Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

Note that Whaleboy should have no problem with BKs position because he doesn't think that science is neccesarily based upon physical experiments and observations.

This is either the fourth or the fifth time of telling you, that that is wholly not the case, as has been mentioned by myself and others multiple times, and yet still you persist with this strawman. Why?

[Whaleboy]

As to Whaleboy, if you still remember your last post (I've been busy...108 pages, yeah baby!), about the danger of abuse of power in organized religion, I think that you might have taken my formal study remark a little too literally. I meant something more along the lines of C.S. Lewis's famous remark: "If Christianity is true, it is of the utmost importance. If it is false, it is of no importance whatsoever. The one thing it cannot be is of moderate importance."

I take that on board, a good point . I broadly concur, except for the distinction I will explain in answer to your second point...

Fear of Machiavellian abuse appears to me to be based partly on memories of medieval history, e.g. the crusades, but also partly on the assumption that religion's existence is not terribly important except as a pacifier-UR's crutches. So the main value that a faith is judged by today is generally tolerance and open-mindedness. But if the actual truth of a belief doesn't matter, there's no reason to have the belief to begin with. And with something as intensely psychological as faith, there is also a considerable danger of "Machiavellianism" from within. A Personal Faith can grow to be a mouthpiece for feeling good about what you were going to do anyway. It breeds not spiritual hatred but spiritual complacency. It's a different kind of disease but still unpleasant in its own way. And it undermines the whole purpose of faith. Personal Faith is like religious Libertarianism. It has the potential to breed corruption and decay just as badly as the religious "Dictatorship" of the medieval RCC did, though of a different sort. It hasn't really begun, because it's a relatively new phenomenon. Give it time.

The difference I see here is a very human one. Because faith exists in both situations its consideration cancels out (in the case of organised religion, there are still faith considerations to make but...) and so we are left with the difference between individual behaviour and group behaviour. Latterly, take the intelligence of the loudest person, divide it by the number of people presence, and you have something that might look like group intelligence. My equation is of course a guestimate. Now the faith considerations of the community are obviously reciprocal, so one ends up with the inevitably comparison an existentialist will draw, of Nazism and the Nuremberg rallies. Faith can breed corruption but no more so than humanity, group faith is a different animal all together.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Ever read the Book of Mormon?

They assert first of all, that the old has become corrupt, and that a new testimony must replace the old. Which is the same things the Muslims, and many other religious groups have said about the Bible since it was written.

Now, why should the Muslims with their prophet Muhammed be treated differently from Mormons and their Prophet in Joseph Smith?

Why should they be treated differently than the gospels? All 3 purport to derive from God or his prophets.

Look at Christ, did he not affirm the authority of the Old Testament, in saying that he came to fulfill all that was written in the law and the prophets?

Did Jesus affirm OT divorce law? No, he tried to change it. Does the law of the prophets equal the OT? No, Jesus said the entire law of the prophets was based on the 2 commandments he gave. Compare what Moses did to a man for collecting wood on the Sabbath with how Jesus behaved.

The first question is a good one, the second less so.

Jesus's statement does not imply that he did not know the hearts of men were hard. All he's saying is that God knew your hearts were hard.

It doesn't matter if Jesus knew their hearts, only that Jesus attributed an OT law to God and not himself.

Now, the question you should really be asking, is how does Christ know that God knew their hearts were hard?

I don't know, only that someone wrote that he did know a long time ago.

As for the first question, this goes back to the concept of two persons in one Godhead. Christ and God the Father could love each other more than any of us love each other. This statement of Christ's to ask God is remarkable, because it shows the full measure of Christ's suffering. Not only did he suffer the physical consequences of sin, but also the spiritual consequences, in being cut off from God during his Atonement on the cross.

So we have 1 deity that is 2 (or 3) in one but can separate into at least 2 entities? Pagan!

Did Jesus lose his divinity in order to die on the cross? Was it restored? By whom? God?

[Jon Miller]

That is actually a good argument to consider Mormons something other than Christian.

Which would make it for major groups of the book:

Christians
Jews
Moslems
Mormons

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

I'm not an expert on the Mormons or on what defines one as a Christian, but it seems to me that the Mormons regard christ as the messiah and furthermore they call themselves christian, so that is surely by far the safest definition no?

