Friday
(0)I will start this posting, having written the rest of it already and therefore possessing foreknowledge of what it contains, with a warning to easily offended Christians. This posting contains ideas that may offend easily offended Christians. So, if you are an easily offended Christian and sincerely do not wish to be offended yet again, best to stop reading now.
Christians are perfectly free to be offended by my anti-Christianity, just so long as they realise that I am likewise disgusted by many of the things they keep on proclaiming, mostly with no objections from me, both for its barbarity and for its contempt for normal standards of truth-seeking or logical argument. The offence is mutual.
Okay. Today being Good Friday, I have taken it upon myself to give the talk at my last Friday of the month meeting. Getting another speaker at such a time, and then perhaps having to soothe him or her because only three other people showed up, is more bother than the looks-bad factor of me doing the talk myself. (I did the same on the last Friday of December 2004, which happened also to be New Year's Eve. That went okay.)
And since it is Good Friday, I will be talking about Pain: its history; how that history might explain why Christianity, and in particular the crucifixion story, has done so well down the centuries; the fact that recently pain has abated for lots of lucky people in lucky countries like mine, and the fact that this might do something to explain the recent decline of Christianity in lucky countries. Christianity thrives in adversity, but wilts in comfort, not least physical comfort, which is why completely wiping out Christianity has proved so hard. Communism tried, but the more you torment Christians the more like Christ they feel. Meanwhile Communism, lacking a story that makes any sense for those unfortunates caught up in its numerous failures, is itself rapidly crumbling, not least at the hands of Christians.
Most histories of pain seem to be histories of pain relief, which is understandable. But what effect on life generally did the prevalence of pain have, in all the centuries when pain was prevalent? And what has been the effect of the recent and remarkable abatement of the pain, for millions upon millions of fortunate people, like me, and very probably, you too, for decade after decade?
I did not mention it in my email to my congregation, but pain also has a bearing on the libertarian political ideas that are the ongoing agenda of these Friday meetings. Libertarianism, you might say, is the idea that in our dealings with one another, we will forego the infliction of physical suffering upon each other, and confine ourselves only to doing things that all concerned consent to voluntarily, without any physical threats being exchanged. Libertarianism in this broader, non-ideological sense, of not getting what we want by hitting people, has been relentlessly growing in recent decades. We are now lucky (favourite phrase in that piece: "controlled oblivion") enough not tohave to endure nearly as much pain as in former centuries.
I have lived for over half a century and have experienced hardly any physical pain at all, and I am surely now quite typical, in my country. It took a recent and very minor accident to make me think seriously about the subject at all. But in former times, people suffered terrible pain quite routinely, from such things as frightful, unanaesthetised medical procedures, from childbirth, or from the fact that medicine could offer no cure and little solace for our pains (think only of dentistry), breakages and other accidents (often caused by arduous and prolonged physical toil such as most of us are now spared). This means, I surmise, that for us now to create pain for each other, just to get what we want, now seems far worse to us than it must have done in the past. This has all manner of intriguing effects.
Consider education. The command-and-control education system which our teachers still try to operate depends on, among many other things, the judicious application, every now and again - especially to boys - of torture. Certainly the people who began these educational arrangements had no compunction about inflicting the occasional beating. Our teachers now try to – or are told that they must – abjure torture as a means of classroom control. Yet they still try to exert the same old command-and-control, either out of sheer habit or because they have no faith in other, more libertarian, arrangements. Accordingly, we should not be surprised that the lives of our teachers have recently become more stressful.
At the other end of the age range, what effect will the increasing number of old people, kept alive by modern medicine and the modern food industry, hobbling about or driving about in annoying little electric trolleys, grumbling about their aches and pains, have on our beliefs about pain?
To me, the Christian obsession with their founder's crucifixion, however inspiring it may be in bad times, is absurd, not to say barbaric. I mean, a blood sacrifice to God, of God's only son? Is that supposed to cheer God up? Is that really something for civilised people seriously to believe in? But, as I (along with the rest of the Baby Boom) get older, as my body starts seriously to malfunction, and as hurts take longer and longer to go away, will the story of the crucifixion start to seem less daft to me? I cannot see myself overcoming my scientific type objections to Christianity as a body of supposedly truthful doctrine about the nature of the world, but I can see myself becoming slightly less scornful of all this crucifixion mumbo-jumbo that an atheist such as me who loves classical music has to put up with. I do not, however, think that I will ever modify my scorn for the notions embodied in the Holy Communion. Every week, we eat God. Charming.
So, in other words, if my attitude is anything at all to go by, I do not think that the medical travails of the Baby Boom in its dotage will be enough successfully to relaunch Christianity in the pain-free modern world. More likely responses will be redoubled enthusiasm for such things as yet more pain-killing drugs, and ever more intense argument about euthanasia, not least among the Baby Boom's descendants who will be keener and keener to be rid of this ever-ghastlier generation.
I love Grand Theories of history, and also their close cousins, Interesting Aspect theories of history: history as the history of the means of communication, history as the history of warfare, history as the history of the potato, or of art, or cultery, or sport, or travel. I loved Guns, Germs and Steel.
Pain seems to get less of a mention in such theorisings, which is especially offputting when you consider how prominently military matters figure in such ideas. (Sometimes, you can read an entire book about battles with hardly a mention of anyone actually finding the experience of battle painful.) No doubt there are histories of pain out there which are more than just the history of anaesthetics. If so, and you know of such, links please.
Just as a final, further for-instance, even my cursory pain-googling reminded me that the prevalence in our culture of alcohol owes much to the fact that, for many centuries, the only widely available palliative for pain was getting stupefyingly drunk.
Happy Easter everyone.
As a future Lutheran pastor I say that your commentary on Good Friday, pain, and history is approved, or at least is not worthy of a Fatwa :)
Peace,
Chris
Posted by The ConfusedLutheran at March 25, 2005 05:50 PM
Brian, I hope you have the intellectual discipline and honesty to follow the comments on this post, because you just opened a can of worms. I think you owe it to yourself to observe its effect.
Posted by Winzeler at March 25, 2005 06:53 PM
Well-written and reasoned, although not entirely within my conception of Faith.
In relation to pain, however: One of the constant themes throughout Scripture was Jesus' miracle-workings, cures and whatnot, which would be equally thought-provoking to those unfortunates of ancient times that you've imagined, no?
Pain was a real, everlasting fact of life, yet here was a loophole.
And then, we have another, contrary curiousity: We're told that Jesus was a carpenter, yet in all Scripture there is only one instance where we read of Him making anything. And it was a scourge.
Our Lord, I believe, was no stranger to the infliction of pain, even perhaps something of a torturer, as well as a victim of torture. There's a deeper curiousity in that, if one has the courage & faith to look within it.
/rambling
Posted by urthshu at March 25, 2005 08:08 PM
One of the greatly malicious aspects of all religious doctrines, regardless of particulars, has been the demand that belief must be total and unquestioning. As a corollary, there were always taboos which placed certain areas of thought or investigation off limits---the Gallileo story is the best known, but there are a myriad of sequels across the spectrum of world cultures.
The progress that has come fairly recently in the human story has, at its base, the rejection of taboos, and the acceptance of empirical observation, research, and the scientific method as the standard upon which knowledge of reality should be based.
This is not, of course, a universal situation. The relentless effort to find an alternative means of apprehending reality which might allow assertions based on theory, or faith in ideology, instead of unfeeling science pervades our culture. Much of the world still defers to the pronouncements of mystics and shamans of one kind or another, indeed, one can predict the level of progress in a culture by first learning which has primacy ---science or mysticism.
