The degree to which Christianity is about abstract belief, vs. behavior codes

[amorphous_constellation]

Last week I had finished a little 19th century book called 'augustine and the pelagian heresy,' by b.b. warfield. And though there were numerous passages therein, that I could have made a thread on, something of a broader nature occurred to me, that seems to have been inspired by the aforesaid reading event

Basically, Christianity seems like it can be divided into two parts. One is based on what I would call abstract belief; beliefs about abstractions, (the meaning of that, I will unpack shortly) that are regarded with high importance. Now the second layer, the inner layer, of the religion, seems to be about the actual behavior that the religion condones. This latter mode is quite separable from the former

And by 'abstraction,' I generally mean such things as cannot easily form in the human imagination, whether we regard their image, or effects, and nor are they very tangible. Some examples are god, the soul, grace, baptism, original sin, and the general spirit world. All of these are generally metaphysical concepts, which is to say they are abstract in image or effect, but yet, a premium is placed on what you think about them

Behavior codes are just that: those very familiar, tangible, physical, human, philosophically or physiologically based codes, that everyone knows and has, and can feel and see. Do not steal - it is very easy to see that it happened. Do not kill - it is highly discernible that someone did something wrong. Feed the poor - an obvious effect occurs when it is done, hungry people are fed and satisfied

So where it gets weird, is where you compare an abstract belief to any of that, in terms of relevancy, in terms of coherency. How does 'do not steal' even get stacked on the same theological level, or placed below, a commandment to 'believe in the trinity.' Or any comparison like that, between the importance of abstract belief, and how you behave?

So to conclude my op, we turn back to augustine, who apparently would spill a lot of ink on the importance of these abstract, metaphysical matters, from what I can tell so far. How common was this - were there any church fathers that talked more solely about just how you behave? Or were the abstract concepts always central? How relatable even, is that?

Isn't there something greatly redundant about this debate between the catholics and pelagians - why should religion even focus on metaphysical abstraction? Did Jesus lecture starving or blind people about grace and free-will? (though granted, the gospels do variously present the importance of metaphysical abstraction like those, as well) Couldn't a religion be based solely on what you can see is true, and what you can know is tangible?

 

[Estro Felino]

The difference between Augustine and Pelagius is that Augustine used to close doors to people.
Pelagius used to open them to people. To Pagans, Arians, not only Catholics.

You just need to read Augustine's works to figure out he was a very tormented man. A man not at peace with himself,
and this is my personal opinion on why he codified the doctrine of grace, which became the basis of Protestantism (Luther was an Augustinian monk).

My opinion:
Augustine had a very troublesome, libertine and in certain ways sinful youth. Despite his radical change in adulthood, he could not forgive himself. He used to feel enormous shame for his past, especially because he used to see that so many Pagans were virtuous, and some of them had had a virtuous and sometimes chaste life.
So he felt ashamed that some Pagans had been morally better than him.
So he needed something that made him feel better. He invented the original sin, that is that all men are equally sinful because of Adam's Fall. And that they needed God's Grace to be saved.
And since Pagans did not believe in Jesus, or in His sacrifice, they were surely graceless. Without God's Grace.
And that is why he managed to feel better than Pagans.

Whereas Pelagius in His Letter to Demetrias underlines that even good atheists are worthy of salvation, thanks to their works.

 

[sun rise]

And by 'abstraction,' I generally mean such things as cannot easily form in the human imagination, whether we regard their image, or effects, and nor are they very tangible. Some examples are god, the soul, grace, baptism, original sin, and the general spirit world.

In your imagination not mine.

Now the second layer, the inner layer, of the religion, seems to be about the actual behavior that the religion condones. This latter mode is quite separable from the former

They are not separable to me.

 

[joe1776]

... Now the second layer, the inner layer, of the religion, seems to be about the actual behavior that the religion condones....

On this layer, the future does not bode well for Christianity. Behavior the Bible condones has been determined by religious leaders reading their Bible and reasoning from its moral guidance.

For example, the Bible does not condemn slavery, so in 1866, the Catholic pope, quite correctly, advised his large flock that he had found nothing in "divine law" opposed to the buying, selling or trading of slaves.

It took three centuries, but something moved the entire world including the Catholic Church to favor abolishing legal slavery. I think it could only have been that intuitive moral sense that we call "conscience." Enslaving other people just felt wrong.

Catholics refer to conscience as the Voice of God. They say that, as a moral authority, it ranks even above the instruction of the Church. But then, they say that the Church has an obligation to "inform the conscience." I don't understand this: Why is it necessary for the Church to inform the Voice of God?

