Over the years, many well-meaning Christians have tried to convince me to give Christianity “another chance.” All such people have walked away frustrated with me. I don’t reject religious beliefs because I’m stubborn (but it probably looks like it). Rather, I reject such stories because I insist on credible evidence, especially fantastic stories about ghosts. I also insist that stories should have internal consistency. I insist on a tight underlying logic before I’m willing to believe extraordinary claims.
What is illogical about Christianity? The following story is not meant to offend, but rather to illustrate some traditional Christian beliefs in an unfamiliar way. I offer it to all of those people who have tried to convert me over the years. Imagine that you heard the following Assimulated Press story on the radio. What would you think?
Today, we are reporting on a bizarre story. Until last month, an old man had been living with his numerous children in his sprawling mansion, which included a vast garden. Last month, he kicked all of his children out of his garden. Since then he has been threatening to slowly burn some of his children in a big pit in his basement—the ones at risk are those who have misbehaved or otherwise upset him.
One week ago, this unusual man committed suicide by nailing himself to a tree on a small hill in his backyard.
Since he died, some of his friends have written a book of 66 sub-books describing the old man in megalomaniac terms. Many passages of this book are vague and self-contradictory. For instance, in these letters, he is described as having insisted that he committed suicide to “save” his children from being burned by him. Image by minutesalone at Flickr (creative commons). According to the stories, the old man was purportedly trying to save his children from himself.
Police contacted the children’s mother recently, and she claimed that the old man was the true father even though she had never actually had sex with him. Neighbors have been complaining that she often spoke of her husband as her “son.”
The most amazing thing, though, is that after this purported “sacrifice” of killing himself on the tree in the backyard, some of the 66 books indicate that his children are still at risk of being burned in the basement. Some people are questioning whether the suicide was necessary at all.
Nonetheless, the old man is currently being called a hero by many in his community for having “atoned” for the moral deficiencies of his children by committing suicide, so that he would burn fewer of them.
—
See also, the four other “Assimulated Press” stories at Dangerous Intersection. Here, here, here and here.
Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.
Religion persists because of a psychological disposition that can't be rectified by knowledge. Even when such a person can be "convinced" that their religion is false, they will continue to think irrationally. Paranoia, hypocrisy, projection, and the inability to perceive irony or satire are all essentially the same psychological defect that gives rise to religion. The feeling that other people are evil and out to get you which promotes a destructive reactionary attitude to anyone perceived as an other.
When these people leave their religion, they only change the category of the other. Their thinking defects remain because they are not resolvable by rational means, maybe medication.
The points you make against the validity of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are impossible to refute. They're not new, of course, and certainly they are abundantly obvious to any bright 10-year-old who's spent five minutes reading the Bible. Indeed, every child can understand the sheer stupidity of killing others in the name of God. Yet all too often we see how adherents of the world's three monotheistic religions have killed and continue to kill without compunction on a massive scale. It's truly sickening.
It's for this reason that most of the college-educated people I know have given up on Christianity. And it's for this reason that atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have struck such a chord with the educated public.
As a lifelong Catholic who has struggled with his faith and the perplexing, if not downright odious, behavior through history of other Catholics and Christians, I must admit that on the basis of logic and evidence, the non-believers hold the best cards.
But still…I belong to the church, and I am endeavoring to raise my sons as Catholics. In this connection, however, I speak frankly to my sons of the unconscionable hypocrisies and crimes committed in the name of Catholic Church over the centuries and around the world as part of the church's pursuit of power and wealth. Quite needless to say, it's a long, long list of infamy.
I also speak frankly to them about the Bible's many inherent contradictions, in addition to its explicit endorsement of things that reasonable, educated people find morally repugnant nowadays: slavery, misogyny, the abuse of children, etc. I am also mindful of the fact (in my view, at least) that many of the most pious Christians are also some of the most narrow-minded, reactionary, arrogant and tyrannical people on the planet, and that they get off on using shame, superstition, guilt and fear to manipulate others, sometimes to fill their pockets, but also for the sheer pleasure of controlling other humans.
In this regard, the Catholic Church's stance on artificial birth control, especially the use of condoms, is a farce with no basis in commonsense or morality. It is calcified idiocy, a testament to the Vatican's utter disconnect to reality. The church's complicity in a global conspiracy to rape children and protect their rapists represents the nadir of this tendency.
And of course, there is the organized resistance by many conservative Christians to progress on climate change, health care reform and equal rights for gays and women. A very sad state of affairs.
I know all these things. And yet I still count myself a Catholic. Organized religion is still something I need — now more than ever as I deal with the rigors of marriage, raising a family and recovering from a series of family tragedies. I really can't explain why. It's just how I feel. I wish I could be more specific than this, but at this point I can't. Meanwhile, I am grateful for your posts on religion. They give me a lot to struggle with.
MikeFitz17: Thank you for your thoughtful response. It does seem as though there are some pretty formidable limits to the use of the intellect. It appears to be a tacked on addition, evolutionarily speaking. I find Jonathan Haidt's metaphor of the elephant ridden by an attorney to be apt. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/06/26/why-a…
I know lots of lots of Catholics who are still practicing but who are tormented for the same reasons you mention, plus others. It's a big burden they carry around with them. In order to maintain their Catholic community, they have to often restrain their impulses to speak out freely.
I don't understand persons of faith in persistent attempts to convert or re-enlist non-believers into the ranks of believers. Simple respect would indicate such to be at the least rude, at the worst totally obnoxious.
Erich, believe or not, it's your choice. I know you to be a person of high moral character and one who makes a difference as a spouse, parent and attorney. If I speak to you in a fashion which seeks to enlist you into my religious belief system, call me on it.
However, it appears that some atheists believe that any conversation with any person of belief is somehow tainted by that person's beliefs or that person is suffering from some mental illness.
Does the fact that I believe in God taint my support of the theory of evolution as the most accurate description we have of how human animals came to be? Perhaps my belief in God means that evolution is wrong as a scientific theory?
Does the fact that I believe in God taint my understanding that the universe is some 14 billion years old? Perhaps my belief in God means my thinking that folks who believe the world was created 6,000 years ago are, at best, seriously mistaken is wrong?
This is the wonderful thing about a blog like this. You get to grapple with really hard questions about the nature of belief and existence — the sort of things liberal arts majors could talk about late at night in a college dorm after a few beers — with intelligent people, but you get to do so with the benefit of the hard lessons gleaned from the ups and downs of adulthood. Raising children is a good case in point: no other activity has filled me with more pride, nor more frustration, nor more feelings of failure and futility. Of such things wisdom is born.
One of the things I have learned as I enter my middle years is that the intellect can be a trap, a dead-end. Knowledge and reason don't feed the soul alone. They can be very nourishing, but they're still not enough, at least not for me.
The same goes for the world of emotion and irrationality. Making your own reality through selective editing of information be fun for a while, but at a certain point you have to be honest with yourself. You have to respect facts for what they are. Just because the Bible (or the Koran, or a priest or a rabbi or a sitting president of the United States) says it's true, doesn't necessarily mean it is.
In short, I feel deeply conflicted about my spiritual beliefs. On one hand, I respect the fact that science and the scientific method are terrifically powerful tools for understanding the universe and navigating it. Historically, those who have opposed science and free inquiry are the forces of repression and reaction, a long list that includes the leaders of the Inquisition, Christian fundamentalists, and the monsters who led Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
So I am a big fan of science. But I also believe that we are more than the sum of the atoms that form our bodies, atoms that were forged billions of years ago when the universe was still young. There has to be a fundamental meaning (at least for me) that transcends these atoms, that transcends the trillions of stars that comprise the tens of billions of galaxies in the known universe. For Carl Sagan, whose writings I admire, no such transcendent meaning was necessary. Life itself, in such a magnificent and mysterious universe, was miracle enough. Maybe such acceptance is a mark of Sagan's wisdom. For people like me, however, I need to think that there is more to this universe than science and logic can provide.
MikeFitz17: I'm really enjoying this exchange. There are certainly days and nights where I crave an easily understandable "Meaning of Life." On those days, the universe isn't meaning enough, and I don't have any such meaning that I can articulate.
I do have two young daughters though, and meaning lights up in me when I look into their eyes. It lights up in me when I see outrageous injustice. It lights up in me when I see a friend in need, or when someone does something heroic. I see meaning on those times when I rise to the occasion.
But this nebulous type of meaning is also dangerous. Many people see meaning, and they themselves automatically become the heroic protagonist whenever there are people marching and bullets are flying. As Naomi Klein wrote (recent post) Wall Street bankers can easily justify their superiority to others, and their need for even more money, even though they make 100 times the salary of a life-saving brain surgeon.
We human animals are a thoroughly symbolic species, and we seem to be able to make anything mean almost anything else, even the opposite of what it appears to mean. It's OK to torture, steal, waste resources, lie, and deprive Americans of meaning voting. Without self-critical habits, and without the practice of empathy, all of our cleverness can make us dangerous assholes. http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/01/03/doing…
If I had to sum up what the best approach is, my articulated "meaning of life," I'd say that it is to stay self-critical ("skeptical," if you will) to serve as our headlight as to what really is going on out there (to not allow ourselves to play attentional tricks http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/03/moral… , and to continuously practice our empathy, because we seem to be a inexorably social species that work best as a group. But we need to constantly beware of group dynamics so we don't confuse "truth" for getting caught up in the crowd's enthusiasm or judmentalism.
I'm certain that this formula is incomplete. It's what comes to mind at the moment. What we really need to do is to dedicate ourselves to a lifelong comprehensive moral education. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/04/11/compr… I do think there is a huge intersection between morality and science, and I suspect we'd all be better off if we worked hard to emphasize short-term and long-term ecology and downplayed traditional notions of morality.
I'd better stop here, because I'm not clear on how I would really explain my gut feelings on this topic, and I can assure you that much of what drives me on are gut feelings– emotions. It all gets so complicated, and I don't have any confidence that I'll have a meaningful resolution of any of these issues before I die.