There is a desire, so ancient as to be almost reptillian, to have a way of circumventing the harsh, unbending laws of nature. Even though we have gained intellectually in our understanding, the emotional level of our development is woefully lacking. Faced with the unbending rules of cause and effect, many of us still hope a fervent prayer might cause some unkown power to subvert reality, and deliver us from evil.
But the answer lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
Posted by veryretired at March 25, 2005 08:40 PM
Good post. A couple of random thoughts:
1. The infliction of psychic pain is as offensive as the infliction of physical pain.
2. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the use of psychoactive drugs to relieve mental suffering becomes as routine as the use of anesthetics now is to relieve physical suffering.
3. Remember hearing about the anti-anesthesia fulminations of 19th-century Christians? (I seem to recall they were especially exercised about the potential use of anesthetics to relieve the pain of childbirth.) Perhaps they were more prescient than they suspected.
Posted by none at March 25, 2005 09:03 PM
I hope that rant made you feel better, Brian, because it had no other virtue this Catholic could detect. Your demonstrated lack of understanding of the Crucifixion is exceeded only by your presumption in writing so contemptuously about it.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto at March 25, 2005 09:17 PM
Christianity thrives in adversity, but wilts in comfort, not least physical comfort, which is why completely wiping out Christianity has proved so hard.
Seems to be doing ok in the US
Willy
Posted by Willy at March 25, 2005 09:30 PM
Brian, I think your usually reasoned approach to whichever topic interests you, let you down on this one. You completely missed the point of crucifixion, which despite being cloaked in pain and sacrifice is the opposite of barbaric.
In a strange way, I'd understand had you got worked up about theodicy rather than crucifixion, since that is the way your fundamental objection to crucifixion seems to be heading (as far as I can tell). This is because within the universe where evil exists, crucifixion is indeed meaningful and profoundly revolutionary. So challenge God's power to erase evil and we have a debate albeit not a very original one. Talk about crucifixion without proper understanding of the Christian teaching about it and I have to agree with Francis W. Porretto...
Posted by Adriana at March 25, 2005 09:44 PM
Brian,
OK, I am probably disposed not to be easily offended by you because I know you, but I don't think I would be even if I didn't. Why not? Because your objections are seriously meant. The communion one is shared by many Protestants vis a vis the beliefs of Catholics.
Can't say I've specifically thought about all this though.
"None",
I have been reading "Chloroform: the Quest for Oblivion" by Linda Stratmann. [Disclosure. I know the author. She's not a Christian.]
It says that the extent of denunciations of anasthesia from the pulpit has been much exaggerated. A more common objection to anasthesia during childbirth was that the universally experienced pain must have some useful purpose. (You still hear this one nowadays.)
Of Sir James Young Simpson, the pioneer of chloroform, it says,
There had been a few objections to ether based on the Biblical curse on Eve, but they cannot have been either numerous or serious since Simpson had not published any rebuttal.This was unusual behaviour for Simpson, a vigorous controversialist.
Early in 1847, Professor Miller had discussed the matter with the Reverend Dr Chalmers, Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, who had advised that any who took this view were "small theologians" and advised Miller to take no heed of them ...The indefatigable Simpson did publish a pamphlet called "An Answer to the Religious Objections." Stratmann writes:
The existence of this pamphlet has always suggested that the use of anasthesia brought about a storm of opposition from the pulpit, yet there is no evidence of any such thing. A detailed examination of the periodicals of the time made by A.D. Farr revealed only seven references to the issue, none of them in opposition ... Simpson clearly enjoys using rhetoric, sarcasm, humour and the results of mugging up on Biblical Hebrew to trounce every objection that could possibly be raised. There was nothing he enjoyed more than setting up an opponent for the precise purpose of knocking him down again ... These comments caused considerable annoyance to Professor Montgomery, who wrote to Simpson protesting that he had never made any of the statements attributed to him."
Posted by Natalie Solent at March 25, 2005 09:44 PM
I agree with Willy's point. Certainly Americans are as free of pain as Europeans. Maybe it's the kind of religion on offer that drives Europeans away. The pallid "socially conscious" Unitarian style isn't doing too well, in the US or UK. Muscular Baptism is, in the US, but isn't tolerated at all in the UK (I don't mean it's illegal, just frowned upon like smoking in San Francisco). The contempt of liberals, Northerners and Europeans may be one of the main supports for good old Bible Belt religion.
Posted by Robert Speirs at March 25, 2005 09:47 PM
I should have said, many Catholics have a response to the Protestant objections to transubstantiation, which is that there is no particular reason why the universe should align itself to one's spontaneous feelings of plausibility.
Posted by Natalie Solent at March 25, 2005 09:50 PM
Good post. I was getting the (occasional) feeling that only apologetic (or perhaps that should be "simpering")agnosticism was considered acceptable here.
Oh and to Francis; as a former Catholic myself (and speaking on behalf of many Catholics I've known) I can say that Brians "lack of understanding" is well founded.
A father allowing the torture of his son for the sake of sins (of others) he is himself well capable of extinguishing in an instant is not what I'd call the best example of the "family values" rhetoric many Christians seem to bang on about.
Posted by James at March 25, 2005 09:50 PM
veryretired, in response to your opening statement, I think this is why the vast majority of Christians are incapable of defending their faith. I'm not saying faith always needs to be defended, but for those of us who have questioned some of the premises, it does become severely defensible.
By the way, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Any Christian reading and applying the Bible to their life is obligated by it to test even their own faith.
In response to Brian being "offensive," I point out Psalm 119:165; "Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them." To me it seems hard to be a devout Christian while remaining easily offendable -if that's a word.
Posted by Winzeler at March 25, 2005 10:28 PM
I am not an opponent of religious belief, and find any number of valuable thoughts in the Bible, both old and new. I long ago gave up any pretense of being anything but a weak and miserable sinner, and I find my life to be more relaxed without the necessity of maintaining the pose of self righteousness.
My comment was specifically aimed at the tendency of any all encompassing belief to attempt to answer all questions, whether spiritual or having to do with the natural world, and compounding that error with a demand for purity of belief.
I have long thought that the difference between free and repressed societies was that repression begins with a demand for unity of belief in all things, while excusing all sorts of grotesque actions because they were in defense of the faith, while free societies allow a wide range of belief without penalty as long as one's actions are within a specified lawful framework.
Thus, North Korea's prisons are places of unspeakable horror for any who even appear to lack faith in "the Dear Leader", and the custodians are above any law, while even the wardens of child killers in our society are held to certain standards of lawful behaviour, and liable to be prosecuted for abusing their charges.
Personally, I found the original post about pain to be utterly banal, but the derivative arguments are interesting. I am ambivalent about the role of religion in society, as it has been used too often to justify the monstrous in the name of something holy.
Posted by veryretired at March 25, 2005 11:32 PM
Natalie: Thank you for the reference. However, I share Brian's contempt of Christianity and Christian teachings. More ass they for promoting the idea that "pain is (good for you/good for the baby/serves you right/take your pick)."
Posted by none at March 25, 2005 11:59 PM
I agree witht he orginal post and just wanted to add that the numbers of devout christians in the US have been dropping. While most people 80% still say they are Christian the majority say so more for social reasons, not religious. There are some interesting studies out there on this also, but I don't really have time to go look them up, sorry.