[Elok]

Well, the example falls apart due to the need for voluntary participation to make religion meaningful, but why do we have democracy, even? Why can't the individual just look at the constitution and decide for him/herself what fits the spirit of the law? Democracy imposes a sort of "tyranny of the masses," and I think it's a good thing not because people are smarter in groups (patently false), but because when people are arguing and fighting for ideological dominance blatant selfishness is suppressed. It won't be spectacularly successful; people don't vote for the guy who says what they need, but the guy who says what they want. All that a democracy does is force the needs of all to be at least temporarily considered. So a democracy endures and preserves, though it does very few spectacular deeds.

And there are different kinds of organized religion, just as there are different forms of government. Orthodoxy is ruled by something like an old Roman Republic, Catholicism by more of a post-Republican Empire, while Protestants tend to favor direct democracy. And that's just within Christianity. Going against "organized religion" in general might be a bit unfair, like my "going against the enlightenment."

BTW, I do rather like Candide, even if Voltaire is a stinking deist. I like anybody who agrees with me that people are innately insane and cruel. And Locke and Hobbes, if they qualify as Enlightenment, aren't bad...see, I told you I'm philosophically ignorant. My beef with the great age of reason and whatnot is based mostly on my grudge against the hypocritical, reactionary contempt for religious belief it fostered, or that came out of it at least.

[Elok]

WRT Mormons, I'm not an expert on them but I think they believe a number of things which run in blatant contradiction to the Bible. There's some weird stuff about Jesus, the Archangel Michael, and Adam all being the same person, and all human beings having the potential to become Gods and rule over their own worlds just like their buddy Yahweh, and who knows what else. While the definition of "Christian" is of course subjective, the Mormons are at the very least outside the mainstream. Oh, and they also hold the Book of Mormon as the greatest scripture, above the Bible.

And then there's the underwear thing, and the whole mythology they built up about Jews on barges coming to America to found dynasties, and those civilizations being destroyed...they're like the Moonies. They've built a very large and complicated idea out of the stripped-down, bare basics of Christian theology. Or like Thomas Jefferson, who thought Jesus was a swell guy but deplored all the superstition and so on, and wound up editing out most of the gospels to turn Jesus into a Jewish Confucius.

Charges that the Mormons aren't Christian are at least a little more legitimate than, say, charges that "Catholics aren't Christian, they're nasty idolaters with their candles and incense and the Pope is the Antichrist."

[Whaleboy]

Well, the example falls apart due to the need for voluntary participation to make religion meaningful, but why do we have democracy, even? Why can't the individual just look at the constitution and decide for him/herself what fits the spirit of the law? Democracy imposes a sort of "tyranny of the masses," and I think it's a good thing not because people are smarter in groups (patently false), but because when people are arguing and fighting for ideological dominance blatant selfishness is suppressed. It won't be spectacularly successful; people don't vote for the guy who says what they need, but the guy who says what they want. All that a democracy does is force the needs of all to be at least temporarily considered. So a democracy endures and preserves, though it does very few spectacular deeds.

True, I largely concur with you about democracy, excepting that as a government, "the needs of all" is often a poor baseline.... consider the likes of justice and treatment of unpopular minorities. As for the example, the difference between the likes of organised religion and nazism is that of voluntary participation, except that in both cases voluntary participation is achieved! Whether it be through blackmail of ones life which reasonable people would not call voluntary participation but the invididual still has the choice, or what is effectively a pre-fab belief system, complete with good and evil and the moral rules that people seem to crave.

And there are different kinds of organized religion, just as there are different forms of government. Orthodoxy is ruled by something like an old Roman Republic, Catholicism by more of a post-Republican Empire, while Protestants tend to favor direct democracy. And that's just within Christianity. Going against "organized religion" in general might be a bit unfair, like my "going against the enlightenment."

Very good point! Nicely said! Naturally i would be further inclined against authoritative religions as opposed to Buddhist collective religion etc.

My beef with the great age of reason and whatnot is based mostly on my grudge against the hypocritical, reactionary contempt for religious belief it fostered, or that came out of it at least.

Well I think the understanding of how faith fits in the human condition is more a post-modern phenomenon. Judge it not how it appears to us today but in it's socio-historical context. It's coming after the inquisition, after the religious wars, after strife and turmoil directly attributable to organised religion, with no cause to distinguish faith from categorical religion. Obviously I'm making the mistake of lumping the enlightenment under one banner, but it begs the question of the socio-historical context of religion.

