians think that criticism from non-believers cannot be sound, since only those who have had the experience of the Holy Spirit have a real open-eyed understanding of the Bible?
Religious people can only remain or become religious people because they do not know so much.
What I find amazing, is how religious people try so hard to be surprised by how an atheist thinks, or be surprised at what they say. Strict religious people are just as atheistic about other religions as the atheist is about all religions. Only the atheist person wants to learn and understand what they reject, they depend upon learning and understanding to allow them to show why they do not believe other religions are correct in their ontological and other ‘ological’ prescriptions.
Religious people, in contrast, rely upon what they do not know and on what they claim they cannot understand (for example, how someone could live a fruitful and happy life without God).
You’re right, you cannot understand that, because if you did you might actually realize just so small of a worldview it takes to purport the opposite!
honestly now, is that supposed to be a non-religious, reasonable series of questions, or is it basically what you'd expect a religious fundamentalist to say?
i am not an atheist about other religions, i think we are all after the same God. But if their can be no discussion of which conception of God is true, or not true, then we're only pretending to have a reasoned discussion, and are only serving our a priori presumption, which in this case is that there can be no god (since god can't be proven) and so the only discussion worth having is whether religion serves the good of the world (as conceived according to that guiding presupposition).
But to stick to the discussion at hand . . . religious folk and (so-called) non-religious folk alike must learn from past errors. despite joel's caricatures, many Christians aim to do just that, and historically they can and do manage to do so within the trajectory of the faith they abide within. for an atheist to learn from the afforementioned mistakes, however, there must be a start over every time the logical extreme of a given view is allowed to run its course and offend the conscience.
It seems to me that if we are to right the wrongs of our past our hope lies not in agreeing that there can be no disagreement, but in learning to disagree well, and justly, and with compassion and mercy. once again, i know where the impetus for such reform comes from within Christianity. I have no idea where such an impetus comes from for an atheist.
now, let's expose the misleading slant in each of joel's questions:
Re: ". . . ‘us vs. them’ ideologies?"
Can there be no ideologies which disagree without turning it into a "vs" thing? I know of one ideology that is taught to do this: "Love your enemies," Christ said. Plenty of Christians have gone wrong on this point, as have plenty of others. But reform for them lies in following Christ better and truer, not in rejecting the idea of a truth or rightness to be found.
"Do religious groups still teach ‘holiness’ and religious segregation?"
What is religious segregation and why is it equated with holiness? Is it really being implied that all religious people invariably practice bigotry (or something like that) as part of their attempt at holiness (and no atheists segregate)? There is not possibly another way to do religion?
"Do Protestants believe that Catholics are really saved?"
I do. Plenty do. What's the problem here anyway?
"Do Alliance members think themselves equal with United Church members as being theologically sound?"
Can I not think myself equal with someone and yet disagree with their theology? Again, a false juxtapasition here.
"Do Christians allow the same possibility of miracles to occur in other religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Mormonism?"
Possibility of wondrous events? Sure. On a case by case basis within my own faith and anyone else's I would expect we could examine them, however.
"Do Christians believe other religions are just as possibly true as other religions with richer pasts, longer histories or similar stories?"
Possibly. Sure. Now we can discuss. "Richer" pasts? "Longer" histories? "Similar" stories? Again, these can be weighed individually for reasonability, value, and so on.
"Do Christians believe that when other religious people pray they are not praying to the real God?"
Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. It is kind of depends who the real God is and who they mean to be praying to.
"Do Christians believe that other Holy Books like the Quran and the Hindu Vedas are just as legitimate as their own, in their attempt to root their believe system in Revelation?"
It is a legitimate attempt, if that is indeed what they attempt, but whether they are believable as such is another discussion. I'm surprised that people committed to the usefulness of reason would not wish for such a discussion to happen, especially if the possibility of divine revelation is not dismissed as a presupposition.
"Do Christians still teach that evolution is a systematic plan to wipe religion off the face of the earth?"
Some probably do. But I haven't heard this statement, even the most ardent conservative creationist I know. Regardless, many many many do not.
"Do Christians still teach that people should not read certain books, go to certain educational institutions because they contain dangerous ideas?"
Some, yes. Others think that's exactly where Christians should be. What is the point of the question? And how many atheists would send their kids to Bible College with an open mind to the ideas being presented there. My guess is some might, and many would not. So?
"Do Christians preach that homosexuality is a sin, and that those who live in this way are not living the way God intended for people to live?"
Yes. Why shouldn't they? The real question is how they act on that. And believe me, I am ashamed of how many of my fellow Christians act on this, and will freely admit that this is one mistake we are currently making which, yes, will need to be learned from. Many, however, have learned it already and are acting/discussing in much more humane and compassionate ways than the stereotypical so-and-so.
"Do they teach that Christians need to be an example to the rest of the world, to be holy as God is holy and in so be a bright sinning light to non-believers?
Sure. Why not? To me it would be and is naive for us to presume that we always are that bright shining light. It is also harmful to convey that it is only the "model" so-and-sos who can show their face. So it comes down to how we act on this, and here again there are lessons to be learned, which many have learned or are learning already.
"Do Christians in comparison of their own religions to others, suggest that other religions are caused by demons and are only distractions to the one true religion?"
Some do. But again wouldn't the problem be in how that idea got acted on? I for one think this doesn't help us to speak this way, and so I don't, but if you ask me what the source of division in society goes back to, I would indeed point to the influence of evil forces which have sent our race into a tailspin. But we're all in the tailspin, and drowning witches or labelling demons doesn't help us much. And I think I'm not alone in that.
"Do they teach that Christianity is not compatible with other religions?"
What does "not compatible" mean? Of course, whatever is true is in the end going to rule out whatever is non-true. But if this implies that there is no freedom or religion or room for question and debate and belief, then no, I don't konw of any Christians who teach that.
"Do Christians think that criticism from non-believers cannot be sound, since only those who have had the experience of the Holy Spirit have a real open-eyed understanding of the Bible?"
Some would say that. To be more accurate the Christian would say that if God is going to be known, that God has to reveal Godself. So the truest theology will be Spirit-led. But that does not rule out learning something from our fellow creatures, and it certainly does not rule out seeing our own blind-spots by hearing how we've come across to others. Such listening would indeed be very Christ-like, if we did it.
"Only the atheist person wants to learn and understand what they reject..."
Come on. You really think that?
Alright. Sorry to be so polemical. Again, I just can't stand the box that religions get thrown in so that they can then be rejected. To me it is this "boxing" and "tossing" that is dangerous, at least if people hope to continue to speak to and understand each other.
Are the claims from other religions taken as seriously as the claims from within the particular religion? No, of course they are not- that would be a religious suicide. How is this the case? Because the defensive argument to protect the legitimacy of Revelation is intended to only be used for those already within a particular faith; but if you honestly feel it makes you taking Revelation seriously legitimate, then you MUST concede that it legitimizes other religion's Revelation as well!
I think the major distinction in-between the religious and non-religious approach to understanding is based on ignorance. For the religious, it is a dependence upon isolation, whereas the non-religious it is a dependence upon exploration.
How often do Christians learn about other religions? And when they do, do they learn it from the religion itself or from Christian interpretations? If God is important, why do they only focus upon their own communities stories about God? Why do they have concept like Canonization of Scripture, words like heathen, and infidel? Why do religious people say there are different Holy Books at all, why not just keep exploring various stories about God?
It’s because their arguments to legitimize their view of the Christian Bible is not supposed to work in other religions! It is only a defensive tactic, not an actual view; or if it is then it is conveniently held towards radifying only their own particular faith.
What is hilarious is that EVERY RELIGION uses the SAME philosophy! And they are always the first ones to say something like ‘one of them is right and the others are wrong.’
On this topic Jon wrote:
“It is a legitimate attempt, if that is indeed what they attempt, but whether they are believable as such is another discussion. I'm surprised that people committed to the usefulness of reason would not wish for such a discussion to happen, especially if the possibility of divine revelation is not dismissed as a presupposition.”
Take it both ways: Let us say that Revelation is NOT a presupposition, but a valid way to appeal to Divine Recorded Knowledge. Fine, so will it apply to every claim to Revelation? No, for added notions will be given or taken away until it only applies to one particular Holy Book; and that one will be the one which holds vested interest of those doing the philosophical work.
Suppose it IS a presupposition and unwarranted; how will the religious person respond? With something like: well, we are not trying to ‘prove’ God anyway, religion is something which should not be proved.
Concerning miracles, it is not so much if you really think that miracles occur in other religions as it is that you realize from your religious worldview stance, their claim to miracles, Holy Books and a rich Tradition is on the same level as all other religion's and their particular claims.
The claim to Christian miracles (resurrection, divine birth etc) starts from the same place as EVERY other religious story concerning miracles. The same is true for Holy Books.
The Christian will argue and talk about how it is not their ideas which are on trial, but the Bibles; it is not their personal faith but what they have learned from the Bible. Do you realize that to the same legitimacy you want to draw from an argument from Revelation is EXACLTY the same standing as EVERY other religion which purports to have their own Holy Book?
If a Christian is consistent in how they argue for the vivacity of their Holy Book, why would they stop at only reading their own? Many Holy Books in our world meet the same requirements for the Bible, and yet they are not considered the same standing, why? Because it is not a stance on Holy Books so much as a defensive stance against the attack on their Holy Book.
How can one reject ALL other Holy Books but hold onto their own? Very intentionally. Or put it another way: is all Revelation inspired by the one true God? No. Okay, then how do you figure out which is which, surely by looking, reading and exploring every possibility as an equal candidate? You do not read the Hindu Vedas as divine scripture, you do not read the Quran as a possible alternative, possible commentary of your own religious text do you? No, you draw very thick and very dark lines all around your religion, and spend most of your time debating what belongs in and what belongs out; instead of just exploring possibilities, you argue validation to your intentional act of ignoring them.
All of the defensive stances of religion lie on this stance of ignorance. Religious people spend so much time looking inward, and isolating themselves from other religions and non-believers; this is how the world or statements can sound and seem ‘amazing,’ they are not amazing or surprising- they are obvious.
This problem cannot be avoided and its only solution is ignorance. If the Bible is a legitimate source for Divine Knowledge, then other Holy Books would qualify. But they don’t qualify, they don’t qualify consistently through most religions, why is that?
It’s because at the heart of Religion, lies a dependence upon ignorance and a desire for isolation.
Just look at what happens in Heaven, in religious eschatological stories: the bad people (everyone who didn’t agree) are sent away and the good people are left alone, isolated from further attack.