Bec
Posted by Bec Thomas at March 26, 2005 02:16 AM
I am a Christian. I believe contempt of Christianity and Christian teachings stems from misinterpretations of the Bible and the sins of Christians. Veryretired, you described yourself as a weak and miserable sinner. Well, so am I. Everyone is. Being a Christian doesn't make a person holier than thou, even though there are those who seem to think they are by trying to act like it. Self righteousness is a sin. Jesus did not teach people to be self righteous. I can understand how that kind of behavior would turn someone away from Christianity. If I didn't know the truth, I probably would have turned away from the Faith myself a long time ago. There are certainly many preachers and priests who have misled people, too. The fact is we ALL fall short of the grace of God. No one is perfect whether you're a prostitute or the girl next door who sings in the church choir. That's why Jesus suffered and died on the cross so that we wouldn't have to suffer the wrath of God. He took our place. It doesn't mean that our lives will be without pain. It means we should humble ourselves, yet at the same time we don't have to beat ourselves up over everything we do wrong when we accept that Christ died for us that we would be forgiven of those sins.
Brian, you're right when you say that the Faith is weak when people are comfortable. It's so easy for people to forget God when everything is going smoothly. Then when things come crashing down, people suddenly turn to God, using prayer as an emergency kit. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.
As for the crucifixion being brutal and barbaric, yes, I agree. But it wasn't Jesus or Christians who invented the crucifixion. That was how the Romans carried out the death penalty in those days. The cross represents Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection.
As for the Holy Communion, I take communion but I don't believe that I'm eating God and I don't believe that the cracker I eat turns into the body of Christ. Communion to me is symbolic. The cracker represents the body of Christ and the wine (or grapejuice) represents the blood that Jesus shed. Blood is important because it is life. Life that Jesus gave.
No offense to Catholics, but I've known a lot of Catholics who ended up turning away from Christianity altogether because of all the strict rules. I don't think that God intended for a teacher of God's word such as a priest to never marry. It makes me wonder if that's why altar boys are sometimes molested by some priests because priests are not allowed to have sex. Why? Sex is not a dirty thing when you are married to the one you do it with. That's just one of the things I don't understand. But enough of my rant.
Posted by Denise W at March 26, 2005 03:33 AM
I'm always a bit puzzled by these types of comments. From what I remember of my Lutheran (ELCA and its forerunners) upbringing, it wasn't the suffering of Jesus that was emphasized during the Easter holiday, it was the Resurrection. "He Has Risen" and all that. I always thought that explained the lack of the crosses with Jesus's body depicted on it that the Catholics seemed to have, but rather a simple empty cross that we Lutherans had. I dunno, that's what I took away from it all I guess. It seems too many people seem to equate either fundamentalism or some sort of harsh Catholicism with all of Christianity.
Posted by Ryan A. at March 26, 2005 04:11 AM
There is a fundamental issue I feel compelled to address. The notion that science and logic are the primary purveyors of truth is a LIE. On a fallibility scale, science and logic have no better track record than faith.
For hundreds of years science gave us bloodletting. Twenty years ago science told us to stay away from calcium if we had problems with kidney stones. Now it says high calcium in the diet has nothing to do with them. Science can't even bring resolution to the DDT debate. Science gives us carbon dating and other such debatable manuevers to prove things. If you don't know what I'm talking about read up on dating methodology:
1. Hypothesis
2. Experiment
3. Compare results to #1, if the agree move on to #4, if they disagree go back to #2
4. Conclusion
Look at social and cognitive sciences. People globally aren't any better off in quality of life and rational capacities than they have been in the past. Science gave us Vioxx and Celebrex. It also gives us chemotherapy and ultrasound (Look up some of the arguments against even the discriminate use of either.).
Well, what about logic? Samizdata, in its own right, stands in defiance of the infallibility of logic. I have seen people like toolkien, Euan Gray, Perry de Haviland, HelenW, Johnathan Pierce, and veryretired go at a subject using logic for days on end with no resolution. Make no mistake, these are not ignorants. They are intelligent, rational, and capable thinkers. Logic gave us the works of Nietszche, which may have (even if distorted a little) justified Hitler's little spattering in the history books. Look at how well logic has unified liberals and conservatives, libertarians and statists, creationists and evolutionists, pro-gunners and anti-gunners, ad-infinitum.
The biggest problems with science and logic is they rely on fact and analysis of fact. The first problem is we will never have all the facts. The second problem is our own cognitive processes are never totally removed from emotion and the finite capacities of our brains (or even our collective brains -society). The point is we can never have all the facts and we can never even comprehensively analyze all the facts.
We're all going to give glory and worship to something. If it is the truth we're after let us hold up neither science nor logic as our gods. For me, the universe and all its complexity and grandeur necessitates a Creator -one who is knowable, but not comprehensively comprehendible, and who has revealed himself to his creation in lasting, tangible ways. The notion of revelation (divine or not) gives faith a distinct advantage over logic and science. Test the faiths. If you're honest with yourself you'll see they are no less concrete than logic, reason, science, whatever.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 04:31 AM
My spelling error!!!! aarrgh.I just looked at "On the Way to Malta" again and realized I butchered Johnathan Pearce's name. How ironic! I just gave him a hard time about spelling only to be humbled by it myself. Sorry, Johnathan!
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 04:56 AM
I am surprised that you do not make reference to Nietzsche's main criticism of Christianity, that it tries to convert pain into meaning, and therefore increases pain instead of reduces it. As a Christian, I have always thought that Nietzsche was profoundly mistaken about how Christians view pain. Christians try to see the world through the eyes of the sufferer because, even when they are not suffering themselves, they realize that it is only the sufferer who sees the world truly, who sees the injustices that we elide in our comfortable individualism. There is something irreducible about pain (and joy) that have something to do with our possessing what we clumsily call a "soul." and which science and rational individualism systematically miss in their avoidance of all but clear and distinct ideas.
Also, no one ever said Communion was supposed to be "charming." It's not a happy meal. It speaks to a symbolism of sacrifice that is deeply woven into the ancient fabric of our souls. You should rather praise Christians for sublimating the act and not actually performing it on animals or people, as many religions do. Or, on whole groups of people as many ideologies do.
Posted by rca2t at March 26, 2005 05:22 AM
There is a fundamental issue I feel compelled to address. ....
Winlezer, this has got to be one of the funniest posts I've seen here to date.
For hundreds of years science gave us bloodletting.
And for at least 2,000 years the Bible has given us a young earth created in six days. Now, which one has moved on a bit since then? Hmmmm, I wonder which one.
Here's a little tip; If a process fails the scientific testing process, then it's not actually science. Bloodletting fails the scientific test. That they didn't see that back then is their failing, not sciences'. Bloodletting is, strictly speaking, prescientific.
As for the DDT debate, science isn't the problem, and I'm amazed you can't see that (or perhaps you do). It's a battle of ideology, NOT science. We know what DDT does and doesn't do.
The biggest problems with science and logic is they rely on fact and analysis of fact. The first problem is we will never have all the facts.
And religion overcomes the fact problem by doing away with the need for them altogether. Neat.
The second problem is our own cognitive processes are never totally removed from emotion and the finite capacities of our brains (or even our collective brains -society). The point is we can never have all the facts and we can never even comprehensively analyze all the facts.
So in fact what you appear to be saying is any failing of science is OUR fault, not a failing of the process itself. Well at least that makes sense.
Ah, and the old "Carbon-14 doesn't work scam". Very convenient if you want to believe in the young earth or the Turin Shroud.
We're all going to give glory and worship to something.
There's the equivocation hook....
If it is the truth we're after let us hold up neither science nor logic as our gods. For me, the universe and all its complexity and grandeur necessitates a Creator -one who is knowable, but not comprehensively comprehendible, and who has revealed himself to his creation in lasting, tangible ways.