Mike – Since you like to challenge yourself on religious issues, I'm wondering whether you've checked out Daylight Atheism, where Ebonmuse does much of his writing. I'd highly recommend it as an engaging and self-critical site written by a fellow who would be given awards for thought-provoking sermons (if ever he would be invited to do so by a church),but if only the congregation didn't pay attention to the fact that he is an atheist. http://www.daylightatheism.org/ I check in regularly.
Over at Daylight Atheism, Ebonmuse writes about believers trying to get non-believers to pray correctly. He concludes that it is usually a bottomless pit of futility. http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/01/the-bottom…
Erich, and others responding here, William James astutely observed that the value of a religion lies in its usefulness to the believer, not in the truthfulness of its supernatural claims.
Mike Fitz, and Erich and other former Catholics/questioning Catholics, you may enjoy this song. Also, check out songwriter Peter Mayer's story on his blog.
Erich: I am also enjoying this exchange. It's given me a lot to consider. And I appreciate the URL's you directed me to, for they also look interesting.
Your thoughts on the importance of empathy and morality hew closely to my own. At a certain point in this world, in my view, it doesn't matter if you believe in God, or, if so, what God or gods you believe in, or whether your view of the Deity is as an aloof Prime Mover or as a Cosmic Bellhop (in Bertrand Russell's memorable phrase) who is there to answer your requests.
I believe that about 99 percent of the time the most critical questions center on whether you empathize with the pain of others, whether you see yourself as a moral creature, and whether you believe you have moral obligations to fulfill to other humans, to other creatures and to the Earth itself.
In other words, what matters most is whether you try to comport yourself as a decent and good person, or whether you carry yourself as a jerk. How much of your time you spend in a church, or how much money you put in the collection plate are, in this sense, irrelevant.
Indeed, the nature and scope of religious beliefs offers no immunity against being a total asshole, or even a mass killer. Remarkably, Heinrich Himmler — the man who ran the genocide machine that was Hitler's SS — considered himself a good Catholic. Christopher Columbus was a pious Catholic, but he brought slavery to the New World, treated the indigenous peoples he met as a disposable commodity, and was such a total jerk to his own men that he returned to Spain in chains after his second voyage to the New World.
In the end, what we're talking about is the enormous variability of human behavior, which is a legacy, I suppose, of both our big brains and the brain wiring we inherited from our primate ancestors. We are imbued with both the greed and penchant for physical violence of chimpanzees, and the great empathy and need for close bonding of bonobos.
Abraham Lincoln, both America's greatest President and greatest moral thinker, handled these complexities best of anyone I can think of. Mr. Lincoln stands as the embodiment of all the things that separate and bring together believers and non-believers of good faith.
Lincoln, of course, wavered between agnosticism and atheism across his late youth and up until the time of his election to the White House. According to his law partner, Billy Herndon, Lincoln was an aggressive atheist who made no pretense of his lack of religious belief. Yet he had an incredible ability to make friends wherever he went, in every realm of society — a testament to his strong moral character, decency empathy and sense of humor. He tasted defeat often, and suffered a number of well-known public humiliations and personal tragedies, yet he had an uncanny ability to learn from his failures and move forward without carrying a grudge.
Let's pause a moment here and marvel at the sheer improbability of Lincoln's life. How often does the world see a literary and political genius who is also deeply moral and empathetic, as well as a brilliant comedian, in a position of true power? Never. That's one of the things that makes Lincoln unique, why scholars have written thousands of books and articles about him, and will write countless more. No other historical figure from ancient times to present comes close to Lincoln. And perhaps most remarkably of all, atheists and religious folks alike can both draw inspiration from Mr. Lincoln.
Lincoln never became "religious," at least not in the traditional sense. True, he became deeply spiritual and eventually, as President, came to believe in the existence of a God and that he, Lincoln, was an instrument of the Deity's will through his prosecution of the Civil War.
But Lincoln never pretended he could divine God's purposes. And he was always humble enough about his link to God that he never believed he had the right to instruct others in what to believe, or in what manner.
In the end, I suppose, if more of people behave like Mr. Lincoln — curious, empathetic, decent and humble — regardless of what religious views they choose to embrace or reject, then this would be a much, much better world. And we'd be making a lot more progress on the big problems that threaten the world we will be leaving behind to our children and grandchildren.
Mike: I really enjoyed your description of Abraham Lincoln. I agree that he wouldn't be electable today because of his religious views. But especially recently, he would probably be unelectable because of his high degree of empathy.
So, we're having this wonderful discussion, despite our "differences." What is your best strategy for getting other believers and non-believers to move past their ostensible differences and to focus on their commonalities?
My belief is that this is commonly done among individuals, but that in groups it has become quite difficult in America. I blame the conflict obsessed media for much of the problem. Therefore, part of my solution is to turn off the TV and quit listening to strident radio. Another approach is to make sure that we spent time conversing respectfully with people who differ from us in their outlook. None of this gives me hope for dealing with fundamentalists–those who insist that I'm wrong and are afraid to consider genuine empathy as a possible substitute for the Ten Commandments.
But what is your thought. How do we best encourage lots of people who differ to give each other a chance?
Erich: Once again, you do an apt job of summarizing your beliefs on the apparent idiocy of the Bible. And, once again, I feel as though you may have oversimplified quite a bit.
To me, and many other theists and religious believers who are attempting to enrich themselves with the vastness of experiences of the world (be it through science, spirituality, philosophy etc), the Bible and other "Holy Books" are to be read as a vast allegorical history of the Human psyche.
Our species has evolved with significantly powerful reasoning and thinking abilities that has, consequently, cause our ancestors to wonder about the fabric of reality. Religious texts and ideals are essentially their explanation in a time when science was not available.
Does that make these texts now outdated? Should any religious observer simply toss aside their prescribed Holy Text and assume Science as their new religion?
Hardly.
Religious thought has provided a majority of the precepts for morality and meaning in human life until now. It would be just as ludicrous to tell a Christian to abandon their Bible as it is for them to tell you to abandon science. The difference is that science relies on verifiable evidence about the natural world, whereas religion operates on faith. Faith, however, is not only hocus-pocus mumbo jumbo. To these people, they have experienced the very real power of the supernatural in their lives. Whether or not these experiences can be verified scientifically is irrelevant. You cannot convince a person who has experienced something that the experience did not exist. Its human psychology. (Many studies have also shown that the Mind's ability simply to believe something to be true has powerful effects on that person's psyche. I submit that religion operates on the same principles.)
Now, does that mean that religious believers are mentally ill. Definitely not. Religion may have surfaced as a very necessary bi-product of the evolutionary process. A means for which the human mind can cope with its mortality, and for which humans can understand the universe.
Of course, we now have science for that. However, Erich, I believe that the best way for everyone to "get along" is to understand that religion, and logic, and science, are all means by which people seek to understand the world in which they live. Neither "side" should belittle, chastise or mock the views of the other, regardless of how manipulative or chauvinistic or deceptive or even WRONG they are (or appear to be.) It only fuels the cycle of ignorance and intolerance. Exchanges just like these prove that there are members of every faith, belief, and creed (or lack there-of) that can have meaningful conversation and attempt to riddle out this puzzle that we call life.
On the face of it, the Bible story does seem very implausible, even laughable. Though, if read as a meaningful metaphor for human cognition, the universe and the history of the world, it becomes much more coherent.
Essentially, our ancestors who had no real means by which to explain the vast injustices of the world and the evil that exists in the heart of man, had to try and surmise the cause for human actions as best they could. Perhaps the original author of the Bible was a very wise man who perceived a powerful message and sought to explain that message in religious terms.
Why is their evil in this world? Why is there suffering? What causes men to be so wicked?
The author believed that humankind brought it upon themselves. Eden was a place where Man existed in perfect unity with the universe. But, through a CHOICE, all was lost. (man chooses evil, disobedience, etc) Man continuously has chosen evil, and subsequently atrocities fell upon him.
The story of Jesus can also be read allegorically. Jesus is the "perfect man." He practices unconditional love. He preaches unconditional servitude. He prays for his fellow man, that they would be lifted out of the darkness of their self-inflicted sin. And, as a symbol of that servitude and love, he sacrificed himself to show humankind that only through giving up our SELVES do we serve others.
I hope that I have conveyed my meaning sufficiently to explain the point I am trying to make. I may be completely wrong, but that is essentially the message that I believe the Bible ought to convey. I think that preachers should quit preaching fire and brimstone and stop stealing from the pockets of their flock and preach the true – all too human – message of loss of self. Of love. Of peace. Of understanding.
The idea is not unique to the Bible. Krishna and Buddha are two other examples of religious icons as symbols of man's inner goodness.
Sadly, as we humans are apt to do and have done for centuries, we chose to focus on the bad. "Look at the atrocities that church members have committed, clearly this means religion is invalid. Look at the inconsistencies in centuries old historical texts about the tribes of Israel, clearly the entire meaning is pointless."
Instead, we should focus on the very real messages that all of these religions, at their heart, convey.
It still does not mean that one NEEDS religion to be good, we as a species have evolved beyond that. We used religion as our vehicle to introduce and sometimes enforce moral codes, and now we should be able to come together and see past the veil of ignorance and into the truth of the matter.
MikeFitz17: I agree completely with you about the search for some meaning beyond the physical. I think all humans have a similar feeling. We are all trying to figure out what it all means. Perhaps science has not been able to delve deep enough into those matters, but I think that Carl Sagan's words are very wise, even profound. The very fact that humans exist, that life exists, that you and I think and breath and are having this conversation, carries a universe of meaning in itself. The very fact that the apparent randomness of the universe can create multitudes of very organized, very rational, very real beings is nothing short of miraculous.
Therein, methinks, lies at least a glimpse of God.
Erich: You asked me to recommend my "best strategy for getting other believers and non-believers to move past their ostensible differences and to focus on their commonalities."
Good question. I wish I had a good answer.