What could be more beneficial and convenient?
Finally Jon said:
“i am not an atheist about other religions, i think we are all after the same God. But if their can be no discussion of which conception of God is true, or not true, then we're only pretending to have a reasoned discussion, and are only serving our a priori presumption, which in this case is that there can be no god (since god can't be proven) and so the only discussion worth having is whether religion serves the good of the world (as conceived according to that guiding presupposition).”
I am not the one keeping back from having that discussion, you are. What do you study? Do you study as carefully as you study the New Testament, the book of the Quran? Do you study the arguments which prove that the universe has no beginning and no end given by the Hindu Vedas? Do you spend the same amount of time finding miracles from Daoism which prove that there is a real significant power behind that religion, proves its legitimacy in the same way you look deeply into the stories of Jesus, the history of the Church and the studies which show prayer works?
I do not believe you when you say you are after a real discussion about God and I do not believe you study Theology- for how can it be rightfully considered ‘the study of god’ if you only utilize and intentionally shield yourself from other religious texts?
If you firmly believe that there is a legitimate and rational defence of revelation, how can you also then explain how and why you do not study ALL revelation as closely as you study your religions Bible?
I think you don't because it benefits your religious position; that and it is conveinent to not wrestle with other religions as REAL alternatives.
Although I myself (and I know others share similar views) try to be very accepting towards other denominations, and try to understand other faiths and the truth they contain, I will admit that I probably do not consider them to be on the same truth plain as my own beliefs. Also, I know from experience that Christians with views like Jon and I are definitely not the norm.
However, it is one of my goals in life to challenge other Christians to consider tough issues like the ones Joel brought up. In my experience it is possible to convince many Christians to reconsider their views if you take the time to talk it out respectfully with them.
Now, Jon mentioned getting back on track to the main issue and that is what I would like to do.
To recap:
The question: Do religions, and specifically Christianity, do more good than harm and therefore warrant a respected place in society?
This topic of the "sins of the fathers" is intended to address the common intellectual stop that many non-Christians have when discussing Christianity. That is, that because of the horrific acts of the past, Christianity should be discredited.
My argument has been stated and Joel's response could perhaps be summed up to say that although the old violences may no-longer take place, religion still teaches an "us vs. them ideology" and therefore still poses as much of a threat to society as it once did.
Jon may disagree, but I am incline to concede a certain degree of this "us vs. them" that Joel described in his "14 Do's," but I would argue that this mentality exists in all people groups.
I believe Joel agrees but states that,
"Only the atheist person wants to learn and understand what they reject, they depend upon learning and understanding to allow them to show why they do not believe other religions are correct in their ontological and other ‘ological’ prescriptions."
I would disagree, only atheists who care about arguing with religious people care to learn anything about those religions. Just as some Christians or members of other faiths who are interested in discussion do also. However, although they may study, it is rare that they develop understanding. When we are convinced of our own view before we start researching something contrary it is very difficult to actually understand it. I would say this is true for most people no matter their beliefs.
Thus, I would state that Christianity poses just as much of a "us vs. them" threat as any other people group and since we have (hopefully) learned from our mistakes, then this bludgeoned horse could perhaps be left in peace.
scathing but misleading and unsophisticated. joel, you know the underbelly of christianity, and have seen religions at their worst. but there are too many MUSTs and EVERYs and SAMEs in there to really enable anyone to undergo a reasonable discussion.
the christian view of revelation has more realism and credibility than others, and so there is a point where investigating the others does not hold the same promise. this is the use of reason in interpreting revelation which I would think might have a label opposite to the one of "ignorant". but i think you are just name calling. there is no substantiation for labelling all religious people "ignorant" and leaving the atheist untouched.
for all the evils and ignorance in the world there is no reason to believe that religion is the cause (as separable from atheism), or that atheism (better called antitheism as far as i've encountered it here) is the hope of the world.
no, we have a common problem. God or no god, the question is where one finds the impetus to overcome.
WOW JON! I didn't know that we were conversing with the almighty HIMSELF!
"the christian view of revelation has more realism and credibility than others"
Since you know all and cannot tell a lie, we must certainly just take your word for it... shouldn't we?
I'm looking back over previous discussions on Joel's site, trying hard to find a single instance when you actually admit you are wrong, or concede a point, without qualifying it by saying something like, "I did this, true, but we ALL do this," or "It isn't really my error... it is some inherent flaw in the system," or some other line of crap which takes any responsibility off of you.
I wonder if you can ever be wrong. I think I shall start my very own religion, called ASS-ism, which will declare you to be lord and savior of all. Whatever you say shall be correct, and anything you think which is wrong... we shall destroy any evidence of that, or discredit those who attack you.
If you aren't willing to ever admit being wrong, Jon, and all you ever post is an emotional "I cannot believe you said that" rebuttal to legitimate arguments, I question why you are even posting here. The rest of us are actually seeking truth, and willing to admit mistakes. I think your dogged refusal to admit anything which is contrary to your position is exactly the sort of thing which leads to religious wars. Thanks for being an example.
----------------
Donkey,
"Only atheists who care about arguing with religious people care to learn anything about those religions."
-I know quite a few religious studies people at my university who would disagree, though I think I see your point. It is hard not to see people examining religions from the outside as picking them apart, but that is generally the method we use for everything, to examine it further.
The trouble with Christianity is that when picked apart, there appears a rift between christian and non, where the christian sees strings of "faith" holding parts together, and the non refuse to allow for that as a truth.
"I would state that Christianity poses just as much of a "us vs. them" threat as any other people group and since we have (hopefully) learned from our mistakes, then this bludgeoned horse could perhaps be left in peace."
There is a problem with your logic here:
-----------------
Premise: Christianity poses an 'us versus them' mentality.
Premise: All people groups pose an 'us versus them' mentality.
Premise: 'Us versus them' mentalities are dangerous.
Premise: Christianity has learned from its mistakes based on said mentality.
Implied Premise: Christianity will not commit wrongs based on said mentality again.
Conclusion: Because Christianity has learned from its past mistakes, it should not be discredited for past wrongs based on a mentality which it still has.
Implied Conclusion: Christinity has learned from past mistakes based on a mentality it still holds, and thus shall not commit wrongs based on them again.
OR
Implied Conclusion: A mentality which is still held today within Christianity shall not lead to similar problems as it did in the past, because Christians have learned.
-----------------------
Of course, you can disagree with the breakdown, but if you do please write it out this way to clarify.
First, you claim all people groups have this mentality. I disagree, citing communism and hippies, who by their nature want everyone to basically "just get along." As well, political correctness and inclusionism tries for the same thing (although I don't stand on those groups).
Second, you claim Christianity has learned from the mistakes. I disagree. They would have said the same thing during colonial America, when the Salem Witch Trials were full swing. Yes, extreme axample, but when claiming a broad stroke like that, you are open to any counter. Modern example... let's use Bush Jr. and his religious crusade. (I use this because he always claimed God was telling him he was doing the right thing, and his christian advisers backed him up.)
Third, your implied premise is flawed, because one cannot guarantee that a problem will not recur if the source is not removed.
Finally, either of the implied conclusions are flawed based on the same reason as above.
HOWEVER,
I agree with your regular conclusion. Just because there is a torrid past within Christianity, it does not guarantee there will be a torrid future. I believe that every religion has a torrid past, and science does as well. For example, a man was killed by a mob over claiming that the root of 2 was an irrational number. This now proven statement went against a fundamental tenet of Pythagorian mathematics. (Yes, arguably it was a religious group based on Pythagoras who killed the man, but I believe the argument stands, and there are more examples.)
So, I agree that we should not hold past indescretions as a huge argument against Christianity, but I also believe that Joel's caution against it happening again is valid as a critique.
Sorry I got really emotional in that last post; I am not going to even comment on what Leif wrote.
Okay, so it seems that it is hard for me to describe what I think and mean without sounding overtly pejorative or intentionally over-critical. I keep using words like, immature and ignorant and perhaps they have too much of a ‘name calling’ connotation. I am honestly not trying to ‘dis’ religion enough to scare people away from it, I really think I have a good point here.
Let me try to say what I mean in an entirely different way, than the way I have been so far speaking.
What I think is wrong with the Religious cultural view of all existence (their entire ontology) is that it cannot leave open a way for them to see other possibilities as really possible.
The religious perspective makes the greater context difficult to imagine when trying to imagine a possible existence outside of the one they hold too.
In other words, perhaps it is more difficult for a religious person to see things in non-religious shoes than vice versa, because it might be harder to take away God existence (as an influencing factor) than it is to imagine it as added. The idea of God is big and quite encompassing, perhaps to the point of marring a possibility of Epoche?
Take what it means to be in a particular culture (like Canadian). It is hard to imagine what the French think of Canadians, but it is not a necessary aspect to being Canadian that they believe it non-possible to see the world as French would see it. I think something special is going on in the religious vs. non-religious comparison.
The non-religious comparison does not prescribe anything special to the world; it is mostly taken as seen by the phenomena in which one encounters. What I mean is, that, when a non-religious person considers the mind of the religious person, they think about the same phenomena; only they think that the religious person is defining and interpreting the SAME stuff in a new way. This is why the comparison seems unfair from the religious perspective, they tend to feel like the atheist is downplaying all sorts of reality as being ‘superstitious’ or ‘mass hysteria.’
However, from the religious perspective, they add a new element, which they fundamentally believe is missing from the non-religious perspective: encounter with God. Thus at the ontological level, the religious person will have no real choice but to see all non-religious people as starting with ‘missing pieces’ or so to speak. I understand how this can inform their position; for I would be equally influenced by a situation where I honestly felt that I had MORE information which my opponent was MISSING, I would find it hard to convey this idea to them, that they are simply coming to their conclusions because they are NOT working with ALL the pieces! I see all this and understand how that changes the conversation.
However, I think here lays the real problem for the religious person. The religious person cannot help but always see the world through their lens, through the panel of a real dynamic God existing and acting in the world. They cannot help but only ‘pretend’ to see it has a religious person does, and they see that view as deficient (only in the technical usage here, not pejorative).
Might you see how this could actually be a problem for the religious imagination? How, by the set up of contrast in-between the religious and the non-religious be always based on the foundation of a missing and vital aspect: the God experience?
Without the real ability to understand the true perspective of the non-religious, might you see how near impossible it might be to really understand how the atheist sees existence?
What I mean is, simply: might the real difference and problem caused be here, that the religious person might, by definition, be incapable of imagining the world without God, whereas the non-religious person can imagine what it looks like to have a God.