Simply put; science sucks, choose my god. That's the punchline, BTW.
The notion of revelation (divine or not) gives faith a distinct advantage over logic and science.
Which is of course a statement followed by a veritable list of good reasons why it has these revelatory advantages...
Test the faiths. If you're honest with yourself you'll see they are no less concrete than logic, reason, science, whatever.
Oh, there not here. Hmmmm, must be around here somewhere.....
And Christians wonder why we're repulsed by their religion when they post stuff like this.
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 05:28 AM
Hey James, I think Winzeler is trying to express something along the lines of what D H Lawrence once wrote (I paraphrase):
Science is bunch of little truths yielding a great Lie;
Religion is bunch of little lies yielding a great Truth.
Posted by rca2t at March 26, 2005 05:42 AM
Yes, Ryan. You are exactly right. It is about the Resurrection. I just wanted to explain why Jesus suffered and died since Brian's post was about the pain. The Resurrection is why we celebrate Easter and it's what our whole faith is based upon.
Posted by Denise W at March 26, 2005 05:44 AM
Ryan, you are also right about the empty crosses. And I'm not Catholic, by the way.
Posted by Denise W at March 26, 2005 05:47 AM
James, six days in God's time can be thousands of years. It's not the same as our six days on earth.
Posted by Denise W at March 26, 2005 05:53 AM
Hey James, I think Winzeler is trying to express something along the lines of what D H Lawrence once wrote (I paraphrase):
Science is bunch of little truths yielding a great Lie;
Religion is bunch of little lies yielding a great Truth.
That statement makes very little sense. Given that it was DH Lawrence who said it though, that's not really surprising. However, replace the word "Science" in the first line with "Michael Moore" and we're getting somewhere.
And I think Winzeler's point was more along the lines of "my ideology can beat up your ideology".
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 05:55 AM
I mean, a blood sacrifice to God, of God's only son?
I thought Jesus was executed by the Romans. Christians claim he died for our sins. I haven't heard anywhere bar here that he was a blood sacrifice to God...? I admit that a great deal of Christian imagery is pretty wacky, however I find the story of Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection a tad bizarre, but poignant nonetheless.
As a non-Christian, I am respectful of - esp. Protestant - Christianity's enabling and more-or-less benign influence on the developed nations of the world. However, I would never become a Christian. It particularly irks me how (like all the other major religions) the highest celestial reward is unattainable if I happen to be a non-believer, regardless of my worthiness. I therefore find Christianity, along with the other major religions, insufferably arrogant.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 26, 2005 06:17 AM
James, six days in God's time can be thousands of years. It's not the same as our six days on earth.
Genesis says nothing about "God's time" being different. Six days to the people who actually wrote the Bible is exactly the equivalent of six days today. Otherwise, we would most certainly be referring to "years" as "days". Unless he somehow stretched the days and nights, a major event that somehow didn't seem important enough to mention at any point in the Bible. I'm sure that if we study up on our Aramaic or Hebrew, we'd find that "day" means pretty much the same thing to them as it does to us. I'm also pretty sure if you read any other text (ancient or new) in these languages, they tend not to refer to "thousands of years" as "days".
Genesis says the night was divided from the day. Sounds awfully like what we call a day these days (pardon the pun). It's funny how far into the ridiculous people are prepared to bend interpretation.
Or do you have some unique revelation from this god regarding how he marks time?
Sorry, but it's not a matter of interpretation. Neither is it a matter of interpretation that grass appears before the creation of life in the oceans, or that "winged fowl" were created before "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" (in complete contradiction to the fossil record). Neither does it say that the fowl and creeping things shared a distant common ancestor in one of those "days" gone by.
I would have thought all this was just common sense. But then I'm just an atheist, what do I know?
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 06:19 AM
James,
The statement makes a great deal of sense actually, in spite of it's author (not my favorite either). It's too bad you can't see it. By the way, I agree with your sentiment about MM, but it would make more sense to say that his films are a bunch of little lies that yield an even greater lie.
Posted by rca2t at March 26, 2005 06:20 AM
Denise :
James, six days in God's time can be thousands of years. It's not the same as our six days on earth.So when should I interpret the bible literally and when should I interpret it metaphorically? The "6 days is a metaphor" argument is disingenuous, I believe, for the precedent it sets. It says "days". I don't see any reason why we should take it any other way than as read. Unless you want to open up the whole New Testament to metaphorical interpretation. Dangerous.
Admittedly, Christians are on a hiding to nothing on this issue, because if you do take the phrase literally, it makes Creationism look like a bunch of crap. Alternatively, if you interpret it as a metaphor, you leave the New Testament open to complete butchery and abuse.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 26, 2005 06:27 AM
James,
The statement makes a great deal of sense actually, in spite of it's author (not my favorite either). It's too bad you can't see it.
That's because it's not there to see. What you appear not to see is that no explanation is given of what exactly this "big lie" is.
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 06:37 AM
James, your faith and my faith aren't all that different.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 08:02 AM
Regarding the science, if you will not agree that, in science, today's realities perpetually become tomorrow's absurdities, then I concede the whole science half of my point. You win. However, don't criticize me if I'm not willing to build my life on shifting sand like that. You can do what you want with it.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 09:51 AM
Suffering, you're willing to suffer for art, but not arrogance? (Crude humor) Is it arrogant to posit that no one is worthy and that no one attains the highest celestial reward based upon worthiness?
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 10:01 AM
One of the greatly malicious aspects of all religious doctrines, regardless of particulars, has been the demand that belief must be total and unquestioning.
I think Judaism is an exception, at least to some extent, at least during some periods in history.
It particularly irks me how (like all the other major religions) the highest celestial reward is unattainable if I happen to be a non-believer, regardless of my worthiness.
Absolutely does not apply to Judaism.
I am not proselytizing, BTW: Jews don't do that:-)
Winzeler: I agree with you that our ability to know all the facts is greatly limited, which renders science and logic quite imperfect. Is this imperfection a good enough reason to abandon reasoning and investigation of facts altogether, though? What makes you think that faith is more perfect than science, other than the fact that it feels more perfect? To me neither is, and that's fine, since both can coexist in peace within the universally non-perfect brains of universally non-perfect humans.
Posted by Alisa at March 26, 2005 01:43 PM
Absolutely does not apply to Judaism.Alisa - To be honest, I don't rank Judaism as a major religion due to its relatively small number of followers, however I realise its important role in history. I also accept that, despite being a moderately sized religion in regards to the faithful, it certainly punches above its weight, to use a boorish cliche. Thank you for informing me on that issue, however - I didn't know.
Winzeler - I absolutely believe that worthiness (as defined by one's personal morality) is infinitely more important than, say, faith. For that reason, I believe that, doctrinally speaking, an atheist *should* be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven if he leads a good life, even if he gets the whole existence of god/heaven & hell thing wrong. 'Spose there's a couple of reasons why I wouldn't be a Christian right there.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 26, 2005 02:28 PM
James, your faith and my faith aren't all that different.
Wow, such stunning argument from someone who's never met me. I'm truly humbled. Humbled, I tell you.
Again, these people wonder why we turn our noses up at them.
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 02:48 PM
Suffering: To be honest, I don't rank Judaism as a major religion due to its relatively small number of followers. You are right, of course. It's this whole "no proselytizing" thing, along with some demographic, um, setbacks:-)
Posted by Alisa at March 26, 2005 02:51 PM
Regarding the science, if you will not agree that, in science, today's realities perpetually become tomorrow's absurdities, then I concede the whole science half of my point. You win.
