-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christianity versus Atheism
- Thread starter Damien Sid Malery
- Start date
Smoke
Done here.
So Christians are generally disposed to favor oppression, but may -- over a period of generations or centuries -- be persuaded to honor "Jesus' obvious, overall intentions." Sounds like Christianity isn't just ethically impaired, but is also notable for a lack of responsiveness to Jesus.Elvendon said:
Isn't the contravention of free will inherent in oppression? Aren't oppressors giving full rein to their own propensity to sin?Elvendon said:
I disagree, but I still feel this is wandering from the topic, because Christians don't typically advocate gradual change. On the contrary, they typically insist that change is impermissible, that it's contrary to the will of God, and that it will result in the destruction of society. You argument grants validity to the last of those points, but doesn't encompass the general pattern of Christian folly. Southern Protestant preachers before the Civil War didn't typically counsel the gradual abolition of slavery; they declared that it was God's will for black people to be enslaved by white people, period. Pope John Paul II didn't say we must introduce ordination of women gradually; he said it can never be done at all. Christian conservatives don't say gay marriage must be introduced gradually -- what would that mean, anyway? They say gay marriage can never be tolerated. Your personal position -- bad enough in advocating the indefinite postponement of justice in every case -- still doesn't even begin to reflect the intransigence of Christian conservatives. To accept it as "the" Christian position would be letting Christianity off the hook far too easy.Elvendon said:
Religion consistently does make those kinds of mistakes, though. Once again, you want us to give Christianity credit for how well it might work in theory; once again I have to insist that what matters is how it works in practice.Elvendon said:
No. For one thing, that argument isn't logically valid, so it's not much of an example of rationalism. For another, science isn't concerned with morals; that's what we have philosophy for. When a scientist makes ethical pronouncements, he's not doing so as a scientist. For example, Darwin was a racist because racism was universal among 19th-century Englishmen; there was nothing scientific about his racism. A scientist's moral failures don't invalidate science, they invalidate his basis for moral thinking. Darwin's thinking in this respect was identical to that of the Christians of his time and place.Elvendon said:
You have to understand that atheism, unlike Christianity, doesn't pretend to provide an infallible guide to ethics. Atheists are better equipped for decision making to the extent that they have rejected religious authority and the false premises of theism. Atheism is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It's just one small component of a good life -- and the good life, as Russell says, "is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge." The atheist has not arrived. He still has moral struggles and failures; it's just that he's overcome the obstacles to clear thinking that are imposed by theism and religious authority.
The problem here is that you're opposing religion to science, but that's a false distinction. Religion (in general) doesn't have to be opposed to science, nor is atheism the same thing as science -- even though Christianity has often made itself the enemy of science and atheism. Scientific knowledge is just one kind of knowledge, and it's not a kind of knowledge well suited to framing ethical decisions. Knowledge, scientific or otherwise, must be informed by compassion; then we can begin to make good decisions. Most of the great religions agree with that in theory, but the Abrahamic religions consistently oppose advances in both knowledge and compassion.
I have to say the picture you paint of Jesus isn't very attractive, and neither is your picture of Christianity. Here's Jesus -- poor, befuddled, Jesus -- wasting his time teaching people a lot of things that are of no practical use whatsoever, endlessly unable to get to the point and say what he really means. Here are the Christians, prepared to reject the teachings of Jesus in all their details, to reduce his entire moral teaching to a theological statement that is neither profound nor useful, and serves no purpose but to reinforce the authority of Christianity.Elvendon said:
No, thanks.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
MidnightBlue said:
Not at all. Christian attrocities were committed in opposition to dogma, not for it. This is hardly ever brought to the surface. This is a clear example that actions do speak louder then words. Nonetheless, some of us are aware of the difference.
Elvendon
Mystical Tea Dispenser
MidnightBlue said:
Christianity, like all human institutions, is imperfect. However, by letting it develop and reach ethical maturity, it will work much better than trying to stop people believing, which is the alternative. Atheism has been around for centuries - and gained control over significant stretches of the world. And yet, even when it has been active social policy to discourage religious activity - it hasn't happened. Therefore, we need to keep religion and inaugurate progress.
Yes... I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
Woah, woah, woah... who said I was advocating indefinate posponement of anything? I wasn't. I'm just saying that if you rush into changes about which you do not know the consequences, you are taking your life and the health of society in your hands.
Anyway, I'm not sure whether I have said it is typical of all Christians. It's what I believe however, and I am inclined to support Christian conservatism as a counterweight to rapid social change advocated by good people such as yourself. But I don't think either are ideal. Christian theology et. al. can be seen as thoroughly in favour of gradual change (as I have demonstrated) - but whether that is reflected in the opinions of believers is a different matter. Jesus himself said there would be a falling away before his second coming.
Like I say, Christianity isn't perfect. It works in theory - what's more, it doesn't clash irredemably with human nature, as can be seen from the examples of Saints and it's historical success at keeping societies running. Thus if implimented correctly, Christianity is ducedly helpful. Nothing in human history works perfectly. Why should we abandon something because it fails on occaision? In principle, and frequently in application, Christianity works.