For starters, I share your pessimism in dealing with fundamentalists. For whatever psychological reasons, too often these folks cling to the extremes and demonize those who disagree with them. The Rev. Fred Phelps, the pastor of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church, is the poster boy for this tendency.
For me, the only solution I see involves two activities that I know well: reading and talking. Both would be used as part of a program aimed at emphasizing the humanity in all of us and setting up a genuine dialogue between believers and non-believers.
As I envision it, hypothetically we'd have a eight-week course where five adult atheists and five adult religious folks would meet once a week. They would gather in a public place, say, the basement of a public library, or even in a church. All that matters is that the group could meet privately and speak freely. Each member of the group would take turns serving as moderator. The ground rules would require that no one try to proselytize or do anything else to "convert" anyone else to his or her way of thinking.
The first four weeks of this "course" would center on the discussion of books that everyone would read as part of their homework. The books would be chosen for their capacity to spur discussion and reflection.
My first recommendation: Karen Armstrong's "A History of God," a fascinating look at how the notion of God and/or transcendence has evolved over the past 4,000 years. It's a brilliant piece of scholarship and history. Armstrong, by the way, is a former Catholic nun who has quit Catholicism but who remains a self-described monotheist. She is one of the world's most renowned scholars of religion.
My next book pick would be Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation." It's a quick read that, with the help of relentless logic and the Bible's many inconsistencies, pounds away at the main tenets of Christianity. Like the Armstrong volume, Harris' book should be required reading for all educated adults.
The next two weeks at my "course" in dialogue would center on the participants' personal experiences. Everyone would take turns describing their families, the religious world they grew up in and the story of how they had arrived at their views regarding God, the universe and what they believe happens to them upon death.
The final two weeks of this hypothetical course would center on a discussion of each participants' sacred moments and sacred places.
Human beings, I believe, are wired to feel deep moments of transcendence across their lives. We all need such moments, regardless of whether we are religious, spiritual or complete non-believers. To me, a person's description of his or her sacred places and moments says more about who that person is than any description of that person's religious practices or beliefs.
The list of possible sacred moments and places, of course, spans a wide, wide gamut. In my view, they could be a favorite mountain biking trail, or a rock concert, or a literal holy shrine. They could be an AA meeting, or the Apple Store at the local mall. Sacred moments could include the birth of a child, or sitting vigil at a loved one's death bed, or sledding on a snowy day with your family.
For me, one of my most sacred places is the suicide support group I belong to, and which I try to attend at least once a month. Nearly three years ago my brother ended his life after battling depression for most of his adulthood. There is no way to describe the pain of losing a loved one to suicide, so I won't.
Suffice it to say, however, the support group I belong to has been my refuge, my sanctuary, the place where I seek solace and understanding. It's the same for the group's other members. A very cool, very religious Catholic couple run the group, which they started in the aftermath of their daughter's suicide, but one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is never an issue.
What matters during our meetings is how we listen, really listen, as we describe the lives of our lost loved ones — their struggles, their pain, their joys — and our own efforts at healing in the wake of their deaths. We have told our stories many, many times, but we never tire of hearing or telling them. This is how we make sense of our lives, of our new "normal."
There is an intimacy that takes place in our group meetings and that tethers us together that is difficult for me to describe and that I have never encountered elsewhere in my life. Ours is a church, of sorts, but one with neither creed nor doctrine. We reach out and connect, for we "get" each other in a way the rest of the world cannot. It is a beautiful and moving thing. It is empathy in its purest form. My only regret is the terrible price we all paid to join this church. Peace.
MikeFitz17: This is terrific stuff. Thank you for pouring your heart and mind into your response.
I suppose that hardest part of your program is convincing people that they need it. Most people I know are convinced that they are right and other-thinking folks are wrong about religion/spirituality. So why join a group that might make you change? I can think of a couple of reasons.
1. It's good to be exposed to new ideas. You might learn something that you will treasure.
2. You might meet someone you will take on as a valued friend. That person might be someone who thinks like you, or maybe he/she is one of those other-thinking people. And how cool it you can get one of those symbiotic other-thinking friendships going. I have a few of them and I guarantee that it makes me a better person than merely hanging around like-thinking people.
3. You might do it because you see the world being torn apart by people who focus on minor differences to such an extent that they ignore substantial commonalities.
Each of these ideas drove me to write my five-part series, "Mending Fences." First part is here: http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/07/11/mendi… The title was an attempt to play off of the good fences make good neighbors platitude. The idea is not that we need to tear down fences and all become the same. The "Mending" was a suggestion that war had become the norm until the neighbors realized that it was pointless. Just think of all of the things we do together without caring about each others religion. My image is of lots of folks coming together for a Habitat for Humanity build (I was part of a build). Even though it is run by a Christian organization, no one asks you whether you believe in Jesus or not. They simply want to know whether you will help build a house.
Here's another reason to discuss religion with those who think differently than we do. It's invigorating, educational, emotionally rewarding and cheap. And consider that many Christians put down their guard when they hear that each other are Christians, even though they would feel very isolated from each other if they actually explored what KIND of Christian each other was (I figure that there are at least 10,000 kinds of Christians, including hundreds of of types of Catholics. If they would focus on their differences, many Catholics would be in for a rude exchange (many Catholics I know are woefully ignorant about the Bible and about the basic doctrines that distinguish Catholics from other types of Christians).
Erich: I live in Swansea, Ill., about 20 minutes from downtown St. Louis, a town I know quite well. I used to live in South St. Louis, a few blocks south of Tower Grove Park.
Maybe some day soon you, me and other like-minded folks could meet up over coffee to talk about the topics raised here. The Kaldi's in Clayton, is one of my favorite coffeehouses. I'm busy with a lot of different commitments, but I'd sure enjoy the chance to partake in invigorating conversation. Anyone else interested?
BTW, I just finished reading your essays, "The sacred places of people who are not religious," and "Atheists and believers can get along: Here’s Exhibit A." I found both pieces compelling and, on many points, in close agreement with my own views.
Religious views are funny things. In so many ways they are the most private and essential part of a person's inner life. But in terms of the personas we project to the rest of the world, they are the least important, at least in my view. Certainly my choices in who my friends are have nothing to do with their religious views, or the lack thereof, just as my choices in friends are unconnected to their looks, race, wealth or social prestige. In the end, I think most people seek to do the important things — earning a living, raising a family, contributing to their communities — according to their best lights. You arrived at your beliefs honestly and in good faith, I believe, and so did I. The key thing is that we are both willing to listen to the other and admit that, yes, we could be wrong. Having it any other way would make for a very boring life.
MikeFitz17 – How convenient that you live nearby. We've got at least two participants. I'm really tied up with legal work for the next month, but let's aim for early March. If anyone else is interested in a friendly gathering of this sort, please write me at erichvieth@gmail.com. If you're interested, give me days that would be good for you in early March. Let's focus on a weekday evenings, Mondays, Wednesdays or Thursdays. Who else is in? Just drop me an email and let me know.
I would if I lived nearer to you all. It is unfortunate that we are so far away. Maybe we can start springing these up all over the place and web-conference each other. Let's get as many people as we can to actually have meaningful conversation.
TheThinkingMan: The quality and richness of all the posts on this blog make me feel that I'm back in college again, but this time hanging out in the student union with a really cool bunch of grad students. Best of all, there are no term papers hanging over my head.
Seriously, I would welcome the chance to sit down and meet some of you and talk face-to-face to chew over the big, soaring questions raised on this blog. Anyone interested in recording such a conversation and Podcasting it? My iPod has a great video and audio recorder.
I admire the cogent thinking I'm reading. This is a great (sequential) dialogue. I agree with Mark that it resembles collegiate conversation without the papers (or alcohol). I'm not the thinker nor writer that I see here but as a once-adamant, logic-oriented born-againer who decided that being born once was enough, I've spent time wrestling with the issues noted in this thread. I'm throwning in my two cents worth in the form of a poem I wrote early last year. The idea of getting together sounds so good to me, I'd consider flying out from Seattle to St. Louis periodically to join you all. Enjoy your time in March.
The major cognitive flaw in our thinking comes from using partial sections of the holy writings (beliefs)of ones's worldview to try and justify self-centered decisions that appeal to improper longings and desires that will end up causing harm to both yourself and others. In reality, as I look carefully at the nature of temptations I can see they relate to either "life," "liberty," or the "the pursuit of happiness."
These are all aspects of both our physical and spiritual lives that are very dear to we Americans, but they are also areas of our lives that can keep us from following the will of God, because the will of God is first and primarily spiritually discerned.
Temptations seek to lock us into following after the physical aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The physical pursuit of life, liberty and happiness will end in shallow and fleeting lives if this is our sole purpose in living. We must get the focus off of our own pursuits and even also off just the pursuits of others. We must focus upon the pursuits of God Himself which is that we serve oneanother as He has served us. You can only get that by reading the full context of scripture and not just your own problematic interpretations.
The first temptation we all face is to separate our physical lives from our spiritual lives (i.e. the cognitive, emotional and volitional).
Jesus was indeed tempted to use the very words of the Old Testament itself focused upon His physical existence and his own physical needs.
After fasting 40 days, Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread – he didn't do it. Later he did mutiply loaves and fishes to feed thousands. Why did He deny this for himself but later not deny this for the masses who came to hear Him teach?
It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
These people had come to hear more of the "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," Jesus was not going to send them away with a simple physical need not being met because they had come to feast upon the very words of God Himself.
Similarly, when Jesus was offered all of the kingdoms of the world (supreme earthly liberty and power), His response was not focused on himself nor even upon the "physical good" He could have done for other people. All Jesus had to do was to worship Satan, the one who wants us to believe the creator God has no authority over him here on earth.
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
At the ascension, Jesus clearly proclaimed – “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
If he had listened to Satan, we would still be buying and selling each other into slavery all across the globe, not just in those "backward" heathen nations. Proper spiritual authority to change this world for the good can only come from serving God, and Him only
The third temptation used the very words of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah, as well as the customs (beliefs) of the people. The custom pretty much was that when Messiah came, no harm would ever befall Him because God and the angels would see to it.