Then I consider your point conceded. You don't know science, or it simply frightens you. Strange to seek solace in one relgion among many thousands in existence, each with it's own differing ideas about the nature of the universe. Talk about building one's life on "shifting sands".
In religion, yesteryear's absurdities remain today's absurdities. If that's the price of the certainty one so desperately craves, you may keep it. I personally wouldn't lower myself, even if I believed in its god.
However, don't criticize me if I'm not willing to build my life on shifting sand like that. You can do what you want with it.
I will criticize, because the desperate need for this magical "certainty" and protection, so powerful that it drives rational people to seek irrational non-answers, is something I consider a grave weakness. I will not "buy" strength from another, especially something so ethereal as a god concept.
And in the case of our species, one that has come from nothing to running this world (through an understanding of those "shifting sands" of observation, understanding, acheivement and hard work), I will continue to criticize it for such silliness.
We are better than religion. We're stronger than that.
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 03:07 PM
I thought Jesus was executed by the Romans. Christians claim he died for our sins. I haven't heard anywhere bar here that he was a blood sacrifice to God...
That's exactly what Christianity teaches:
"Behold! The Lamb of God, who removes the sin of the world!" John 1:29
"For even Christ our passover lamb has been sacrified for us." I Corinthians 5:7
"Therefore, be followers of God, like beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ has loved us and has given himself up as an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet scent." Ephesians 5:1-2
You could also read Hebrews 9 and 10, which describes how Christians harmonise the Jewish sacrifices and the crucifixion. It's enlightening reading into just how truly perverse the religion is at its core.
- Josh
Posted by Wild Pegasus at March 26, 2005 03:18 PM
Thank you, Alisa. I was not saying we should abandon reason or science in the pursuit of truth. Neither was I upholding faith to a level higher than science or logic. I was quite simply suggesting that science, logic, and faith pass and fail all the same tests.
Suffering, I'm going to reply first by saying I highly respect you, your opinions, and the way you seem to treat the opinions of others -even if the others' are inflamatory. That said, I'll pose some questions. How worthy would I have to be to enter the kingdom of heaven? Perfect? Close? Better than...? How many lies do I have to tell to be a liar? How many things do I have to steal to be a thief? How many people do I have to hate to be a hater? How much screwing around do I have to do to be an adulterer? How much sin do I have to commit to be a sinner?
I do agree that personal worthiness is infinitely more important than faith, but if I use even my conscience as a guide (let alone something hard like Jesus' teachings) I find myself condemned, unworthy. Perfect worthiness (Christians would call it perfect righteousness) is emphatically the only basis for entering into the kingdom of heaven. If you seriously want to look into it, I suggest you read up on imputed righteousness. I also suggest (even more so) that you read it from the horse's mouth.
James, you can hurl all the insults you want. I will still maintain that science and logic are no less shakey than faith as sources of truth. I don't know how you can go outside at night, look up at the cosmos and arrogently assert that we're "better than that." We can't even count the stars, let alone master them. What, in your perception, justifies their existance better than a Creator? Big bang? Let me ask you this, how much time would you have to apply to nothing before it became something? For all our billions of years of evolution and greatness we still can neither destroy nor create energy (not to mention the fact that we haven't even seen it done). Where did all this energy come from? Your personal answers to these questions are why I said your faith is not unlike mine -they both require either a.) a pre-disposition, or b.) a "leap."
By the way, I don't in the least wonder why you are "repulsed" by my religion or why you turn your nose up at me. I pray God blesses you and you have a happy Easter and weekend.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 03:23 PM
I have a NON rhetorical question I'd like answered. I have read a lot of these threads over the past 6 months or so and I have been around the world (Middle East, Mediterranean Sea, North Africa, Europe, North and South America), and I have never seen an opinion (be it a political ideology, national ideology, hobby preference, sports team preference, you name it -even an another religion), receive opposition with the same vehemence as Christianity. If you're disposed to this, would you please tell me why? I don't want mere insults, I just want to know what offends you so much?
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 03:37 PM
So when should I interpret the bible literally..?
I think never. "The letter kills" & etc.
I suppose its odd that one can resort to Scripture to urge someone not to resort to Scripture, but there it is.
It particularly irks me how (like all the other major religions) the highest celestial reward is unattainable if I happen to be a non-believer, regardless of my worthiness.
This isn't so, but is a misinterpretation. A common one. The answer to that conundrum is found within Romans "Those who have not the Law yet still abide by the Law are a Law unto themselves..."
Posted by urthshu at March 26, 2005 04:37 PM
"...even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them on the day when God judges what people have kept secret..." (HCSB)
This is the completion of the thought urthshu started quoting. I would have to confirm it, but I think the "letter" is referring to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible which contained the covenant God made with the children of Abraham, specifically his grandson Jacob).
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 04:55 PM
Winzeler - I agree. It's very trendy to bash Christianity these days. I, however, see (Protestant, esp.) Christianity as the basis of Western civilization's greatness. I also think that Jesus taught some amazing truths that are worthy of our attention.
And thankyou for your kind words, which are reciprocated. I suppose a Christian would answer your questions by saying that God judges such things. I, however, cannot fall back on this. Actually, as an agnostic, I see no reason to. At the end of my life, I know I will look back and realise that I have done bad things to good people. Hopefully, I will have done a great deal more good than bad. And I hope my regrets will not amount to nearly as much as my triumphs. I want to be a good father and a good husband. I want to spend heaps of time with my kids. Having said that, I'd like a good career, but I don't want to lose sight of the really important things in life. I don't want to regret not spending enough time with my children. My father feels this way about my sister and myself. Obviously I have done and will do more bad things; been a hypocrite, cheated people, lied, etc. However, I'd like to remain honest with myself about these actions, retain perspective when suffering consequences, learn and improve. I don't expect I'm going to be righteous. However, if I die a markedly better person than I am now (and I think I'm more-or-less decent), I've led a successful life.
Perfect worthiness (Christians would call it perfect righteousness) is emphatically the only basis for entering into the kingdom of heaven.So how does anyone gain entry? It must be quite an exclusive club.
I think never. "The letter kills" & etc.I really hope you don't mean that. So the letter kills. Who determines what the "spirit" of the bible is? This position is not tenable. Christianity would become a complete dog's breakfast (even moreso than it is now, with all the schisms and such) if your flexible interpretation of the bible was applied widely.
"Those who have not the Law yet still abide by the Law are a Law unto themselves..."Does that not break the first commandment?
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 26, 2005 06:01 PM
Brian, interesting post. Besides the pain factor, another factor explaining the hold of religious faith even among more comfortable times is that of redemption. It is the idea that one can turn life around after screwing up. It is psychologically very powerful. A lot of self-help gurus who are atheists in many ways strive to convey to their clients the emotional impact bound up in the Easter message of life beginning anew.
As a lapsed Anglican who is now a skeptic about religion in all its forms, I still feel the great power of that message, even though I choose to ground my views on the evidence of my senses and what little reasoning capacity nature has given me, rather than on some revealed religion. And I feel too much respect for much of the wisdom contained in the Old and New Testaments to assume that pain is the main factor. As someone said above, if pain were key, how come Christianity has such a deep hold in the biggest economy in the world?
Posted by Johnathan at March 26, 2005 06:02 PM
"James, you can hurl all the insults you want. I will still maintain that science and logic are no less shakey than faith as sources of truth"
You seem to have this misconception that because science has changed its views that is it useless for finding truth. The reality is that if science didn't change that would be a problem. It is self-correcting. If new facts mean old theories are no longer tenable then to hang onto the old theories is to fly in the face of reality.
Religon however is useless for finding truth because it's basic premise is that people had knowledge revealed divinely thousands of years ago. When what they wrote down doesn't jive with reality those of faith merely say 'well, you're not interpreting it correctly!', whether or not there is any actual justification for this interpretation in the texts. Or they just deny reality outright - evolution being the main bone of contention for the biologically ignorant.
The assumption that you can trust what people who were clearly ignorant of much of science and history (their own included) are a reasonable guide to truth is just absurd to me. It all rests on the assumption that these people were actually receiving knowledge from a divine source - and when one critically examines what these people have written down, claiming this divine source as inspiriation, one can only conclude either the divine source doesn't know what it's talking about or these people were just making it up as they go.
"I don't know how you can go outside at night, look up at the cosmos and arrogently assert that we're "better than that.""
That's not what he's saying. He's saying when he looks up at the cosmos and he wants to understand what it's all about he will put his trust in a method that ACTUALLY examines the cosmos, rather than assume that people who thought stars could fall to earth have anything useful to teach him about it.
"Where did all this energy come from?"
The truth is that no-body knows. There are lots of questions to which the answers simply aren't known. To think that placing god in these gaps actually answers them is ludicrous though. If we were satisfied with placing god in our knoweldge everytime there was a gap in it we'd still think rainbows were created to remind a (omniscient mind) god not to kill us all, that thunderbolts were thrown down by Zeus, that the Nile river is flooded by Atum masturbating, that stars are just lights maybe mere metres above our heads, man was created from dust and so on.
With all the myths and legends from around the world dreamed up by the human mind to explain things around them and maybe, just maybe, gain some control over an indifferent universe by anthropomorphising it then worshiping the gods they created in order to curry favour with the universe. Which is what happens when people rationise senseless occurances as god's will, or pray, or do any other multitude of god related acts.
Posted by cyborg at March 26, 2005 06:28 PM
"As someone said above, if pain were key, how come Christianity has such a deep hold in the biggest economy in the world?"
You're forgetting how big the gap is between the rich and the poor in the US. Some areas are like a third world conutry.
And take a look at the most Christian areas of the US - the large, poor, red states. The least Christian? The rich, small, well educated, blue states.
Posted by cyborg at March 26, 2005 06:32 PM
"Poor red states"? Are you sure?
Oh, Winzeler: I see your point.
Posted by Alisa at March 26, 2005 06:51 PM
You seem to have this misconception that because science has changed its views that is it useless for finding truth.No, I have the conception that because science (maybe to split hairs: the application of science) has demonstrated its fallibility by subjecting hypotheses to its own methodology, analyzing the results, and forming conclusions, only to have new evidence force the revision of the conclusions. The process of science is irrefutable. However, the progress isn't. Scientific methodology would hypothetically eventually arrive at absolute truth, but because its a work in progress, the level of progression cannot be trusted. Maybe one could rationally trust the process, but because the process cannot be completed in any of our lifetimes the notion is nebulous.
My intention is not to exalt faith in religion, only to put faith in science and logic into proper perspective.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 07:55 PM
Winzeler,
What cyborg said. He's saved me a lot of time, thanks mate. But I have some points to add;
No, I have the conception that because science (maybe to split hairs: the application of science) has demonstrated its fallibility by subjecting hypotheses to its own methodology, analyzing the results, and forming conclusions, only to have new evidence force the revision of the conclusions. The process of science is irrefutable. However, the progress isn't. Scientific methodology would hypothetically eventually arrive at absolute truth, but because its a work in progress, the level of progression cannot be trusted.
Since when has 'trusting' been relevant? Science proceeds independently of our 'trusting'. Sounds more like impatience to me. "Well, science hasn't perfected itself yet, so I'll choose this religion instead". How fickle. It seems you believe religion is somehow less fallible than Science. Rich, for a religion with a 6 day creation myth.
Oh, and that self-revisionism of Science? That's it's strength, not the weakness you may wish is was.
Maybe one could rationally trust the process, but because the process cannot be completed in any of our lifetimes the notion is nebulous.
So the defining factor is that it can't do it "in any of our lifetimes"? What you really mean is within YOUR lifetime. Very strange statement for someone convinced of things bigger than himself. Your existence or the duration of that existence isn't the defining criteria of the validity of Science. And they call us atheists arrogant.
My intention is not to exalt faith in religion, only to put faith in science and logic into proper perspective.
That's not your intent at all. Sorry to have to say it, but I doubt you really grasp the "proper perspective" you refer to. You even equivocate on the concept of "faith", so I'm not convinced you understand that either. What you're saying is revealed religion is superior as an explanation of the universe, and then proceed to provide no evidence to back it up. That's just not good enough from a human being.
Outside of satisfying your own emotional needs, you've given no demonstration that your religion has produced superior results. Simply, because there isn't any.
And we are better than that.
Posted by James at March 26, 2005 09:37 PM
"Scientific methodology would hypothetically eventually arrive at absolute truth, but because its a work in progress, the level of progression cannot be trusted."
Then stop using that scientifically created tool you're using to post here - since it can't be trusted.
Posted by cyborg at March 26, 2005 09:45 PM
Cyborg, something doesn't have to be trustworthy as a means to attaining truth in order to be used for purposes of pleasure, self-expression, communication, et al.
James, if you're going to go about the business of dictating to me my own intent, you stifle the discussion, and that's fine.
I would still like to have you answer my question from above though:
I have a NON rhetorical question I'd like answered. I have read a lot of these threads over the past 6 months or so and I have been around the world (Middle East, Mediterranean Sea, North Africa, Europe, North and South America), and I have never seen an opinion (be it a political ideology, national ideology, hobby preference, sports team preference, you name it -even an another religion), receive opposition with the same vehemence as Christianity. If you're disposed to this, would you please tell me why? I don't want mere insults, I just want to know what offends you so much?Your reaction to my position strongly suggests you're meeting some emotional needs of your own. I really want to know why I get such inflamatory responses from you (and others).
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 10:05 PM
"Cyborg, something doesn't have to be trustworthy as a means to attaining truth in order to be used for purposes of pleasure, self-expression, communication, et al."
Then where are the great advances religion has given us? If religion is so great for gaining truth what truths has it actually given us? Theists can't even agree with themselves about that. You can argue with each other about truth for millenia and get nowhere.
Try arguing with the universe about the nature of an electron and you won't get very far. Try to persuade a proton it's something it's not and your argument falls on deaf ears.
Science is about listening to nature - theology telling it what it is. You tell me which is a more sensible approach.
"If you're disposed to this, would you please tell me why? I don't want mere insults, I just want to know what offends you so much?"
Probably not simply because the theology has led to some of history's most reprehensible characters and events but because at its core it says humans are shitbags unworthy of life except by the grace of the creator. I don't know about James but I find that pretty offensive.
Posted by cyborg at March 26, 2005 10:27 PM
Cyborg, I accept your last paragraph.
Science is about listening to nature - theology telling it what it is.About this part, I think it's wise to have a healthy dose of both.
Posted by Winzeler at March 26, 2005 10:46 PM
"About this part, I think it's wise to have a healthy dose of both."
Again I fail to see what theology has acomplished by utilising supposed divine revelations that have not been shown to have any bearing on reality.
Unless you're suggesting it's healthy to have one foot in reality and the other in fantasy.
Posted by cyborg at March 27, 2005 12:13 AM
Cyborg,
This may come as a shock to you but there are well educated people in the red states too. Where I am certainly doesn't look like a third world country either. There are a lot of Christians in this area and they are mostly middle class, not rich or poor.
