Catholic punishment is more lenient for pedophiles.
By theBEattitude
The Daily Show with a “Holy Sh*t” segment on the blatant hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. Swift punishment for everyone … except Catholic Church leaders.
Tags: Catholic, Children, Church, Cover Up, Daily Show, God, Hypocrisy, Jesus, John Stewart, Pedophile, Pedophilia, Scandal, Sex
This entry was posted on March 17, 2010 at 8:57 pm and is filed under Christian Love, Funny Stuff, Why be a Christian?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 17, 2010 at 10:10 pm |
Yes, religions are here to tell us how we are wrong, never mind what they do. Religion is the thing that keeps mankind back, it is what retards our progress. If we were smart, we would reject religion outright and declare it illegal… alas, man is not yet that intelligent.
March 18, 2010 at 3:19 am |
I like how he addresses these issues. This is a good example of how religions act within their own organization. I doubt that it is just the Catholic church that hides these types of acts but punish those outside the leadership quickly.
March 18, 2010 at 9:02 am |
Mr.Z,
You sound a lot like this hippie I read about from about 2000 years ago (give or take).
“…they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’…
…Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.”
I am still not in agreement with you on making religion illegal. I don’t think that more laws are the answer for stopping people who are insisting that we follow their laws. But I do agree that religion should be rejected. Religion says, “God is angry, and you must do things off of this list and don’t do things off this other list and maybe he’ll spare you.” That is not Good News. That’s just another ball and chain.
On a side note…I’ve not forgotten your other post. I’m still working on my reply.
March 18, 2010 at 11:08 am |
I’m glad you’ve come along to your senses and agree that religion should be rejected. I’ll be glad to help you overcome your superstitions regarding deities.
March 18, 2010 at 12:42 pm |
Hah! Good one.
I do think that religion is toxic. Of course I believe that Jesus offers something completely different. ‘And to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, then it depends on which one of these definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) we mean when we say “religion.”
As to my superstitions regarding deities…I’m sure I have a few. Though I might have the head knowledge to the contrary, there are still times that I behave superstitiously towards God. I act as if there are certain things I can do that will earn me favor, and that if I don’t do them, then I’ll be punished. I would love it if you could help me overcome those superstitions. And I’ll reciprocate by helping you overcome your superstitions regarding deities as well.
Love,
-Andrew
March 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm
The word Religion has several meanings, or rather can be used in several ways, but for our discussion lets call Religion as defined by the first 5 noun uses in that link. Morality is ethics with extra religious rules added. The #6 definition makes the noun generic, like telling someone to Google for something, or Hoover the carpets. It works generally, but is not productive here.
For me, this analogy might help you understand how I got to where I am:
Imagine a 5 year old boy. He’s afraid of the dark despite what his parents tell him, or that horrid day when Jenny (a girl he likes) laughed at him for being afraid of the dark.
He finds it difficult to sleep at night, and one night finds himself in bed, in a very dark room with a storm raging outside. His feet are curled up under him and the covers clenched tightly around him. Every lightning flash, every shadow (even his own) and every noise seems absolutely of monster origins.
He was very busy today, and is very tired, but cannot sleep. He nervously looks first at the closet door then the edge of the bed to make sure no monsters are peeking out from under the bed. He leans over to make extra sure, seeing farther. He balls himself up under the covers and no matter how he tries, he can’t sleep. He sees the picture of his parents telling him there are no monsters in his head, then the picture of Jenny laughing. The pictures alternate in his head until a thought occurs to him.
Bravely he sits up, not clenching the covers too tightly and timidly speaks into the darkness “is anyone there?” In a moment he finds more bravery “hello… is there anyone here with me.”
Emboldened by the lack of response he allows the covers to slouch on the bed. He looks around, peeking over the edge of the bed. He thinks to himself ‘hmmm, no monsters’ and leaning way over cautiously lifts the bedskirt. “hello” he repeats and peers into the darkness under the bed. Suddenly a flash of lightning sends him back under the covers. His bravery recovers and he again peeks under the bed “hello mr monster, are you there?”
Another flash of lightning reveals the space under the bed to be empty. He thinks for a moment, climbs out of bed on to the floor. On hands and knees he examines the underside of the bed, and seeing no monsters he heads toward the closet. With trepidation he finds that there are no monsters in the closet either.
Standing in the middle of his room, he thinks how others might think him silly. More bravely, he puts his hands to his sides and in a speaking voice asks “are there any monsters here?” after several minutes of silence he walks to the windows to watch the power of the storm play out on the fields. Then it hits him, the only monsters in the room were in his head. With a smile he jumps into bed to get that much needed sleep. He finds a comfortable position, checks the covers into place. As his eyes close he half whispers “mr monster, if you want my attention you will have to wake me up because I’m not going to play this game anymore.
He woke feeling quite refreshed, and though from time to time he wants to check the underside of the bed, no monster has yet woken him up in the middle of the night. If you ask him he will tell you there are no monsters in his room even though sometimes, if he’s really tired or hungry or not feeling well he is want to look at the edge of the bed. He almost does, but usually just whispers “I’m not playing” and goes to sleep.
When you realize that you are living your life in fear you will realize what religion has done for you. It’s hard to shake the fears you grew up with, but when you get brave enough to tell the monster to wake you up because you’re not playing without him, you’re free.
March 18, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The problem with your logic Andrew, is that any belief in God is superstitious by its very nature.
March 18, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I find the four horsemen of atheism entertaining, thought provoking, and inspirational. When I can’t remember how to vocalize what I feel, listening to them helps.
http://fora.tv/2007/05/10/Christopher_Hitchens_at_Politics_and_Prose
March 18, 2010 at 2:59 pm |
Well, religious belief should not be illegal, I get zealous sometimes. Separation of church and state is a principle that must be enforced if any religion is to have freedom. Under the law, religion and non-religion must be treated equally, showing favor to none, and recognizing all.
The thought that a government without religion is an atheist government is false. A government that declares there are no gods or that religions are to be viewed as intolerant organizations is an example of an atheistic government. To simply treat all equally is the correct thing to do. How likely that is to happen is a good question. It will never happen if those of us who are atheist or non-religious don’t speak up, sometimes with fringe ideas.
How long will it be in the US before we are not allowed to make fun of religions? How long before Christianity et al have impinged the rights of others to speak freely and exchange ideas that do not agree with the Christian Bible? Should we abandon all hope for those who are not heterosexual? Should we begin executing those who perform or have performed an abortion? We need to draw a line in the sand. Sometimes that line must be punctuated with the absurdities to make sure people see it.
Thought police are wrong, no matter who would be in charge of them. I just want absolute separation of church and state. You cannot kill an idea so making religion illegal would not work, but the thought of doing so is interesting. Not idealistic, but interesting.
March 18, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
Well, Jesus and I might agree on one set of ways to do things wrongly, but he is still promising everlasting bliss if you do everything right. Doing the right things should need no motivation. If you need motivation to do them, you aren’t really doing them, are you?
March 18, 2010 at 9:59 pm |
Once again, almost too much to comment on here. But I will have a go. I’m going to start at the top and work my way down…
First, Mr. Z, your monster analogy is so dead on. Religion is about fear that God is angry with you and that unless you perform properly, you will be crispy fried for eternity as punishment. And I can see where people could take things from the Bible in a way that really make it feel that way. Especially since so many put these legalistic views out there as the only possible way to read the scriptures. And you are right…it is an absolutely beautiful freedom to step away from that. I did the same. I am also the son of an evangelical pastor. And when I was about 14 I walked away. I decided that I could not believe in God. It was terrifying, and freeing at the same time.
I spent the next 10 years or so as a full fledged atheist. Then gradually I came to a place that I could no longer deny the existence of God. I don’t claim that your world-view is a phase that you will grow out of…nor that if you just open your mind, you’ll believe like I do. I think you are asking honest questions that you should ask. If God can’t stand up to the type of questioning you put forth, then he’s not enough of a God. Some are closed minded. I have met a few here, and elsewhere. There are closed minds on both sides of the fence. You have an obvious thirst for truth whatever that may mean. Hats off to you.
But anyway…I could no longer deny God. But the freedom I once felt when stepping away from the “laws” of morality faded into another type of slavery (I’ll adopt your “moralty” v/s “ethics” definition…I like the distinction…makes it easier to discuss). After a while of being freed from the crushing weight of religious morality I found that I was developing another kind of legalistic morality. I found that I was holding myself and others to an equally high standard. The standards were different, but the way I followed them was the same. I also needed to be freed from the monster of the secular morality I was being crushed under. I had to leave morality, religious or secular, and move into ethics. I had to find a set of principals that were true because they are. like gravity, like thermodynamics, and like the fact that love is better than hate. I don’t know if I”m making sense…it’s getting late. I’ll move on…
Next: Andy:
You say that any belief in God is superstitious by nature. I disagree. Here is the Webster definition: 1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
There are many who believe in God because they have closed their mind to any questions. There are many who won’t change their mind about who or what God may be in spite of evidence to the contrary. But not all are so blind in their acceptance. You look at the evidence provided in the world around you and determine that there is no God. I look at the same evidence and determine that there is a God. It is absolutely fair to say, “I disagree with your assessment of the evidence.” But I think if we are both fairly intelligent people (as I propose we are), and we are drawing different conclusions from the same evidence, then the thing to do would be to have a conversation about it and see why we might have such different answers.
Next: Mr. Z,
Yes, Hitchens is pretty funny. A clever and intelligent guy.
And I didn’t figure you actually meant that religion should be illegal. It is difficult not to say things like that though when faced with the Robertsons and Dobsons of the world.
An interesting note. The “they’re taking over” syndrome is something I hear from both sides. Conservative Christians are convinced that liberals and atheists and homosexuals are taking over the world, and that one day they might be shopping for a bible at the mall and be convinced to “just hold this dude’s hand for a bit and see how you like it” and next thing you know they’ll be turned into a gay witch. And many of my Atheist friends are convinced that the Christians have taken over the government and will one day change the national anthem to a song by Michael W. Smith, and prescribe electro-shock treatment for all homosexuals. In reality I think that with few exceptions most people are just trying to live their life the best they can. And while some people get a bit fanatical about it, we all typically have a lot more common ground than we think if we just quit being afraid that the other person might be right. It’s amazing how much common ground we can find if we (and I mean “we”…both sides have to get honest and come to the conversation with transparency and humility) just have a nice long conversation like you and I have had this past few days.
And lastly…
Mr. Z,
Jesus is actually not promising everlasting bliss if you do everything right. Once again you find yourself in agreement with him. He constantly tells the religious people around him that what they do on the outside is of no importance when their inside motivation is based on fear or control or power or putting God in their debt. He says of dietary laws, “What goes into the mouth is digested and passed out. But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart.” And he says, “You are like a glass that is washed on the outside but the inside is filthy…you hypocrite, first wash the inside and then the outside will be clean.”
No, Jesus is not promising anything if you do everything right. He is promising to do the right things for you if you want. And he is not promising eternal punishment if you do things wrong either. He is promising to take that punishment for you if you want. He is encouraging people to be ethical…and he is encouraging people to do so from a place of love. You are absolutely right that if you need motivation such as rewards and punishment to do the right things, then you might as well not do them. My question for you though is what are the right things? I think we basically agree on what the right things are. I think we even basically agree on why we ought to do the right things. Our debate is still over *why* those things are right. Our debate has been and still is over “who sez?”
March 18, 2010 at 10:57 pm |
Agreed, most people have a lot in common, and are trying to get through life as best they can. Like Mr Hitchens, I believe that society is poised better now then ever before to make a stand for humanity and demand governance devoid of religious guidance. Likewise, I know of no atheists that think the overall message in the Gospels is wrong. The introduction of heaven and hell in the NT was Jesus’ message also. First, you are all guilty and evil, but if you accept me, you can get into the kingdom of heaven. I’m sorry but the dirt nap lasts forever. Any promises for something after death is a promise for something that has absolutely no evidence never mind proof. If you use the carrot on a stick for a life time, you end up with a horse that died from exhaustion and hunger. That sort of sounds like me asking “what’s in it for me?” When that is not what I mean. I mean why chase a carrot? I can see it’s tied to a pole I can never reach. This game is rigged, and I can’t win it. I can’t even verify that I have a soul or there is a heaven, and I damn sure won’t take responsibility for what this Adam guy was supposed to have done. If God made me bad, that’s his problem. If he wants me to worship him he can tell me himself. I don’t feel like listening to the words of men and believing an all powerful god did not have time to tell me himself.
Where you see God in the universe, I see a universe. I have only the words of men to tell me there is even such a thing as a God.