Actually, Darwin wasn't the source for social Darwinism - it was the philosopher Herbert Spencer - an atheist and a follower of scientism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
It was named "social Darwinism" because it drew on Darwin's theories.
Why isn't it logically valid?
Philosophy also frequently fails to come up with socially viable morals - scientism and materialism are examples of morally bankrupt philosophical theorems.
Elvendon
Mystical Tea Dispenser
Again this is a case of atheistic hubris. "We think more clearly than you, because we have no source of divine authority." Bull.
What are these false premises? Can you list them for me?
Most theists do just as much soul searching and contemplation as atheists - you look for the best way to live your lives, and so do we. We associate our principles with a friendly face and believe that this friendly face is a sentient, effective force. Is this one of the false premises you mentioned?
Sorry, I suspected you were a different type of atheist
I retract my science based foil.That's an entirely spurious and defunct way of putting it. The reason why Jesus didn't come straight out and say what he meant to say, was because there was a legion of Pharisees and Sadducees breathing down his neck who would execute him at a moments notice. By concealing his teachings in parables and analogy, he was able to give lessons to his initiated without letting the religious authorities know. This delayed his arrest so long enough so that he could explain his teachings to his disciples private, who in turn relayed them to us.
Just because Jesus' ethics are unattainable does not mean they are without use. Jesus knew that people are not perfect - but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to be. Hence, he created an ethic which is impossible - that people should strive for with every essence of our being, but if we fail, which we will, that's okay - he will forgive us. He also understood that any set of ethics are hollow if people are not devoted to them in their hearts - if they are devoted to the ultimate source of ethics, and the ideals in and of themselves, then good deeds will arise naturally. Essentially, Jesus wants us to enter a mindset where ethical behaviour is second nature - not babysit us and give us a guide for everything, even when and how to sneeze ethically.
You think I'm trying to evangelise you? Please.
I seem to notice something rather strange about you, I'd like to point it out if I may, I don't mean to cause any offense. You appear only to ready to critique the strong tendancy towards idealism in Christianity, without noticing the fact that you yourself are highly idealistic - perhaps a relic from your days as a Christian, I don't know. You seem to have an awful lot of faith in the fact that your morals (admittedly ones I agree with) should be brought in as quickly as possible, then everything will be perfect, or at least much better. Isn't that a touch naive? My position is one of pragmatism - people won't change quickly, rightly or wrongly, and rapid, untested changes can cause unforeseen issues, and so it follows we should change slowly rather than not change at all or change so fast so as to cause lasting damage.
I am idealistic I admit... but it flows from my assumption that if people devote themselves to even an unattainable ideal, then good deeds will result.
Another thing that confuses me slightly is you always seem to take God out of the equation when studying Christian ethics... surely that misses the entire point? Or is he one of those "incorrect premises" you keep referring to
The substitution of emotion for cognition is common in part because it is so easy and self-serving.gnostic said:
Smoke
Done here.
I'm not trying to stop people believing, and I have no hope that humankind will abandon religion. We're just weighing the pros and cons of Christianity vs. atheism here, and so far I haven't seen anything to show that Christianity is preferable.Elvendon said:
Yeah, I get that. But isn't postponing necessary changes risky, too?Elvendon said:
I don't think you can show, either from history or theology, that Christianity is in favor of gradual change, although it would be interesting to see you try. Christian churches are almost always in favor of rapid changes when those changes favor the church, and almost always opposed to any change at all that doesn't better the church's situation.Elvendon said:
The history of Christianity is a chronicle of moral failure. It took Christians more than 18 centuries to abolish slaveholding by Christians. As we approach the third millenium of Christianity, the largest Christian churches still have institutionalized sexism, and almost every Christian church still has institutionalized homophobia. Nor has Christianity been notably more successful at keeping societies running than other religions. The expulsions of Jews and Muslims, the genocidal madness perpetrated on Jews and Native Americans, the mass enslavement of Africans, the wars of religion, the witch hunts and inquisitions -- offhand, I can't think of a religion that has a worse record.Elvendon said:
Elvendon said:Actually, Darwin wasn't the source for social Darwinism - it was the philosopher Herbert Spencer - an atheist and a follower of scientism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
It was named "social Darwinism" because it drew on Darwin's theories.
I was just giving Darwin's racism as an example of how a scientist may make errors in judgment or ethics without invalidating science.Here's the argument you gave:Elvendon said:
- White people dominate the world politically, economically and culturally.
- Black people do not.
- Darwin says that the most successful members of a species proliferate at the expense of the less successful.
- Therefore, White people are superior to black people.
- Therefore, oppression of black people is permissable.
- Cultural, political, and economic domination are not the same as genetic proliferation. What's important from the standpoint of natural selection is survival and reproduction.
- Survival and reproduction don't imply superiority. We wouldn't ordinarily assume that the coelacanth and the cockroach, notable for long-term survival, are superior to less long-lived species like, say, Neanderthals.
- The argument draws a moral conclusion from the observed processes of nature. Ethically, it's comparable to saying that because mammals often eat their young, it's acceptable to open slaughterhouses for the processing and distribution of human meat.
Of course philosophy often fails, and if students of philosophy begin to invest philosophers with the kind of infallible, divine authority with which religious adherents invest their leaders and texts, that would be a grave error.Elvendon said:
