Elok & C0ckney's religion and society thread.

[Jon Miller]

to respond to your general point about the hostility to religion in popular culture. i think there is some hostility, organised religion is an easy and often worthy target after all, but there is something else going here and something which is ultimately far more of a threat than direct hostility. i'm talking about the increasing irrelevance of christianity in mainstream culture and society. people care less and less about religious questions in general, and christianity in particular, in a western context; other matters occupy western thought. this is the result of a long historical process which has been playing out since before the appearance of mass culture, and which has been accelerated by it.

as to why this has happened i would suggest the following, in no particular order: philosophical changes; the increase in general education levels; the increasing dissemination of scientific knowledge (which makes the supernatural claims of christianity untenable);

This is completely false and any honest atheist (or non-christian) would admit it.

industrialisation; the rejection of traditional social models and the breakdown of those models; mass transport and; mass communication.

in light of the above it might be argued that the retreat you describe into a 'christian cultural ghetto' is a move dictated by self-preservation. i'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

there is also the fact that mass culture itself is quite new and inevitably there was going to be a certain distance between this type of culture and the culture that came before, that was, to a certain extent displaced by mass culture (you can see this in other non-religious types of culture too). mass culture plays a part in shaping, but is also a reflection of society in general, so it can be hard to disentangle the two, but to me it seems clear that religion is becoming less important in society in general, and mass culture is both a cause and a reflection of that. you talked about films presenting religion and religious characters in a bad or stereotypical light. if i were a christian this would not worry me; i would start to worry when religious themes and characters are presented not as great questions, but as matters of minor social interest, and that, in my opinion is the way things are likely to go.

Religious themes and characters became topics of minor interest ages ago. That is partially because 'hollywood' has been considerably more atheist than the general population. BTW, it is obvious that 'hollywood' drives social change more than social change drives 'hollywood'. Just consider the change in attitude towards homosexuals (which is a social change I am in favor of, and has probably contributed to the weakening of the Christian 'brand'), it was portrayed (and more positively than christians) by 'hollywood' before the culture acceptance which has arisen in the last 20 years.

JM

[C0ckney]

This is completely false and any honest atheist (or non-christian) would admit it.

how so, and why?

Religious themes and characters became topics of minor interest ages ago. That is partially because 'hollywood' has been considerably more atheist than the general population. BTW, it is obvious that 'hollywood' drives social change more than social change drives 'hollywood'. Just consider the change in attitude towards homosexuals (which is a social change I am in favor of, and has probably contributed to the weakening of the Christian 'brand'), it was portrayed (and more positively than christians) by 'hollywood' before the culture acceptance which has arisen in the last 20 years.

JM

perhaps, but popular culture is more than hollywood. it's also clearly a two way process; items of popular culture, such as 'hollywood' films, need to make money, that is to say, they need to be bought by many people (high culture on the other hand may depend on few or even singular sponsors, or state support). of course the creators want to project a certain vision, but this needs to be balanced with giving people what they want. people are unlikely to buy (watch etc.) something which goes totally against their world view.

[Jon Miller]

how so, and why?

Give one supernatural claim of Christianity that is untenable or even is attacked by scientific knowledge (excluding young earth creationism, which the majority of christians don't hold and haven't for a long time).

JM

[C0ckney]

there are many to choose from of course, but let's try the central one: the death and resurrection of jesus christ.

[Jon Miller]

there are many to choose from of course, but let's try the central one: the death and resurrection of jesus christ.

What scientific knowledge makes that untenable?

Non-scientific knowledge provides the same statements about Christianity's claims there as scientific knowledge. That it is (naturally) impossible. This was knowledge known in bible times (large groups of the Jews held it, and argued from it, the same with Romans and Greeks). The reason why people find it tenable or untenable has nothing to do with scientific knowledge nor the dissemination there of. It has to do with if they believe that miracles are possible, which is not something that scientific knowledge makes any claims on.

JM

[MrFun]

I don't think I really have the stamina to answer fully and properly right now, but as to "spirituality," it's a sort of religion for folks who like the idea of religion in a general way, but not the idea of commitment or discipline. There's no dogma, no hierarchy, no getting up early every Sunday, but you get what you pay for. There's also no structure, no strong community bonds, no guidance. I think of it as omphalotheism: navel-gazing elevated to the level of worship. Buddy Jesus cannot expiate your sins, and your belly button isn't going to give you any answers that you didn't give it yourself.

I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that he died for our sins, resurrected, and ascended to heaven. But I'm not a Christian because I don't go to church??

And I find it hypocritical of you, to make fun of non-denominational/spiritual Christians, and here on Apolyton OT you whine and moan about people making fun of religious people.

[C0ckney]

What scientific knowledge makes that untenable?