On why being ethical is right: even a child, a dog, and probably every living thing on this planet has a sense of justice and social obligation. We have, since the dawn of mankind, worked together and formed laws, created social pacts of behavior. This is innate in mammals and all other living things that I can see. That link I sent about Hitchens, in it he asked the audience if they thought the Jews had thought murder, lying, and theft were okay up to the point Moses walked down the mountain with the 10 commandments? Self organizing social groupings must have rules, the basics of which we call ethics. Why should this be? Evolution. Of all the possible ways to further our genetic line, this one with ethics has worked out best. We don’t know of many others, and most of them are gone now. The Spartans has a special and different social pact. Their ethics were different than those you and I agree on, and were it not for them, we perhaps would not be able to have this conversation as we do now. The spread of the Abrahamic faiths has more or less uniformly spread the ethics behind morality all over the face of the globe. What now seems ubiquitous was not always so. So basic ethical behavioral and social pacts clothed in various morality codes have spread this commonality everywhere. To look at it more closely we need to jump to the sociologists and other who study cultures. This link gets a bit more detailed: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/
Evolution is not done, it affects us as we converse. Probably each of us here has evolved in some way over time. Perhaps you will call this gathering wisdom. Whatever you call it, lets hope leg warmers are extinct. We are evolving personally, socially, culturally, and as a species. Day in and day out evolutionary forces are changing what we do, how we think, and helping to shape our futures. We may be on the verge of all deciding that nuclear energy belongs only in power plants and not in bombs and missiles. This would be an important evolutionary step. What seemed like a necessary thing is now almost an evil. Science Fiction stories deal with such changes in many ways, but they seem best equipped to deal directly with them. I believe that you will agree that while the original Star Trek series avoided condoning religion of any kind, it promoted the basic ethics that we both agree on, showing that the growth and betterment of mankind as a species does not need religion, but common ethics free of religious burden.
While I speak against religion, I do not feel that such belief is counterproductive to an individual. Neither is meditation or self confidence classes. Fortunately neither of these is trying to impose their beliefs on children via infiltration of the school boards, or the voting box.
I hope that this is helpful in understanding how I feel. A sense of justice, fair play, and social obligation are brought to us by evolution. We have seen the options, or some of them, and this one is the one that is working out best. The others are left to die off. The common good is also the good of the individual. In this insight we all can see the value of agreeing to abide by this social pact, even if we don’t agree with all parts of it at all times. Justice and social fair play is not always swift; ask a black man or a gay man. Social evolution eventually brings about justice and fair play. Sometimes we have to wait for corrosive elements of society to die off, or their sphere of influence to fade.
In the end, more or less the entirety of humanity has after a fashion agreed that there is a set of common ethics we should all live by. This was not the case 75000 years ago. Evolution is the who in ‘who sez?’.
March 18, 2010 at 11:18 pm |
I always hit the send button too quickly. If your personal ethics fit the construct of the common good, and allow for evolutionary changes to society and the species, I hold that your ethics are not corrosive to the betterment of mankind in general.
More specifically, what I have learned of your beliefs make me feel confident that your ethics are not corrosive in that context, whether we agree completely or not.
BTW, what do you think of the Gospel of Thomas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
March 19, 2010 at 7:38 am |
Lets look at that Webster definition:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
Heaven and Hell are the ultimate inventions of fear of the unknown.
If God’s powers aren’t “magic”, what are they? Raising people from the dead, walking on water, etc. This is a belief in magic.
The more Science finds, the more God is relegated to a God of the gaps. Does that prove all Gods false? no, but religions are a pretty good way for bronze age people to explain things they can’t understand objectively.
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
What is rational about the Christian God? He invents man, intending them to be perfect. When they turn out not to be perfect he blames them, invents death and suffering. Then thousands of years later he decides the status quo sucks, that he doesn’t want people to die anymore, but he can’t change things as God, he has to become a slightly hairy primate to accomplish this. But in what is probably the ultimate in passive-aggressiveness he invents hell for most humans. Yet he still loves us all, and he is still omniscient.
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
When Galileo supported the Copernican model he was charged with heresy and spent the rest of his life in house arrest. Darwin’s model of evolution was discovered 150 years ago, and it is still attacked on religious grounds to this day, despite the heaps and mounds of evidence that support it.
I realize not all believers reject science, but religion certainly provides a framework to do so.
And on what do you base all these beliefs? An ancient book written by 60 some odd authors about explaining things they couldn’t understand. The Bible seriously is the wikipedia of the ancient world. Why not let the wikipedia page for God define your beliefs? It’s just as valid.
March 19, 2010 at 10:35 am |
Andy,
I’ll respond by your numbers…
1a: I don’t believe that heaven and hell are intended to be fear of punishment nor promise of reward. See my response to Mr. Z for that response.
And I don’t think that there is anything “magic” about signs and miracles. I think that each of these events pointed towards a future in which the miracles would not be needed. And I they are paradoxical to the laws of nature, but not contradictory. If you presuppose a creator God who is personal and invested in the storyline of humanity, then there is no need to see these events as “supernatural.” They are superhuman, but not supernatural.
b: If your story were actually what Christianity teaches, then you would be absolutely right to reject it as superstitious. However that is not how it goes. A triune God was in eternal relationship. As an outpouring and celebration of that Love, the Universe was born. Humanity was created perfect and in God’s image. And we were given a choice to live in accordance with the way the universe works, or we could choose to work against it. We choose all too often to work against it. But were we made to just work for it, then we would not be able to Love…we would only behave out of our programming. So, God guided us throughout human history, and when we were ready to handle the teachings, he came to earth as a slightly hairy primate and declared the beginning of the regeneration of the universe. All of life is in the process of being reconciled to God, and to the way it was intended to be.
“the Fall” was not an “oops” for God…it was a necessary part of the plan from the beginning. In order to create creatures who could love and be a part of the eternal Love relationship, we had to be able to choose not to love. Knowing this, God followed through with the plan anyway. Heaven and hell were never rewards and punishment. They are two possible outcomes of our ways of being. Like if I eat fruits and veggies, I will be healthy, and if I eat burgers and fries I will get fat. God doesn’t create arbitrary laws for us to follow in order to test whether or not we go to heaven or hell. God outlines the way the Universe, the way Reality, works. We can work in harmony with that or against that, and heaven or hell are the result.
2: You are correct. Not all Christians reject science. It is my theory that if I read the Bible and interpret it to say that the earth is 6000 years old and any of the other nonsense of Ken Hovind, but scientific observation denies this, then I must be misinterpreting the Bible. I believe the Bible to be true, but as you point out, it was written by many authors, and is written in many genres. Some is poetry, some is history, some is apocalypse, some is parable.
And as we progress scientifically it seems to line up more and more with the Bible. The Universe began in a burst of energy. I believe this happened when God said, “Let there be light.” The process of evolution is written out in the “days” of the first two chapters of Genesis. “Adam” is the Hebrew word for “man.” And “Eve” means “source of life.” It could only be more obviously allegory if it had a character named “John Everyman”.
I do believe that this book, the Bible, has authoritative Truth from God. I don’t believe that it is justified to believe that simply because the Bible says so. I have compared religions, and lack of religion. I have given them all everything I have trying to find truth. I have compared them to what I experience in the reality of my life. I don’t mean to claim to have exhaustive knowledge of every religion, but I have been around the block enough to make some knowledgeable decisions about them. And I spent enough time as an atheist to know what pitfalls I encountered (not trying to imply that you will meet the same pitfalls…only speaking personally). In my journeys I have only seen one belief system that was any different in its base than the rest. And it is the only one I’ve found that can be followed to the logical conclusion of its premises that doesn’t fall apart. If I accept the premises of Atheism, or of religion, then at some point I have to make some leaps of logic. I do not find those leaps in Christianity.
March 19, 2010 at 11:03 am |
Heaven and hell are still an invention from the fear of unknown, punishment or not.
And that was possibly the best non-response I’ve ever seen to the magic claim. A miracle that breaks everything we know regarding the laws of physics and matter is not contradictory? You are grasping at desperation straws. If these miracles are breaking the laws of nature, they are supernatural.
If God created us perfect, then he wouldn’t have created us with a great penchant for breaking “the way the universe works”. Free will or not, humans love sin, and are great at doing it, God gave us those desires, and then gets pissed at us for following them.
Now let’s look at how God guided us through history. First he commits the greatest genocide of all time in the flood (but it sure does make a cute childrens tale). Then he commands his “chosen” people to kill a whole bunch of other people. God’s methods of guiding us through history are full of murder, and slavery.
Why does life need to be reconciled with God in the first place? How can you claim this and then say the fall was not an “oops”. There is only one entity that can take the blame for human’s sinfulness: God.
Then you claim the fall was necessary so we could understand love. I will remind you that the consequences of the fall were death and suffering. This is flatly ridiculous.
Continuing with absurd claims you then claim that heaven and hell are not punishments and rewards, but just consequences. Which is exactly like saying if I murder a guy, prison isn’t my punishment, but just a consequence.
God most certainly creates arbitrary laws. Not once does he ever explain why the laws exist as they do, we can only speculate why at one point it was required to murder your non-virgin bride. We can only speculate why two guys having a completely consensual sexual relationship is worthy of hellfire. But God hates these things, and they have no logic behind them.
You only further my point about the Bible. What can we pass off as parable, and fiction. What is poetry, and what is meant to be taken literally? If I can take Genesis to mean that evolution is true, why can’t I take the resurrection to just be a cool piece of fiction? When revelations commands me to cut off my hand if I masturbate I am told this is allegory to remove myself from sinful situations. Why can’t the inspired word of God just tell me to avoid said situations, why does decide to do instead tell me to commit an extreme act of self-mutilation and then expect me to come up with the allegory explanation?
Saying that some of its allegory, and some of its poetry, is just a poor excuse that let’s your write off the filth contained in the Bible.
You’ve conclude by telling me that you do not have to take “leaps of logic” as a Christian, but you post excuse after excuse after excuse defending massive leaps of logic.
March 19, 2010 at 11:22 am
Andy my friend,
First, your interpretation of the Bible is obviously vastly different than mine. You ask a lot of “whys” that deserve honest answers. However, my answers by your estimation seem to be absurd, ridiculous, excuses. You ask for my reasoning. I offer it. But I don’t care to waste my time with an argument. I’d rather have a discussion.
March 19, 2010 at 11:35 am
Andy, in something of a defense of Andrew, and at the expense of possibly being wrong, I don’t believe that Andrew should call himself Christian. While he sees some truths in Christ’s teachings as written in the Gospels, he seems to reject much of the silliness of the Bible. This cherry picking is a failure if you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of a supernatural being. On the other hand, if you have a belief system which parallels much of the general teachings of Christ, it is not cherry picking. As I have said before, clarity of definition and using words as others use them is paramount to such discussions as these. If Andrew were to call himself not Christian, but perhaps deist it would be easier to concentrate on what he is saying rather than on how wrong the book is from which he takes lessons. Many of the founders of the US were deist but not Christians. One of them even wrote his own bible version, carefully removing things like miracles and such from its pages. Deists have no particular holy text in this regard and thus borrow from holy texts as they borrow or one could say adopt from other belief systems. This is a valid method. We do this every day in our use of the English language.
Andrew seems to be taking the parts of the Christian Bible which support his deist view while criticizing other parts of it which are clearly bad news all around. He does not hold a fundamentalist view of God. I think it would be hard to explain a deist viewpoint here once you’ve stated you are Christian, as that brings with it all the baggage we heap on all Christians.
In my world view, we are still evolving in physical form, social form, and species forms. These processes of evolution are the natural way. If a deist chooses to see this as God or similar but does not harm the processes it is neither good nor bad. I cannot say that we should jump from theist thuggery directly to atheist ideals in that evolution process. We may indeed have to stop at deists society first. It is an unknown and so I can only say that what is not corrosive to the process of evolution is either harmless to it or good for it.
Andrew does not seem to hold a common understanding of Christ so in the shades of grey model, it is not prudent to simply discount what ideas he is trying to convey.
The idea that translators got the story wrong in translating Greek and Hebrew to English is well, not an idea. The fact that such errors are routinely ignored by the Christians we love to hate makes them easy targets. Andrew has at least looked at those mistakes and taken a new understanding of them. A laudable position no matter if it is ultimately wrong.
It is still true that what can be claimed as true with no proof can be discredited with no proof. Parables are great. In a context which is fully understood, they make a point. It only takes one misunderstanding or one change of context to make them say something different. This is a major problem for me concerning the Christian Bible. It is not clear, speaks in riddles, and is completely left to interpretation… by men.
There is nothing in it, nor scientific evidence for it that should make anyone believe it is true. Despite that there remain ethical teachings within it. There are probably better places to source ethical teachings, but the ethics of Christ cannot be ignored as easily as the rest of the Bible.
That said, there is nothing to stop someone form think or believing that the dichotomous nature of the OT and NT indicate that a sandal wearing hippie in the backwater of the Roman Empire crossed paths with a Chinaman traveler while in his 20s. Seeing the value of what he learned, began trying to square this against Jewish teachings and prophecy. Then, began teaching. Went a bit postal on the temple dwellers and got himself executed. His most ardent followers, knowing the value of his teachings, conspired to tell the story with a new twist, with a few bits added to make it as powerful or more powerful a message as any religious message yet available. So some 60+ years after this hippie gave it up on the cross, we have authors telling us about the ‘magic’ of Jesus.
As wild as that sounds, it does not diminish the truths that may be gleaned from his teachings. This wild story also might explain some of the similarities between many religions BTW.
Now, Do I think Andrew is right? No but I think he _IS NOT_ corrosive. Since he generally promotes ethics rather than magic, I support his right to believe as he does. I also believe that he could use a bit of work on explaining his beliefs so that they are not thrown hastily on the trash heap where we pile other religions.