That might sound unfair to the religious person, as it seems I am appealing to a deficiency of their group and not of my own. Just think about what I am saying here, not as an attack but just as a real possibility. The non-religious person does not add anything to reality by their world view, they simply rule out or demystify aspects of it which others might run with: such as miracles, and other paranormal events. The occurrences of these events still take place as phenomena; only the non-religious person thinks them nothing more than just an occurrence of events.
But the religious person holds that these events, are symptoms of a much greater thing. They believe that they point to and ‘semi-suggest’ the existence of something which is not to be ‘proved’ or held as true as a fact. Think of the Christian view of faith here. There is something MORE going on here, they say. And once you are REALLY entertaining such a notion, can it be so easily dis-imagined?
Perhaps it is easier to NOT have imagined something in the first place, over having to re-limit yourself AFTER already experiencing something as powerful as God, in order to really understand the non-religious perspective.
I know how this might sound like a clever plan to show a superiority in non-religious thinking, but I am only trying to really explain what I mean when I claim the religious person as being ignorant and or using ideas conveniently. I respect your disagreement.
But the question I ask is this: if the religious person is thinking of a world WITH God as a real aspect of it; is it easier for the religious person to take away that aspect in order to see and clearly understand what the atheist says or means, or is it easier for the atheist to add the notion of God in trying to understand the religious?
This question based solely upon the idea of: is it harder to imagine a contrary worldview which adds a key element or which has a key element missing?
I honestly ask this question, what do you all think?
This might have really informative conclusions for this debate, because it might be the crux of what is so hard about having this discussion.
I am posting tomorrow. Don't move on too quickly now...I need to think!
I really enjoyed reading this thread - So much so, actually, that I re-read it three times. I am proud to be dialoguing with such minds.
That being said, I am not impressed with the defense of christian theism. Something that is bothering me is the attempt equate Nazi-evil with Crusade-power-mongering. My problem does not lie in the idea that these are both evil, but rather than Hitler, along with many other Nazi's referenced the works of Martin Luther to justify their Jew-tortures. Martin Luther! That's right...he wrote about burning Synagogues. Lets not pretend that Nazi Germany was based in Atheism. It was based in a lot of things...just like the Crusades. The Crusades were not based in Theism. They were based in politics, along with much more.
--This really doesn't touch on what is being discussed throughout this thread, but I think it is a valid point nonetheless.
I completely agree that a torrid past does not necessitate a horrid future. However, if the torrid past was rooted in a fundamental philosophical ideology which in turn produced some horrible events, why then should one expect a modern structure, holding to the same foundational ideologies, to somehow walk around the natural outcome(s) of such? Especially if such ideologies have been set in place by God himself. Or are ideologies being based off of man's thoughts? I am confused about this. Or wait, maybe they are in place by God, but misinterpreted by the tainted human-fall-mind.
Ok, concerning Donkey's reorientation-type-question: "The question: Do religions, and specifically Christianity, do more good than harm and therefore warrant a respected place in society?"
To put it simply, I believe that Christianity should be respected, and hold a place of such in society. On the other hand, I think the good deeds and teachings should be respected. This does not mean that the whole belief structure should be automatically respected as well. I do not respect some theology. I do respect other beliefs within the system. I hope this makes sense.
After disagreeing with Joel's comments about atheistic learning, Donkey wrote: "However, although they may study, it is rare that they develop understanding. When we are convinced of our own view before we start researching something contrary it is very difficult to actually understand it. I would say this is true for most people no matter their beliefs."
I agree here with both Donkey and Joel. I think that Donkey is correct in saying that atheists who are interested in religion are the ones who are going to look deeply into all of the religious beliefs, or some, or most (whichever). I agree with Joel when he states that atheists are willing to look at all structures in the same light.
I disagree with Donkey on one point though. When it comes to learning about a contrary belief, it is not very difficult to look at it with depth, and understand it, even though you do not agree. I just wrote a thesis on Open Theism. I don't believe in open theism, nor did I when I began the study. However, I took the time and made the effort to read the literature, both for and against, and then came to my conclusions. What I am stating here is this:
If one wills to, one will.
And finally, regarding Joel's final question:
I have a relationship with Joel. We have chatted, and drank. For me to live my life today with the actual possibility that he does not exist...this would be mind-shatteringly-difficult.
I have never met Joel. I have seen a picture or two. I know he doesn't mind whisky. I know he is an academic. I know all of these things because someone has told me. For me to live my life today with the actual possibility that Joel does indeed exist as I have been told...this would be fairly simple.
Why is there such a difference?
Because one relationship is rooted in an experience-choice. The other is a purely hypothetical relationship.
Whether Joel exists or not, when I don't know him in the first place, it doesn't matter to me either way. Because I have not experienced him, I have proved to myself that I am fully capable of living without him today (even if it may be much better in my mind to have him nearby).
After experiencing Joel, It is then that one would have the ability to gauge what is being missed if he were to be taken out of the equation.
It is much easier, in my opinion, to imagine a contrary world view which adds a key element, rather than taking it away.
quentuch
allousp
Leif:
"First, you claim all people groups have this mentality. I disagree, citing communism and hippies, who by their nature want everyone to basically "just get along." As well, political correctness and inclusionism tries for the same thing (although I don't stand on those groups)."
Communists and hippies both hold us vs. them mentalities: communist vs. religion, communists vs. capitalists, communists vs. non-communists, hippies vs. gov't, hippies vs. the man, hippies vs. people who fight wars.
Political correctness fights against the tide of human nature (perhaps this can someday change but for now it remains the same). Humans will e mediately recognize differences among themselves and group accordingly. We never sate that we think we are better than cultists or homeless people, or alcoholics, but we know we are different from them. I was attempting to prove that an us vs. them mentality exists in all people, not just Christians.
Therefore, my logic goes thus:
Premise: Christianity poses an 'us versus them' mentality.
Premise: All people groups pose an 'us versus them' mentality.
Premise: 'Us versus them' mentalities CAN BE dangerous.
Premise: Christianity has HOPEFULLY learned from its mistakes based on said mentality.
Implied Premise: Christianity will HOPEFULLY not commit wrongs based on said mentality again.
Conclusion: Because Christianity has learned from its past mistakes, it should not be discredited for past wrongs based on a mentality which it still has BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO LEAD TO SUCH ACTIONS.
It is possible that our us vs. them mentality could lead to more violence, but the same could be said of Americans, or white people, or whomever. But we should not be singled out as some groups especially inclined towards these acts.
However, I do believe it is important that these events be talked about so that nothing like that ever happens again.
Joel:
"it cannot leave open a way for them to see other possibilities as really possible.
The religious perspective makes the greater context difficult to imagine when trying to imagine a possible existence outside of the one they hold too."
I see what you are saying and have felt the same. Sometimes when I try to challenge the views of a Christian who is very hard-core and not used to thinking difficult questions through I see them hit that stop where they refuse to imagine things any other way than how they "are."
I believe I am different than this, I believe I try very hard to challenge my views and to seek truth. However, my experiences have lead me to the disposition where I believe in the existence of God and it is hard to see things another way because in my mind they have already been proven.
Now please consider, I know this is where we most-often disagree, but I believe that atheists have a similar stop. they have had experiences that have lead them to conclude that god does not exist and it is very hard for them to consider otherwise.
Now, wait, I see what you are saying that scientists are concerned with truth in all of its forms and are more interested in being proven wrong than a theist. However, I would contend that the issue of God is still such a difficult issue that even with mounting evidence many atheists would hold their ground until the bitter end.
But I would agree with you that if you could prove to an atheist that God is real he would likely agree with you more quickly than if you could prove to an theist that he is not. I do see this as a problem, and I hope to see that changed, but it will not happen as long as the scientific, and mores specifically atheistic, community learn to teach theists to think rather than to quickly conclude that they are ignorant or delusional. That is my challenge to all of you who are sick of Christians.
Thanks for the clarification Gordon. I think there is a good and valid point, provided that Christianity teaches people to be mindful of zealous actions leading to tragedy. I think that in many of our circles this is likely what happens, but there are many groups who do not seem to be doing this. If you haven't seen the movie "Jesus Camp" I suggest watching it. It is biased, but they do not put words in the mouths of the christians, and it is a good example of what I am talking about.
Donkey said:
“We never sate that we think we are better than cultists or homeless people, or alcoholics, but we know we are different from them. I was attempting to prove that an us vs. them mentality exists in all people, not just Christians.”
I agree the ‘us vs. them’ mentality exists outside of Christiainty, I think it is more of child from Modern Thinking than anything else, but there still is a key different in-between the religious and the non-religious.
If we do think we are better than alcoholics, we also think that such a thought is bigotry. We may think we are better than convicts but we think that such thoughts are not to be considered good or positive. When we call them into question, it usually we usually agree such thoughts are bad.
Can the same be said of the religious view of holiness?
Jon dodged the question before, but one of the most relational criticisms of religion and Christianity in particular is the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. It is such a problem that Christians themselves will identify it as an issue. I know the best Christian will want to find a way to describe holiness as excluding the pejorative connotations it might have, but I think at the heart of such a philosophical approach there lays a tendency towards valuing bigotry.
I also think this is where religious atrocities are made very possible; they simply do not believe they are killing people, but infidels. Perhaps a kind of religious propaganda, but one which does not attack ideas so much as something more encompassing: a particular worldview. Also, the religious tendency to isolate is also an extra danger: for these people will even turn on themselves when they are convinced you are not holy or ‘one of us’ anymore.
I agree that it does not have to lead to such actions; but as we see in communism, some philosophies are weakened by their susceptibility towards villainy, and I think Christianity and other theo-centric religions hold such a weakness and they hold it on a philosophical and intrinsic level.
My personal view is that such ideas were inherent and necessary for the times in which they were created; only now, something which was culturally acceptable back then has become made into a theological stance today. And it is one that runs head-long into our most developed post-modern values (which to be fair is a recent development).
Christians want to be like Jesus and that’s great, but do they want to be like him to the point that they wear only sandals?
I think that so long as Christianity holds a divine state for Jesus, it will be impossible for them to divide things Jesus said which were cultural vs. which they want to hold on to as Christian Theology. The same thing applies to the Bible itself; so long as religious people hold that they are not allowed to critique their own cultural artefact, they can stand behind bigoted views and say they are Theologically justified (of course I am going to site Homosexuality as a perfect example here).
What is sad, is that over time this bigotry becomes more and more clear and people walk away; just like Theologians are now walking away from thinking that Genesis is a literal story of human origins. Many faiths, including some Christian denominations see this as bigotry (the view of Homosexuality and others) and have begun to allow themselves to realize they are reasoning all along and such views ought not to be considered justified or protected under the banner of Theology (just like we no longer allow racist or other ideas of bigotry to stand protected under the banner of culture, or social norms).
Donkey said:
“But [Christians] should not be singled out as some groups especially inclined towards these acts.”
They should be singled out as a group who values the philosophy which purports such acts; the key point being a valuing here. Other groups do fall in the same way, but rarely will they consider such views as something to value and I am unsure if the quest for holiness is such a good thing.
The line in-between proper holiness and evil zeal is blurry methinks.
Donkey said:
“However, my experiences have lead me to the disposition where I believe in the existence of God and it is hard to see things another way because in my mind they have already been proven. Now please consider, I know this is where we most-often disagree, but I believe that atheists have a similar stop.”
I see your point and I am and want to continue to be as open-minded in this problem; I am actually more interested in WHAT is going on in-between religious and non-religions, than I am in trying to SOLVE what is going on (though I usually talk more about the latter than the former).
I think you summed it up when you said:
“But I would agree with you that if you could prove to an atheist that God is real he would likely agree with you more quickly than if you could prove to a theist that he is not.”
I am inclined to think so as well, but I really want to know why that is the case? I think it might have something to do with the additional element of ‘the God experience’ and perhaps have something to do with the religious idea of ‘faith.’
I know this is not my blog, but I would be really interested in talking further on this topic. I do agree that atheists can have a similar problem but I agree with Ben when he said:
“It is much easier, in my opinion, to imagine a contrary world view which adds a key element, rather than taking it away.”
I know I always used pejorative terms like ‘convenient’ and ‘ignorance’ in order to describe what I think is problematic with the religious perspective, approach and philosophy; but I think this ‘other’ description is saying the same thing minus the pejorative element.
Perhaps people are religious because once they have been convinced of ‘the God experience’ they then find it more difficult to suspend such an idea than it is for an atheist to imagine the same world with a God added on top. Atheists and religious people all have the SAME phenomena to work with; only religious people purport an extra element which is used to reinterpret it all in a different way.
You ought not to blame someone for not being able to suspend a particular aspect of their worldview; but you might get away with saying it’s an issue. And perhaps those who cannot do such an act of imagination ought not to consider themselves as reasonable as they do, I think that is exactly what has frustrated me all along in this journey:
Encountering someone who does not understand something and uses that misunderstanding as a good reason to continue not understanding!
As to who is who, and who is guilty of what- I think we have proved nothing, and that is for further debate!
I think we should be clear about christianity versus christian normalcy when we speak of the attitudes and actions towards other groups. Yes, one can claim that christianity purports a desire to help and "save" other groups out of pure love, etcetera. The trouble is that the majority of christians in the real world do not think in this way, and while they are happy to see people become christians, this can be from a feeling of triumph as much as anything else, and I think we have all been in situations wherein christians are sitting around making fun of opposing beliefs.
-No point to be made, just a pre-emptive point here. Simply arguing that "real christianity is all about love and saving others, etc., will not cut it, since that is not what actually gets lived out.
Joel said:
"They should be singled out as a group who values the philosophy which purports such acts; the key point being a valuing here. Other groups do fall in the same way, but rarely will they consider such views as something to value and I am unsure if the quest for holiness is such a good thing."
Christianity does not value a philosophy that purports violent acts. It purports that it holds truth and that this truth is so good for people that those who know it should be compelled to share it. This, unfortunately, has been perverted in as many ways as it is possible to do so. That does not mean that the entire ideology should be discredited.
It simply shows that people can twist any set of values to serve their own ends. THAT is why I drew a connection to Nazi-ism, not because I wanted to equate atheists with Nazi-evil.
Congratulations, you all know stupid or bigoted Christians who make the whole thing look like a waste of space. If you're all done parading that fact about, can we get back to the fact that there are just as many Christians who love others and only want to share what they believe to be a wonderful gift with the people they know. Yes, we can find faulty motivations, but are you all innocent of such things?
The point of this topic is a bit lost, I fear, as we all seem to have our own private crusades to wage. However, let me try in again in vain to re-direct.
There are historical crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity.
These crimes were done with an us vs them mentality in mind.
Such a mentality still exists in Christianity (because it contains people and people harbor this mentality) and so Christians are liable to either act out violently once again, or to learn and deal with this feeling in more suitable culturally-relevant ways.
I would say that they are more likely to do the latter, but if any of you say the former please say, "aye."
As for Joel's statement that: (hurried attempt at paraphrase) this mentality exists with a greater concentration within Christianity than anywhere else and therefore they pose a big nasty threat to the rest of us and are thus very bad....
if you are correct, then I think if anything it shows that we, on average, show an increadible amount of self-control since we rarely haven't acted out on these feeling in such a long time (lunatics, fanatics, and George W excluded of course).
HAVE! rarely HAVE acted out on these feelings!
damn Freudian slips.
i think the reason we are finding this discussion so compelling and whatnot, is precisely because we are not innocent. We have acted out with false motivation.
When looking back on the things I said, zealously claimed, and named in the name of God, I realize that I was caught in something bigger than good Christian love.
Is this not the very reason we are saying that Christianity, at a core level can be good...but in the end (or at the beginning) is ideologically tainted?
I am curious as to what you propose the More-Culturally-Relevant-Apologetic should be...
Enlighten us?
eanlex
I am talking about the Christian view of holiness. Every people group has some kind of distinction they apply to the world (as the most common kind of 'us vs. them') but Christianity has an extra value of holiness.
To state it pejoratively but for the sake of clarity I am asking:
Is the Christian value of holiness not simply a really nice way to be a bigot?
It is a direct and intentional attempt to be 'better' than other people, so they will know you are 'better' and want to be 'better' like you.
What I think is overlooked in such an attempt is the actual undervaluing which takes place in the pursuit of 'holiness.'
I am not saying Christianity holds a philosophy which purports violence, but that there is a value and intentional undervaluing of 'others' as an application of their 'us vs. them' approach to living 'holy.'
The BAD part of this all is that they honestly think it is a good thing to think upon other people in this way; whereas when non-religious people are found to be acting as bigots, they usually believe they ARE acting wrongly, only they feel justified to be acting so (from revenge or something like that).
What I find so worrying about religion is that their dangerous ideas are not seen as being dangerous at all; in fact they think it the best thing ever to want to be holy, they think they are living in a better way entirely.
This might be the foundation to how the religious person can hold such views against Homosexuality and say things like 'it's not my opinion its Gods.'
wow. lots has been said. too much to keep up, it seems. however, leaving aside leif's attempts to goad me into the religious wars of ASS-sim, i want to try to weigh in on a few of the main things being discussed. first i'll mention that i agree with a lot that donkey has been saying, and i want to be mindful of his efforts to keep us on topic. i also appreciate joel's re-attempt to say what he's saying minus some of the stuff that can be taken pejoratively.
is it harder for a theist to imagine a god-less-view than for an atheist to imagine a god-based-view?
i'm not sure. i certainly think that theist's face some problems in this regard. "open-mindedness" is not generally thought of as a religious value, especially not amongst fundamentalists and conservatives of any religious stripe. in fact, such a thing is often pressured against. even if there is no pressure from the outside, if the theist takes comfort or finds crucial identity in this god-based-view, then there will be an inner turmoil of fear, guilt, or any number of things which can prevent "thinking outside the box" or pervert objective thought. in this i think joel is right and has a good critique of religious folk in general.
it is hard for a person who feels he or she has encountered God to imagine a non-theistic view. (and unfortunately for leif, now that he has met "the almighty HIMSELF", it will be next to impossible for him to imagine life without me!)
so i think joel's question is a good one, and exposes some problems. however, i have a few questions to ask in return. (i'll number them just for convenience sake)
1) does one need to be able to "imagine" something in order to be able to consider it rationally, as a theory? certainly one must be willing to consider the possibility, but i'm not sure one has to entirely step out of oneself to do so.
2) is it indeed harder to imagine god-lessness after one has accepted the notion of god than to imagine a god-based perspective before accepting it?
a) can the theist person not remember their pre-god state?
b) is it presumed that a theist is always in the state of mind that makes god believable? in other words, what role does doubt play in the life of a theist? (speaking personally, i know that in my more difficult periods of life it seems like everything is up for grabs. the faith has made what felt like new appeals to me, from scratch, on a great many occasions. of course, i am probably more open to accepting theism because of previous buy-in, but i'm also pretty intimately aware of its difficulties at that moment, and perhaps more ready at that moment to "imagine" non-theism than an atheist is to "imagine" theism. i don't know. still thinking about this one)
c) is it not possible just to think through a theory other than the one a person holds without first accepting that theory?
d) is it not acceptable (and universally common) to live by one's "default" theory until and only until it is proven wrong or replaced by one better? i don't want to equate faith with a theory, but for the present discussion i think the question is valid.
e) is it even possible to imagine god at all without an encounter with God? in other words, isn't it somewhat presumptuous to claim that this side of the equation is easier? isn't God by definition that being who stands above humanity and, if God is to be known, has to reveal Godself? can a human propose to imagine God at all without first having an encounter with God (or a notion(s) of God)?
f) to take it further, is it possible for an atheist, or anyone for that matter, to think objectively about that notion of God without also being affected by whatever encounters they've had with i) the notions of god already encountered from other theists (for better or worse)? or ii) the presuppositions of god as presented by anti-theists?
f) to take it even further, then, is it not incredibly difficult for the atheist to give theism a fair shot IF the predominant (or formative) theism that one has been exposed to has been mainly negative or weak (either in action or in articulation)?
honestly now (and i too am asking, not trying to be a jerk): how possible or easy is it for you atheists to openly consider or imagine a theism apart from the awful manifestations of theism that you have been exposed to, hurt by, offended by, or turned off by either in recent or in bygone years? it seems to me from the nature of our conversations that has been a huge factor.
i am not saying this is impossible for the atheist, but neither do i think it is impossible for the theist. in fact i'm not even sure which is harder. however, given questions e and f above i do think it arguable that joel's question could be reversed.
in the end i think we are left where we started, and are back to the point that donkey has made often and well: that whatever problem we are discussing is inherent to all humanity, and not religions alone.
certainly, religion has some inherent temptations: including a defensive posture, violent manifestations of passion, holier-than-thou attitudes, and so on. however, i think it is also possible for an atheist to fall into these temptations (either as part of political commitments, or precisely out of passion for their own worldview). some of the most bigoted comments i've seen on television have come from Bill Maher. i think atheists and theists alike can do this.