Did the Pope inform the Voice of God that slavery should be condoned? Or did conscience, the Voice of God, inform human minds, in every nation of the world that slavery was wrong?

I've used the Catholic positions in my explanation, but my reasons apply to all Christian moral teaching. If one reasons from the Bible, there's nothing immoral about slavery and women ought to be subservient to men. There are other moral conflicts as well.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In your imagination not mine.

It's not to say that I think it can't be done, it's just that it will require leaps made by the mind. For example, what human can imagine specifically what baptism does, or is supposed to do? You can physically see it happen. But can you imagine, accurately, how it washes off one's soul? And as for the soul, it is there, but I think that everyone who believes in it, likely represents it idiosyncratically in their minds.

Furthermore, someone like augustine might be interested very specifically, in how the Christian articulates these things, which are often nominally tangible.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Did the Pope inform the Voice of God that slavery should be condoned? Or did conscience, the Voice of God, inform human minds, in every nation of the world that slavery was wrong?

If what you say is correct, about how they think, then I can't see how the latter thing would not have occurred, in that instance?

 

[joe1776]

If what you say is correct, about how they think, then I can't see how the latter thing would not have occurred, in that instance?

That would be my conclusion as well.

Moral instruction by religious leaders is based on the premise that the moral judgments of conscience are the product of reason. Most philosophers over the centuries agreed with this idea. If it's a false premise, religion's claim as a moral authority will be shaken to its core. Only David Hume and a few other philosophers disagreed. Hume wrote that we intuitively feel the difference between right and wrong.

Over the past 25 years or so social scientists are backing Hume's position. Our moral sense is intuitive. That doesn't mean that there's no learning at all involved. But it implies that we are born with the basic structure.

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone/ i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

This doesn't mean the Conscience issue is settled. But, it does mean that a very dark cloud is gathering for some of the most popular religions on the planet.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Hume wrote that we intuitively feel the difference between right and wrong.

As he put it, as I understand, it came down to what he called the passions. But in any case, I think if I thought of it, I could find evidence enough in the gospels, for 'intuition' to be as close in proximity to 'cause' as we might get, at times. For example, the whole idea of 'stop fishing, follow me.' Stop doing something that has a clear, unambiguous, process that has a clear cause and effect, that results in a clear goal. Stop doing that, and follow me, for reasons you do not understand, and to go to where you do not know.

Over the past 25 years or so social scientists are backing Hume's position.

I think it is backed up pretty good just by general social experience, if I understand what we are talking about. The ways in which another human understands they how relate to another, if not biased with preceding notions of unfairness or selectivity, that come from 'without,' would then be processed by that 'blankness' within, but yet still produce a notion. You would still likely know if the other person is friendly, or unkind

 

[joe1776]

As he put it, as I understand, it came down to what he called the passions. But in any case, I think if I thought of it, I could find evidence enough in the gospels, for 'intuition' to be as close in proximity to 'cause' as we might get, at times. For example, the whole idea of 'stop fishing, follow me.' Stop doing something that has a clear, unambiguous, process that has a clear cause and effect, that results in a clear goal. Stop doing that, and follow me, for reasons you do not understand, and to go to where you do not know.



I think it is backed up pretty good just by general social experience, if I understand what we are talking about. The ways in which another human understands they how relate to another, if not biased with preceding notions of unfairness or selectivity, that come from 'without,' would then be processed by that 'blankness' within, but yet still produce a notion. You would still likely know if the other person is friendly, or unkind

You are approaching this in a way I haven't thought about. So, I'm not sure what to make of it.

I'm going to over-simplify my thinking on this complex topic with the hope that I can at least get us in the same ballpark.

We humans learn via reason or intuition. Reasoning is a slow, deliberate process. Intuition is fast. We feel something immediately.

To acquire knowledge, we humans need to learn something. To learn something, we must first see, hear, smell, taste or feel something. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong acts, we must feel it.

This is also true with fairness. Since we can't see, hear, smell, or taste the difference between fair and unfair, we must feel it.

I think the judgments of Conscience are signaled by the pain function in our brains. Immoral acts feel wrong. If it's a wrongful act that we have already done, we feel guilt.

Unfair and immoral acts feel wrong. If the act doesn't feel wrong, we can assume it is OK.

Conscience is a remarkable thing. It gives us an immediate judgment emerging from the unconscious despite the fact that there are a gazillion different actions possible.