Posted by Denise W at March 27, 2005 12:52 AM
"This may come as a shock to you but there are well educated people in the red states too. "
I do know this - however you cannot deny that these states are where the fudamentalist power bases are. These are the states that want stickers labeling evolution as 'just a theory' (if they want to equivocate label the Bibles as well).
"Where I am certainly doesn't look like a third world country either."
I'm sure it doesn't. For one thing you are probably white. For another you ARE using the internet. That hardly implies that you're worrying about where your next meal is coming from. Besides I didn't say it was the red states that were like third world countries. Merely pointing out that some of the poorest areas in the US are like that.
" There are a lot of Christians in this area and they are mostly middle class, not rich or poor."
You seem to have mixed up two points I made.
The first point was on the rich-poor gap. It's huge. One of the other posters didn't understand why with the basic hypothesis about pain that the US should be so Christian. I was merely pointing out that there are some incredibly poor people in the US.
As to why people are Christian simply experiencing 'pain' is not the only reason - although there is a train of thought that considers suffering something divine and to be encouraged (much as Mother Teresa did, despite the popular view that she eleviated suffering she considered those who were suffering Christ-like and lucky). So I'm not insinuating that Christians are mostly poor.
The major reason as I see it for people being Christian is simply of tradition - their family is Christian hence they are. I doubt most people even bother to think about it - they just accept what their parents say on authourity and pass it onto the next generation.
Posted by cyborg at March 27, 2005 01:27 AM
I have never seen an opinion (be it a political ideology, national ideology, hobby preference, sports team preference, you name it -even an another religion), receive opposition with the same vehemence as Christianity.
Here's a partial answer. Many ideologies can be assigned to one or both of two major groupings: permissiveness and utopianism. The former group (wrongly) percieves Christianity as a killjoy. The faith's code of ethics proscribes a lot of activities that seem like fun in the short run but are injurious in the long term. (One wonders why the excessively prudish Islam gets a pass.)
The latter group (rightly) perceives it as an obstacle to utopian fantasies. The concept of utopia is that of an earthly paradise, the perfection of human society. Christianity denies that such is possible; it claims that human perfection will be achieved only in the afterlife at the direction of God, not in the here and now under the direction of the United Nations or International ANSWER or the Screen Actors Guild or whatever.
And you can't have a perfect society unless the government controls its culture. Christianity promotes a culture independent of either government** or popular whim; it is therefore hostile toward such external control. Utopianism always involves control over the socialization of children through schools and other mechanisms; Christianity (and a few other ideologies) claim that such authority belongs to parents.
(** The state churches of nominally Christian nations were the product of heresy. Constantine violated the original intent for the independent church.)
Utopianism is often socialistic in nature; socialism attacks the Christian (and libertarian) principles that charity is a voluntary enterprise, and that the individual is responsible for his or her economic activity.
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at March 27, 2005 03:15 AM
"The major reason as I see it for people being Christian is simply of tradition - their family is Christian hence they are. I doubt most people even bother to think about it - they just accept what their parents say on authourity and pass it onto the next generation."
I have been a Christian for more than twenty years and the above statement is utterly false. Most of the Christian I have met and known think very deeply about their faith.
The idea that in order to be Christain you must be ignorant, not much of a thinker, or poorly educated is one of the great liberal myths, and like all liberal myths, it is a lie.
As a Christian I am not offended by anything said in the above posts and the article, just saddened at how ignorant so many are about the Christian Faith. It is pointless arguing about this with "intelligent" "rational" people convinced of their own intellectual prowess.
As for barbarism, the worst barbarism in human history was carried out by regimes that rejected Christianity in favour of "reason".
We had the "reason" and evolutionary "science" of the Nazi's racialism, and the "reason" of Soviet Marxism.
The previous centuries of of the Christian West were benign by comparison.
Posted by Shawn at March 27, 2005 03:20 AM
I have been a Christian for more than twenty years and the above statement is utterly false. Most of the Christian I have met and known think very deeply about their faith.I agree, most of the Christians I know think very deeply about their faith, too. However it is true that a majority of Christians are born into Christian families. Seeds are forcefully implanted in children, who are fertile ground because kids are so impressionable. Thus patterns are set from a very young age. Once you start down that path... Of course, the flipside is true for children raised in secular households. Most secular folk harbour cynicism of varying potency towards Christianity that they inevitably pass to their children. This is true of myself; my cynicism was replaced with respect (if not adherence to) Christianity as a religion only a couple of years ago - I'm 24 now.
Posted by I'm suffering for my art at March 27, 2005 03:35 AM
The idea that in order to be Christain you must be ignorant, not much of a thinker, or poorly educated is one of the great liberal myths, and like all liberal myths, it is a lie.
It doesn't happen too often, but for once I agree with Shawn. There are a great many highly educated and intelligent people who are Christian - including in such groups as doctors, physicists, chemists and biologists, groups one might think would have a more mechanistic explanation of life, the universe and everything. There are also many ignorant and uneducated people who aren't religious. What does this tell us? Nothing, other than that intellect is no bar to religious belief, and that ignorance does not imply that one will be religious.
Many of the western arguments against Christianity are directed more or less against the Catholic Church. It is true that Catholicism requires a greater degree of unthinking obedience to the rules, not least because of its rigid formal hierarchy and its express idea that infallible wisdom flows from one man with considerable temporal power. Many of these arguments don't work, or don't work nearly so well, against Protestantism or Orthodoxy. In both these cases (perhaps more so in Orthodoxy), it is quite possible to have significant theological differences with priests and bishops without being shunned, anathematised or excommunicated.
Humanity has a deep, basic need to feel that all is not in vain, that the suffering we go through on this earth is not for nothing. Christianity, like the other monotheistic religions, meets this need, by offering the hope of eventual spiritual reward. Where Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam is that it offers an illustration of this in the suffering, physical sacrifice and subsequent resurrection of Christ, who was both man and God. The whole point of Easter is to remember this illustration, which is the basis of the Christian faith.
Christianity, IMO at least, is somewhat more practical than many, if not most or even all, other religions. It bids us recognise that we are not perfect, nor are we perfectible. It does NOT (outside more extreme Protestant cliques) say that we are pre-doomed to damnation for our sinful humanity. It does NOT say we can make everything perfect on earth if we only follow the rules or institute some theory or other. What it does say, at heart, is that if we accept that we are imperfect and often wrong, if we exchange arrogance for a touch of humility, and if throughout our lives we strive to become better people by following the example of Christ, then we can hope to share this ultimate reward. Of course, it's much more complex than that, but it seems a handy enough one sentence summary.
Secular humanism can achieve much. It can advance our knowledge, give us material ease & comfort and make us physically healthy. It cannot, and of course does not pretend to, answer the basic spiritual needs of humanity. Yet these needs remain since they are a fundamental part of human nature. There really is no secular answer to them.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at March 27, 2005 08:45 AM
Euan, another key reason why Christianity has endured for so long is the message of forgiveness. It explains, in my view, the robustness of the Christian message in contrast to Islam and its penchant for vengeance, at least as it is proclaimed by fundamentalists. I believe also that the otherworldly core of Christianity helps explain the workability of the separation of Church and State in most modern societies, which has proven to be a boon, and not a hindrance, to religion.
Cyborg's comments are excellent, particularly on the difference between science and religion. Very well expressed.