the question for me, then, becomes one of discerning whether the religion or world view has standards that can be called on to keep such things in check, and which can correct wayward impulses. i think Christianity has this. does atheism? (i'm asking)
even more importantly the question for me is: What is the ideal that the faith or worldview prescribes? Are the bad examples of Christianity (Islam, Judaism, atheism, etc...) places where it is being its truest self or are they places where it is falling short of itself? To figure this out means giving the faith or world view a fair shake (as some but not all Americans have tried to do for Islam post 9/11).
furthermore, does the world view have its own tools for self-assessment? does it historically AND philosophically prove able to reform itself, not by morphing into some new religion, but by returning to the anchored trajectory of its base teachings? i think Christianity has this.
thus i frequently agree with the critiques of christianity here, and yet continue to find it possible (and more compelling) to seek reform from within the faith rather than without. though atheists frequently ask good questions, the answers for me lie in working for a better and truer Christianity (not because i am better-than-thou, but because Christ perpetually stands up to scrutiny and even rebukes me in return).
part of the thing here for me is that, yes, i am not going to be quick to drop my "default" theory (faith), especially when it is the one i've grown up in and especially when i do feel i have had repeated encounters with this God in one form or another. however, these fade. reason and honesty are encouraged in my faith and are possible. and i don't think my faith precludes me from being able to hear someone out, at least not any more than the atheist's notions of god preclude consideration of other notions.
so, to sum up: i think we are all prone to think from within our own preconceptions. the question to me is whether we can see and admit them or whether they remain blind-spots which prop up our own imagined neutrality?
christians may have a tendency to be holier-than-thou, but their God rebukes them for it. who reigns in the atheist's temptation to believe himself more neutral-than-thou?
those are the questions and comments i have, provocative as i'm sure they are. forgive me if i do come off as arrogant. i am trying to speak of ideals here, but am not purporting to live up to them.
i thought joel's point was very lucid and i appreciated the candor. sorry to the guys guiding this website if this went way off topic, again.
Jon said,
"Even more importantly the question for me is: What is the ideal that the faith or worldview prescribes? Are the bad examples of Christianity (Islam, Judaism, atheism, etc...) places where it is being its truest self or are they places where it is falling short of itself? To figure this out means giving the faith or world view a fair shake (as some but not all Americans have tried to do for Islam post 9/11)."
I believe that the most sensible way to examine a religion is to see what it claims (as mentioned above), but also to see how it is actually lived out. We cannot be expected to actually live out each religion in order to examine it, so we should see what the religion teaches and what its proponents actually are doing. Because, therefore, we have all lived a christian life at some point, we know already what christianity teaches. What we need to examine here is what is/has been done in the name of christianity, or using christian arguments. The original examining question for this line of critique (as outlined in the first topic post) is to debate whether christianity does more harm than good. So, Gordon is suggesting that we no longer cite the past transgressions, because (arguably) christianity has learned (or is learning), and is now doing more good than it once did harm. Right now, in light of what has been discussed, I would submit that christianity is presently doing more good than harm.
- Caring for poor and homeless.
- Rehabilitation programs (from AA all the way to places like the Mustard Seed in Calgary).
- Mission "programs" like Christian Children's Fund, etc.
- Hope (Delusional or not, Christianity provides hope for millions of people, and I submit that hope is a good thing.)
I'd rather another voice argue the bad things which Christianity is doing presently (I believe there are some, but it is simpler to stay on one side), and of course I likely have not represented what everyone believes are the good things of Christianity.
Secondly, Jon said,
"part of the thing here for me is that, yes, i am not going to be quick to drop my "default" theory (faith), especially when it is the one i've grown up in and especially when i do feel i have had repeated encounters with this God in one form or another. however, these fade. reason and honesty are encouraged in my faith and are possible. and i don't think my faith precludes me from being able to hear someone out, at least not any more than the atheist's notions of god preclude consideration of other notions."
Good point. We can argue that atheism is split into hard and soft, and those of us on this site are open to the possibility of god, but the other side of the coin is true as well. If we force christianity to carry its baggage with it, atheism must as well.
That being said, using the excuse of "christianity has this bad thing, but so, too does atheism" can only hold weight if there are other defenses. If Joel and I each shot and killed someone, we couldn't claim defense by saying that the other did the same thing. I hope that makes sense.
*Yes, I actually agreed with Jon on something. Apparently this is why it is so cold lately - hell has indeed frozen over.*
Concerning some things that Jon wrote:
I am going to specifically write about the conveniently numbered points.
Imagining, in my opinion, does not necessitate an act of "stepping out of oneself." It is more likely than not impossible for one to even do such a thing.
2a) Yes.
2b) ?
2c) Yes. Was anyone claiming that a theory must be completely accepted during the "imagination-stage"?
2d) Again, yes. The "default theory" is lived out until chosen against. Is it possible to do otherwise? Probably not.
2e) Is it possible to image God without first encountering him? Yes. Look at most of the concepts of God accepted today. Most of the concepts are based on the negation of reality. God being outside of time is one example - as I have stated in other entries I am sure - for it is purely imaginative. It is not based on the Bible, or revelation (that I am aware of). It is based in imagination. Could one imagine that God is actually a little boy with 4 arms, before first encountering this God? Yes. Please disagree with me if you have a good case against this reasoning.
2f) I am not aware that anyone has stated anything about pure-objectivity. I don't know if pure-objectivity exists. We are "tainted" or "biased" according to past experiences and encounters with ideas and people.
To take it further, and to flip what you have written, is this not the precise reason why you are not any other faith? Correct me if I am wrong, but is not your understanding of other religions and belief systems tainted by your theism? Nothing will ever be as good as the pie-in-the-sky theism You (not just Jon) are choosing to hold to. You have no reason to seriously consider other positions because you have the truth already. The atheistic perspective, as Joel has been trying to point out (I think), allows one to look at all equally...because the atheist is willing to look for the truth in whatever they are looking at. There is no absolute rightness holding the mind back from seeing other life-views as beneficial, etc.
I am more than willing to look for, or imagine a theism, that is good. Yes, I have some experiences that inform me that a perfect theism does not exist. However, this doesn't mean that I am not capable of imaging one. The problem lies in lining up an existing form of theism with my imaginary one. The problem also lies in the fact that my idea of god may not be him at all - if he exists. At least I am willing to say that, whereas the theist will claim to know this god - even if it is just a god of their imagination.
Question: These check-points within Christianity that you appeal to have no check points of their own. You have a standard in front of you that guides you in your discernment-process. Where did this standard come from? And how do you know that it is actually directing you away from wayward impulses?
Reformation within a belief system says nothing to me about pure-self-assessment.
Yes, Martin Luther Reformed the church from the Catholic paradigm. Was that a self-assessment, or a Catholic Assessment. It was probably some of both. However, this reformation still allowed shit to get in the water. Obviously the self-assessment thing only goes so far. This is exactly why there are 15, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 Christian denominations, let alone religions. How many times can one reform a belief system? As many as are necessary to refute the idea of self-assessment...obviously.
This is too bad. But this why I am not a part of it anymore. I think that the atheistic stance allows for a "more-pure" assessment paradigm. One that isn't based in books or people, necessarily, but in experience, knowledge, reasoning, logical-procession, and above all a humility that holds hands with an unfretting-doubt.
Christ perpetually stands up to scrutiny? No, Christ perpetually changes in order to avoid scrutiny. Hence the million denominations, and personal-theisms of the world. This actually has nothing to do with Christ...but with the people claiming to actually know him.
"christians may have a tendency to be holier-than-thou, but their God rebukes them for it."
Does he? Maybe. But a lot of people sure like ignoring the rebuke. Interesting how God no longer rebukes by killing people. Now, he rebukes in such a way that the believer can listen...or not...depending on what is more lucrative. There is no concrete example of God actually rebuking anyone today. The only reason you can say that he rebukes is because i) you have heard a voice in your head, or a feeling in your heart telling you "thats bad" and ii) because people in your circles admit to being rebuked. I have seen this in public settings, where one says "I am a sinner, this is what I have done, God told me it is wrong, therefor I am now obedient. Clap for me."
Gordon, I felt the need to engage with these things.
Please direct us further into your discussion.
To all, forgive me if I am off track. I am trying to follow the best that I can. Please tell me, for example, if someone has indeed stated that pure-objectivity is the way to properly see another worldview.
-Benjamin
Postscriptum: I agree with Joels points on undervaluing, as well as Leif's point on hope (i think).
AND on final question, for Donkey:
If we are to look past the sins of the fathers, are we supposed to look past all past transgressions done in the name if a religion? Any transgression is a past transgression (unless we are going to be against some persons future transgression that has been brought to light some how), so, are we limited to being against the transgressions of living people?
AND WHERE is Matthew.
woryera
progo
Joel said:
"Is the Christian value of holiness not simply a really nice way to be a bigot?"
and also:
"The BAD part of this all is that they honestly think it is a good thing to think upon other people in this way; whereas when non-religious people are found to be acting as bigots, they usually believe they ARE acting wrongly, only they feel justified to be acting so (from revenge or something like that)."
I disagree. Religious people are not some strange zombified form of humanity as you often seem to think of them. They act as normal humans act. They have prejudices for whatever reason and they feel very justified in them. We all do, at least sub-consciously. I think, however, if a Christian person were to really live their faith, they would feel compelled to give up their bigotry and attempt to love all people "as Christ loved them."
Unfortunately, there is the issue of holiness. The feeling of justification because of their faith. Perhaps it is a problem with the faith system, or perhaps if they were not religious they would just develop other justification for their bigotry. I believe it is the latter.
Don't believe me? go to a small town in Saskatchewan and ask the farmers on coffee row how they feel about Natives.
We are all bigots. We all must choose whether to justify our bigotry through our faith or rational or whatever, or to attempt to forgive our prejudices and see people with innocent eyes... a very hard thing to do.
Ben said:
"I am curious as to what you propose the More-Culturally-Relevant-Apologetic should be...
Enlighten us?"
I was making a sarcastic reference to the "socially acceptable" ways that prejudices exists in western culture such as any that do not involve genocide.
As to your final question, I do believe that Christians need to take responsibility for their personal history and ask forgiveness, but I do not think that the dirt should be kicked in our faces as it so often is.