Non-scientific knowledge provides the same statements about Christianity's claims there as scientific knowledge. That it is (naturally) impossible. This was knowledge known in bible times (large groups of the Jews held it, and argued from it, the same with Romans and Greeks). The reason why people find it tenable or untenable has nothing to do with scientific knowledge nor the dissemination there of. It has to do with if they believe that miracles are possible, which is not something that scientific knowledge makes any claims on.

JM

it's certainly true that people did doubt the various miracles at the time and that there was a long debate throughout history about them, however the rest of your argument doesn't really follow from that. looking at things more broadly, in ancient and medieval times people certainly believed in magic and the world was largely mysterious. with the enlightenment and the accompanying demystification of the world, new scientific and philosophical approaches called into question, in stronger terms than ever before, the biblical miracles.

post-enlightenment philosophers rejected miracles (broadly as a group, there were some exceptions of course - some of whom went to extraordinary lengths to try to prove that biblical miracles were physically possible and compatible with the new understanding of the natural world) and sought to affirm that they, including the resurrection itself, didn't matter; or else that they were the result of some kind of manipulation or trickery; or explain them away in some other way, usually by pointing to naturalistic explanations. this was all in fact, an attempt to reconcile the biblical miracles with the new scientific knowledge and thus re-found christianity on a more secure basis. however, this rejection of biblical miracles, including the central ones, by the intellectual elite, which filtered downwards with the dissemination of knowledge of ideas, weakened christianity. really, how could it not have.

[Aeson]

What scientific knowledge makes that untenable?

Non-scientific knowledge provides the same statements about Christianity's claims there as scientific knowledge. That it is (naturally) impossible. This was knowledge known in bible times (large groups of the Jews held it, and argued from it, the same with Romans and Greeks). The reason why people find it tenable or untenable has nothing to do with scientific knowledge nor the dissemination there of. It has to do with if they believe that miracles are possible, which is not something that scientific knowledge makes any claims on.

JM

"That it is (naturally) impossible."

I think that is worded too strongly and dismissed too harshly. Science would tell us that there is no good evidence that these miracles happened. They haven't been reproduceable. But at the same time it can't prove that these things couldn't have happened. It's not in it's feature set at this time. In some cases it can offer possible alternate explanations, but only by making the miracles into something other than miracles.

That leaves an agnostic view as the scientifically sound standpoint on miracles. Which still does undermine belief in miracles (and claims that miracles couldn't have happened) in-as-much as it is adopted.

So from a strictly scientific standpoint belief (as in accepting they happened as described) in miracles would have to be viewed as an untenable position at this time. But I don't think it has much effect as not even most scientists address these matters strictly scientifically, and the average person is nowhere near it.

[Jon Miller]

it's certainly true that people did doubt the various miracles at the time and that there was a long debate throughout history about them, however the rest of your argument doesn't really follow from that. looking at things more broadly, in ancient and medieval times people certainly believed in magic and the world was largely mysterious. with the enlightenment and the accompanying demystification of the world, new scientific and philosophical approaches called into question, in stronger terms than ever before, the biblical miracles.

If you went to the vicinity of Rome at ~100 AD and asked them to believe that someone named Jesus came back to life at approximately ~30 AD in palestine, they would tell you you were crazy and that it was impossible. If you went to the vicinity of Rome today and asked them to believe that someone named Jesus came back to life at approximately ~30 AD in palestine, the majority would agree with you (or many at least).

Science didn't exist 100 AD.

Your example doesn't have anything to do with scientific knowledge or the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

And while I would agree that during portions of the middle ages that the world was thought to be very magical/mysterious, I don't see what that has to do with central claims of Christianity (see above). Additionally, the world being thought to be not so magical/mysterious doesn't have much to do science. Sweden, which is arguably the most post-christian of european nations, has a huge interest in horoscopes/etc which is very much a magical/mysterious world. Whether the world is thought to be mysterious/magical or not has nothing to do with the acceptance of Christianity's supernatural claims.

post-enlightenment philosophers rejected miracles (broadly as a group, there were some exceptions of course - some of whom went to extraordinary lengths to try to prove that biblical miracles were physically possible and compatible with the new understanding of the natural world) and sought to affirm that they, including the resurrection itself, didn't matter; or else that they were the result of some kind of manipulation or trickery; or explain them away in some other way, usually by pointing to naturalistic explanations. this was all in fact, an attempt to reconcile the biblical miracles with the new scientific knowledge and thus re-found christianity on a more secure basis. however, this rejection of biblical miracles, including the central ones, by the intellectual elite, which filtered downwards with the dissemination of knowledge of ideas, weakened christianity. really, how could it not have.

But that doesn't have anything to do with science. I agree, the theological rejection of miracles was a difficulty for christianity, but that wasn't science.