[Elok]

Well, you've heard the old axiom about mistaking correlation and causation, haven't you? For thousands of years religions were in power. For those same thousands of years, religions have been abused. It doesn't follow from there that organized religion leads to corruption and the violation of human rights. Any group of people gaining too much power is likely to become corrupt and despotic, and they make do with whatever ideology is available for exploitation. The Inquisition, Crusades, etc. simply took advantage of the nearest philosophical fuel source for political gain.

But if you look at, say, the Muslim Caliphate, it's not so bad. Barbarity isn't a necessary accompaniment to organized religion. (For those even less familiar with history than I, believe it or not, there was a time when the Muslim world was not only devoutly religious, but also educated, civilized, and dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences. They were the most advanced people on Earth at one point. Really, I'm not making it up!)

The only way to ensure that there will be no rule by fanatics whatsoever is to eliminate all strongly held principles so that there are none to abuse, or else to keep society so fragmented that no one faction can gain power. America is currently going by the latter course; I don't know what's going on with Europe, but they seem to be inclined to bicker just like us, only on procedural grounds rather than ideological ones. Maybe that's progress, but I don't know.

[Whaleboy]

Well, you've heard the old axiom about mistaking correlation and causation, haven't you? For thousands of years religions were in power. For those same thousands of years, religions have been abused. It doesn't follow from there that organized religion leads to corruption and the violation of human rights.

Agreed it doesn't follow simply from that, hence the question begged earlier. My response would be similar to Russells observation that religions are based upon fear, as is cruelty. Fear is inherent to humans and not religion, hence there is no linear chain saying fear -> religion -> cruelty, rather fear -> religion and fear -> cruelty. Some philosophical fuel is, however, more explosive than other. I can't imagine you'd find anyone justifying cruelty on the grounds of moral relativism or pacifism, which isn't to say that this validates those theories, but one must explore all contributing factors. Remember also the rise of extreme ideologies, be they political or religion, correlates to a rise in fear.... say a dying German economy or appalling poverty. Or perhaps America's cultural polarisation and it's history with the God squad. Such things allow Nazism, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalise Islam to fester.

But organised religions, like any collective, such a political party, are to be judged by the actions of the members and followers, and not the literature. Hence, my pet peeve; the British National Party, while its literature may seem civil (albeit woefully inconsistent and about as well thought out as a screwdriver made of chalk), it's members are little more than insecure, racist, violent thugs. I would seek to judge organised religion by the actions of those who are bound.

But if you look at, say, the Muslim Caliphate, it's not so bad. Barbarity isn't a necessary accompaniment to organized religion. (For those even less familiar with history than I, believe it or not, there was a time when the Muslim world was not only devoutly religious, but also educated, civilized, and dedicated to advancing the arts and sciences. They were the most advanced people on Earth at one point. Really, I'm not making it up!)

No, you're bang on. Islam and the Chinese were the worlds most advanced, intellectual and civil civilisations in history until we in the West started ****ing with them. Note however that the lack of cruelty is not attributable to religion, the socio-economic factors for both were far more significant. To many Dark-age societies in Asia and Africa, Islam was a far better alternative than what they already had, remember the economy of the region was essential dead post Roman empire.

As for alternatives, alas I can provide none. It is an unreasonable expectation that those bound by organised religion will wake/grow up and smell the java, and I'm about as big a fan of democracy as Socrates or Bush.

[Elok]

Meh, my point is that the stereotype of benighted primitives doesn't hold water, is all. And so I don't see why it's inherently worse to have organized religion than to have a political party, or a school of philosophical thought. People don't kill for moral relativism or pacifism because nobody feels all that strongly about them. Okay, killing for pacifism would be hard to argue, but suppression of freedoms in the name of keeping peace is an old card to play. Bush is whacking the world and ignoring torture in the name of freedom as we speak, and the majority of his supporters are not in fact nut-job evangelicals. Those are his single largest support base, yes, but a lot of his backup comes from earnest but terrified Americans who only go to church by rote, if that.

People who will become inhumane for the name of their god will also become inhumane for their economic principles (Lenin, all those Central American Death Squads Reagan propped up), or for one or more other secular cultural institutions (French Revolution, American Civil War). Thing is, it's ultimately never about the principle, really. The Confederates didn't care about States' Rights, they just wanted to have their way. It all depends on the profundity of the message used to justify. Which is why I say the only solution is to have no principles at all.

Nor do I agree that religion is based on fear (surprise, huh?). Half of 'em don't have any concept of damnation, and those that do often stress the idea of community service or virtue for a happier life far more. You could stretch a common thread of all religions, "existential uncertainty," and call it fear, but then I could say that all political systems are based on a "fear" of anarchy and murder. Religion exists as a solution to a perceived problem, often organized for efficiency, and dismissing it as a failure out of hand is as bad for secularists as it is for believers. Scapegoating to dismiss worries solves nothing.