March 19, 2010 at 11:54 am
Mr. Z,
I appreciate your generous defense. And you have good points, and perhaps I have misstated my case in some places. I realize that the things I say sound contrary to Christianity. However, 95% of what I say comes directly from historic orthodox Christianity. One of the main reasons I can get on board with so much of what you say against Christianity is because what you are really railing against is this modern invention of political and superstitious religion which calls itself by the same name.
It is tempting to do as others have done, and renounce the name because of the connotations that have attached to it. But I am not ready to ditch it yet. I’d rather re-capture what it was about in the first few hundred years of its inception.
I do believe that the Bible is true. Even the miracles. But I think that modern people take a lot of liberties with it based generally on personal bias and intellectual laziness. Far too many take the word of their pastor who took the word of his pastor, who took the word of his pastor.
As you say, there is no reason, even if you don’t believe in the ultimate truth of Christianity, to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And there are plenty of other religions that offer better methods of morality. Buddhism makes much more sense on that front. But that is not the point of Christianity. To quote Ravi Zacharias, “Jesus did not die to make bad men good. He died to make dead men live.”
I believe in what is called “Narrative Theology.” Basically this looks at the entire Bible as a storyline. I like to think of it as a concept album by multiple artists. If you drop down in the middle of it, it makes no sense. And it’s massive…it takes a lot pull out the overarching themes.
And that brings us to the question of why its so vague. But let’s look at it. There are some very direct things in there. “Love God, and Love your neighbor.” What could be more clear? But even that leaves the question of “who is my neighbor?” What does it mean to “love.” Part of the calling of Christianity (true Christianity) is to work out what it means together. Jesus said, “Whatever you bind on earth I will bind in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, I will loose in heaven.” Binding and Loosing were terms that rabbis used to refer to what they allowed and what they didn’t allow in relation to the law. Some bound or forbade walking more than 3 miles on Sabbath. Some loosed you to walk 4 miles. That tradition continues. The Law of God boils down to “Love God and Love your neighbor.” Everything else is commentary. And I thank you for your willingness to enter into the conversation.
March 19, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I hit “send” too quickly myself. One more point to make.
The Roman empire at the time of the early church referred to them as “atheists.” The Roman pagans could not wrap their heads around a religious group that had no temples, no priests, no major rituals short of baptism and communion, and basically just concerned themselves with helping those around them even at great expense to themselves. This is something that modern Christianity has lost in way too many ways. But there is a new reformation happening. Different types of churches are popping up. The legalistic church of the past hundred years or so is on its way out. And real Christianity is in the same position as Christ was in his day. Fighting against the monolithic monstrosity of religious legalism and spreading the Good News that God is not angry. Everything we thought we knew about how to relate to God is wrong.
Anyway, there’s my two cents. Time to do the dishes and head to work.
March 19, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Andy, your points here are exactly why I believe that evolution is correct. Within evolution there are no deficits in the story line, no contradictions, no gaps, and no magic. What we know of mankind is explainable with evolution. Using religion and holy texts requires interpretation to make it fit. The longer mankind exists, the more difficult it will be for the religious to fit their holy texts to the context of mankind. The second coming of Christ will fall away as poetic allegory some day soon and quit being the rationale for violence.
While Andrew believes in the magic and Christian ethics, he is rejecting the notions contained in canonical Christianity that are seriously bad for humanity. In doing so, I think it bad form to continue to call himself Christian. His belief in the magic is not a good thing, for there is no proof. In seeing the Bible as a narrative, he shows a dangerous penchant for believing that mankind can know the mind of god, that there is such a thing, and that such a deity exists and interacts in the lives of mankind, but who does not ‘fix’ life to be less evil than it is. Using evolution to fix life requires no supernatural being or magic. Evolution will do as it damn well pleases and take as long as it likes. Perhaps this is why after 2000 years we’re still waiting for miracles and evidence.
Andrew seems to believe that we are something like an experiment in God’s laboratory. I reject that notion for previously mentioned reasons and further add to it that I reject any God who is using me as a lab rat. I believe that humankind now has the ability to begin directing evolution. The Bible fails to tell us of this or even predict it unless of course, you try to twist poetic allegory to mean just that. I’m done with interpreting, done with twisting and justifying. I see this evolution thing and bam! it makes sense of all that we know of the world and universe, even if we don’t have ALL the answers. I refuse to believe I need a deity to give meaning to my life. If we are created by a god, then that god gave me the ability to see that ooops, there are more logical explanations than the one he gave us.
In view of scientific evidence and knowledge of the propensities of mankind, there is no reason to believe Bible magic over evolution… unless you just want to take that leap….
In all of that, Andrew has done nothing more than explain what he believes. I don’t remember reading where he has said that evolution is wrong, or that science is evil, or that mankind is created by God as is and is not evolving. He is not ignoring the evidence, simply trying to make religious ethics and story fit to it without losing the message he feels is important in the story. I say No harm, no foul.
Dropping your Bible and staring directly at the truth of evolution, fully accepting the ramifications of doing so is not a task for the faint of heart nor those unable or unwilling to do the hard work of investigating what evidence there is.
Show me a church that is teaching Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic during the week, and studying the original texts on Sundays and has guest speakers who can authoritatively speak on cosmology, evolution, and the other sciences and I’ll come to some meetings.
March 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Mr. Z,
Couple of final points for the day before I head to work.
One. I am not sure where I implied a “lab rat” idea about humanity, but I do not believe that. I would also reject being a lab rat. I believe in a God that is interested in relationship. Not a God that is interested in manipulation.
And I don’t feel like I’m twisting things to fit. I hear about evolution and think “wow! that sounds exactly like something I read in Genesis, but in different terms.”
But thank you for noting that I am not trying to ignore evidence. I do see many connections in the world around me to the Scriptures. I believe that this is because the Scriptures are describing the same things as modern science is describing, but agreed, with different terminology.
I’m glad to “stare directly at the truth of evolution, fully accepting the ramifications…” I choose to do with while hanging on to my Bible. Because I still hold that the two things are not at war. It is not an unnatural union between science and faith. I think it is absolutely necessary for each that they work together.
Now, as for the church that teaches languages, studies original texts, has guest speakers who speak authoritatively on these subjects, etc…here is one of them. http://www.marshill.org/
You might also be interested in watching the DVD’s of “The Gods Aren’t Angry” and “Everything is Spiritual.” Some of the physics in “Everything is Spiritual” are a little off, but not in a misleading way. More in a, “this is a guy who has learned a lot about the subject, but isn’t a professional physicist” kind of way. The guy’s name is Rob Bell. You will most certainly disagree with his Christianity, but I think you’ll find a lot to think about in his stuff.
March 19, 2010 at 10:10 am |
Mr. Z,
Let’s start with heaven and hell. I think these are some of the most vastly misunderstood concepts in all of theology. First, let’s look at what Jesus says about each. Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, according to Jesus is near…in fact it is already come. So, when we speak of heaven we are not speaking of a place in the distant future where we will go if we just get it right while we’re here. Heaven is a present reality that extends into eternity.
Likewise hell is a present reality that extends into eternity. The words Jesus used that were translated into “hell” are mostly “sheol” and “gehenna.” Sheol is a Hebrew word that means “the grave” or “destruction.” “Gehenna” was an actual place outside of the city gates in Israel. People would have a very real point of reference when he said that to them. Gehenna was the city dump. There was a constant fire to deal with the piles of garbage. The flame never dies. The wild dogs would fight and yelp and bare their teeth over scraps of food. There was screaming and gnashing of teeth. What Jesus is speaking of is the fact that there are ways of being that encourage and build heaven on earth. And there are ways of being that encourage and build hell on earth.
I do believe there are repercussions beyond this side of death. But I don’t think that is the main guts of what Jesus is talking about. I don’t see heaven and hell as carrot and stick. I believe they are a way of saying that there are ways to live that bring death and destruction, and ways to live that bring life and love. This goes back to an earlier debate we had on the animal nature of man. In many ways humanity are monkeys with no tail. We bare our teeth and beat our chest and behave on base instinct. This is the “hell” reality. In equally many ways humanity can behave in “heaven” ways as well. We create art and beauty. We sacrifice ourselves for our neighbor. In many ways we are no different from animals. But the place we are different is in the place where it matters…we have the ability to step outside of our base instinct. We have the choice of submitting to our base nature or moving beyond that. Perhaps animals have similar choices that they can make, but our ability to communicate with them is not on a level that we can discuss these issues. So I’ll leave that to speculation. But I will leave that subject with the statement that I do believe we underestimate the intelligence and sentience of animals.
That brings us to the next point. You mention that even a child knows what is ethically right. Even animals do. And I agree. We may not agree on morals, but we agree on ethics. When it gets down to the basics, we agree that love is better than hate. We agree that understanding is better than discord. I think that implies that there is something universal and absolute about those things.
Now as to Hitchens’ question whether the Jews thought murder, et al. was okay before the commandments. The answer is obviously no. And the Bible is clear on that as well. It says the “law of God” is written on the hearts of men. And that what can be known about God is written in nature. The 10 commandments were written to a certain people at a certain time. They boil down to “Love God” and “Love each other.” This is why it says if you break one you break them all. Because they outline what it looks like to love one another. No, the average person does not need the law to tell them that it’s wrong to murder. But by the same token do we need secular law to tell us the same thing? Do we need a law that says “don’t drink and drive” to know that it’s a bad idea? of course not, but the law is there to say, “whatever your circumstances might be…there is not an excuse for driving drunk.” In the same way the commandments are not to tell us that it’s wrong to murder, but to say, “I don’t care how mad you are at this person, murder is not an option.” Love and forgiveness are the way to bring heaven to earth.
As to evolution. I agree again. I believe that we are evolving towards something. What is being done with the Earth is a work in progress. It is a work that we can work for or work against. That is also a part of bringing heaven and hell to earth. We are headed somewhere, and it is important to continue to grow towards that place. This is why I agree that nuclear arms are a bad idea. It is why I have an organic garden in my yard. It is why I think it’s a good idea to drive less, don’t waste water, smile at strangers, raise kids to be loving, etc. I think that the concept of evolution and the concept of metanoia (a greek word for “repentance” that means waaaay more than the english word) have so much in common.
And finally, to the last point. We agree up to that point. I don’t believe that evolution has the ability to be the “who.” I don’t believe that the personal can develop from the impersonal. I can understand how energy can coalesce into matter. I can almost understand how life can come from this impersonal energy…thought it seems a stretch. But I cannot see how consciousness or personality can develop from an impersonal source.
But I do still agree that you and I are on the same page in many places where it matters. You believe that even if I believe in God that I am still working towards common good and evolution. I believe that even though you don’t believe in God you are working towards God’s purposes. As I said before, all truth is God’s Truth.
As for the Gospel of Thomas…I enjoy it very much. I think that when the Bible says that “all scripture is worthy of study” it isn’t referring to itself…especially considering the fact that when those words were written there was no “bible” as we know it. There were collections of scriptures. The Gospel of Thomas came much later, and it has a lot of Gnostic or Proto-Gnostic ideas that I have issue with. But I think there is a lot of good truth in there. I also especially love the Tao Te Ching. I think that if Lao Tzu had not lived 500 years before and several thousand miles away, he would have dug Jesus. They have a lot in common.
Anyway, loving the conversation. Hope you have a good day.
Love,
-Andrew
March 19, 2010 at 12:08 pm |
Andrew, I’m going to leave out quotes to shorten my reply
As I tried to explain in reply to Andy, it seems to me that you are generally a deist, that heaven and hell are states of humanity rather than places. Parables are great in a tightly controlled context, yet outside that they are terribly misleading and prone to misinterpretation – leading to a general disbelief in the Bible on my part. By the way, what did you think of the movie “What the bleep do we know?”
It cannot be stated strongly enough that the Christian Bible is not inerrant. Clearly translations of it are wrong. Having learned Greek I can attest to the fact that translating Greek and Hebrew to English is a train wreck of an idea. There are many words in non-English languages that simply have no suitable translation, and this is why we adopt words from other languages into English such as zeitgeist or Ubuntu. The translation problem means that the liklihood of losing the real meaning is greater than 100%.
I have to agree with you on the value of seeing ourselves as animals with a base character, and that we should strive to supress it in favor of our better character. I would call this directed evolution. In seeing this, we must also admit that other animals have a value somewhere on our scale of social and ethical justice which we do not currently afford them with any veracity. While you see this from a deist point of view, I view it as part of the processes of evolution. A wholly natural juncture in the great play of humanity without need of a deity of any kind. Again, the deist viewpoint is not corrosive to the process, so can be said to be in harmony with it.
The ethics that we agree on belong to us because of evolution. It is the behaviors that were most beneficial to animals on this planet without regard to their base character. When you speak of bringing heaven to Earth, I see you using different terms for ‘betterment of humankind’ and holding such a view against the framework of religion and deist belief. Again, we agree on all but the definitions and terminology of words. It is not difficult to argue that the founders of the US who were deists would be evolutionists had they not lived when they did.
“But I do still agree that you and I are on the same page in many places where it matters. You believe that even if I believe in God that I am still working towards common good and evolution. I believe that even though you don’t believe in God you are working towards God’s purposes. As I said before, all truth is God’s Truth.”
As a nod to Mr. Hitchens, I agree we are both drinking, both drinking in the same bar, we simply are not sitting together yet.