For example:
Germany - the Nazi fun that has been alluded to developed out of a strong national pride that needed repair after the first world-war. Now, the Germans must never forget what happened. They must learn from their mistakes. BUT should they not be offered a clean slate of sorts? Ooooh, but German national pride still exists today and could lead to similar events if we don't hold it over their heads.
If we do not give them the chance to use and perhaps abuse their freedom then are we any better than the bigots we so adamantly detest?
Can any of you claim an un-bigoted opinion of Christians if you will not let go of your more-rational-than-thou mentality and allow us the freedom to learn from or repeat our mistakes?
I agree with you when you state that we are all guilty of being bigoted in one area or another...
A Couple Questions:
1) " if a Christian person were to really live their faith, they would feel compelled to give up their bigotry and attempt to love all people "as Christ loved them."
How can a Christian give up bigotry if the bigotry lies in the very idea "as Christ Loved" etc.?
I think it is silly to say that Christ accepted everyone. I understand that it is often stated "He accepted the sinner but not their sin." Since when can one be disconnected from their actions? Just a side question i suppose. Even if I do concede that Christ accepted all people, he was not tolerant towards all people. Just writing my thoughts....haven't really thoughts about these things. I am interested replies...and i am a little excited to see if I get rebuked (for some reason I am being legitimate, not sarcastic).
2) "Can any of you claim an un-bigoted opinion of Christians if you will not let go of your more-rational-than-thou mentality and allow us the freedom to learn from or repeat our mistakes?"
How is the more-rational etc. mentality holding You back from being a Christian?
-Benjamin Flealliq
(I have decided to start using the word verifications as my last name.)
hey guys! I'm here. I just can't work up the mental energy to participate. Not yet, at least.
I've read through everyone's comments though.
I may jump in at some future point.
I love you guys.
i'm glad to see matthew is here.
i like the things donkey is saying and so i will avoid redundancy by addressing some other things.
i am also relishing these fleeting moments of hell's frozen state wherein leif and i enjoy a breif moments of peace. i will try not to say something to piss him off--but have probably wrecked that already.
i REALLY appreciated benjamin's post before. (#23, on the 9th at 7:16pm) and so this is the one i want to interact with at length. i feel like benjamin's questions are the ones that have plagued me as well. i want to address them from the perspective i've come to, but i hope it isn't taken as condescending answers from the know-it-all. i just want to say how i have come to see these things, and you will likely find something wrong with it, but i do find it reasonable and consistent with the faith i hold.
so here goes:
in response to my 2e benjamin said: "Is it possible to image God without first encountering him? Yes. Look at most of the concepts of God accepted today. Most of the concepts are based on the negation of reality. God being outside of time is one example - as I have stated in other entries I am sure - for it is purely imaginative."
This is such an important point. Unfortunately, however, this is where my argument for theism HAS to turn into an arguemnt for Christianity, and Christianity alone. Of course we can imagine what we expect a god would be. We can use negations (God would not be bound by time, space, or finitude of knowledge as we are, therefore he is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient). But how do we know god IS this? Why do we take these negations and call them god? Why not call ourselves god and leave it at that? (as many would)
Well, I do think these imagined god-concepts are based in our sense of the transcendent, and I do think they can speak of God with some degree of accuracy, potentially. But the point I want to make is that if there IS a God who IS any or all of these things, who IS transcendent to humanity---then can we really expect to know or ascertain that God using our finite imaginations, even our negations?
We may have some initial impressions of what god may be, but if God is a transcendent being, we could only know that God a) if that God revealed Godself, OR b) if that GOd had left a reliable imprint of Godself within us.
But what if the imprint is there but our ability to discern it is not reliable? Then we would need God not only to reveal Godself but to offer to redeem us from within. Obviously you see where I'm going with this.
I have no interest in defending other theisms apart from the reasonability of believing in a god, and in fact Joel was probably right earlier, in a very real sense I am an anti-theist (at least of the general variety). I believe and I think Jesus (as testified to in the Bible) is God. If he isn't, then my next choice is probably atheism; or perhaps expectant Judaism.
So, to address the point at hand: Yes we can imagine a god-concept, but can we really know if we've encountered god without a revelation? I don't think so.
Benjamin said: "Correct me if I am wrong, but is not your understanding of other religions and belief systems tainted by your theism? Nothing will ever be as good as the pie-in-the-sky theism You (not just Jon) are choosing to hold to. You have no reason to seriously consider other positions because you have the truth already."
Touché. This is a fair point. But I would argue that my theism is not pie-in-the-sky because I don't pretend that my knowledge of Jesus (therefore God) is complete or perfect. In fact I believe there may be elements of truth in all study (scientific, philosophical, even religious). If I believe God created it all and has redemptive intentions for it all, and if I believe that I can not understand it all from my secluded corner of the world, let alone my isolated bible study, then I HAVE to take the thoughts of others seriously.
But: If I believed that my god was tribal, or held that we were the product of natural evolution, what reason would I have to take the thoughts of others seriously? Especially if I thought MY thinking was more advanced?
Granted, you have pointed out something very important, and a huge blow to much of the arrogance of Christians. And I'll admit that it is hard to see any other faith without immediately comparing it to the one I have in Jesus. But I'm not sure this cripples my ability to think honestly, at least not any more than anyone is crippled by their own default theory (which may or may not be held to tightly, even arrogantly).
And of course it all comes down to my conviction that Jesus is God and that the Scriptures truly speak of Him. Whether that is a reasonable conviction is another discussion, of course.
Benjamin said: "The atheistic perspective, as Joel has been trying to point out (I think), allows one to look at all equally...because the atheist is willing to look for the truth in whatever they are looking at. There is no absolute rightness holding the mind back from seeing other life-views as beneficial, etc."
I don't know about that. I think there are all sorts of presuppositions and previous experiences that affect the atheist's search. And I think atheists as well as christians are always in danger of finding only what they want to find, and not necessarily being able to tell if it is the truth.
Benjamin asked a great question: "These check-points within Christianity that you appeal to have no check points of their own. You have a standard in front of you that guides you in your discernment-process. Where did this standard come from? And how do you know that it is actually directing you away from wayward impulses? Reformation within a belief system says nothing to me about pure-self-assessment."
That's a great question. I think there is an inevitably cyclical nature to this. It comes back to Jesus for self-assessment, and so it depends on written testimony and traditional understandings, and is always done from the perspective of the one doing the thinking. There are so many opportunities for the assessment to be tainted by others self-assessments or to just be one's own self-assessment thrust on Christ for justification.
This is a huge problem. And for me it is why I think that Christian theology and practice has to enter the dialogue of the ages (within the church and outside it) so that its perception of Christ is checked by that of others and the self-imposed aspects of it are unveiled and the Christ at center is allowed to be seen more clearly.
We may not have Jesus standing in front of us, but we do have the advantage of a long heritage of reflection on him and a pretty dang amazing record of who he was and what he was about. Unparalleled in antiquity, actually.
Benjamin said: "However, this reformation still allowed shit to get in the water. Obviously the self-assessment thing only goes so far. This is exactly why there are 15, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 Christian denominations, let alone religions. How many times can one reform a belief system? As many as are necessary to refute the idea of self-assessment...obviously.
This is too bad. But this why I am not a part of it anymore."
I hear ya. Bothers me too. But I will say that despite all the millions of views on Jesus, there is still a pretty unifying belief about him that can be traced through them. And while the amount of denominations and disputes is unsettling, and raises many questions of God, at least it allows us that web of dialogue which (ought to) keep us honest.
It also tells us this isn't one big nicely packaged Christian conspiracy. How anyone can see Chrisitanity as a conspiracy is beyond me. If it is it is a pretty badly executed one. And as such I don't see much reason why it should still be around, unless the God who is behind it and perpetually wishes to redeem it and rebuke it is more gracious and patient than I am.
Benjamin said: "Christ perpetually stands up to scrutiny? No, Christ perpetually changes in order to avoid scrutiny. Hence the million denominations, and personal-theisms of the world. This actually has nothing to do with Christ...but with the people claiming to actually know him.:
Yeah, there are a million views on him. But does he change? There is still a remarkably consistent core to Christian thinking, and varying degreees of straying from it, but the core is there. Something Christians need to get their mind around is that we don't percieve Christ perfectly. Once we admit that I think we get over our arrogance, holier-than-thou attitude, and all that crap.
As said, "christians may have a tendency to be holier-than-thou, but their God rebukes them for it."
Benjamin said: "Does he? Maybe. But a lot of people sure like ignoring the rebuke.
Yeah! Yeah. I do it myself.
"Now, he rebukes in such a way that the believer can listen...or not...depending on what is more lucrative. There is no concrete example of God actually rebuking anyone today."
A huge Yes to the first part. We are free. Uncomfortably free.
No to the second.
"The only reason you can say that he rebukes is because i) you have heard a voice in your head, or a feeling in your heart telling you "thats bad" and ii) because people in your circles admit to being rebuked."
Um, yes, there are moments of conscience, and some of those go further and I'd say they are acts of the Spirt of God, but I was referring to the rebuke that comes from the core Christian beliefs about Christ as testified by the Scriptures and reflected on in history. If a group of Christians goes off killing people they don't agree with, or intends to, and they reflect on Christ and the Scriptures honestly---they will be rebuked. Nothing esoteric about this. It is concrete: staring them in the face, if they'll look, honestly.
This has gone long, and I am afraid it sounds argumentative, even arrogant. Please hear me say that those are really great points you've raised though Benjamin. They touch something deep that I feel I perpetually wrestle with. Really. I don't look at what I've said above as answers, but I do share it as the perspective that keeps me saying that Christianity is still reasonable and compelling.
Cool Beans
lets move on?
God exists outside our understanding and our finite reasoning skills therefore we need God to reveal himself to us and redeem us.
I hear us using reason to not trust reason again; and a claim that we can only trust Revelation instead of ourselves. It’s an old point but if we can’t trust our reasoning at all or to find God outside of a Holy Book, how can we trust our reasoning to utilize, read, study a Holy book?
Every religion purports this idea, that we cannot trust ourselves and thus we must trust the Book, why this book or not another? Every religious person will say their Holy Book is the best, their Holy book is still written in the right language and resembles the original idea when it was given by God to the recorder. Evangelical theologians, who now and finally admit that scripture is not perfect, suggest that it is okay that Scripture is not perfect, but it was originally given as perfect.
Jon said:
“I think there are all sorts of presuppositions and previous experiences that affect the atheist's search. And I think atheists as well as christians are always in danger of finding only what they want to find, and not necessarily being able to tell if it is the truth.”