JM

[C0ckney]

If you went to the vicinity of Rome at ~100 AD and asked them to believe that someone named Jesus came back to life at approximately ~30 AD in palestine, they would tell you you were crazy and that it was impossible. If you went to the vicinity of Rome today and asked them to believe that someone named Jesus came back to life at approximately ~30 AD in palestine, the majority would agree with you (or many at least).

Science didn't exist 100 AD.

Your example doesn't have anything to do with scientific knowledge or the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

And while I would agree that during portions of the middle ages that the world was thought to be very magical/mysterious, I don't see what that has to do with central claims of Christianity (see above). Additionally, the world being thought to be not so magical/mysterious doesn't have much to do science. Sweden, which is arguably the most post-christian of european nations, has a huge interest in horoscopes/etc which is very much a magical/mysterious world. Whether the world is thought to be mysterious/magical or not has nothing to do with the acceptance of Christianity's supernatural claims.

whether or not they would have accepted the resurrection story is open to question, however the romans had many similarly supernatural myths and legends, which people accepted. many of these were borrowed from other cultures, especially the greeks, and many of these myths and legends had very ancient origins, pre-historic in some cases.

as an aside, it is interesting that certain mysterious/magical practices survive, in a rational and post-religious context. it's also interesting to consider how widespread this is, the answer being very. there are many folk tales, rituals and superstitions that have origins in the pre-historic past, some even (it has been argued) pre-neolithic; that is to say, before agriculture and settled life. that these remain, even if their original meaning has long since been lost, to the present day, despite 2000 years of christianity and several hundred years of the enlightenment, is a testament to their durability.

But that doesn't have anything to do with science. I agree, the theological rejection of miracles was a difficulty for christianity, but that wasn't science.

JM

and whence did that theological rejection result? from the enlightenment, and the birth of science as we understand it today.

[Jon Miller]

and whence did that theological rejection result? from the enlightenment, and the birth of science as we understand it today.

From the enlightenment I agree, but they don't have anything to do with science ( and definitely not the dissemination of scientific knowledge), other than the common progenitor (the enlightenment).

JM

[Elok]

Well, I've been out of the Poly loop for the past couple days, for obvious reasons. Re: belief in science making miracles untenable, I think you're stating an effect as a cause there. AFAICT people in the Western world have believed in a "natural order," as such, for ages. That is, we always believed that the natural world followed a general pattern. Generally their conception of its specific order was wrong in most ways, but made sense given their limited knowledge, e.g. the "spheres" of the medieval world, where earth naturally wants to be below water, etc. This cosmology existed alongside Church teaching, but distinct from it (and IIUC was largely inherited from pagan philosophers).

Fast forward many centuries, and we have a new understanding of nature. It's more accurate in many ways--but still quite wrong in others. People believe in it just like they used to believe in the gibberish of spheres, with one other difference: they no longer believe that exceptions to the rule are possible. But to say there are no exceptions is the same as saying there is no God, or at best expressing belief in the utterly useless God of the Deists. Comes out to much the same thing, either way. In effect, you're telling me that people stopped believing in God because they stopped believing in God. Well, yeah. But why then? The ancients got many aspects of science right--math, practical astronomy, etc. We have many more right, though we're still far from a perfect understanding. Why did belief start to fade away at one particular point in between?

I think that, along with what I've already mentioned, the rise of the modern nation-state might be a factor, especially the welfare state which absorbed many of the Church's traditional functions. It should be noted that Europe has a much more robust welfare state than us, and also lower religiosity, though of course that could be a coincidence.

(apologies for not really having the time to go into lots of detail here; maybe more later)

[Elok]

perhaps, but popular culture is more than hollywood. it's also clearly a two way process; items of popular culture, such as 'hollywood' films, need to make money, that is to say, they need to be bought by many people (high culture on the other hand may depend on few or even singular sponsors, or state support). of course the creators want to project a certain vision, but this needs to be balanced with giving people what they want. people are unlikely to buy (watch etc.) something which goes totally against their world view.

This is why it needs to be gradual, pushing the envelope. I don't believe it's necessarily a deliberate propaganda attempt, so much as Hollywood creators writing what they know. Characters in the movies are disproportionately likely to have creative or eccentric jobs, for example, because people over there have a better handle on how that kind of character thinks, and are more sympathetic to them. Religion also plays a minimal role in their lives, and therefore they seldom bothered to include an actually religious character. As time went on, they got a little bolder about what could be included, and there was something of a feedback loop. Elmer Gantry was wildly controversial back in the Sixties. Nowadays, the Religious Hypocrite is a stock villain who needs no explanation, like the Greedy Corporate CEO or the Ambiguously Euro-Trash Criminal. In all cases, we tend to forget that these are stereotypes.