Posted by Johnathan at March 27, 2005 11:59 AM
and if throughout our lives we strive to become better people by following the example of Christ, then we can hope to share this ultimate rewardI basically agree with your whole post, but isn't this part more arrogance, only subtler. It seems like this is still the "I can do it mentallity." Having read the Bible six times and memorized the book of Romans, I would say the basic tenant of Christianity (exclusive Bible-based Christianity) is that we can never do it, but that we have a substitute who perfectly did it and is willing to impute his having done it to us. From a Christian standpoint, way too many people are trying to buy or earn what they can't -what Jesus is dying to give them freely.
Anyway, good post. By the way, Johnathan, I totally agree with your separation of church and state sentiment. How many examples do we have of the abysmal failure of religion by compulsion?
Posted by Winzeler at March 27, 2005 01:13 PM
James, if you're going to go about the business of dictating to me my own intent, you stifle the discussion, and that's fine.
I've dictated nothing to you and well you know it. Don't be so dishonest. You're still posting, so don't presume to accuse me of stifling anything.
I would still like to have you answer my question from above though:
I have a NON rhetorical question I'd like answered. I have read a lot of these threads over the past 6 months or so and I have been around the world (Middle East, Mediterranean Sea, North Africa, Europe, North and South America), and I have never seen an opinion (be it a political ideology, national ideology, hobby preference, sports team preference, you name it -even an another religion), receive opposition with the same vehemence as Christianity. If you're disposed to this, would you please tell me why? I don't want mere insults, I just want to know what offends you so much?
You couldn't have read anything on this site and come to the conclusion that somehow Islam gets a free pass. I've been reading here for at least 2 years now, and I'm quite sickened at how Christianity is kit gloved on many occasions. Islam has been rightly vilified here in the past. I wish we were being more fair and including Christianity in that more often.
As for why you've experienced such hostility across the world, if you haven't looked into Christianity (and the organizations that promote it) and figured that out, then I doubt I can really enlighten you. Part of that is likely due to your emotional investment in it. I also found such things difficult to understand from the inside, due to the limited perspective it permits. Perhaps you should have asked those people who expressed that hostility, I certainly can't speak for them.
Of course, you can simply choose to believe that they're all wrong, and simply meeting some "emotional" need by sounding off. But then if you really thought that about them (or me) you wouldn't be asking the question.
Your reaction to my position strongly suggests you're meeting some emotional needs of your own. I really want to know why I get such inflamatory responses from you (and others).
Blah, blah, 'you cling to your ideology just as much' blah, so on and so forth. If you think my posts are "inflamatory" responses you don't get around much. Of course, it's easier to call them such than consider the possibility that they have merit. But let me give you a friendly tip; until such time as I start advocating the death of all believers and church burnings, I think you can lay off the Christian melodramatics just a tad.
My reaction expresses hate for most of what most religions stand for, and much of what it does throughout the world in the name of it's ideology, and of how very little the more "moderate" of Christians do to mitigate the more "radical" and "evangelical" elements of their belief (Hmmm, now what other religion have we been levelling that accusation at.... Couldn't be Islam, could it? No, no, couldn't be. We only bash Christians after all, don't we?). Again, if this simple point is not obvious to you, I can't help you see it. See above post for the answer to your second sentence.
Posted by James at March 27, 2005 03:39 PM
I agree, most of the Christians I know think very deeply about their faith, too. However it is true that a majority of Christians are born into Christian families
I'd have to disagree with that. Coming from a vastly Catholic country, with Catholic family members, Catholic friends, and living in Catholic communities, any real 'thought' regarding faith very rarely enters most minds. More accurately, it is typically a matter of levels of emotional investment, with everyday folk at the lower end of investment, clergy somewhere about the middle, and evangelical and fundamentalist being the most invested. Of course, the level of investment can wax and wane over the course of a lifetime. But we should never confuse intellectual reflection with emtional need.
My experience has been that the spread (and sustenance) of belief are more typically a result of what you might call 'parental memetic propagation'. Go to Dublin City in the Springtime, find some children on their Communion day, and ask them why, without fail, they'll all have wallets or purses. Then try and assess their levels of deep doctinal understanding. The usual reasons put forward why a child should go through this ceremony have, in my experience, boiled down to some form of "we'll, all the other kids are doing it".
When most people know so very little about the nature of their faith (never mind the texts it is based on), we can't in any honesty say that genuine intelligent reflection enters the equation in the majority of cases.
And when it does, a goodly portion of those I've known who've looked deeper have discarded their faith.
Posted by James at March 27, 2005 04:02 PM
To the Christians replying to me:
Yes I know there are intelligent Christians. My Grandmother happens to be one of them, has a degree in Chemistry from a top university here in the UK. I'm sure many of you think you've examined your faith deeply. The truth of the matter for most people they simply DON'T. Most Christians haven't read the entire Bible - lets be frank, there's great swathes of incredibly boring bits like the levitical law and genologies. Most are unaware of a context outside their faith. Most simply follow the direction of their pastor and get on with their lives thinking little more of it.
It is incredibly easy for people to compartmentalise - Christian scientists who do not apply the same rigorous standards to their experiments as they would their faith for example. Don't doubt the human ability for self-deception.
Oh, BTW, 'Gott Mit Uns' to whoever thinks the Nazi's were godless atheists.
Posted by cyborg at March 27, 2005 04:12 PM
In Re: Suffering for my art:
Sorry for not responding earlier. If you're still reading this...
I think never. "The letter kills" & etc.
I really hope you don't mean that. So the letter kills. Who determines what the "spirit" of the bible is? This position is not tenable. Christianity would become a complete dog's breakfast (even moreso than it is now, with all the schisms and such) if your flexible interpretation of the bible was applied widely.
I'd be the first to say my own Faith [Quaker-related] is something of a dog's breakfast- and I'd hasten to add that I'm not a very good Believer, though I do try. The emphasis for me is not on the letter of the Law, but on the power & glory, that which is of God.
The spirit then, is what is living, less so what is written. There are consistent, logical reasons for that when its reflected upon.
For instance, if the Resurrection was for the entirety of Creation, then how could that message of hope be something that only those who can read can be part of? How can it be delimited to something bought & sold, and how is that in accord with the spirit of Christ? If it's only a discrete event in fulfillment of prophesy, then how can it be applied to all of humanity, the majority of whom never heard of that body of scripture?
That doesn't mean the written Scripture is useless, though, just that it's of lesser importance to that which is God.
I understand that's a non-starter for some. :-)
As for it not being tenable- I agree. But then, most of Faith is not. That's what is being argued throughout this thread, in a way.
"Those who have not the Law yet still abide by the Law are a Law unto themselves..."
Does that not break the first commandment?
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense of idolatry, but no in the sense of recognizing the power of God, obeying that which is Holy, striving to lead a Holy life, etc.
If you've never had the Commandments to work with in the beginning, what then? That's what the passage deals with. I believe the Apostle goes on to say that if one gets exposed to the Law at some point, its better for them to follow it thereafter.
Posted by urthshu at March 27, 2005 05:18 PM
Urthshu, having that book memorized, you're basically right, but to expand on your thought: the law unto themselves is their conscience which basically bears witness to the laws of God -the primaries being Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.
James, consider the language of all your previous posts and mine. Then ask yourself who has the deeper emotional investment in their belief.
Part of communication (discussion) is hearing and listening. If you're too busy determining my intentions, you'll be too busy to attempt to understand where I am coming from. That's what I meant by "stifle."
I haven't followed long enough to see Islam-bashing, and I'll take your word on it.
I have been beaten up once for my faith and verbally abused dozens of times, not all suffering is death or church bu