Satan knew the plan of God, so did Jesus. If the Messiah would simply call upon the angels to keep him from physical harm/death Jesus would never have crossed over and then back to fully defeat death and Satan Himself. If the people had seen him survive from a fall off of the top of the temple they would have had no way they could doubt in his supernatural help from God and his angels.
Many on the Sanhedrin really thought Jesus wasn't going to actually physically die on the cross. The initial words thrown at him were jeers from those who wanted to find out if he really was the Messiah. "If you are the Christ come down from the cross." "You saved others – save yourself."
Jesus defeated this temptation which actually was a prophecy concerning the Messiah in scripture. It was however only one of many. There also being Messianic Prophecies of the suffering servant. Both were true, not one or the other. If he had acknowledged the one but not the other the Jews would have gotten an earthy ruler, but no atonement for their sins.
Jesus defeated this temptation by stating – Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. There was a time and a place for the promise, and it wasn't to make his life and death easier or pain free.
There was a time and a place for that promise, but it was not while he was going to suffer death at the hands of sinful men, it was immediately after that. It was once his physical body was hanging lifeless on the cross that the angels empowered Jesus to finish the work Jesus was sent here to do.
Atonement is accomplished as illogical as you may think it to be.
Karl writes, "as I look carefully at the nature of temptations I can see they relate to either “life,” “liberty,” or the “the pursuit of happiness”…"they are also areas of our lives that can keep us from following the will of God."
I'm sorry Karl, but do you prefer Death, Slavery and the Pursuit of Sorrow?"
Karl: That's all good and well, but if you were Omnipotent (as it is claimed regarding "God"), you wouldn't need to make any of these choices. Believers are not troubled by this apparently clear and easy option that an omnipotent God would apparently have. I am puzzled by their lack of curiosity and skepticism, and their acceptance of what appears to have been (had it happened) gratuitous violence committed by God. Then again, the Bible is filled with gratuitous violence purportedly committed by God.
Karl writes, "I could prefer death if it meant dying for someone else or some cause outside of myself that I believed in."
Simply one of the most chilling and frightening sentences I've read in a long time. You've captured the essence and mindset behind most of the horrors perpetuated against humanity and the nightmare of history from which we need to awaken and evolve beyond. This is the belief of the suicide bomber, the Crusader, the fervent cultist, the Holy Warrior, the fundamentalist murderer and the brainwashed soldier.
How easily would you give away your birthright of self-sovereignty; how casually would you offer up your body and mind to the will, belief or cause of another?
Karl: I've heard that argument before. Still ain't buying it.
It always strikes me that so many many words are needed to justify the concept of torture to negate sin. For that's what your explanation is…a justification of absurdity based on your personal need to believe.
The real God (if there is one) would have not needed the atonement solution in the first place! It would have been very easy to avoid.
If you think I would die taking others with me like some terrorist on a mission to try to force others over to the "dark side." You have the wrong idea.
Killing people to try to silence the opposition is just as futile.
Unfortunately, all too many people think their death earns them a reward especially when they take a whole bunch of innocents or enemies there with themselves.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for."
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Before Jesus came life was pretty much deplorable unless you were one of the aristocracy. But even the aristocracy had to fear for the violent overthrow of their world. People were not safe in their own houses for the most part until they lived in walled city-states, and had fairly strong alliances or shared defenses with their neighbors. Those that didn't have shared defenses often took offensive postures towards their neighbors that wouldn't form alliances to force others to respect them.
Can you name a place on earth where this pattern of life would have changed on its own without the atonement for sin by Jesus?
I would venture to say that we would all be living under an "Arabic like" dominated culture today if Jesus hadn't come.
At the rate that people are currently denying that Jesus did come and accomplish an atonement for sin it will not be much longer before the same type of pre-christianity culture exists when modern civilized people are again thrust back under the control of religious zealots concerned only with manipulating the masses so that those who interpret the holy law will have the final say about everything.
Even if it is only a human belief that the penalty for sin has been paid for, it seems to have been enough to turn many individuals and cultures away from their self-centered ways. Many aggrandized dictators and religious legal zealots who make and then re-interpret the laws so that they stay in charge have only met their match in people willing to die to defend the rights of people to decide for themselves what they will or will not believe.
If God desired to be as omnipotent as you want him to be people would not have been given the opportunity to have needed an atonement. This is why the whole process is illogical to you.
Is there a place on earth where selfish offensive people willingly gave up vanquishing other people?
There are examples of this having happened when these people finally came to understand the message of the Bible from within their own language and culture.
Life for humans is much different on earth because Jesus came, lived and died, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.
The prediction of Scripture is that the world will return to the same type of a world as it was before Christ came towards the "last Days." There will be a strong leader who will be "anti-Christ."
Seems we are heading down that road further and further every day.
I suppose being good natural scientists only seeing will be believeing.
Until thay day comes . . . when all shall look upon the one they have peirced.
Omnipotence is not variable. Neither is omniscience. Nor is omnipresence. God is, or isn't, all of these.
It's the exercise of these traits that you are referring to, isn't it? If, as you say, he's deciding something it means that he is weighing variables. Which means he's considering something in sequence, first one, then another, then this, then that, etc. An exercise that by definition of omniscience is non-sequitur. If God knows all, he cannot decide. It is illogical.
But for the sake of conversation, let's suggest that as the Bible says, we cannot know the ways of God. That he is a mystery. That we see through a glass darkly. If we can agree that we may not know how to explain omniscience in terms of decision-making (perhaps an amorphous quality so we can understand slivers of the Almighty), it follows that other slivers are hidden. It's mysterious. That because we don't know many things, we are free to pursue the Life we do not clearly comprehend, we have the liberty to wrestle with our human conditions, to assess what we know how to with the intellect and passion (soulfulness?) that we have as humans. We have the freedom to pursue the mysterious. If God is beyond comprehension, then our inquisitiveness about what God is / does (or what he isn't /or what he doesn't do), is within easy reach of our intellectual challenges. These are not necessarily self-centered, self-aggrandizing inquiries. Sometimes, a person just wants to know for the sake of coming to terms with the challene within themselves. As the Bible would say (in Philippians), it becomes the peace that passes understanding.
This is what I believe you've been reading in this thread. Written words tend to be first received as dogmatic (as is evidenced by your own arguments) but in the pursuit of happiness, coming to terms with the Mystery in our lives brings that peace that passes understanding.
Seeing does not necessarily lead to belief. Neither does investigation or research. In fact, even proof may not result in belief that is empirical(see 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' by Thomas Kuhn). On the other hand, authoritative, accepted writings don't lead to belief either. Belief is a personal choice based on evidence, evidence that must not only stand the test of time but also the test of human understanding. God, whoever or whatever he (it) may be, is mysterious. So is our pursuit of life's mysteries. For that, I am not looking for atonement. And the mystery of the God I see darkly will honor that, or he is not a just God.
I like your point that an omniscient god does not think chronologically, since "He" already knows all. Yet most believers assure us that "God" thinks and acts sequentially, just like human animals. Perhaps this line of thought should be recognized as the first great proof for the non-existence of the traditionally conceived god.
If omnipotent has to mean all powerful and "controlling everyone and everything" then indeed life should also have the appearance of a temporal invariableness. There is no changing in God, but there sure is in His creation because He has willed it to be so.
The Bible does not say God is "all controlling." Both life and the Bible clearly show He has given freedom of choice and decision making ability to people.
As for Omniscience consider this analogy.
Most believers will tell you that God had the 2 minute human end game already in mind before the kickoff started. Does that mean he thinks sequentially or that humans can't grasp that an end and a beginning in time can exist simultaneously to an all knowing God? This does not mean that God has rigged each individual's outcome, but He does already know what that outcome will be.
As for Onmipresence, since people are real, I have to qualify this in terms of His existence verses the existence of others.
I would answer with this analogy.
Is there empty space inside of atoms, or do we only call it empty space because of our scientific model that by contrast appears to have little of anything in terms of solid substance there?
Could God dwell or abide in the hearts and minds of those that refuse to acknowledge his existence?
How would such a God make his presence known to those who refuse to acknowledge his existence?
Peter appears to have a fairly good grasp of what that might look like.
We look for "solid" cast in stone evidence and when we don't directly have it produced, we believe what we will. "Spirits" are not real to many rational logical thinkers so that leaves the space "empty."
The Bible tells us that whereever we go we can not escape his presence. Some believe it, others do not.
God can not be identied in the hearts of most people who by choice have replaced that longing/desire or emptiness with the things and cares of the world. We can not serve both God and mammon as Jesus said.
God is always there but many choose to consciously block out his presence by believing strange lies about Him or what He would have them to do.
Neither of you have addressed the reality of the historical need of the atonement both to change individuals and the collective groups that have made up the various cultures of Mankind.
It's all well and good that you can claim to be beyond the need for atonement, but is this simply an evolutionary change, or is it something beyond hard physical science, and historical reality?
I ask again for an historical context where evolution without Chrisitanity brought about the willing desire for a culture to follow Luke 14:3,4.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Karl: I don't believe in a sentient god. I don't believe that the Bible is accurate to the extent that it suggests this. Thus, I can't summon the energy to want to respond to your many points based on this (what I believe to be a false) premises.
I have discussed the moral accounting metaphor previously. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/23/its-t… That might explain why people would find atonement to be efficacious. But what would "God" owe us that "He" felt the need to atone? Maybe it would the recklessness of putting that tempting tree in the alleged Garden of Eden. A classic attractive nuisance.
Karl wrote: "Before Jesus came life was pretty much deplorable unless you were one of the aristocracy. But even the aristocracy had to fear for the violent overthrow of their world.
People were not safe in their own houses for the most part until they lived in walled city-states, and had fairly strong alliances or shared defenses with their neighbors. Those that didn’t have shared defenses often took offensive postures towards their neighbors that wouldn’t form alliances to force others to respect them.