[Elok]

i agree with that, however, to me that is its strength and indeed the source of its stability. religion, as a subset of culture, has become less important in the last, let's say 70 years for the sake of argument. this means that less cultural space, less thought is directed towards the issue of religion, and therefore less space for religion in people's lives. a quick, easy, undemanding religion is probably a partial response to this.

Think of it like a vestigial organ. There are certain functions religion used to fulfill. "Spiritual" is quite simply not up to those functions. Either it will wither away entirely as the function is abandoned (or taken over by the state, etc.), or it will grow back so it can function again. Only the deeply silly will retain it in its stunted form for long, unless their lives remain so placid that the useless vestigial organ is no burden.

of course we can also ask how many people, who went to church and went through the other motions of organised religion, when it was stronger, really thought about, and examined, these things for themselves. i don't know the answer to these questions, but it is at least interesting to consider.

The decline of compulsory religious observance certainly trimmed some deadwood--and I welcome that, because of the boom-and-bust cycle I mentioned way back when. Probably they got much the same benefit from organized and folk religion as spiritual people do from their mush today; the point is the avoidance of strenuous thought or inconvenience, and minimal participation in religious life would give the same effect as a set of beliefs that mostly accord with secular-liberal ideals today. But I would imagine they were somewhat fewer purely on the grounds that back then, religion was something one was expected to take seriously. Today, in the popular imagination, it's just an exotic sort of hobby.

[C0ckney]

Well, I've been out of the Poly loop for the past couple days, for obvious reasons. Re: belief in science making miracles untenable, I think you're stating an effect as a cause there. AFAICT people in the Western world have believed in a "natural order," as such, for ages. That is, we always believed that the natural world followed a general pattern. Generally their conception of its specific order was wrong in most ways, but made sense given their limited knowledge, e.g. the "spheres" of the medieval world, where earth naturally wants to be below water, etc. This cosmology existed alongside Church teaching, but distinct from it (and IIUC was largely inherited from pagan philosophers).

Fast forward many centuries, and we have a new understanding of nature. It's more accurate in many ways--but still quite wrong in others. People believe in it just like they used to believe in the gibberish of spheres, with one other difference: they no longer believe that exceptions to the rule are possible. But to say there are no exceptions is the same as saying there is no God, or at best expressing belief in the utterly useless God of the Deists. Comes out to much the same thing, either way. In effect, you're telling me that people stopped believing in God because they stopped believing in God. Well, yeah. But why then? The ancients got many aspects of science right--math, practical astronomy, etc. We have many more right, though we're still far from a perfect understanding. Why did belief start to fade away at one particular point in between?

I think that, along with what I've already mentioned, the rise of the modern nation-state might be a factor, especially the welfare state which absorbed many of the Church's traditional functions. It should be noted that Europe has a much more robust welfare state than us, and also lower religiosity, though of course that could be a coincidence.

(apologies for not really having the time to go into lots of detail here; maybe more later)

i'd like to try to deal with this as whole, although i must confess that i don't really understand what you're trying to say in the first one and a half paragraphs. what i'm saying essentially is that a new way of looking at the world (from the enlightenment and the birth of modern science) and its demystification caused philosophers and scientists to question religious doctrine in a new, or at least more vigorous, way, and then to reject, or attempt to play down or explain away, its supernatural elements (the miracles).

i think there's is a danger in focusing too much on the point that jon picked up on, and neglecting other factors, which were at least, if not more (especially in a modern context), important. i don't think that the modern nation state itself is that important; although it may have been in some contexts. we can see for example that many modern national identities have religion, or even a particular denomination, as a key component. i would suggest as an alternative: industrialisation. this changed the patterns of life completely, and the social structure in which organised religion had existed until then changed, and organised religion was relatively slow to adapt.

the industrial working class had little use for organised religion, and i think this may have some bearing on the differences between europe and america. to borrow some marxist terminology, the development of a hereditary proletariat (if you're not sure what i'm talking about here, i can explain further) happened much earlier in europe than in the americas. the rural, folky religion was in decline as rural society changed and the mass movement to the cities began. of course, organised religion was present in the cities, but mostly as a feature of 'respectable' or bourgeois society (this is of course an enormous generalisation, but one which i think holds true). the early emergence of a hereditary proletariat in europe alienated a large section of the population from mainstream/established churches, though not necessarily from religious belief, or even organised religion itself. in america the ability of proletarians to enter the bourgeoise with relative ease meant that mainstream churches, as part of respectable society, retained their relevance for the working classes, who might realistically expect to form part of respectable society one day. it also meant that by the time a hereditary proletariat had formed (the latter part of the nineteenth century), the mainstream churches were sufficiently well adapted to urban society to retain a greater proportion of this proletariat as members.

actually reading that back, it seems that the formation of a welfare state is a likely (one might argue inevitable) consequence of industrialisation, and so probably forms an integral part of the overall process we're talking about.