The difference is based in postulation; atheist’s think that there is no God because they honestly feel they have not encountered one, nor do they find evidence for one. Christians believe that there is a God and then try to defend why we have no empirical evidence for him, why he does not appear when called for, why their religions have issues and so forth. Christians believe that God does exist because they have not NOT encountered God.
The atheist utilizes and trusts reason, NOT because a god or book tells them too, but because it is all we have, it is all we do. Christians constantly attack the rigor of reason, suggesting it is intentionally out to get religious people (like evolution). When various religious views do not hold up to rational scrutiny, religious people claim it is an unfair match; it’s not an unfair match, it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
I’m so tired of this ‘Christians may have blank problem, but so does everyone else.’ THAT is not the issue, the issue is that when everyone else has the problem, they CALL it a problem- religious people do not call it a problem nor do they see it as pejorative; they call it being holy, having faith or trusting the Bible even though they do not understand it (like their view of Homosexuality)
When religious people are intentionally less rational to keep certain ideas possible, they call it faith, and that faith is a good thing. When religious people stop looking for more revelation, stop seeking other alternatives for spiritual life they call it ‘truth’ but the fact that their truth seems so amazing is more based in the fact that they have very little to compare it to (they don’t know a lot, they don’t know about other religions etc; and that is ignorance- pejorative or not, it is ignorance in the fact that what you do know is easily prized and valued based on the massive amounts of stuff you do not know).
Religious values with the dangerous element exposed:
Being Holy is a value of the ‘us vs. them’ mentality
Having faith is a value of the suspension of reason in emotional areas
When an atheist looks at the world, he goes and finds what is there: the phenomena he ‘runs’ into does not include god and religious people support that fact by saying God is not something to be proven, God does not give off empirical stuff.
The religious person comes to the world and postulates that God exists: he exists outside of reality, outside of reason, outside of time, outside of our understanding, outside of our imagination, and yes, even outside of our concept of what is outside. A thing of that kind is so far away from discourse it becomes insulated from all attack; what does one even argue against when they argue against the existence of God? What CAN they even be arguing against? What is a religious person arguing for, it is certainly not God, just a worldview.
It is a culture we have been arguing about for so long, and there are few things a culture can be actually critiqued of save: ethnocentrism, which Christianity, in my personal opinion, has in spades.
I'm down with moving on. I've been too busy to interact with the past 8 or so posts, but I think everything's been spoken of. Next post?
A final note on critiquing cultures and religions:
Jon asked earlier what is Christianity, a religion with these problems or is the proper Christianity a religion with these problems weeded out?
There is a tricky philosophical game being played in this sense, one which I have been calling ‘convenience’ but only coming across as being overtly aggressive and arrogant. Let me try to map it out and the reader can draw their own conclusions:
God is perfect and does no wrong
Christianity is the religion of God and thus when proper will do no wrong
Christianity is full of regular people and problems erupt
Now what can ever be wrong with God? Nothing. What can ever be wrong with Christianity? Nothing. The only place for error, by definition, is in the people and this is why there are so many religions and so many denominations: because they are all chasing the same ‘perfect’ idea, only once it gets ‘found’ it is quickly discovered to have new problems.
This is essentially the task of the theologian, to make that religion to fit into the next culture (missionary) or age of thought.
Can you spot the tricky philosophical problem in this? If not I will add a final clue: suppose that I found some kind of argument/evidence/experience which totally denied and proved that Jesus and the entire Christian religion was totally false, with a no way out deductive conclusion. What would that do to your faith? What would it do to your Holy Book, your Church or your tradition?
It wouldn’t do anything, because you could simply reject it, IT has to be wrong because there is already something in place of ‘that which must be right (the idea of God as perfect)’
Suppose the same evidence is found but only 98% damaging, what would the religious person do then? They would simply take it as a hard hit and adjust appropriately: this is where religious people crave constructive criticism, because it is useful. It is useful that Christians no long believe what they used to believe, because it’s just plain crazy to think so-and-so today and that is why religion is now a relationship. What could be further from critique?
This is as old as Descartes: you postulate the idea of God as the most perfect thing and then realize that the most perfect thing would also have existence and then conclude that God must exist. This is what informs every thought after: why no evidence for God? It must have been planed that way! Why can people be good outside of Christianity: because God planned it that way. Everything you find will have the same add on.
What does God not exist? Because God planned it that way.
(such a claim works in religious reasoning)
joel: i not only disagree with almost the entirety of your last two posts, but i also think they misrepresent christianity almost completely. certainly, there are some valid critiques of christian practice and some good correctives for less-sophisticated christian theology, but seriously? i'm at a loss. i obviously need to revisit my approach because i am clearly making no sense whatsoever.
ie: "The religious person comes to the world and postulates that God exists: he exists outside of reality, outside of reason, outside of time, outside of our understanding, outside of our imagination, and yes, even outside of our concept of what is outside."
Did you read my last post? That is not what Christianity says AT ALL.
sheesh, if that was the only option in theism i'm pretty sure by now i'd be an atheist too! i have very little interest in defending THAT theism.
it seems like whenever christianity is making sense it is too "convenient" and whenever supposedly thinking christians are at ease with the reasonability of their faith it is because they are "ignorant" (they haven't looked hard enough and obviously don't want to).
but . . . heck . . . moving on . . . .
what i do appreciate though, joel, is how you push the epistemology of traditional evangelicalism. i have often found myself fighting on this front against my colleagues and friends in the faith and sometimes think i should just read them some of your stuff.
granted that christian theologians do keep having to grapple with new questions, and that recent decades have had some doozies. but what would you rather: we grapple with them in the search for what holds water or we just ignore them and play status quo? we can't win unless we lose. but what if chrisitianity at its core, as testified to in the Bible, actually does stand up to new questions? what if we actually were meant to continue to grow in our understanding of it? what if God actually intended to reveal himself in such a way as to be accessible to the simple and yet deep enough that centuries could not plumb the depths to the point of resting content and sitting still?
it is faith seeking understanding. that's what it is to me. i hope you can respect that, whether you think i'm crap or not.
Oh those religious martyrs, it seems they even exist on the intellectual level.
Jon said (after quoting me):
"The religious person comes to the world and postulates that God exists: he exists outside of reality, outside of reason, outside of time, outside of our understanding, outside of our imagination, and yes, even outside of our concept of what is outside."
Did you read my last post? That is not what Christianity says AT ALL.
sheesh, if that was the only option in theism i'm pretty sure by now i'd be an atheist too! i have very little interest in defending THAT theism.”
I going over what what Christianity says and teaches when certain questions come up, no what they teach initially.
Where’s that famous Christian charity we just talked so much about; cause all this rebuttals made of straw.
Where is God situated the atheist asks to the religious, only to have them say: in a spiritual realm. Where is that, past Jupiter or further? It is not a place in the Universe, or is it just past the next galaxy? No, God exists, but he does not exist in our reality, at least he does not in the same way we do. He is not bound by a physical presence, he does not live in a city etc, etc; he exists outside of reality (point one).
How does one go about understanding God, asks the atheist to the religious, only to have them reply: you can pray and get to know God, you can read his Holy Book but at the end of the day you will find that you cannot fully understand him. But this kind of inability to understand also includes other cross-discipline critique: science cannot critique and neither can other religions. So when you come to some kind of a rational argument which shows God unlikely or near impossible, you are using reason to critique God and that is not right; God exists outside of reason (point two and four).
God exists outside of time (point three); do you really think that Christianity does not teach this?
Can we imagine the trinity or what it means for Jesus to be 100% human and 100% God? No. Can we imagine any other so-called mysteries of God? No, because God exists outside of our imagination (point five)
My last point was to say that God might as well exist outside of God itself, since that seems to be the running theme to theology (point six).
Christianity does purport that God exists outside of time, it DOES purport that God exists in the spiritual realm, it DOES purport that God exists outside of time, and it DOES purport that God is that kind of thing which cannot be fully understood by our ‘finite’ minds (to use your words).
Most of what I have said here can be traced back to Augustine (City of God) and Aquinas’ butchered attempt to conflate Aristotle’s Metaphysics into their religious paradigm.
If Christianity is so good at charity, where is some intellectual charity? So ‘sheeish’ yourself or your attempt to critique something you have oversimplified for your advantage.
Jon said:
“it is faith seeking understanding. that's what it is to me. i hope you can respect that, whether you think i'm crap or not.”
Perhaps Christians should put understanding first and take faith as second for once; realize that they have to reason first and then read the Bible and what not.
I DO respect the religious approach, and I totally respect you Jon! I am always talking about ideas and not people. The religious can be bad for this, but honestly, I am never critiquing a person, religious or not. What would be beneficial to my point of view if I attacked the person? Even if my personal criticism was true and correct, what would that prove except that there was another ‘bad’ person with the wrong ideas? That does nothing, it’s useless. It’s no different than you making fun of some stupid atheist for being a terrible person, it proves nothing save that it was a lame person we were talking about...
You need to separate your personal feelings from the ideas being discussed, because you cannot expect me to say everything in an uber-nice way all the time. I can’t believe how often we have to talk about this, or how often I have to defend my approach to giving my ideas as an initial defence to what my ideas mean.
The rejection of ideas due to the way in which they are presented is just another path of ignorance (to a point and with many exceptions).
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hichens, Daniel Dennet, and Sam Harris all continually get described as being ‘arrogant’ or as being a ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and those are fine critiques. But religious people use this personal critique as a good reason to IGNORE them! And what could be more CONVENIENT?
I am NOT saying that every religious person has to read and fully understand them in order to respectfully disagree with them, but if you consider yourself a reasonable Christian and you are interested in this debate (which goes for all I think) then ask yourself, did you not read it for good reasons or for bad?
Stop reading so much negativity and pejorative content into words like ‘ignorance’ and ‘convenience’ they are just descriptors and say nothing to a person’s character. If these actions are done in defence or because THAT is what has been taught unto them, then there is nothing vicious going on, only misguidance.
So for the record, I don’t think Jon or Gordon is crap, nor do I think they have crappy views, or hold crappy worldviews. I am talking about ideas, philosophy and approaches to reality; if you HAVE to take it personal (because we are talking about someone you claim to have a personal relationship with) then fine, but please save it. Because I am tired of having to say everything in super nice ways just to get you to listen, and I am tired of being accused of being ‘mean’ and ‘immoral’ in how I am talking.
Also, stop playing the martyr, it is getting old.
okay, that last line was personal cirticism... :)
Ok, I get the move on vibe, but I want to address this conflict about what Joel and I are saying since it lacks resolution and applies to the main topic of this post.