Life for humans is much different on earth because Jesus came, lived and died, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven."
To which I reply: "Have you been to Brooklyn lately? LOL!
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Religion persists because of a psychological disposition that can't be rectified by knowledge. Even when such a person can be "convinced" that their religion is false, they will continue to think irrationally. Paranoia, hypocrisy, projection, and the inability to perceive irony or satire are all essentially the same psychological defect that gives rise to religion. The feeling that other people are evil and out to get you which promotes a destructive reactionary attitude to anyone perceived as an other.
When these people leave their religion, they only change the category of the other. Their thinking defects remain because they are not resolvable by rational means, maybe medication.
The points you make against the validity of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are impossible to refute. They're not new, of course, and certainly they are abundantly obvious to any bright 10-year-old who's spent five minutes reading the Bible. Indeed, every child can understand the sheer stupidity of killing others in the name of God. Yet all too often we see how adherents of the world's three monotheistic religions have killed and continue to kill without compunction on a massive scale. It's truly sickening.
It's for this reason that most of the college-educated people I know have given up on Christianity. And it's for this reason that atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have struck such a chord with the educated public.
As a lifelong Catholic who has struggled with his faith and the perplexing, if not downright odious, behavior through history of other Catholics and Christians, I must admit that on the basis of logic and evidence, the non-believers hold the best cards.
But still…I belong to the church, and I am endeavoring to raise my sons as Catholics. In this connection, however, I speak frankly to my sons of the unconscionable hypocrisies and crimes committed in the name of Catholic Church over the centuries and around the world as part of the church's pursuit of power and wealth. Quite needless to say, it's a long, long list of infamy.
I also speak frankly to them about the Bible's many inherent contradictions, in addition to its explicit endorsement of things that reasonable, educated people find morally repugnant nowadays: slavery, misogyny, the abuse of children, etc. I am also mindful of the fact (in my view, at least) that many of the most pious Christians are also some of the most narrow-minded, reactionary, arrogant and tyrannical people on the planet, and that they get off on using shame, superstition, guilt and fear to manipulate others, sometimes to fill their pockets, but also for the sheer pleasure of controlling other humans.
In this regard, the Catholic Church's stance on artificial birth control, especially the use of condoms, is a farce with no basis in commonsense or morality. It is calcified idiocy, a testament to the Vatican's utter disconnect to reality. The church's complicity in a global conspiracy to rape children and protect their rapists represents the nadir of this tendency.
And of course, there is the organized resistance by many conservative Christians to progress on climate change, health care reform and equal rights for gays and women. A very sad state of affairs.
I know all these things. And yet I still count myself a Catholic. Organized religion is still something I need — now more than ever as I deal with the rigors of marriage, raising a family and recovering from a series of family tragedies. I really can't explain why. It's just how I feel. I wish I could be more specific than this, but at this point I can't. Meanwhile, I am grateful for your posts on religion. They give me a lot to struggle with.
MikeFitz17: Thank you for your thoughtful response. It does seem as though there are some pretty formidable limits to the use of the intellect. It appears to be a tacked on addition, evolutionarily speaking. I find Jonathan Haidt's metaphor of the elephant ridden by an attorney to be apt. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/06/26/why-a…
I know lots of lots of Catholics who are still practicing but who are tormented for the same reasons you mention, plus others. It's a big burden they carry around with them. In order to maintain their Catholic community, they have to often restrain their impulses to speak out freely.
I don't understand persons of faith in persistent attempts to convert or re-enlist non-believers into the ranks of believers. Simple respect would indicate such to be at the least rude, at the worst totally obnoxious.
Erich, believe or not, it's your choice. I know you to be a person of high moral character and one who makes a difference as a spouse, parent and attorney. If I speak to you in a fashion which seeks to enlist you into my religious belief system, call me on it.
However, it appears that some atheists believe that any conversation with any person of belief is somehow tainted by that person's beliefs or that person is suffering from some mental illness.
Does the fact that I believe in God taint my support of the theory of evolution as the most accurate description we have of how human animals came to be? Perhaps my belief in God means that evolution is wrong as a scientific theory?
Does the fact that I believe in God taint my understanding that the universe is some 14 billion years old? Perhaps my belief in God means my thinking that folks who believe the world was created 6,000 years ago are, at best, seriously mistaken is wrong?
This is the wonderful thing about a blog like this. You get to grapple with really hard questions about the nature of belief and existence — the sort of things liberal arts majors could talk about late at night in a college dorm after a few beers — with intelligent people, but you get to do so with the benefit of the hard lessons gleaned from the ups and downs of adulthood. Raising children is a good case in point: no other activity has filled me with more pride, nor more frustration, nor more feelings of failure and futility. Of such things wisdom is born.
One of the things I have learned as I enter my middle years is that the intellect can be a trap, a dead-end. Knowledge and reason don't feed the soul alone. They can be very nourishing, but they're still not enough, at least not for me.
The same goes for the world of emotion and irrationality. Making your own reality through selective editing of information be fun for a while, but at a certain point you have to be honest with yourself. You have to respect facts for what they are. Just because the Bible (or the Koran, or a priest or a rabbi or a sitting president of the United States) says it's true, doesn't necessarily mean it is.
In short, I feel deeply conflicted about my spiritual beliefs. On one hand, I respect the fact that science and the scientific method are terrifically powerful tools for understanding the universe and navigating it. Historically, those who have opposed science and free inquiry are the forces of repression and reaction, a long list that includes the leaders of the Inquisition, Christian fundamentalists, and the monsters who led Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
So I am a big fan of science. But I also believe that we are more than the sum of the atoms that form our bodies, atoms that were forged billions of years ago when the universe was still young. There has to be a fundamental meaning (at least for me) that transcends these atoms, that transcends the trillions of stars that comprise the tens of billions of galaxies in the known universe. For Carl Sagan, whose writings I admire, no such transcendent meaning was necessary. Life itself, in such a magnificent and mysterious universe, was miracle enough. Maybe such acceptance is a mark of Sagan's wisdom. For people like me, however, I need to think that there is more to this universe than science and logic can provide.
MikeFitz17: I'm really enjoying this exchange. There are certainly days and nights where I crave an easily understandable "Meaning of Life." On those days, the universe isn't meaning enough, and I don't have any such meaning that I can articulate.
I do have two young daughters though, and meaning lights up in me when I look into their eyes. It lights up in me when I see outrageous injustice. It lights up in me when I see a friend in need, or when someone does something heroic. I see meaning on those times when I rise to the occasion.
But this nebulous type of meaning is also dangerous. Many people see meaning, and they themselves automatically become the heroic protagonist whenever there are people marching and bullets are flying. As Naomi Klein wrote (recent post) Wall Street bankers can easily justify their superiority to others, and their need for even more money, even though they make 100 times the salary of a life-saving brain surgeon.
We human animals are a thoroughly symbolic species, and we seem to be able to make anything mean almost anything else, even the opposite of what it appears to mean. It's OK to torture, steal, waste resources, lie, and deprive Americans of meaning voting. Without self-critical habits, and without the practice of empathy, all of our cleverness can make us dangerous assholes. http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/01/03/doing…
If I had to sum up what the best approach is, my articulated "meaning of life," I'd say that it is to stay self-critical ("skeptical," if you will) to serve as our headlight as to what really is going on out there (to not allow ourselves to play attentional tricks http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/03/moral… , and to continuously practice our empathy, because we seem to be a inexorably social species that work best as a group. But we need to constantly beware of group dynamics so we don't confuse "truth" for getting caught up in the crowd's enthusiasm or judmentalism.
I'm certain that this formula is incomplete. It's what comes to mind at the moment. What we really need to do is to dedicate ourselves to a lifelong comprehensive moral education. http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/04/11/compr… I do think there is a huge intersection between morality and science, and I suspect we'd all be better off if we worked hard to emphasize short-term and long-term ecology and downplayed traditional notions of morality.
I'd better stop here, because I'm not clear on how I would really explain my gut feelings on this topic, and I can assure you that much of what drives me on are gut feelings– emotions. It all gets so complicated, and I don't have any confidence that I'll have a meaningful resolution of any of these issues before I die.
Mike – Since you like to challenge yourself on religious issues, I'm wondering whether you've checked out Daylight Atheism, where Ebonmuse does much of his writing. I'd highly recommend it as an engaging and self-critical site written by a fellow who would be given awards for thought-provoking sermons (if ever he would be invited to do so by a church),but if only the congregation didn't pay attention to the fact that he is an atheist. http://www.daylightatheism.org/ I check in regularly.
Over at Daylight Atheism, Ebonmuse writes about believers trying to get non-believers to pray correctly. He concludes that it is usually a bottomless pit of futility. http://www.daylightatheism.org/2011/01/the-bottom…
Erich, and others responding here, William James astutely observed that the value of a religion lies in its usefulness to the believer, not in the truthfulness of its supernatural claims.
Mike Fitz, and Erich and other former Catholics/questioning Catholics, you may enjoy this song. Also, check out songwriter Peter Mayer's story on his blog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiypaURysz4&fe…
Erich: I am also enjoying this exchange. It's given me a lot to consider. And I appreciate the URL's you directed me to, for they also look interesting.
Your thoughts on the importance of empathy and morality hew closely to my own. At a certain point in this world, in my view, it doesn't matter if you believe in God, or, if so, what God or gods you believe in, or whether your view of the Deity is as an aloof Prime Mover or as a Cosmic Bellhop (in Bertrand Russell's memorable phrase) who is there to answer your requests.
I believe that about 99 percent of the time the most critical questions center on whether you empathize with the pain of others, whether you see yourself as a moral creature, and whether you believe you have moral obligations to fulfill to other humans, to other creatures and to the Earth itself.
In other words, what matters most is whether you try to comport yourself as a decent and good person, or whether you carry yourself as a jerk. How much of your time you spend in a church, or how much money you put in the collection plate are, in this sense, irrelevant.