I see no need to toss out all spirituality on the basis that most of it is inextricably tangled up in religious bs. If a spiritual belief gets you through your day, it works for you. I do not believe such is necessary to accomplish the same goals, but in analysis, this seems a minor difference. I do think that when you call yourself a Christian, nobody is going to ask you ‘what kind of Christian?’, rather they will simply attempt to throw your beliefs onto the same trash heap that Christianity in general is relegated to. Yes, labels are bad and all that, but they sure help keep you out of the fire when the mob with pitchforks and torches comes your way.
March 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm |
Mr. Z,
While I won’t deny that I have certain beliefs in common with Deists, I also have beliefs in common with Taoists, and (obviously from our conversation) with atheists. But I part company with each of these groups on certain points. I part company from Deism in that I don’t believe that God set the world spinning and then took off. I believe that God is intertwined with all of creation.
You are absolutely correct with regards to the problem of translation. And even for a Hebrew or Greek hearing these things in their native tongue, there are still problems of interpretation. This is the point I was working towards in the “Binding and Loosing” part of one of my posts. I believe that the Bible is inerrant Truth, but not inerrant text. There needs to be that distinction. Otherwise we are stuck wondering whether the NIV or KJV or Jeffersonian or whatever version are the “right” version. I think it is important to take the texts, study the interpretations, and ask ourselves, “how does this line up to the command to love God and love my neighbor?”
On the point of animals. I think we are almost totally on the same page. And the Bible is very specific about treating animals humanely. I realize that there are portions that seem pretty cruel…specifically the Levitical laws on how to kill animals…but taken in context these rules were baby steps, moving people towards a respect for animals that God desires. God is working to reconcile “all of creation” to himself. Animals have a dignity and worth that we as humans, and Christians especially, should be ashamed of ignoring.
I still disagree on where the ethics come from, but I’m glad we both agree that they are there. That is a huge deal. There are far too many relativists who will deny that there is any such thing as a universal ethic.
And as for the label…You are right, most don’t ask “what kind of Christian?” I believe it is my job to show not tell. Paul teaches that we are to live our lives so that people running past can see that there is a difference. And Jesus teaches that the world will know that we belong to him when we have love for each other. My goal is not to defend a label, but to show that there is a difference, and be ready to answer questions about why that might be. Christianity is not, as too many Christians assume, about dropping an undeniable Truth-bomb on someone’s head and forcing them to accept or reject it and thus seal their fate. It is about relationship. It is about saying, “Hey…I’ve got some good news for you…wanna hear?”
March 19, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Andrew said – I think it is important to take the texts, study the interpretations, and ask ourselves, “how does this line up to the command to love God and love my neighbor?”
I see this differently. I am evolved enough now to know that I should respect life, nature, and animals of all kinds, even those who are of my species. My brain has evolved to the point that I can amass more knowledge now in one month than was held by all of humanity 2000 years ago. This is not a sign of a deity. It is evolution at work. If only I could live to see what mankind will be like in 200 or 300 years. We now have the ability to begin controlling our evolution. Social pacts of behavior will change, must change as we evolve. Ethics will change and must change as we evolve. Animal and human sacrifice was ethical not so long ago – we are evolving – the holy texts are not. They are frozen in the context of bronze age man.
The betterment of mankind is the goal, always has been the goal. Now that we can shape the evolution of mankind, it’s possible to now work toward that goal more productively than writing laws on what meat to eat and which of our neighbors to condemn. It’s time for our guiding principles to evolve with us.
There are some among us who would look at your views with incredulity and ask why would you shackle yourself to ancient superstition and myth? The ethics we agree on existed before God supposedly stopped by to tell us about them. In that respect, if you wish to attribute them to God, your god is a plagiarist.
At one time, mankind needed miracles and magic to make the story truly believable, not so much any more. Just show us the evidence as the truth of what you are saying. Just as the mankind of antiquity required ‘proof’ in the way of miracles, so now do we require evidence that your ‘way’ is the right one, the way that should be chosen over the more logical evolution viewpoint that does have evidence.
Even though we disagree, I think it would probably be a good night out if we were to gather at a pub and talk.
March 19, 2010 at 2:23 pm |
Andrew, The trouble I see with believing God is directing the evolution of mankind toward a state of heaven is that it’s no different than animal husbandry. The Biblical narrative tells us that God tried first with Adam, then with Noah, then sent Jesus. Along the way, he chose to deliberately try to wipe out certain evil traits selectively. There are those among us who believe God is trying to wipe out iniquity with natural disasters still. Whether allegory and poetry or not, the indication is that we are lab rats in Gods animal husbandry experiments. Some day we’ll be the perfect pets. For reasons more eloquently stated by Hitchens and Dawkins, I cannot subscribe to such a view.
Thanks for the link and info. I’ll check them out in time. Learning more is never wrong. It is the meaning of existence, if there is indeed such a thing. We evolved to be able to amass information, and when there was too much for our brains, we created more tools to help us. There seems no reason to believe that is not the path forward for further evolutionary steps, whether you believe the end goal is heaven or simply the betterment of mankind with no end in sight.
I choose to believe the explanation that has evidence, and reject what is corrosive to that but has no evidence. Progress is the thing. Culling the things that retard it is often necessary. We humans are now the care takers of humanity, fully responsible for the results as we are now becoming able to direct the evolution of mankind, no longer fully subjected to the whims of nature and the waxing and waning of our environmental situation.
If we have not learned to control the elements, we have learned to mitigate their effect on us. Slowly we are becoming magicians and gods. To wit:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 – )
The gap between bronze age theology and modern science is not yet at this point, but it will be. Look at the advances made in only the last 100 years. We have the power to burn the Earth completely, and the power to explore the stars. One company of marines today could have obliterated armies of antiquity. What we take for granted now would have seemed as some kind of magic back then. We know how long you can be dead before you suffer brain damage on revival. We can cure diseases that killed people wantonly as few as 4 decades ago. God did not do that or even predict it, humans using science did it.
Not all spirituality is corrosive to the common good, but it’s rare these days to find any that is not.
March 19, 2010 at 11:39 pm |
Well my friend. It seems we are nearing the end of this particular thread of discussion. I think we can walk away from this one knowing that neither of us have changed our mind, but that we are still better for the discussion.
And while I think we have reached a dead end on this discussion, that is not to say I’m not looking forward to many more discussions in the future. I think you’re right…we may not agree, but it would be great to meet up at the pub and talk for a few hours. If you’re ever in North Carolina look me up.
We seem to agree mostly on the whats and the hows…it’s those pesky whys that we can’t seem to nail down. But that’s okay. It takes all kinds. You keep working to take control of evolution, and I’ll keep working to bring heaven to earth and I’ll meet you around the bend.
Love,
-Andrew
March 20, 2010 at 12:06 am |
Andrew, Jefferson would be proud of America would it be that he knew you. I look forward to more conversations, and I thank you.
I agree, we are better for having had the conversation. The why part is one of those things we may never know, at least not in this life
I need no control of evolution and am happy in my place in it. I’m made more happy knowing that mankind is in fact in control of it now, or soon will be. The thought that we even can be shaping it, is to me, validation of how I feel.
I still believe that there is room for spirituality, and exploration of such. I just haven’t seen any that matches the evidence we have.
Thanks
Z
March 20, 2010 at 2:46 am |
None of their actions surprise me much. The entire foundation of the Catholic church, and other organizations like them, is to obtain/retain power. That’s done by withholding the truth, keeping people in the dark, and never admitting your errors. I don’t remember Rome, or the Pope for that matter, ever having much of a reputation, historically, for moral fortitude. Power, it’s all about the power.
I’d love to see every one of the people that had information about this go to jail for a very, very long time.
March 21, 2010 at 11:38 pm |
Hey, believers… I know you’re not the guy, but can you please stop implicitly defending idiots who make such blatant inflammatory statements in the media, using God to justify his words?
Sure, we can handle them just fine, but think… such people have already decided, closed their eyes and ears off to anyone who only has a partial shred of belief. YOU, believers, have MORE POWER AND POSITION to talk to and convince such people than us… can I kindly request you do so before trying any recruitment tactics?
Seriously, “don’t listen to him” is becoming a very arbitrary and lame excuse. By rushing to the defence of your beliefs, YOU are making the critical mistake of letting people like these do what they do, and get away with it.
Always remember when an argument like this happens: WE haven’t done a thing, but spoke out against such behavior. If you want to take us to task other “sins”, fine, but hello, if you don’t like such behavior as well, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE US THIS IS A-OK?!
March 22, 2010 at 5:36 am |
a chicken passeth by, I generally get a bland retort when I ask why Christian people don’t do more to differentiate their name and beliefs from those who commit sins and are part of the Christian faith. The Pope is just one of them, there are many, too many to list but still believers want us to ignore what they did because they are not ‘true’ Christians. Meh! The argument gets thrown back that ‘well, Hitler was an atheist so you must think ….. blah blah blah. They miss the whole point. These are their ‘leaders’ who are showing the world what Christians are really like, they are supposed to be good examples. Atheism is not a religion. There are no meetings, no club, no membership, and only one rule: believe in no gods. That is less complex than believing in Santa Claus. It’s possibly easier to believe in Santa and be an atheist at times. There might be 100s of millions of atheists in the world but we can’t be sure who they are or where they are. They’re everywhere and no where. Anonymous
There are some atheists that actually go to church on Sundays, but could they be the one’s in charge? Mother Teresa despite losing her faith continued her good works. I wonder if that is the secret to good leadership; do the right things no matter what you believe? Oh yes I did just do that.
March 22, 2010 at 5:38 am |
grrr, error: It’s possibly easier to believe in Santa >> than << be an atheist at times.
March 22, 2010 at 6:52 am |
a Chicken Passeth By,
I can understand your frustration. And I hope for me personally that I have not come off as trying to defend the Pope or Pat Robertson, or any of the other jackass Christians who have lost sight of what it means to act like Christ. I will not say that they are not “true” Christians, but they have obviously gotten confused along the way. And what they are doing is so opposite of anything Christ taught, and opposite of anything that is ethically okay that it is embarrassing to be on the same side. I think all Christians should be ashamed.
As for stopping them from being jackasses before we try “recruitment” techniques…I have two issues. One, it’s a great big world full of a lot of ignorant people…if anyone, Christian, atheist, or whatever…tried to end all the jackassery in their own camp before saying, “yeah, but I still think this is a good idea” then no one would ever say anything about anything. and Two, I realize that many Christians have equated “witnessing” with “recruitment” or a “sales pitch”…but that was never intended to be the point. The point is to speak with the life you live and say, “look, something’s different…something has been changed in me.” It is not the point of the Church to be the moral police of the world, nor to con anyone into joining. The point is to be changed and to be an instrument of change.
Anyway, that’s 2 cents from the back pew…
March 22, 2010 at 10:10 am |
Andrew- I can move past our arguments on the Bible, and while I still have disagreements in both interpretation, and Mr. Z’s defense of your beliefs, I am overcome with your insistence that your beliefs are any less superstitious then the Christians you disagree with.
The fact is that you admit to believing the miracles of the Bible, which very much contradict all laws of nature we have discovered through Science. We know from the laws of physics how buoyancy works, for Jesus to walk on water is a direct contradiction of these laws. It is not a bending, but a direct break. The laws of matter state that matter can not come out of existence from nothing, but when Jesus is able to share fish with his followers, when it is known there is not enough, it is a breaking of these rules. The same is true of his miracle of turning water into wine.
These are breaks of natural laws as we know them, which by definition, makes them supernatural. To say that natural laws allow for these is quite a bold statement, when Science has shown time after time after time after time that these laws hold true under all circumstances.
March 22, 2010 at 10:57 am |
Andy,
I’m not sure why it’s so surprising that we see this so differently. If you and I start from a completely different set of presuppositions, then it is no surprise that we arrive at different conclusions.
You said something very important in your post. You said, “The laws of matter state that matter can not come out of existence from nothing…” This is obviously a fact. This is, I believe, what led Steven Hawking to say, “”The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications.” And also, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Of course I don’t intend to claim Steven Hawking as a Christian. But I think it is clear, even to the great skeptical minds of science, that the fact that there is something rather than nothing ultimately implies something about the way the universe operates. Now, if you presuppose that we evolved completely by chance with no guidance, and that reality as we are able to perceive it is all that is true, then obviously miracles break down the laws of nature.
However, I take the fact you stated – that matter cannot come into existence out of nothing – and couple that clue with other clues such as a universal sense of ethics (not specific morals, but that there is a sense universally that some things are right and some things are wrong), and the personality/consciousness/sentience of humanity (and possibly other animals), and I arrive at a conclusion that there is a creator God that has personality and who orders existence (these are not the only “clues” I base this belief on, but they are examples). With this as the basis of my presuppositions, these miracles are not suspensions of natural law, but manipulations of natural law that we cannot understand as of yet.
This is much like Clark’s Third Law that Mr. Z quoted. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Only I would change the word technology with “understanding of the order of the universe” or “power to control the order of the universe.” Think if you went back in time with a bit of potassium. Say you take said potassium and find an unsuspecting villager drinking a glass of water. You drop the potassium in the water and the villager freaks out and the firey water you just created. You are magic. You defy nature. But you didn’t really.
Now think if there is a multidimensional being who has the power to order molecules, who can coalesce energy into matter, who in fact is responsible for doing so with every bit of matter that you can touch. For this being to walk on water, multiply food, etc…this is not a contradiction of natural law. This is not supernatural…this is superhuman.