[Whaleboy]

my point is that the stereotype of benighted primitives doesn't hold water, is all.

Agreed . I think we agree on the point that human nature certainly is not pretty.

You could stretch a common thread of all religions, "existential uncertainty," and call it fear, but then I could say that all political systems are based on a "fear" of anarchy and murder

It is the existential nihilism which I think motivates a lot of people to faith... bare in mind that there are ideas that people will simply not accept no matter the strength of reason because it disagrees with them so fundamentally. The antithesis to those ideas seem to be harboured by religion (though of course religion and the way people are brought up is part of the problem of rejecting ideas), which (in the Christian sense) rejects scientific evolution, atheism, moral relativism and is consistently an opponent of the days social liberalisation or egalitarian movement. If you consider moral progress to exist, then the Church has opposed it at every turn, and while Judaism isn't much better, at least it lacks the hubris of a majority religion in most cases. Fear of difficult questions? Fear of difficult answers? Fear of eternal damnation or God's punishment (during or afterlife), and most importantly fear of oneself. I'm making educated guesses here, I'm no shrink.

However I do not think that political systems are motivated by fear of anarchy or murder, they tend to be motivated by the voters self-interest or moral systems, ditto for the politicians. We never think will happen to us until it does, which for the majority it will not.

You're right though, I am overgeneralising and I am being unfair to the better examples of organised religion and also the good work they can do. Mine could well be best described as an illustration of a tendency, or an indictment of none but the conservative religions... so fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, as well as Orthodox Judaism among others. That's there the dogmatism kicks in hardest, as well as a less hygienic organisational strata, if I can call it that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

But seriously, Ben, I think people still refer to "the theory of gravity" and "the theory of relativity." Regardless of what you think about evolution, the word theory has nothing to do with whether it should be taught.

Agreed. I haven't commented here on whether I think it should be taught, or how it should be taught.

The term can be applied to anything from the completely gonzo to the well-established but not directly provable. The descent of creatures from a common ancestor is pretty much indisputable...I still haven't heard how natural selection has been proven, but the theory is in such wide use among the scientific community that it just doesn't make sense to ignore it.

I completely agree with you here. You ought to have some familiarity about the proof behind the theory rather than mere acceptance of the theory; just because most of the scientific community happens to accept it, is not proof of the legitimacy of the theory.

[Whaleboy]

Agreed. I haven't commented here on whether I think it should be taught, or how it should be taught.

Indeed, it's a completely different question. To me, whether or not it is taught as true in the scientific sense surely depends on the weight of argument, but then thats down to teachers and students. For obvious reasons, the teaching of creationism should be in the context of religious or anthropological studies, not scientific imo.

You ought to have some familiarity about the proof behind the theory rather than blind dogmatic acceptance of the theory, because most of the scientific community happens to accept it.

I agree 100%. No good theory should rely on blind acceptance and faith. You should be able to look into it, see the evidence and the conclusion should be simple in light of the premises. I think there is no better example of this than evolution and general relativity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because in the sense that I use it, reason and faith are dualistic. I believe I have used this analogy before in this thread and also with you, but nontheless;

Imagine one has a rivine or some great chasm to cross (representative of where we are, and theism per se). To jump across it is rather like an act of faith, literally a leap of faith. But that act is devalued if there is a bridge over the chasm, over which one can walk without requiring that faith; one step at a time, as easily as one walked to the chasm itself? Faith and reason are, in that sense, inversely proportional to a given end, you can look at it as simple economics where value is a function of supply and demand, supply is made easier, value falls and demand falls accordingly (where faith is required for deity). Recall the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy take on the matter?

You make a very good point here. Reason is dependent upon our knowledge. If we know that there is a bridge across a ravine, it makes no sense to try alternative methods that are less trustworthy. But what if we don't know that there is a bridge across a ravine, or at least, whether there is one within reasonable distance? What if we don't know which direction one would travel to reach the bridge, or even when you got there, the condition of the bridge. In this case, reason cannot provide you the answer as to whether you should attempt an alternative method of crossing the ravine, or whether one ought to continue searching for a bridge.

This is where faith comes in. We cannot be certain of a great number of things in our own life. We can make reasonable decisions, but this only takes us within what we know. It cannot take us beyond what we know. We do not forsee all the consequences of our decisions, and nor should we really foresee them, because if we could, it is unlikely we would get much done.