Indeed, the nature and scope of religious beliefs offers no immunity against being a total asshole, or even a mass killer. Remarkably, Heinrich Himmler — the man who ran the genocide machine that was Hitler's SS — considered himself a good Catholic. Christopher Columbus was a pious Catholic, but he brought slavery to the New World, treated the indigenous peoples he met as a disposable commodity, and was such a total jerk to his own men that he returned to Spain in chains after his second voyage to the New World.
In the end, what we're talking about is the enormous variability of human behavior, which is a legacy, I suppose, of both our big brains and the brain wiring we inherited from our primate ancestors. We are imbued with both the greed and penchant for physical violence of chimpanzees, and the great empathy and need for close bonding of bonobos.
Abraham Lincoln, both America's greatest President and greatest moral thinker, handled these complexities best of anyone I can think of. Mr. Lincoln stands as the embodiment of all the things that separate and bring together believers and non-believers of good faith.
Lincoln, of course, wavered between agnosticism and atheism across his late youth and up until the time of his election to the White House. According to his law partner, Billy Herndon, Lincoln was an aggressive atheist who made no pretense of his lack of religious belief. Yet he had an incredible ability to make friends wherever he went, in every realm of society — a testament to his strong moral character, decency empathy and sense of humor. He tasted defeat often, and suffered a number of well-known public humiliations and personal tragedies, yet he had an uncanny ability to learn from his failures and move forward without carrying a grudge.
Let's pause a moment here and marvel at the sheer improbability of Lincoln's life. How often does the world see a literary and political genius who is also deeply moral and empathetic, as well as a brilliant comedian, in a position of true power? Never. That's one of the things that makes Lincoln unique, why scholars have written thousands of books and articles about him, and will write countless more. No other historical figure from ancient times to present comes close to Lincoln. And perhaps most remarkably of all, atheists and religious folks alike can both draw inspiration from Mr. Lincoln.
Lincoln never became "religious," at least not in the traditional sense. True, he became deeply spiritual and eventually, as President, came to believe in the existence of a God and that he, Lincoln, was an instrument of the Deity's will through his prosecution of the Civil War.
But Lincoln never pretended he could divine God's purposes. And he was always humble enough about his link to God that he never believed he had the right to instruct others in what to believe, or in what manner.
In the end, I suppose, if more of people behave like Mr. Lincoln — curious, empathetic, decent and humble — regardless of what religious views they choose to embrace or reject, then this would be a much, much better world. And we'd be making a lot more progress on the big problems that threaten the world we will be leaving behind to our children and grandchildren.
Mike: I really enjoyed your description of Abraham Lincoln. I agree that he wouldn't be electable today because of his religious views. But especially recently, he would probably be unelectable because of his high degree of empathy.
So, we're having this wonderful discussion, despite our "differences." What is your best strategy for getting other believers and non-believers to move past their ostensible differences and to focus on their commonalities?
My belief is that this is commonly done among individuals, but that in groups it has become quite difficult in America. I blame the conflict obsessed media for much of the problem. Therefore, part of my solution is to turn off the TV and quit listening to strident radio. Another approach is to make sure that we spent time conversing respectfully with people who differ from us in their outlook. None of this gives me hope for dealing with fundamentalists–those who insist that I'm wrong and are afraid to consider genuine empathy as a possible substitute for the Ten Commandments.
But what is your thought. How do we best encourage lots of people who differ to give each other a chance?
Erich: Once again, you do an apt job of summarizing your beliefs on the apparent idiocy of the Bible. And, once again, I feel as though you may have oversimplified quite a bit.
To me, and many other theists and religious believers who are attempting to enrich themselves with the vastness of experiences of the world (be it through science, spirituality, philosophy etc), the Bible and other "Holy Books" are to be read as a vast allegorical history of the Human psyche.
Our species has evolved with significantly powerful reasoning and thinking abilities that has, consequently, cause our ancestors to wonder about the fabric of reality. Religious texts and ideals are essentially their explanation in a time when science was not available.
Does that make these texts now outdated? Should any religious observer simply toss aside their prescribed Holy Text and assume Science as their new religion?
Hardly.
Religious thought has provided a majority of the precepts for morality and meaning in human life until now. It would be just as ludicrous to tell a Christian to abandon their Bible as it is for them to tell you to abandon science. The difference is that science relies on verifiable evidence about the natural world, whereas religion operates on faith. Faith, however, is not only hocus-pocus mumbo jumbo. To these people, they have experienced the very real power of the supernatural in their lives. Whether or not these experiences can be verified scientifically is irrelevant. You cannot convince a person who has experienced something that the experience did not exist. Its human psychology. (Many studies have also shown that the Mind's ability simply to believe something to be true has powerful effects on that person's psyche. I submit that religion operates on the same principles.)
Now, does that mean that religious believers are mentally ill. Definitely not. Religion may have surfaced as a very necessary bi-product of the evolutionary process. A means for which the human mind can cope with its mortality, and for which humans can understand the universe.
Of course, we now have science for that. However, Erich, I believe that the best way for everyone to "get along" is to understand that religion, and logic, and science, are all means by which people seek to understand the world in which they live. Neither "side" should belittle, chastise or mock the views of the other, regardless of how manipulative or chauvinistic or deceptive or even WRONG they are (or appear to be.) It only fuels the cycle of ignorance and intolerance. Exchanges just like these prove that there are members of every faith, belief, and creed (or lack there-of) that can have meaningful conversation and attempt to riddle out this puzzle that we call life.
On the face of it, the Bible story does seem very implausible, even laughable. Though, if read as a meaningful metaphor for human cognition, the universe and the history of the world, it becomes much more coherent.
Essentially, our ancestors who had no real means by which to explain the vast injustices of the world and the evil that exists in the heart of man, had to try and surmise the cause for human actions as best they could. Perhaps the original author of the Bible was a very wise man who perceived a powerful message and sought to explain that message in religious terms.
Why is their evil in this world? Why is there suffering? What causes men to be so wicked?
The author believed that humankind brought it upon themselves. Eden was a place where Man existed in perfect unity with the universe. But, through a CHOICE, all was lost. (man chooses evil, disobedience, etc) Man continuously has chosen evil, and subsequently atrocities fell upon him.
The story of Jesus can also be read allegorically. Jesus is the "perfect man." He practices unconditional love. He preaches unconditional servitude. He prays for his fellow man, that they would be lifted out of the darkness of their self-inflicted sin. And, as a symbol of that servitude and love, he sacrificed himself to show humankind that only through giving up our SELVES do we serve others.
I hope that I have conveyed my meaning sufficiently to explain the point I am trying to make. I may be completely wrong, but that is essentially the message that I believe the Bible ought to convey. I think that preachers should quit preaching fire and brimstone and stop stealing from the pockets of their flock and preach the true – all too human – message of loss of self. Of love. Of peace. Of understanding.
The idea is not unique to the Bible. Krishna and Buddha are two other examples of religious icons as symbols of man's inner goodness.
Sadly, as we humans are apt to do and have done for centuries, we chose to focus on the bad. "Look at the atrocities that church members have committed, clearly this means religion is invalid. Look at the inconsistencies in centuries old historical texts about the tribes of Israel, clearly the entire meaning is pointless."
Instead, we should focus on the very real messages that all of these religions, at their heart, convey.
It still does not mean that one NEEDS religion to be good, we as a species have evolved beyond that. We used religion as our vehicle to introduce and sometimes enforce moral codes, and now we should be able to come together and see past the veil of ignorance and into the truth of the matter.
MikeFitz17: I agree completely with you about the search for some meaning beyond the physical. I think all humans have a similar feeling. We are all trying to figure out what it all means. Perhaps science has not been able to delve deep enough into those matters, but I think that Carl Sagan's words are very wise, even profound. The very fact that humans exist, that life exists, that you and I think and breath and are having this conversation, carries a universe of meaning in itself. The very fact that the apparent randomness of the universe can create multitudes of very organized, very rational, very real beings is nothing short of miraculous.
Therein, methinks, lies at least a glimpse of God.
Erich: You asked me to recommend my "best strategy for getting other believers and non-believers to move past their ostensible differences and to focus on their commonalities."
Good question. I wish I had a good answer.
For starters, I share your pessimism in dealing with fundamentalists. For whatever psychological reasons, too often these folks cling to the extremes and demonize those who disagree with them. The Rev. Fred Phelps, the pastor of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church, is the poster boy for this tendency.
For me, the only solution I see involves two activities that I know well: reading and talking. Both would be used as part of a program aimed at emphasizing the humanity in all of us and setting up a genuine dialogue between believers and non-believers.
As I envision it, hypothetically we'd have a eight-week course where five adult atheists and five adult religious folks would meet once a week. They would gather in a public place, say, the basement of a public library, or even in a church. All that matters is that the group could meet privately and speak freely. Each member of the group would take turns serving as moderator. The ground rules would require that no one try to proselytize or do anything else to "convert" anyone else to his or her way of thinking.
The first four weeks of this "course" would center on the discussion of books that everyone would read as part of their homework. The books would be chosen for their capacity to spur discussion and reflection.
My first recommendation: Karen Armstrong's "A History of God," a fascinating look at how the notion of God and/or transcendence has evolved over the past 4,000 years. It's a brilliant piece of scholarship and history. Armstrong, by the way, is a former Catholic nun who has quit Catholicism but who remains a self-described monotheist. She is one of the world's most renowned scholars of religion.
My next book pick would be Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation." It's a quick read that, with the help of relentless logic and the Bible's many inconsistencies, pounds away at the main tenets of Christianity. Like the Armstrong volume, Harris' book should be required reading for all educated adults.
The next two weeks at my "course" in dialogue would center on the participants' personal experiences. Everyone would take turns describing their families, the religious world they grew up in and the story of how they had arrived at their views regarding God, the universe and what they believe happens to them upon death.
The final two weeks of this hypothetical course would center on a discussion of each participants' sacred moments and sacred places.