Joel said:
"I’m so tired of this ‘Christians may have blank problem, but so does everyone else.’ THAT is not the issue, the issue is that when everyone else has the problem, they CALL it a problem- religious people do not call it a problem nor do they see it as pejorative; they call it being holy, having faith or trusting the Bible even though they do not understand it (like their view of Homosexuality)"
Joel, I get the feeling you're not reading my posts. 'Christians have this problem but so does everyone else' is my steadfast argument because it is true. AND we are ALSO not the only ones who don't see it as a problem. Sure you can call it holiness for us, but that same mentality exists in other people. I realize that you despise the Christian piousness, but don't let your feelings blind your from the facts.
When people are convinced that they are in the right, a bigoted opinion seems appropriate, although they would not call it a bigoted opinion.
I realize this is the crux of your argument and thus you are stubborn about conceding it, but I believe that it is unfounded.
Before we move on could everyone weigh in on this little issue?
Are Christians the only ones who get a feeling of 'holiness' (how else to describe this word? Righteousness? Not something spiritual, but the feeling of being so right in your opinions that you feel you ought to be proud) from holding views that the general population views as bigoted? Are non-religious people more likely to admit they have a problem than religious people? I would like to see some statistics on this before we claim opinion as fact.
Sorry to everyone who's ready to move on, I just would prefer some closure.
"When people are convinced that they are in the right, a bigoted opinion seems appropriate, although they would not call it a bigoted opinion."
Bigotry (from the New Oxford American Dictionary):
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Just thought this definition would be good to clarify.
Donkey, do you really believe that ones opinion of ones "correct-belief" follows with an Intolerance of other opinions?
Benjamin Somarie
Yes, clarification is needed.
I do not believe that believing oneself to be correct automatically leads to bigotry. I simply meant that that if a person were to have an opinion about another people group that many would classify as a bigoted statement, they could still feel that the opinion is correct and that they have a right to feel as they do.
This is the case with most bigotry. People have an opinion but believe it to be true and do not see it as bigoted. It is 'good' to have that opinion because it is true.
Some people may have thoughts or ideas that they recognize as having bigoted potential and they then attempt to deal with them or else perhaps feel guilty for having them.
What Joel seem to suggest that most religious people feel their bigoted opinions are 'good' whereas most non-religious people, if they have such opinions will view them as bad. I think this is a false statement and would need a great deal to back it up.
Perhaps Joel thinks that because things like homosexuality are not condoned by Christian teachings that most Christians feel holy about being bigoted towards them. This is surely often the case, but I would say there are also many Christians who simply do not agree with that lifestyle although they do not feel ill-will towards the people who hold these views.
Joel seems to like to use the fact that Christianity, on average, does not agree with the homosexuality lifestyle as a way of proving how bigoted we all are.
Yes, there are many who are, but there are also many who are not, although many of those do not agree with the lifestyle. Must we agree in order to remain un-bigoted?
I don not want to stray onto the topic of homosexuality too far, I only want to address this false argument that states that Christians are more pleased about being bigoted than your average Joe. Which, Ben, you have still failed to address.
I’m not talking about people who have bigoted views and how they feel they are right and push for that; as you have said over and over again, everyone does this. This is not what I am getting at.
Because everyone’s views are not all ontological, they see it as opinion- they see their view as an idea which reflects their own existence and effects other people. When you add the religious element you add an ontological element, meaning: in order to have the correct religious view (whichever one) you have to transcend the notion of opinion and believe that it is also the fact of a matter.
You believe x and you also think it is a fact. The added notion of ontology adds extra weight.
To put it another way, it is not something you have found (as phenomena) but something you have been told; and told by God no less. If God tells you something and you honestly believe God has told you the truth, then you believe it as a fact; even if other facts contradict it.
If God informs your standards of reality, then it is impossible for those standards to be anything but the same as the source: and if God is perfect and true, then those standards are perfect and true.
It cannot be bigoted because it comes from God; or to put it another way, if God is a bigot then that view is no longer ‘negative’ or ‘sinful’ because such things cannot co-exist with God.
It’s not that Christians have a view on Homosexuality I am concerned with, it is the KIND of view Christians are forced to hold due to their ontological stance of taking them from the Bible.
It goes back to the philosophical question of: what would happen if God committed murder, would he commit murder or would he change the definition of murder?
This is what I was trying to get at earlier with Jon when he asked the question of what it means for Christianity to be practiced properly.
Here is the problem: if you honestly believe that God exists and that the Bible is his revelation, then the right practice of Christianity will always be correct, not matter how you define correct: so before it condemned Homosexuality and later it is corrects itself, but in both cases at the time they are both the right practice of Christianity, because what it means to be ‘right practice’ has a build in by definition component: it is always the case that Christianity is correct, even if it changes entirely: it’s a mistake in reasoning by definition.
If this is a problem, then it might best be described as an imagination problem.
This is what I am talking about.
I wasn't aware that I was to address the 'false argument' that Christians are happy bigots.
"I only want to address this false argument that states that Christians are more pleased about being bigoted than your average Joe. Which, Ben, you have still failed to address."
? I will engage in this if you want....
Thus far, I am pretty much on the same page as Joel here. If god says something, (even if it is viewed/manifested as bigotry through a lack of acceptance and/or intolerance to others) to the one in connection with god this something, if followed, is not unjustified intolerance, but justified bigotry (holiness by separation).
In no way do I claim that Christians are happier to please god than say, muslims, or satanists (Average Joes?).
-Benjamin
Joel said:
"Because everyone’s views are not all ontological, they see it as opinion- they see their view as an idea which reflects their own existence and effects other people. When you add the religious element you add an ontological element, meaning: in order to have the correct religious view (whichever one) you have to transcend the notion of opinion and believe that it is also the fact of a matter."
I now understand what you are getting at. Sorry if I was being thick on getting the point. This is, however, the best I think you have described your point. Easiest for me to understand, anyway.
As to that idea, I have no response at this time. You pose an interesting thought and I will have to dwell on it for a bit.
Ben, I think we are missing each-other entirely and I can only imagine it frustrates you as much as it does me.
I was not saying that you said that:
"Christians are happier to please god than say, muslims, or satanists (Average Joes?)."
I was saying that I thought Joel was purposing that Christians feel more holy (or more justified as I was interpreting and trying to simplify as happy) about their bigoted feelings than a NON-religious person. And I wanted everyone's opinion on it I just felt you were avoiding my main point in your first response.
What I now think Joel is saying is that because Christians are acting on beliefs that are grounded in a higher power their beliefs hold greater weight to them and the acting out of these beliefs is 'holiness'.
I still stand firm that this is a ways off of the mark that I was originally aiming for when I brought up this topic, but I can appreciate how Joel draws the connection.
My main point was to address these old wounds which antagonists of Christianity would use to suggest that at any moment we could erupt into similar actions. That's a bit extreme. I would just like to see it dropped as a reason why Christianity is bad. I would say that you have some valid concerns that you have brought up in the discussion of this point but they deserve their own consideration. Tying them up with the crusades and witch burnings is a bit melodramatic. Yes, there is a connection, but we need to address the short-comings of the belief that lead to these actions as it now exists rather than tying them up in the same.
I would say that atheism devalues the importance of an individual's life and I would love to discuss it at a different time. But is it fair to toss out accusations of eugenics and claim that another outbreak of Nazi hospitals is just around the corner? You have all already objected. You have said you have learned from it yes, but I would say that the attitude that lead to this extreme action still exists.
Yes, I can see that there is a legitimate concern that has finally been made clear. However, it should not be tied in with these past events that make for great effect, but fail to acknowledge cultural norms and like circumstances.
On the same page now. Good stuff.
Awww... ***big hugs*** are we all good now?
Can we move on now?
Please?
Yeah, I think I see some clear water. My point was really far off topic, so sorry about hijacking the convo- I think my idea is something else entirely but I was doing the ground work by the seat of my trousers, so yeah let's just leave it be for now.
I get your point Gordon, on how we shouldn't always think about Eugenics when we think about atheism and we shouldn't always think about crusades when we think about Christianity.
I think there might a more subtle and complicated issue lying underneath, but based on the kind of point you are trying to make, would concede and give it as granted.
Either way, tis grantedth
sorry . . . i was waiting to see in my blogroll that we had moved on. should have known there'd be more going on . . .
joel, thanks for clarifying your "respect", but i wasn't trying to play the martyr, nor was i even pissed off or offended. just frustrated. For the record I object to your conclusions of "convenient" and "ignorant" for intellectual reasons, not personal or pejorative ones.
I was not making some passive-agressive attempt to make everyone uber-nice. Civility and fairness and listening are pretty necessary to dialogue, of course, and I don't think it would be out of line to call each other to that once in a while. But I was not trying to do that. If we are going to take the candy-coating off of things once in awhile then I was saying that there are times when it feels like atheists are not really listening. . . and this felt like one of those times.
But hey, we're moving on, and i'm fine with that if you are . . .
[Let me not further take us off tangent, but this is to Joel, before it is too late: Yes, God is outside time and all that. But Christianity (and Christianity alone methinks) teaches that God has entered time and is to be known and discussed on the basis of his self-revelation in time and space as Jesus Christ. Yes, Christians do believe in a transcendent God and will join with various arguments regarding theism in general because they do believe them helpful, but at the end of the day the Christian makes claims about God completely reliant upon the idea that the man Jesus shows us God.
I understand your point, that God's transcendence can and is used as a cop-out from thought, but this is not the whole story. Thus my objection and explanation in that previous post.
SO, yes, "Christianity does purport that . . . God is that kind of thing which cannot be fully understood by our ‘finite’ minds (to use your words)."
But what sets it apart rationally is that it also purports that God has existed in time, in the physical realm, and can be understood by our finite minds. [Understood not fully, sure, but this is not a cop-out to thought (or shouldn't be, and too commonly is): it is faith seeking understanding.
And because we believe God created this realm and inhabited it we (perhaps more than anyone else) have reason to believe such thought, such seeking of understanding, has a basis in reality and will prove worth it.
I must say again that I object to the characterization of atheists as the people who use their understanding without any faith-commitments. I think you do. I think you call them theories. And you run with them, thinking yourself right, just like anyone else.
BUT, let me say that I think I'm hearing you: Religious people play the god-card a lot. I hear ya. Point taken. I'm not sure what to do with that except try to engage in honest discourse and understanding, admitting my (faith) presuppositions and submitting them to intellectual reflection. I can only ask that others do the same with theirs.]
moving on then...
Post a Comment