You say that science (interesting that it is capitalized in your post) has shown time after time after time after time that these laws hold true under all circumstances. This is not what a scientific law actually is. The definition of a scientific law is, ” a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met.” These laws do not hold true under all circumstances. They hold true when certain conditions are met. It does not contradict the law when the conditions are different.
As I say, we are in agreement on what the scientific laws are. We disagree on what the ultimate base reality of the universe is. We disagree on what the conditions were at the time of the miracles. So ultimately we are going to have a hard time finding common ground on these philosophical differences when we start from completely different presuppositions.
Now…all that said, do I think that any of this is going to change your mind? I would be very surprised. My hope is that we can have an open and honest dialogue. I hope that we can discuss these great issues without assuming that anyone who disagrees is a blathering idiot. There are intellectually lazy people who hold to any worldview you can imagine. Christianity and atheism are no different. Unfortunately these are the people who have the biggest mouths. But you can’t fight idiots by acting like an idiot. I can’t scream louder than Pat Robertson, and you can’t scream louder than Marilyn Manson. There are loud mouthed idiots who make every group look stupid to those on the outside. I prefer to have quiet conversation with real people. I think that’s how actual understanding and actual change are achieved.
Love,
-Andrew
March 22, 2010 at 11:35 am |
Andrew when you say this, (not specific morals, but that there is a sense universally that some things are right and some things are wrong), what are these rights and wrongs you are saying are universal?
March 22, 2010 at 11:52 am
Baconsbud,
For the sake of the discussion above, what I intend is to simply say that every person, whether they say so explicitly or not, lives as though there are some things which are ethically right and some things which are ethically wrong. We all have some sense of “ought-ness” to which we hold ourselves and others.
There is room for discussion at this point in the conversation as to what those particular “oughts” actually are. So, if you’re looking for a list, I don’t think we’re there yet. We can get so bogged down in debating the lists that we don’t talk about the basis of the list. That’s where I’d like to go first. The first question is, “Do you believe that there is anyone in the world who is behaving in a way that is ethically wrong?” And likewise, “is anyone behaving ethically right?” In other words…do you believe in ethics?
If not…no problem…enjoy nihilism. But if so, then we can discuss why. Is it merely a social contract in which we agree to value certain actions and motives more than others? Or is there something higher?
It seems to me that this conversation all started over a discussion of pedophilia. So, let’s make it real. Is there anything about pedophilia that is wrong because it’s wrong? Or is it only wrong because society has agreed that it’s not beneficial to society? Is it *actually* wrong for the strong to bully the weak into submission (one aspect of pedophilia)? Or is it relative to the situation?
March 22, 2010 at 3:20 pm |
First I don’t believe there is or ever will be a universally accepted list of right and wrong ethics. If there was such a list the amount of crimes committed would be much lower and wars would be more easily avoided. As it pertains to child abuse, I think it is more that society says child abuse is wrong then people saying it is wrong because it is wrong. You see stories from time to time about how this or that group still supports children under the age of consent being married off to much older men.
As to your question about is it wrong for the strong to bully the weak, I think in a society such as we have right now it is ok in regards to many areas other then sexual actions. It hasn’t actually been that long though that society hid from sexual abuse of many kinds. It wasn’t until the early 1900′s that children even rated any better then domesticated animals when it came to the law.
March 22, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Baconsbud,
Fair answer. However, you somewhat hint at the point I am trying to make here. No, there is no universally agreed upon list of ethics. One society, as you say here, supports underage children being married off to older men. You speak of societies hiding sexual abuse of many kinds. You speak of societies which treat children little better than domesticated animals.
There are societies who have, in a sense, gotten together and decided that these things are not wrong. These things are socially acceptable.
Yet you speak of them as if they are still wrong.
So what is the reason? If I understand you correctly you are saying that right and wrong are determined by what society agrees upon. At first blush this sounds better than saying that all ethics are based on what I personally prefer. But really I think this is actually a worse option. Now right and wrong are determined by majority vote.
So what do you do when you run across a society that says it is okay to force children to marry older men? Are ethics then determined by whichever society is strongest? If there is no universal absolute that says this sort of thing is wrong, then who are we to impose our sense of morals on another society?
Now each society has a list of “morals” so-to-speak. Each society has its own common worldview that says one things is okay and another isn’t. But if there is no moral absolute that says it is wrong to abuse children simply because it is wrong to abuse children, then any insistence that our society’s views on the subject are any more valid than another is simply ethnocentric egotism.
This is why I insist that there is an ethical absolute. Of course what things are ethically absolute is another discussion. But this is why I keep slowing down the conversation. There is no point in talking about what things are ethically wrong if we disagree on whether or not there is any such thing as ethics. If all ethics are determined by society, and there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong then any discussion about what someone “ought” to do is meaningless.
March 22, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Just to chime in on ethics. I say ethics versus religious morality. Religions form their own society, and have their own set of ethics. Each society has its own set of ethics. Many are similar if not the same but there is no rule that they must be.
The only universality that we find is where evolution has brought about the same ethics rule for all societies that have survived cultural evolution. We can quickly name a few: murder is wrong, theft is wrong, lying is wrong. Now each of these is excused in one shade or another under the right circumstances, but in general these hold true. Murder by law enforcement to protect innocents from other murderers is ok, murder for war is okay. Lying in poker is ok and when she asks if the dress makes her backside look big. And on it goes. So the scope and actions are defined by society of what is ethically wrong, and likewise what is ethically good. As mankind has evolved, our societies have evolved. They borrow from each other here and there and set their own standards as well. Over time there is a core set of ethical values that has survived in more or less all societies. Evolution will do that for you. This is why we see very similar ethical values almost everywhere. Clearly the world did not start out this way. See the Spartans and the Vikings for examples of societies that are now gone.
There are common ethical values for any surviving society grouping. The shades of grey to define their use vary. For instance, even in countries where children are held in low value, a man can be punished for beating some other man’s child. Which takes us to the definition of property and how it can ethically be used.
Marrying your sister is only wrong is society says it is… IF you are willing to risk the genetic issues. The human male and female are ready to mate at puberty. With this occurring at an age of less than 10, natures says 18 is almost twice longer than needed. Society says 18. Natures says when you hit puberty. The OT alludes to this fact regarding women several times. We are in a different society, so social ethics say we must wait till 18, then it’s every man for himself. Other societies have ritualized the process of courtship to protect women of even 25, never mind 16.
Ethics are defined by society. Remember when the US thought it was unethical to drink alcohol? Either through change of law or government, or by wholesale ignoring of the law, some ethics change. Ethics are society’s rules of conduct.
In order to co-exist humans need rules and ethics. This was decided long ago and happened about the time some folk got tired of seeing good humans beat the shit out of each other in order to be the alpha male… possibly, no one knows for certain.
All human societies have social ethics as guidance, and oddly enough, so do animal social groups. All of it arrived at via evolution of society. Anarchy has been all but bread out of the human genome. There are remnants of it, and it is expressed strongly from time to time, but on the whole it is suppressed or not expressed genetically. It sometimes expresses itself in the need for freedoms like riding a bike, or flying, or risk taking with X sports. Just the same, it is suppressed socially as this affords us all a better lifestyle and resources. Ethics are an agreement we all make with one another – for the most part as there are exceptions. Generally we imprison the exceptions.
Hopefully that was useful and not just a pain to read.
March 22, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Oh, hit send too soon. As for sexual activity – societal ethics tell us what is ok and what is not. The porn industry gave us pilgarlic genetalia, so much of it that it has become ‘normal’. Ethics change over time. As far as a universal ethic for sexual behaviors, if we look at the rest of nature, it can be said that the ONLY deviant sexual act is that of celibacy. Absolutely everything else is alright to some animal in some grouping, including beheading your partner after copulation. Only we humans put so much effort into defining what is good or bad about the act of copulation. This is something that can only be blamed on religion IMO. That said, the views on ethical sexual behavior vary widely and according to societal norms. In the west women work extra hard to be attractive. The Burka is not to protect the woman, it’s to prevent the male from becoming aroused. Women should not use their wiles to stir the demons in men. Yep, blame the rape victim. In the west we tend to blame everyone, but generally try to not blame the victim too much. It’s a tricky thing. Ethically right and wrong is not always clear cut, but in the end society decides via the courts etc. Sometimes we let the Papacy decide, though it’s becoming unpopular to do so for reasons that are obvious to most of us.
As for the stronger bullying the weaker – I ask how you describe the church trying to make laws to make some sexual orientations illegal? It is the Catholic church, and others to a lesser degree, that try to make noble and pure the one sexual behavior that nature abhors, all the while claiming so many others are wrong. Celibacy is the ‘unnatural’ act, and yet we look to those who practice it for advice on what is acceptable sexual behavior. Go figure, religion is involved.
Yes , we all have ethics and yes, they do change. Morality on the other hand, those ethics derived from religion, they do not change. They are fixed in a state that was acceptable to bronze age man. No, women were not consulted on them. Morality, or religious ethics, are ancient in evolutionary terms. Their continued existence only holds mankind back in it’s progress to something better. Yes, by all means, lets stone homosexuals to death. Right along side those that eat shellfish and children who are not obedient to their parents. That last one might be ok… J/K
Ok, I’ve typed enough.
March 23, 2010 at 3:21 am
I’m going to have to defer to Mr. Z on this. He has said much of what I wanted to but couldn’t come up with the way to say it clearly. That is one of the reasons I don’t jump in here much with comments while you two are talking. You both are able to say what you want in such a way as to not confuse everyone. I will continue to comment when I disagree or have a different view.
March 23, 2010 at 8:20 am
Alright here is the 10,000 dollar question.
If there is no universal ethic that says that one way is *actually* right and *actually* wrong, then what right do any of us have to speak into issues of ethics?
You mention gray areas. And there are obviously gray areas. Especially in the area of religious rules. Jesus was very specific about there being a gray area. He stopped a stoning of an adulterous woman even though the “law” was that she should be stoned. But the thing is that he did so because stoning her to death was *actually* wrong. It wasn’t just his opinion. And it wasn’t the opinion of a society. This is one of many examples where Jesus says basically, “the rule was made for people, people were not made for the rule.”
So, obviously there are lists of things that we “ought” to do. And I agree that in these lists is a lot of subjectivity. But stripping the lists back to their bare bones, there seems to be a basis of these rules that goes beyond the specific rules.
In other words, if you look at the moral and ethical laws that society and religion create, they are based on a common ethic. So our constructed “ethics” and “morality” are based, in my opinion, on our interpretation of what this Universal Ethic is. Does that make sense? There is disagreement about what that Universal is, and what it means to live in harmony with it. But it seems to me that it is there, and it is not possible to live as though it isn’t there. It is possible to not believe it is there, but I don’t think anyone *lives* as though it’s not there.
Let me give you an example from your list of gray areas. You mention grasshoppers beheading the mate after sex. Obviously you don’t think this is okay for humans to do. There is something that says it is not okay to rip your sex partner’s head off after sex. And I don’t think that is based on human society. If, for whatever reason, some society decided that it was normal for us to behave like grasshoppers, it would still be *actually* wrong do to it, even if society does not approve.
So, gray areas aside, there are Universal Ethics to which we refer anytime we say that one society’s ethic is better. When we look back at an older society and say, “those ways were wrong, we have evolved past that” we have to be holding that up to a standard other than our own opinion. Otherwise it is just an ethnocentric bit of egotism. Even if we are saying that one society’s ethic is simply not as good for evolution. We are referring to a Universal that says “it is right for us to work towards our common evolution.”
Which brings another interesting question. Why should we work towards the common good of society or human evolution? So often we are more like a plague on the earth so what is it that makes it “right” to work for the common good? I think there is a very good reason to do so, but I would like to hear from you why you think so.
March 23, 2010 at 9:08 am
Andrew, glad you asked that question.
“So, obviously there are lists of things that we “ought” to do. And I agree that in these lists is a lot of subjectivity. But stripping the lists back to their bare bones, there seems to be a basis of these rules that goes beyond the specific rules.”
There is a basis for these general ethics principles, and they apply to very young children, adults, and even animals. We understand from a very young age a sense of social justice, the sense that certain situations are right and certain situations are wrong. A sense of fairness. This sense of fairness is based on innate understanding of fairness biases by our own internal judgment of what is fair to all. This makes for gray areas, but the seed of that sense of justice is originated before we have personal or social biases.
“In other words, if you look at the moral and ethical laws that society and religion create, they are based on a common ethic. So our constructed “ethics” and “morality” are based, in my opinion, on our interpretation of what this Universal Ethic is. Does that make sense? There is disagreement about what that Universal is, and what it means to live in harmony with it. But it seems to me that it is there, and it is not possible to live as though it isn’t there. It is possible to not believe it is there, but I don’t think anyone *lives* as though it’s not there.”
That innate sense of justice stems from one simple condition. As soon as we have mastered moving our fingers and toes, and before we are able to count them or talk about them, we have a sense of fairness. That very same self of fairness stems from the fact that untainted human minds and even animals have an innate sense that we are equals. It takes years to train, indoctrinate, and beat that sense of equality out of a young mind, and society sets to work on this post haste.