Human beings, I believe, are wired to feel deep moments of transcendence across their lives. We all need such moments, regardless of whether we are religious, spiritual or complete non-believers. To me, a person's description of his or her sacred places and moments says more about who that person is than any description of that person's religious practices or beliefs.
The list of possible sacred moments and places, of course, spans a wide, wide gamut. In my view, they could be a favorite mountain biking trail, or a rock concert, or a literal holy shrine. They could be an AA meeting, or the Apple Store at the local mall. Sacred moments could include the birth of a child, or sitting vigil at a loved one's death bed, or sledding on a snowy day with your family.
For me, one of my most sacred places is the suicide support group I belong to, and which I try to attend at least once a month. Nearly three years ago my brother ended his life after battling depression for most of his adulthood. There is no way to describe the pain of losing a loved one to suicide, so I won't.
Suffice it to say, however, the support group I belong to has been my refuge, my sanctuary, the place where I seek solace and understanding. It's the same for the group's other members. A very cool, very religious Catholic couple run the group, which they started in the aftermath of their daughter's suicide, but one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is never an issue.
What matters during our meetings is how we listen, really listen, as we describe the lives of our lost loved ones — their struggles, their pain, their joys — and our own efforts at healing in the wake of their deaths. We have told our stories many, many times, but we never tire of hearing or telling them. This is how we make sense of our lives, of our new "normal."
There is an intimacy that takes place in our group meetings and that tethers us together that is difficult for me to describe and that I have never encountered elsewhere in my life. Ours is a church, of sorts, but one with neither creed nor doctrine. We reach out and connect, for we "get" each other in a way the rest of the world cannot. It is a beautiful and moving thing. It is empathy in its purest form. My only regret is the terrible price we all paid to join this church. Peace.
MikeFitz17: This is terrific stuff. Thank you for pouring your heart and mind into your response.
I suppose that hardest part of your program is convincing people that they need it. Most people I know are convinced that they are right and other-thinking folks are wrong about religion/spirituality. So why join a group that might make you change? I can think of a couple of reasons.
1. It's good to be exposed to new ideas. You might learn something that you will treasure.
2. You might meet someone you will take on as a valued friend. That person might be someone who thinks like you, or maybe he/she is one of those other-thinking people. And how cool it you can get one of those symbiotic other-thinking friendships going. I have a few of them and I guarantee that it makes me a better person than merely hanging around like-thinking people.
3. You might do it because you see the world being torn apart by people who focus on minor differences to such an extent that they ignore substantial commonalities.
Each of these ideas drove me to write my five-part series, "Mending Fences." First part is here: http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/07/11/mendi… The title was an attempt to play off of the good fences make good neighbors platitude. The idea is not that we need to tear down fences and all become the same. The "Mending" was a suggestion that war had become the norm until the neighbors realized that it was pointless. Just think of all of the things we do together without caring about each others religion. My image is of lots of folks coming together for a Habitat for Humanity build (I was part of a build). Even though it is run by a Christian organization, no one asks you whether you believe in Jesus or not. They simply want to know whether you will help build a house.
Here's another reason to discuss religion with those who think differently than we do. It's invigorating, educational, emotionally rewarding and cheap. And consider that many Christians put down their guard when they hear that each other are Christians, even though they would feel very isolated from each other if they actually explored what KIND of Christian each other was (I figure that there are at least 10,000 kinds of Christians, including hundreds of of types of Catholics. If they would focus on their differences, many Catholics would be in for a rude exchange (many Catholics I know are woefully ignorant about the Bible and about the basic doctrines that distinguish Catholics from other types of Christians).
And yes, just think of all the kinds of things we share. We do all of our sacred places and I've written about sacred places for skeptics. http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/02/14/the-s… .
I'd join you for one of these gatherings, but I bet we live in different towns. I'm in St. Louis. What about you?
Erich: I live in Swansea, Ill., about 20 minutes from downtown St. Louis, a town I know quite well. I used to live in South St. Louis, a few blocks south of Tower Grove Park.
Maybe some day soon you, me and other like-minded folks could meet up over coffee to talk about the topics raised here. The Kaldi's in Clayton, is one of my favorite coffeehouses. I'm busy with a lot of different commitments, but I'd sure enjoy the chance to partake in invigorating conversation. Anyone else interested?
BTW, I just finished reading your essays, "The sacred places of people who are not religious," and "Atheists and believers can get along: Here’s Exhibit A." I found both pieces compelling and, on many points, in close agreement with my own views.
Religious views are funny things. In so many ways they are the most private and essential part of a person's inner life. But in terms of the personas we project to the rest of the world, they are the least important, at least in my view. Certainly my choices in who my friends are have nothing to do with their religious views, or the lack thereof, just as my choices in friends are unconnected to their looks, race, wealth or social prestige. In the end, I think most people seek to do the important things — earning a living, raising a family, contributing to their communities — according to their best lights. You arrived at your beliefs honestly and in good faith, I believe, and so did I. The key thing is that we are both willing to listen to the other and admit that, yes, we could be wrong. Having it any other way would make for a very boring life.
MikeFitz17 – How convenient that you live nearby. We've got at least two participants. I'm really tied up with legal work for the next month, but let's aim for early March. If anyone else is interested in a friendly gathering of this sort, please write me at erichvieth@gmail.com. If you're interested, give me days that would be good for you in early March. Let's focus on a weekday evenings, Mondays, Wednesdays or Thursdays. Who else is in? Just drop me an email and let me know.
I would if I lived nearer to you all. It is unfortunate that we are so far away. Maybe we can start springing these up all over the place and web-conference each other. Let's get as many people as we can to actually have meaningful conversation.
Definitely a great idea, Erich!
TheThinkingMan: The quality and richness of all the posts on this blog make me feel that I'm back in college again, but this time hanging out in the student union with a really cool bunch of grad students. Best of all, there are no term papers hanging over my head.
Seriously, I would welcome the chance to sit down and meet some of you and talk face-to-face to chew over the big, soaring questions raised on this blog. Anyone interested in recording such a conversation and Podcasting it? My iPod has a great video and audio recorder.
I'll bring the Ouija board!
I'll bring a cage for Ben.
I admire the cogent thinking I'm reading. This is a great (sequential) dialogue. I agree with Mark that it resembles collegiate conversation without the papers (or alcohol). I'm not the thinker nor writer that I see here but as a once-adamant, logic-oriented born-againer who decided that being born once was enough, I've spent time wrestling with the issues noted in this thread. I'm throwning in my two cents worth in the form of a poem I wrote early last year. The idea of getting together sounds so good to me, I'd consider flying out from Seattle to St. Louis periodically to join you all. Enjoy your time in March.
Dusty Damascus Roads
Scraps of God’s work
Shimmer along the way as I shuffle
Homeward to a place unknown
To wanderers like me, not lost.
The familiar tarnishes the treasure.
Holocausts of Truth
Sear my conscience, drifting
Chernoblesque beyond the day’s
Mindful intentions, mindless moments.
Cloudy thoughts obscure the heavens.
Why so many christs
In a world bedeviled by mere mortals,
I ask as I protect my weary soul from
Their dusty Damascus roads.
Never sensing the piercing Light,
High priests of the written
Emboldened by their own way,
Shine the sixty six and self-evident truths
upon me to light a path I cannot traverse.
Salvation.
They cry for me. I for them.
Pete: I really enjoyed the poem. It said a lot. If you can make it out in March, then I look forward to seeing you.
The major cognitive flaw in our thinking comes from using partial sections of the holy writings (beliefs)of ones's worldview to try and justify self-centered decisions that appeal to improper longings and desires that will end up causing harm to both yourself and others. In reality, as I look carefully at the nature of temptations I can see they relate to either "life," "liberty," or the "the pursuit of happiness."
These are all aspects of both our physical and spiritual lives that are very dear to we Americans, but they are also areas of our lives that can keep us from following the will of God, because the will of God is first and primarily spiritually discerned.
Temptations seek to lock us into following after the physical aspects of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The physical pursuit of life, liberty and happiness will end in shallow and fleeting lives if this is our sole purpose in living. We must get the focus off of our own pursuits and even also off just the pursuits of others. We must focus upon the pursuits of God Himself which is that we serve oneanother as He has served us. You can only get that by reading the full context of scripture and not just your own problematic interpretations.
The first temptation we all face is to separate our physical lives from our spiritual lives (i.e. the cognitive, emotional and volitional).
Jesus was indeed tempted to use the very words of the Old Testament itself focused upon His physical existence and his own physical needs.
After fasting 40 days, Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread – he didn't do it. Later he did mutiply loaves and fishes to feed thousands. Why did He deny this for himself but later not deny this for the masses who came to hear Him teach?
It is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
These people had come to hear more of the "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God," Jesus was not going to send them away with a simple physical need not being met because they had come to feast upon the very words of God Himself.
Similarly, when Jesus was offered all of the kingdoms of the world (supreme earthly liberty and power), His response was not focused on himself nor even upon the "physical good" He could have done for other people. All Jesus had to do was to worship Satan, the one who wants us to believe the creator God has no authority over him here on earth.
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
At the ascension, Jesus clearly proclaimed – “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
If he had listened to Satan, we would still be buying and selling each other into slavery all across the globe, not just in those "backward" heathen nations. Proper spiritual authority to change this world for the good can only come from serving God, and Him only
The third temptation used the very words of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah, as well as the customs (beliefs) of the people. The custom pretty much was that when Messiah came, no harm would ever befall Him because God and the angels would see to it.
Satan knew the plan of God, so did Jesus. If the Messiah would simply call upon the angels to keep him from physical harm/death Jesus would never have crossed over and then back to fully defeat death and Satan Himself. If the people had seen him survive from a fall off of the top of the temple they would have had no way they could doubt in his supernatural help from God and his angels.
Many on the Sanhedrin really thought Jesus wasn't going to actually physically die on the cross. The initial words thrown at him were jeers from those who wanted to find out if he really was the Messiah. "If you are the Christ come down from the cross." "You saved others – save yourself."