Of course that example completely ignores the PSR but you get the point .

Yes, it's a good quote.

Such theories are not something tangible, they are merely conceptual relationships, and yes in that sense they do require faith (remember faith and reason are dualistic in one context, mutually composed in another), but in the same sense that one trusts ones vision, or trusting in the fact that there is not a lion and a gazelle copulating on my desk.

Ah, but I do not trust my eyes. They decieve me all the time. They show me what is not there, while hiding what really is there.

People see what they want to see, not always what is there.

I am not saying that such a test is impossible, it is simply more complicated than you imply, since our environment changes with us, and will affect our evolution too;

Which raises the question, as to the mechanism of evolution. If we play a part in how we evolve, in our control over our own environment, then that's quite different from the more traditional theories of evolution, that say it is a natural force, that cannot be altered by human decisions.

What you have here, if we change our own environment, which in turn, changes us, is a feedback loop. It is a cycle, rather than any form of progress leading onwards and upwards.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Darwin wrote his theory when he did. There is much of Victorian thought, with regards to perpetual progress contained within.

You misunderstand, humanity is subject to evolution and we are animals, simply that rapidly changing human civilisation as an evolutionary influence is not the case with other animals (where are the Chimps and their cities?)

Ah, how can we be subject to that which we control? If we shape our environment, how are we to be subject to it?

That is not because of any inherent difference between human and animals, it is because of a scientific appreciation of the influences that affect the outcomes.

Evolution may work differently, if we have conscious control over our environment, something that other species do not seem to have.

Indeed, consider pre-genetics evolution to be rather like pre-Einsteinian physics. They had the model, not the means (of gravity latterly). Needless to say, Francis and Crick had grounds to be more sure of evolution than Darwin himself, because they had access to evidence and the actual means of evolution, which Darwin didn't. That others can be more sure of a theory than its creator is not somehow a refutation of the creator though.

Very true. However, it raises interesting questions to consider the doubts that he did have about the validity of his theory, and whether his doubts have been quelled.

I don't think they have been settled yet, and that there are certainly plenty of questions left to answer before one can definitively say they are solved. Yet, why is this considered heretical among the scientific community, to acknowledge these doubts?

Where is this evidence, contrary to evolution?

Well, first we have to decide what constitutes 'evolution' and what does not.

He is now . If there is a scientist who has better ideas he should be listened to, but a theory should be judged by virtue of its validity, not by how far from the mainstream it is.

I agree. Nor should a theory acquire the devotion of canon even if it is adhered to by the majority. There have been countless occasions where the majority has been proven wrong.

[qutoe]
Soundness and validity is the test applied to creationism consistently, and it simply fails. Paleontology, morphology, genetics... the evidence pro-evolution seems to continuously grow and furthermore supports the other.
[/quote]

Supports what? That there were species that lived long ago, that no longer live now? That one can trace our own heritage through our genes? This supports heredity and paleontology, but it is a lead to go from both, and to say that they are evidence for evolution.
quote:

Actually no, imo it is as solid (indeed said physics and chemistry support evolution, another reason I dislike artificial barriers between the sciences). The trouble with evolution though is that unlike chemistry and physics, because of its nature; time taken and extrenuous factors, it makes it much harder to test in the laboratory than boiling water with a bunsen burner. Like quantum physics .

I agree fully. It is then nature of the subject that makes things far more difficult to study. It is also the reason why theology employs different methodologies.

One would ask of you this, do you concur with the view that evolution is the best theory for life, as opposed to creationism and Lamarkism?

As oppose to Lamarkism? I would say so, even though there are questions to how we know what we do, and why people seem to come as bundled software, and not blank slates.

As for creationism, the devil is in the details. I do not believe the correct theory will ignore evidence from either side, that species may not change from each other, but rather evolve in parallel.

I personally disagree with the theories that place the history of the Earth in 6000 years, but I would agree with folks who say that creation days are much different from our own days.

By the way, you may be interested in the works of a theologian called Robert Beckford, there was a documentary recently where he explored the authorship of the bible.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/st...1376992,00.html

I know that the bible contains no compelling reason for God's existence (if i am wrong there do point me to the relevant sections) and I'm only really interested in religion in its external aspects.

How do you know it is not there if you don't look? That's the best advice I can give you, is to read it yourself. I'm not saying take time away from other things, but that if you are interested in learning more about this subject, this is the direction to go.