============
“Let me give you an example from your list of gray areas. You mention grasshoppers beheading the mate after sex. Obviously you don’t think this is okay for humans to do. There is something that says it is not okay to rip your sex partner’s head off after sex. And I don’t think that is based on human society. If, for whatever reason, some society decided that it was normal for us to behave like grasshoppers, it would still be *actually* wrong do to it, even if society does not approve. “
Evolution clears the world of societies that get the reproduction part wrong. There is no need to deem it right or wrong. Evolution tells us if the society has negative population growth, it’s wrong.
“So, gray areas aside, there are Universal Ethics to which we refer anytime we say that one society’s ethic is better. When we look back at an older society and say, “those ways were wrong, we have evolved past that” we have to be holding that up to a standard other than our own opinion. Otherwise it is just an ethnocentric bit of egotism. Even if we are saying that one society’s ethic is simply not as good for evolution. We are referring to a Universal that says “it is right for us to work towards our common evolution.””
No, where evolution has made a group of ethics outdated, they fade away. The Spartan society is gone, but not the Greeks. The Viking societies have evolved. People living at the time of these societies thought they were wrong. Evolution modified their ethics and we can see what they are today.
“Which brings another interesting question. Why should we work towards the common good of society or human evolution? So often we are more like a plague on the earth so what is it that makes it “right” to work for the common good? I think there is a very good reason to do so, but I would like to hear from you why you think so.”
Humans are no more a plague on the Earth than any other animal or insect. The common good of society is part of our evolution, a part that has served us well over a very long time. Examples include: co-operative hunting, farming, city states, empires, and wars vs. minor squabbles. Each of these has given our societies more time for the esoteric, more time to develop better ways of doing things: better farming, better transportation, industrialization. We can see in areas where such advances have been retarded that those humans still struggle with survival and squabbles, no time for the esoteric. We have come to realize that the common good brings us things that previous evolutionary steps would have destroyed: music, art, science, architecture, individual genius, and so on. Each of us can look at the good things society has fomented on our behalf and be proud of that society in general, for it is the common good or group efforts that bring it to us. Even the janitor is important in a hospital, not just the doctor. The ditch digger is as important as the steel worker. Through the common good we become more than the sum of our parts, as it were. Evolution has taught us this.
Though we settle into social strata, we start out as equals.
March 23, 2010 at 9:39 am
Mr. Z,
You said something very important there.
“That innate sense of justice stems from one simple condition. As soon as we have mastered moving our fingers and toes, and before we are able to count them or talk about them, we have a sense of fairness. That very same self of fairness stems from the fact that untainted human minds and even animals have an innate sense that we are equals.”
We are equal. There is an innate sense of fairness, even before society’s norms and whatnot have been ingrained in us. We settle into unfair social strata, but we start out as equals. So why would we have this sense of fairness? In an evolutionary sense, why would fairness be a concern? And is there a time when we could outgrow the sense of fairness? Or is fairness and equality something that is universal?
It seems as if you might believe in a universal thing whether you call it that or not. If something is innate in all creatures from birth, that smells an awful lot like a universal truth to me. And if there is a universal truth that we are equal, and that things should be more concerned with fairness, then why? Where could that come from in an impersonal material view of the world?
March 23, 2010 at 10:18 am
Andrew said: “It seems as if you might believe in a universal thing whether you call it that or not. If something is innate in all creatures from birth, that smells an awful lot like a universal truth to me. And if there is a universal truth that we are equal, and that things should be more concerned with fairness, then why? Where could that come from in an impersonal material view of the world?”
That sense of equality which we are born with is an accident of evolution, in the same way that sentience is an accident of evolution. That all animals on this planet might have the same beginnings is no more indicative of something supernatural than the fact that all life on this planet arose from the same chemical soup. It is, and makes sense of the world as we know it. I have not stated, nor will I, that extraterrestrial life would be the same or that the situation is universal in the sense that it works this way in all parts of the universe.
We see ourselves as equal because that is a base state without reason to believe that we are not equal. We look the same, talk the same, and on an on, we must then be equal. We have to take a few lumps in life to figure out that all people are not equal in all ways. Animals do this too. A foal can walk and run within hours of birth, and it is their brain that gives them this ability. They are born with it and have been bequeathed such skill over millions of years of evolution. Our brains likewise have been evolved over millions of years. There is no surprise in that or need to try to explain it with magic and mysticism and the supernatural. There is a perfectly natural explanation for it, no need of others. It just seems to be one of those paradoxes you spoke of.
March 23, 2010 at 10:45 am
And we arrive back at the source of our disagreement. I cannot see why we ought to care one little bit about this sense of fairness and equality if it is merely an accident of impersonal evolution. Yes, we might commonly agree on it. But we commonly agree on plenty that is neither fair nor ethical nor equal. And we have innate senses that also contradict this sense of fairness and equality. So why, if we, our senses, our consciousness, our ethics, and everything else are accidents of evolution, should we value one thing above another? Why would there be anything ethically that isn’t decided by the situation, and whoever is stronger or smarter?
March 23, 2010 at 11:53 am
Andrew, let me move orthogonally here, do you have 7 fingers on each hand? No. Creating gloves and hand tools for 7 fingered hands is counter productive and confusing – and probably would be seen as stupid. Just the same, creating tools to do things better with our 5 fingers (the ones evolution gave us) is productive and for the common good.
We have come to form larger ethics sets and rules of society to fit the needs of the society in which they are enacted. This changes with time and the evolution of that society. Evolution gives us (through reason and experience) a view of the world where we can see what is beneficial to us immediately and directly, and this drives evolutionary processes. We still continue to be born with a blank slate, so the idea that we are equal does not get left out in those processes, and indeed drives some of the forces that guide evolution.
You ask: “Why would there be anything ethically that isn’t decided by the situation, and whoever is stronger or smarter?”
The answer is simple. We start life with a sense of equality and while bumps and changes layer us into the strata of society’s not-equal in all ways system, we still understand that equality at some base level. Even if someone is stronger, or smarter, we can find ways to make us equal again. The struggle for power and wealth et al continues even as we write. Just look at the struggle in the US over health care reform. It’s an example of the social evolution that we are talking about. Some win, some lose, in the end, those that adapt will survive. This is evolution. I know it’s not easy to accept, but this is how the world works, and as far as I know it’s how the universe works.
Some evolutionary changes are abrupt, just ask Marie Antoinette. Others not so much, ask the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those who have power and wealth have been taught (over time) that ignoring the societal norms can end up disastrously for those that work against them.
We place value on the things that work in our given situation, and over time social evolution has shown us that for the greatest chunk of humanity, there are several principles that seem to work better. Not that they can’t coexist with other values, but that they seem to work better. Over time they have come to be quite powerful forces in human society.
There is no reason to believe a supernatural person or event created this or is driving it. Slow changes are evolution, quick changes are revolution. Religious morality allows for neither and there for is anti-natural, counterproductive, and corrosive to the common good. Even now we are evolving, socially, physically, and as a species. To deny this is silly. To oppose it is fatal… in the long run.
March 23, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I will grant that we are born with a blank slate in a sense. And I agree that we are born equal in a sense. But in the sense that evolution would be concerned, we are absolutely not. The way you describe it it sounds as though we are all born at the same place on the starting line. Then we take whatever lumps society has to offer, and we put forth our best efforts, and the ones who adapt better survive, and the ones who don’t adapt as well do not survive.
But the problem is that we are not born at the same place. A wealthy white man is not born at the same place on the starting line as a poor black woman. To claim an equal blank slate in that sense is to ignore reality.
I don’t think you are ignoring the reality that you see around you. You have been very clear that you are interested in what is verifiable from the world around. So, if you don’t mean that we are born equal with blank slate in the social Darwinism sense (the sense that blames the poor for being poor…after all, if they adapted better, they’d do better), then perhaps you mean that we are born with equal value? We are born with equal worth?
So, again…what is it in evolution that would cause us to value one born in a lower position equally to one born in a higher position? Why would we value a child born with birth defects equally with a child born healthy? What stops us from crossing the line into eugenics? In other words, if we have evolved to this point purely by accident, then what motive could we have for not stepping in and taking the reigns? If we have lucked out up to this point and accidentally had all the proper conditions met so that we are what we are…then why on earth would we test our luck by allowing this blind impersonal force to continue choosing our fate? It seems somewhat like being dealt blackjack but still saying, “hit me.”
Unless, of course there is something about this “evolution” that tempts you to capitolize the “e.”
Of course it is futile to stand in the way of change. It is silly to hang on to past traditions just because they are past traditions. It is ludicrous to think we can stop our species from evolving. But it also seems that if evolution is a blind and impersonal force then it is equally ludicrous to trust it to continue evolving us for the better. Eugenics seems the logical thing to consider.
Yet we don’t.
Why? Because we understand that there is something inherently wrong with it. We look at those who have tried it in the past and realize the horror that entails. And it is so horrible, not because it is necessarily against evolution, but because it is against the inherent worth of every individual person.
I agree with you that evolution happened, and is happening. I just can’t get down with the logic that says we are worth something as humans without any reason. That is a leap of faith that I can’t make. If the only reason there is something rather than nothing is because of an accident of evolution…if i am a hiccup of the universe…then there is absolutely no ultimate purpose for our being here nor is there a purpose for our continued life.
In his post below, Andy very soberly points out the fact that, following his worldview to its logical end, the universe would not notice a difference if earth were destroyed today. We are obsessed with making movies about this (Armageddon, Last Day on Earth, 2012, heck…even Planet of the Apes in a sense). And in it we all fight nobly for the survival of the human race. Even in your comments you speak of our need to work together on evolving. We should not stand in the way of evolution. But why? If we are a hiccup of the universe, then why shouldn’t we just behave on our animal instincts, do what feels good, and then die? Why should we ever do anything that isn’t motivated by self-interest? Granted, there may be reasons dictated by society that compel us to do things we don’t want to do…but even then, it is out of self-interest that we don’t want to go to jail.
To quote something you said a few days ago, “Doing the right things should need no motivation. If you need motivation to do them, you aren’t really doing them, are you?” So obviously you believe that there are some things that are “right”…and you also believe that we should do them out of some motivation other than our own fear of punishment or anticipation of reward. I have yet to see how the “hiccup of the universe” model gives any such motivation.
March 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm
A comment about the origin and evolution of ethics.
In the early days of medicine, doctors (and especially surgeons) wore the same work garment in treating all patients and those garments were often covered with blood and other bodily fluids. This was a sort of badge of honor or of professional ability and an ethic of sorts. Then Lister and others discovered germs and their role in disease; and the new discovery indicated that the bloody-garment ethic was counter-productive, that it was in fact was spreading disease and killing people. But the established doctors resisted the need to change, at least for a while, for various reasons. Eventually, of course, the ethic was replaced with one of scrupulous cleanliness, exemplified by the fact that a doctor now washes his/her hands immediately upon entering the examining room and again just before leaving.
This change of ethic occurred because there was objective evidence that one was better than the other. Of course, most societal ethics are more complex than this and involve psychological and political dynamics. Identifying the best ethic necessarily involves statistics and other advanced tools of analysis, and megaheaps of data; and it involves acting for the long term good even in the face of fear about short term danger or problems. Also, everyone in the society needs to be aware in some way of the evidence in order to understand the principles and how to apply them. So that definitive list of universal ethical concepts will not be arrived at soon. But we do understand that certain attitudes and actions interfere with the trust and cooperation needed for a successful society, not because of personal subjective preferences nor because of societal agreement, but because many observations over long periods of time have shown that their effects are deleterious. And we understand that certain attitudes and actions are beneficial. We are slowly working on the rest.
We do not need a god to tell us that medical personnel should actively avoid transmitting germs from one patient to another. We do not need a god to tell us the value of other ethical principles. And objective universal ethical principles do exist without a god; but we have not yet identified all the details.
—————
The “sense of equality [and fairness] which we are born with” is not “merely” “an accident of evolution”. It presumably began as an accident (random mutation) but it survived and developed to its present strength and form because it makes life better for those who have it. It makes societies possible because individuals can cooperate; makes life better because everyone benefits from joint action and division of labor. In short, the social capabilities that might be called “loving one’s neighbor” evolved in humans because the behaviors made possible by those capabilities give the best overall results.
March 23, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Andrew, I think you’re starting to understand life as I see it now… slowly
We are not born socially equal, or equal on any grand scale at all. I say that we perceive ourselves as equal at birth, but that is hammered out of us continuously until death. Those who defy the hammering have stood out as shining examples for all of mankind to either love or hate.
Evolution does not cause us to value one person over another. Their contribution (benevolent or not) to society shapes our valuation of them. Yes, you get dealt a hand of cards and it’s up to you to play them. Some play well, some do not.
We tried eugenics to an extent. Social forces and evolution has shown that to be a counterproductive way. We might have lost GWCarver, Hawking, and Beethoven. The inner understanding that we are equal stays with us for life. To allow one group to decide who should be sterilized is to say that someone should have such power. That it might also happen to me is found repulsive. It’s not that there is something inherently wrong with it, it’s because it might happen to me, or will happen to someone I care about. That then helps shape societal evolution. Yes, in evolution the majority has a big say. The majority has a greater chance to reproduce, increasing the chances that majority opinion and ethics will prevail.