Jesus defeated this temptation which actually was a prophecy concerning the Messiah in scripture. It was however only one of many. There also being Messianic Prophecies of the suffering servant. Both were true, not one or the other. If he had acknowledged the one but not the other the Jews would have gotten an earthy ruler, but no atonement for their sins.
Jesus defeated this temptation by stating – Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. There was a time and a place for the promise, and it wasn't to make his life and death easier or pain free.
There was a time and a place for that promise, but it was not while he was going to suffer death at the hands of sinful men, it was immediately after that. It was once his physical body was hanging lifeless on the cross that the angels empowered Jesus to finish the work Jesus was sent here to do.
Atonement is accomplished as illogical as you may think it to be.
Karl writes, "as I look carefully at the nature of temptations I can see they relate to either “life,” “liberty,” or the “the pursuit of happiness”…"they are also areas of our lives that can keep us from following the will of God."
I'm sorry Karl, but do you prefer Death, Slavery and the Pursuit of Sorrow?"
I could prefer death if it meant dying for someone else or some cause outside of myself that I believed in.
I could prefer slavery to death if I was given the choice between the two.
I could prefer my own personal sorrow if it meant that my happiness was on the backs of others.
Karl: That's all good and well, but if you were Omnipotent (as it is claimed regarding "God"), you wouldn't need to make any of these choices. Believers are not troubled by this apparently clear and easy option that an omnipotent God would apparently have. I am puzzled by their lack of curiosity and skepticism, and their acceptance of what appears to have been (had it happened) gratuitous violence committed by God. Then again, the Bible is filled with gratuitous violence purportedly committed by God.
Karl writes, "I could prefer death if it meant dying for someone else or some cause outside of myself that I believed in."
Simply one of the most chilling and frightening sentences I've read in a long time. You've captured the essence and mindset behind most of the horrors perpetuated against humanity and the nightmare of history from which we need to awaken and evolve beyond. This is the belief of the suicide bomber, the Crusader, the fervent cultist, the Holy Warrior, the fundamentalist murderer and the brainwashed soldier.
How easily would you give away your birthright of self-sovereignty; how casually would you offer up your body and mind to the will, belief or cause of another?
Karl: I've heard that argument before. Still ain't buying it.
It always strikes me that so many many words are needed to justify the concept of torture to negate sin. For that's what your explanation is…a justification of absurdity based on your personal need to believe.
The real God (if there is one) would have not needed the atonement solution in the first place! It would have been very easy to avoid.
If you think I would die taking others with me like some terrorist on a mission to try to force others over to the "dark side." You have the wrong idea.
Killing people to try to silence the opposition is just as futile.
Unfortunately, all too many people think their death earns them a reward especially when they take a whole bunch of innocents or enemies there with themselves.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for."
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
– Ben.
God is as omnipotent as He desires/needs to be.
Before Jesus came life was pretty much deplorable unless you were one of the aristocracy. But even the aristocracy had to fear for the violent overthrow of their world. People were not safe in their own houses for the most part until they lived in walled city-states, and had fairly strong alliances or shared defenses with their neighbors. Those that didn't have shared defenses often took offensive postures towards their neighbors that wouldn't form alliances to force others to respect them.
Can you name a place on earth where this pattern of life would have changed on its own without the atonement for sin by Jesus?
I would venture to say that we would all be living under an "Arabic like" dominated culture today if Jesus hadn't come.
At the rate that people are currently denying that Jesus did come and accomplish an atonement for sin it will not be much longer before the same type of pre-christianity culture exists when modern civilized people are again thrust back under the control of religious zealots concerned only with manipulating the masses so that those who interpret the holy law will have the final say about everything.
Even if it is only a human belief that the penalty for sin has been paid for, it seems to have been enough to turn many individuals and cultures away from their self-centered ways. Many aggrandized dictators and religious legal zealots who make and then re-interpret the laws so that they stay in charge have only met their match in people willing to die to defend the rights of people to decide for themselves what they will or will not believe.
If God desired to be as omnipotent as you want him to be people would not have been given the opportunity to have needed an atonement. This is why the whole process is illogical to you.
Is there a place on earth where selfish offensive people willingly gave up vanquishing other people?
There are examples of this having happened when these people finally came to understand the message of the Bible from within their own language and culture.
Life for humans is much different on earth because Jesus came, lived and died, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.
The prediction of Scripture is that the world will return to the same type of a world as it was before Christ came towards the "last Days." There will be a strong leader who will be "anti-Christ."
Seems we are heading down that road further and further every day.
I suppose being good natural scientists only seeing will be believeing.
Until thay day comes . . . when all shall look upon the one they have peirced.
Karl,
Omnipotence is not variable. Neither is omniscience. Nor is omnipresence. God is, or isn't, all of these.
It's the exercise of these traits that you are referring to, isn't it? If, as you say, he's deciding something it means that he is weighing variables. Which means he's considering something in sequence, first one, then another, then this, then that, etc. An exercise that by definition of omniscience is non-sequitur. If God knows all, he cannot decide. It is illogical.
But for the sake of conversation, let's suggest that as the Bible says, we cannot know the ways of God. That he is a mystery. That we see through a glass darkly. If we can agree that we may not know how to explain omniscience in terms of decision-making (perhaps an amorphous quality so we can understand slivers of the Almighty), it follows that other slivers are hidden. It's mysterious. That because we don't know many things, we are free to pursue the Life we do not clearly comprehend, we have the liberty to wrestle with our human conditions, to assess what we know how to with the intellect and passion (soulfulness?) that we have as humans. We have the freedom to pursue the mysterious. If God is beyond comprehension, then our inquisitiveness about what God is / does (or what he isn't /or what he doesn't do), is within easy reach of our intellectual challenges. These are not necessarily self-centered, self-aggrandizing inquiries. Sometimes, a person just wants to know for the sake of coming to terms with the challene within themselves. As the Bible would say (in Philippians), it becomes the peace that passes understanding.
This is what I believe you've been reading in this thread. Written words tend to be first received as dogmatic (as is evidenced by your own arguments) but in the pursuit of happiness, coming to terms with the Mystery in our lives brings that peace that passes understanding.
Seeing does not necessarily lead to belief. Neither does investigation or research. In fact, even proof may not result in belief that is empirical(see 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' by Thomas Kuhn). On the other hand, authoritative, accepted writings don't lead to belief either. Belief is a personal choice based on evidence, evidence that must not only stand the test of time but also the test of human understanding. God, whoever or whatever he (it) may be, is mysterious. So is our pursuit of life's mysteries. For that, I am not looking for atonement. And the mystery of the God I see darkly will honor that, or he is not a just God.
Pete Vander Meulen: Amen to that.
I like your point that an omniscient god does not think chronologically, since "He" already knows all. Yet most believers assure us that "God" thinks and acts sequentially, just like human animals. Perhaps this line of thought should be recognized as the first great proof for the non-existence of the traditionally conceived god.
Erich and Peter,
If omnipotent has to mean all powerful and "controlling everyone and everything" then indeed life should also have the appearance of a temporal invariableness. There is no changing in God, but there sure is in His creation because He has willed it to be so.
The Bible does not say God is "all controlling." Both life and the Bible clearly show He has given freedom of choice and decision making ability to people.
As for Omniscience consider this analogy.
Most believers will tell you that God had the 2 minute human end game already in mind before the kickoff started. Does that mean he thinks sequentially or that humans can't grasp that an end and a beginning in time can exist simultaneously to an all knowing God? This does not mean that God has rigged each individual's outcome, but He does already know what that outcome will be.
As for Onmipresence, since people are real, I have to qualify this in terms of His existence verses the existence of others.
I would answer with this analogy.
Is there empty space inside of atoms, or do we only call it empty space because of our scientific model that by contrast appears to have little of anything in terms of solid substance there?
Could God dwell or abide in the hearts and minds of those that refuse to acknowledge his existence?
How would such a God make his presence known to those who refuse to acknowledge his existence?
Peter appears to have a fairly good grasp of what that might look like.
We look for "solid" cast in stone evidence and when we don't directly have it produced, we believe what we will. "Spirits" are not real to many rational logical thinkers so that leaves the space "empty."
The Bible tells us that whereever we go we can not escape his presence. Some believe it, others do not.
God can not be identied in the hearts of most people who by choice have replaced that longing/desire or emptiness with the things and cares of the world. We can not serve both God and mammon as Jesus said.
God is always there but many choose to consciously block out his presence by believing strange lies about Him or what He would have them to do.
Neither of you have addressed the reality of the historical need of the atonement both to change individuals and the collective groups that have made up the various cultures of Mankind.
It's all well and good that you can claim to be beyond the need for atonement, but is this simply an evolutionary change, or is it something beyond hard physical science, and historical reality?
I ask again for an historical context where evolution without Chrisitanity brought about the willing desire for a culture to follow Luke 14:3,4.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Karl: I don't believe in a sentient god. I don't believe that the Bible is accurate to the extent that it suggests this. Thus, I can't summon the energy to want to respond to your many points based on this (what I believe to be a false) premises.
I have discussed the moral accounting metaphor previously. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/03/23/its-t… That might explain why people would find atonement to be efficacious. But what would "God" owe us that "He" felt the need to atone? Maybe it would the recklessness of putting that tempting tree in the alleged Garden of Eden. A classic attractive nuisance.
Karl wrote: "Before Jesus came life was pretty much deplorable unless you were one of the aristocracy. But even the aristocracy had to fear for the violent overthrow of their world.
People were not safe in their own houses for the most part until they lived in walled city-states, and had fairly strong alliances or shared defenses with their neighbors. Those that didn’t have shared defenses often took offensive postures towards their neighbors that wouldn’t form alliances to force others to respect them.
Life for humans is much different on earth because Jesus came, lived and died, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven."
To which I reply: "Have you been to Brooklyn lately? LOL!