Andrew said “I agree with you that evolution happened, and is happening. I just can’t get down with the logic that says we are worth something as humans without any reason. That is a leap of faith that I can’t make. If the only reason there is something rather than nothing is because of an accident of evolution…if i am a hiccup of the universe…then there is absolutely no ultimate purpose for our being here nor is there a purpose for our continued life.”
Bingo. The only purpose in and for life is what we ourselves put into it. Nature only require us to reproduce, and evolution does the rest.
Andrew said “In his post below, Andy very soberly points out the fact that, following his worldview to its logical end, the universe would not notice a difference if earth were destroyed today. We are obsessed with making movies about this (Armageddon, Last Day on Earth, 2012, heck…even Planet of the Apes in a sense). And in it we all fight nobly for the survival of the human race. Even in your comments you speak of our need to work together on evolving. We should not stand in the way of evolution. But why? If we are a hiccup of the universe, then why shouldn’t we just behave on our animal instincts, do what feels good, and then die? Why should we ever do anything that isn’t motivated by self-interest? Granted, there may be reasons dictated by society that compel us to do things we don’t want to do…but even then, it is out of self-interest that we don’t want to go to jail.”
Like I said, I think you’re starting to get it. There is no grand purpose. We are an evolved animal. We eat and reproduce. It is upon our shoulders to find any meaning for this. Some won’t. Others will try to find purpose, if only to save donkeys, or paint, or make war. We make our own purpose and meaning for our lives. Some people don’t feel any reason to do anything except behave on their animal instincts. Many of those are simply put to death by society. We are slowly breeding that trait out of mankind.
Andrew said “To quote something you said a few days ago, “Doing the right things should need no motivation. If you need motivation to do them, you aren’t really doing them, are you?” So obviously you believe that there are some things that are “right”…and you also believe that we should do them out of some motivation other than our own fear of punishment or anticipation of reward. I have yet to see how the “hiccup of the universe” model gives any such motivation.”
I think you are slowly getting it. Society evolved into what it is because it is useful. If you don’t like it you are welcome to go live in the wilderness, you don’t have to participate. If you do, then fear of punishment and anticipation of reward are strong motivators. You may simply choose to play along to get along so long as it does you more good than harm. You may also choose to do good for fellow humans, animals, the planet, many things. When the balance shifts the other way around we humans generally work to redress the issues. As a human, to satisfy nature you need only to eat, sleep, fornicate, and die. Everything else is up to you, personal choices. All meaning for your life is completely in your power. You decide if your life is worth anything, if you wish to make life better for others, or if you want life at all. Nobody else can make these decisions for you. We humans have to take the ultimate responsibility for our own lives and actions. No one else can carry that burden for us.
March 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Andrew, in the way of what I like to call ‘failure mode analysis’ we can compare the two belief methods:
A grieving mother of a dead infant asks what was the purpose? Why did this happen? What meaning should be taken from such a tragedy?
There is ‘God works in mysterious ways’ and there is my view. In the end, all meaning for the life and death of that infant is assigned by the infant’s family and friends of that family. Even for devoutly religious people, the meaning of and for such an event is derived from their own feelings and understanding of the world. God offers us no answer here. Evolution does, no matter how hard or difficult it is to accept in such moments, it is an answer with truth in it.
If your answer only works for good or happy events, it’s not a real answer.
March 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I just can’t get down with the logic that says we are worthless as humans without a god.
—————
Ethical behavior is actually motivated by self-interest.
First there is the self-respect that comes from acting according to principle.
Beyond that, ethical behavior advances the interests or agenda of someone or something that is of value to the individual. If you value a god and the behavioral tenets that you attribute to that god, then you act in your own self-interest by following those tenets. Others, who value family and community, adopt the welfare of the larger society as a personal goal and thus, when they act (or refrain from acting) in a way that maintains or improves the effectiveness of that society, the act is in their self-interest.
When people who have been formally recognized for doing something courageous or generous or whatever are asked about what they did, they generally talk about the goal they were trying to achieve, not about any detriment to themselves. Sometimes a god is involved, but often it is just family, friends, country, or something in that general category of what is right; because these are things that matter to them personally.
The hard part is identifying what are correct principles and finding ways for everyone to understand them and be confident that they are correct. And then, of course, we need reminders.
March 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Mr. Z and Verbifex,
I do see where you are coming from. I do flatly disagree, but I see where you come from. You continue the logic of your position to the point of saying that our only purpose and meaning is the purpose and meaning that we create for ourselves. To be honest, I find this to be a bit of a depressing view. I can see where you can also find it hopeful.
I heard a great Buddhist monk say something similar. She said we should embrace hopelessness. We should look reality in the face and realize that we are in a hopeless situation. And face this bravely and then create our own purpose.
There is great nobility in being willing to face a meaningless existence and still having the gumption to live and try to do right anyway. I don’t mean that to sound condescending. I really mean it. And if I didn’t believe in God, I hope that I could be one of the ones who accepts fate and tries to make the best of it. But I don’t believe in God as a “fix it” for that. I still believe because to my understanding it is not the “best” answer, but the only answer.
When I mentioned a “leap of faith” required in your position a few days ago, this is exactly the thing I was talking about. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that you have any purpose or meaning. There is no reason to try to do anything good or right. There is no reason to value anything over anything because at some point it will all be dust. Yet you value things. You create a purpose for your life. You work towards good and right and love. And while I think that is a beautiful thing, and I applaud you for it, I still think what you are doing requires a leap from a meaningless existence into an arbitrarily created meaning.
Now, to your second point, Mr. Z…
You ask what position gives hope to a grieving mother of a dead infant. As the father of three babies who have died, I have somewhat to say on the subject. “God works in mysterious ways” is a bullshit answer. “Everything has a purpose” and similar cliche answers mean nothing in that kind of pain. The worst thing I ever heard from anyone was a very well meaning person who told me that “God must have needed another baby angel.” I have never heard anything less helpful in that sort of situation.
And yes, there have been comforts brought to me from realizing that it’s part of the way things work. Sometimes babies die. Maybe there was some evolutionary reason. I have even found comfort in the law of conservation of matter. That somehow, some way, maybe I’m breathing in the molecules that made up my baby’s eyes.
But the comfort that makes it so that I can get up out of bed in the morning and go on with my life is not from any of this. If you don’t believe in God, then your comfort has to come from looking bravely in the face of meaningless tragedy and saying, “this is how it is.” And there is some comfort in facing reality and moving on.
However, if you believe in God the comfort does not come from asking “Why” and then getting some sort of answer. We can talk all day about why I believe in God…and we have for several days. But let’s just take it for granted for the next couple of paragraphs if you will indulge me.
First of all, I agree with Anne Lamott when she says that the greatest sermon that can ever be preached is, “Me too.” So as one who believes in God, and who believes that God put on skin and came to earth to live a fully human life, I find comfort there. I don’t find comfort in having an answer to “why.” Even if I had an answer, it wouldn’t make me feel any better. There is no purpose that God could have for my babies dying that would make me think, “oh…yeah…I totally see that. cool.” My comfort comes in knowing that I don’t have to know why. And my comfort comes in knowing that God put on skin and came here to scream along beside of us. And that whatever pain I might be going through I can’t look to God and say, “you don’t know how this feels.” Because God can say, “Me too…I have felt that pain.”
I realize this sounds superstitious and emotional. But we are dealing with a very personal subject now. I believe my faith in God is logical. But logic is like the runway for an airplane. You need it to get off the ground, and to refuel, but the airplane was made to be in the air. There is a balance of logic and experience. I can’t say which has to come first. But I do think that it is true of all existence, religious or not. We all have logic and experience, and the two have to work hand in hand to make up how we experience reality.
Anyway. I think I’m starting to ramble.
It’s a fun conversation. But it’s getting close to bedtime.
March 22, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
Andrew, I have never claimed to hear an Atheist claim they know the reason the universe exists, but I do know that as we discover more about quantum mechanics, and the work being done at the LHC, we find more and more about why the universe exists as it does. We find these things, and yet never do they break the established laws of physics.
Furthermore at this point we have enough evidence for evolution that it is well past a presupposition. Do we understand all the mechanics behind the Darwinian model? No, but there is overwhelming support that evolution has happened and a complete lack of evidence that it was guided by anything beyond nature.
I admit I could have phrased my phrasing of scientific laws better, however most certainly as the miracles are stated in the Bible, they do break natural law.
Indeed if I did go back in time with potassium and made sparking water it would probably be attributed to magic, magic and god were as good a hypothesis as any in those times. Certainly its possible that there is some magic pill that you can drop into water that makes it wine, but really how likely is it? We’re getting into insane odds and crazy explanations that exceed nature as we know it. I realize you explain this with a multi-dimensional being, but how exactly is this not super-natural. You’re filling in holes that scientists seek with God, and you use a sense of “natural ethics” that I completely reject.
If a giant meteor were to slam into the earth tomorrow, entirely destroying the earth, most everyone would consider this a bad thing. But that is entirely a human construct, would this reverberate around the universe in any negative way? No, it would just be one relatively small rock slamming into another relatively small rock. Why should I embrace a system of universal ethics? (I understand you have more clues, but these are the ones you cited)
Ultimately the gaps you are filling are with what is beyond provable, and most certainly not falsifiable, it exceeds nature as we can observe and test, and the odds that this deity is a natural cause are pretty far out there, enough for me to say this is supernatural.
Lastly I would like to apologize for coming off as overly aggressive. Sometimes when I decide to reply to something I’m reading while at work I do so in a hurry and don’t always put my thoughts together coherently, or in a civilized way. This is not an excuse, more like a character flaw, so for that I apologize.
Also Marilyn Manson may be a good screamer in his music, but he’s a fairly level-headed guy if you ever watch his interviews
March 23, 2010 at 8:39 am
Andy,
As we work towards a “unified theory” we have to do so because in the largest of the large and the smallest of the small things go very wonky (yes “wonky” is a scientific term). You say that our discoveries do not contradict known laws of physics. But in reality what we are learning about quantum physics does seem to contradict what we know about astronomical physics. However, I think you will agree, that what we are looking at is not a contradiction, but a paradox.
Let me take 2 seconds to define the difference, as they are used interchangeably all too often. Paradox is something that seems to be contradictory, but upon closer examination we find that it is not. Contradiction is a claim that a thing and its opposite are both true at the same time and in the same sense. To speak in contradiction is to speak gibberish. In other words, when Paul Mooney goes on the Chapelle show and says, “Everybody wants to be a brother, but nobody wants to be a brother.” he is speaking paradoxically. He Everybody wants to be a brother in the sense of fashion and style. But no body wants to be a brother in the sense of how they would then be treated by society. But if I say, “I am physically here, and I am physically there.” I contradict myself because I cannot be two places at once (unless we get into Schodinger’s Cat theory, but that’s a can of worms for another day).
So, my argument is that miracles are paradoxes and not contradictions. In the same way that quantum physics seems to contradict what we know of physics. The search for a unified theory is based on a hope and belief that these contradictions are in fact paradoxes. We obviously disagree. But that’s my position.
As for the aggressive nature. Well, I can’t claim that I have never done far worse when challenging Christians in my days as an atheist. And even worse than that in some of my Satanist and Wiccan days. If you ever become a bigger jerk than me, then I’ll give you an award.
As for Manson. I actually chose him in that comment for that very reason. He’s got a good head on his shoulders…even if most of his ideas are borrowed directly from Anton LaVey. But he isn’t heard because he makes his persona so extreme. Then when people say the same things he says they get lumped in with his persona instead of being heard for the merits of the argument. Same with Robertson. He is a jerk, but he’s not stupid. But his persona is such that when I say I am a Christian, I get lumped in with him instead of being heard for the merits of what I’m saying. It is the nature of people to be prejudiced in that way. But we’ve all got a lot to work against when it comes to giving reasons for our position. Whatever that position might be there is someone in the spotlight who is taking that position to the extreme and making the regular guy look like a reactionary moron.
Thanks for the conversation. I’m really having a blast.
March 23, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Andy, I too do not think you were counterproductive in your replies. Certainly it was less gruff than most of the rest of us have done at times
The exchange of ideas almost necessarily must be brutal in some ways. It is up to the participants to accept and correct then move on. This entire thread has been filled with a wondrous exchange, from which I hope we all learn a little something. A terse word here and there has no lasting effect, and certainly can add depth to intellectual discourse. We can see it even in the grand debates of theism among theists!
I dare say that this thread is something that was not entirely expected by theBEattitude
March 22, 2010 at 12:18 pm |
My defense is not so much in support of Andrew’s beliefs, but in support of anyone to hold ‘non-corrosive to society’ beliefs, which Andrew seems to have. I don’t believe in any god or miracles etc. but I do believe that we should be contributing to society. If your contribution is small, okay. Just don’t be corrosive to it.
March 22, 2010 at 12:25 pm |
Agreed Mr. Z,
I never saw your defense as an agreement with what I was saying. But more as a mature and respectful acknowledgment that we can believe completely opposite things without treating each other like drooling idiots. There are drooling idiots out there. If we waste our energy treating everyone who disagrees with us that way, then intelligent people will be too busy arguing to make any of those contributions to society. The reasons why we make those contributions are important to discuss, but all that discussion is worthless if we’re not doing the things we talk about. And if intelligent people are busy treating each other like idiots, then that leaves no one minding the store but the real idiots.
Give me 1 Mr. Z in exchange for a billion Joel Osteens or Pope Benedicts or Pat Robertsons any day!
March 23, 2010 at 12:49 pm |
wow…we’ve written a ton of words here, huh? you’d think none of us have jobs.
March 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
Yes we have written a lot of words, and they would without doubt cause sleepless nights for a seminary student. No matter the end result, it is a good set of words.
March 23, 2010 at 2:53 pm |
Word count says that there are over 22250 words in this thread, but that count message headers… so roughly 22000 orderly words of discourse on the meaning of life. All in, I’d say that was an awesome result from something that started with the ills of the Catholic church.
March 23, 2010 at 9:48 pm |
Mr. Z says, “Yes we have written a lot of words, and they would without doubt cause sleepless nights for a seminary student. No matter the end result, it is a good set of words.”
Funny enough, I’m a seminary student. But I’m sleeping as good as I ever have.
And I agree…a great set of words. I am actually very happy to have found this forum for debate. Seminary has its benefits, but you can pretty easily find yourself in a vacuum. Especially working in a church also. I think it’s really important to not treat the church as an escape from the world. as Rob Bell says, “Christian is a great noun and a poor adjective.” I’ve found at least as much, if not more things that line up with Christ in this discussion than I have found in the year and a half of discussions with other seminary students.
Thanks for keeping me honest. I look forward to more great discussion in the future.
Love,
-Andrew
March 23, 2010 at 11:05 pm |
Can we say this: …found at least as much, if not more things that line up with YOUR VIEW OF Christ in this discussion than YOU have found in the year and a half of discussions with other seminary students.
There is no argument from me that there are ethical lessons in the Christian Bible. I simply do not believe that a Bible is needed to know them or adhere to them.
If all we achieve here is to argue ourselves to a point of agreement that there are things we can’t know, but have beliefs about, then we have done all that can be done if we also agree that religion is corrosive to society. I do not claim to know what cannot be known, or that you cannot know what cannot be proven… I simply ask for evidence. In lack of evidence, I look for an answer that works in all situations, without failing in any of them.
Andrew, while I don’t agree with your philosophy I also do not see it as particularly corrosive to society and have no reason to say you should not believe as you do. It simply is not how I believe because there is no evidence that I should believe as you do. You sir, are what I would call a good Christian, what I understood Christianity was supposed to be. Please understand that I support you as you currently express yourself.
March 23, 2010 at 11:18 pm
We can say this…however, I don’t claim to have originated my view of Christ. The majority of what I believe comes directly from orthodox reformed Christian faith.
You say that you do not believe that the Bible is needed to know the ethical lessons that it teaches. The Bible is quite clear that this is the case. Paul teaches that what can be known about God is written in nature. And the Scrptures teach that God’s law is written on our hearts. You don’t have to have a belief in God, nor a copy of the Bible to know that it is best to love your neighbor as yourself.
But you are right…we can disagree philosophically but realize that neither of us are monsters who are working to destroy society. If all that comes from these many words is an understanding by one Christian and one Atheist that neither of us are horrible people bend on destroying society as we know it…then there is a good reason for this conversation. As I said before…give me one Mr. Z in exchange for a billion Pat Robertsons. I dare say you and I have more in common than me and Mr. Robertson ever will…even though Robertson is supposedly on the same “team” so-to-speak.
If you’ll pardon the expression…God bless you Mr. Z. I am grateful to have met you. This has been a really beautiful conversation. I wish that more atheists and Christians alike could have similar discussions. We don’t have to agree to coexist. Tolerance is a good start…but I’d much rather have understanding. We don’t have to agree, like I say. But man…whoever thinks they have all the answers and doesn’t need to discuss it with people who disagree…that person is basically brain-dead.
Thanks for helping to keep my brain alive.
Looking forward to many more discussions.
Love,
-Andrew
April 2, 2010 at 11:01 pm |
Note on sleep:
If one thinks he’s doing the right thing, he can sleep well EVEN if his “right thing” isn’t moralistic or is downright criminal.
If one doesn’t feel comfortable doing something, he can’t sleep well even if he is indeed doing the right thing.
I’ve had the unfortunate “blessing” of having this truth revealed to me from someone I met.
April 2, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Perhaps that is something which is wrong with me, or simply something I learned along my travels. I can clear my mind and close my eyes and sleep… nearly anywhere, under nearly any circumstance. I will not say ‘any’ or ‘every’ but I can’t remember a time when I could not sleep, and sleep well outside of when physically sick. It is an interesting aside to all this though.
March 23, 2010 at 2:32 pm |
@Verbifex, thank you for saying quite eloquently what I was trying to say… with too many words
March 23, 2010 at 10:23 pm |
@Andrew
Let me say that it is heartfelt that I say I’m sorry to hear of your griefs. I certainly meant in no way to make this so personal for you. I’m sorry if this has caused you extra and special pain. It was not my intent.
It was never in me to tell you that you are wrong or that you cannot believe as you do. I only rail against those who are corrosive to society and myself. Know that I do not believe you are such.
Andrew said “There is great nobility in being willing to face a meaningless existence and still having the gumption to live and try to do right anyway.”
What you call a noble action is what I see as the only option worth claiming as my own.
Andrew said “But I don’t believe in God as a “fix it” for that. I still believe because to my understanding it is not the “best” answer, but the only answer.”
Andrew, it is worth me saying again. I support your ability to believe this. I do not mean to denigrate it by saying this, I support it in as much as I support everyone’s ability to believe anything. If I were to dismiss it and anything else carelessly, I might well miss the one point of evidence that I’m looking for. So when I say I do not believe it is because I see no evidence for it. My mother would be heartbroken to see me taking an opposing view to yours. I do not do so lightly. I also do not do this in anger or spite. I see no evidence to anything else.
There is no reason to believe we have a purpose, but I disagree with the statement that there is no reason to do what is right. Yes, at some point all will be dust. Of this there is no doubt. I do not need a God to know that I can have and do have love for another human being or even other animals. I do not need a book or a church to tell me that such feelings are real. I do not need a purpose in life to know that I can derive meaning for my life in simply being able to empathize with your pains. I do not need a God to do any of the things you would find important in me or any other human being. I am living without a God, and achieving what you might think is not possible without a God. Yes, every day I wake up and put my feet on the floor and face what is at most a useless existence. I do so that I might enjoy those moments that make existence worth while, despite the pain I endure in the meantime.
Andrew said “But the comfort that makes it so that I can get up out of bed in the morning and go on with my life is not from any of this. If you don’t believe in God, then your comfort has to come from looking bravely in the face of meaningless tragedy and saying, “this is how it is.” And there is some comfort in facing reality and moving on.”
I disagree, this life offers my only chance to experience. Never again will I be able to do such esoteric things as make a painting or smell fresh cut grass, or observe the wonder that is nature. This is my ONLY chance. To throw it away would be (if I can use this) sinful.
Andrew said “My comfort comes in knowing that I don’t have to know why.”
In my view you don’t have to know why either, it just is.
God can say he also know this pain, but he also could have prevented it. He wants us to feel it. I do not see this as rational or compassionate.
Andrew said “I believe my faith in God is logical.”
I would never argue otherwise. It is your belief that makes it so. There is however no evidence to support that logic. I do not dispute that it feels real to you, only that there is no evidence for such feelings. Further, there is no evidence that life cannot be lived without a God.
Andrew, never make the mistake of thinking that an atheist has no feelings or compassion. I feel quite sad at hearing your griefs. I simply need no God to have those feelings.
I do not fault you in your beliefs, they do not appear corrosive to society and I have no way to prove them wrong or even to prove I’m right in lieu of proving you’re wrong. You may well be right, there just is no evidence to say so. In the vacuum of evidence I have found an answer that works in all cases, in all situations. To me, this works. I’m still looking for THE answer, will always be looking for it. I just cannot say that you offer it.
March 23, 2010 at 11:07 pm |
Mr. Z.
First of all…no worries. You did not make me feel any added pain. It is something that is close to me no matter what. There is enough time passed so that I can speak about it without being as broken up as I used to be. And there is comfort coming from many directions.
And I hope I didn’t imply that without God you couldn’t be compassionate. I don’t think you have to believe in God in order to do good, feel love, or work towards what is right. Of course there is a catch to my position. I do believe that there is a God who created us in God’s image (I know that sentence sounds redundant…but it’s difficult to navigate the syntax of a God that is beyond gender. His or Hers leaves much to be desired…and “it” sounds impersonal). So, with that belief it doesn’t really matter if a person believes in God or not…it is like gravity. You don’t have to believe in it to be affected by it. The reformers called this “common grace”…the grace that is given to everyone no matter who or where. The scriptures teach that the Law of God is written on the hearts of humanity. Believe in God or don’t believe in God. Attribute it to God or to evolution or to your own decision to find purpose…but I believe there is a reason why you have a desire for purpose, and it goes beyond self interest. It goes beyond an impersonal force of evolution.
Of course I realize that this is also the great religious cop-out. God gets the credit no matter what. But based on what I believe, it is only logical to conclude that we all have a sense of love and right and justice and compassion. In no way shape or form do I believe that an atheist is a monster to fear. We are all trying to make sense of this crazy world. I can’t tell you what to do, or what to believe. All I can say is “I was blind but now I see.” And I don’t even see fully. I am not re-made…I am *being* remade. Maybe that’s religious speak for “I’m evolving.” I don’t know. I just know that when it’s all said and done, we’re all in for some pretty crazy surprises.
I’ll close out my two cents tonight with this. You say you are looking for THE answer, and will always look for it. You cannot say that I offer it. And you are absolutely right to do so. I do not offer it. I do not offer anything. I am nothing special. I have no great revelation. I’m a guy trying to make sense of it all. I think I’ve stumbled onto some Truth. Actually, I think I’ve been dragged, kicking and screaming, to some Truth. And I still resist it every chance I get. But I still cannot deny that I believe it is the Truth.
I don’t fault you your beliefs any more than you fault me mine. I think that ultimately we are working towards a very similar goal. So, I will take my leave for the night. You are a good dude. Keep asking the questions. I will do the same. And I’ll meet you around the bend.
Love,
-Andrew
March 24, 2010 at 12:09 am |
Andre said “The scriptures teach that the Law of God is written on the hearts of humanity.”
In this one statement you have validated all that I believe to be true. What you call the law of God is only a repetition of what nature has for us, but with special perks for gold card members. The law of God ignores our animal instincts and relies on our intellect, something sorely lacking in most believers. This is why evolution is dangerous to those who believe in a God. To believers there cannot exist a world in which we can believe in a God if that world was created by evolution. I disagree with this premise. I disagree with it for simple reasons… that world exists. If it exists, it must be possible. No need for supernatural explanations. If there exists a simple explanation for anything that has a supernatural explanation, I choose the simpler of the two, and definitely go with the one that has evidence. Evolution is a powerful thing here. Evolution is an explanation with evidence. God did it is no explanation at all. It’s simply an excuse for not knowing why.
But by all means, believe anything you need to to get through the day as long as it is not corrosive to society and as long as I am not required to believe it also.
March 24, 2010 at 9:53 am
Mr. Z says, “To believers there cannot exist a world in which we can believe in a God if that world was created by evolution. I disagree with this premise.”
For the record…I disagree with this premise as well. Many believers will. Maybe not the ones you see holding signs on street corners, but a substantial group of believers have no issue with evolution.
We have no disagreement with the fact that we have an animal nature. Funny story for you. My wife is a school counselor. A parent was telling how he got so mad at a guy that he had to take his shirt off. So many billions of years of evolution, and we’re still baring our teeth and beating our chest during conflict.
No, Christianity allows for animal nature (called “carnal nature” in the scriptures…or sometimes called “the flesh”).
We also have no disagreement that we also have another nature to which we may aspire. We don’t have to behave on our baser instincts. Granted it is too often that we are made to feel guilty for not being able to overcome billions of years of genetic conditioning. But still, there is room to say that we should often try. We have to fight our base instinct to solve conflict by picking up a large rock and taking care of business.
Our main disagreement still seems to stem from the “why” of the thing. I don’t believe that humanity as an accident of evolution offers a rational reason to do anything other than continue to be animal. But, I also feel similarly to you. I think that if you believe there is reason in an impersonal evolution to continue working towards what is “right” and “socially expedient”…by all means. I don’t think what you do is corrosive to society either. And the beauty of all of this is that neither of us are required to believe what the other says. You can believe that you are correct. I can believe that I am correct. And we can still respect each other. I would love to see more of that. Like I said before…tolerance is a nice goal…but I’d sure rather have understanding. Agreement is not required for understanding and respect. I think we are working towards “right-ness”…we’re working towards similar ends…and I’m enjoying the company along the way.
March 23, 2010 at 11:26 pm |
If you can pardon the cheesiness, I love you man. I don’t agree with you, but I love you.
March 23, 2010 at 11:29 pm |
I love you too brother. Looking forward to talking again soon.
July 6, 2010 at 7:00 pm |
Creepy how accurate some of these baby face generators are. I used the one here and the result looked just like one of my kids!
July 14, 2010 at 8:57 am |
Hello just believed i would tell you some thing.. This really is twice now i’ve landed on your blog inside last 3 days searching for completely unrelated issues. Spooky or what?