Entry 1657, on 2014-06-04 at 20:29:08 (Rating 3, Religion)
Can all the adherents of a group be blamed (at least partially) for the actions of extremists in that same group? It's a question which often comes up in connection to Islamic extremism but more recently I heard a similar idea presented blaming all of society (males in particular) for the problem of misogyny.
The person making the claim was a feminist with some rather extreme views (as many of them do) which didn't appear to be based on much more than her own opinion, but there is undoubtedly some truth in what she was saying. Real science has shown that there is a bias against women in some situations, from men, but interestingly equally from other women. Also there are societies which are clearly misogynistic, especially those who base their laws on Islamic "values".
In common with other recent posts I think there is a nuanced answer to this. Society in general can't be totally blamed for misogyny, Islam and moderate Muslims can't be entirely blamed for extremism, and the average woman who just wants a fair deal can't be completely blamed for the damaging and unsupported opinions of extreme feminists.
But moderates in any group should take some of the blame for what extremists in their group do. For example, I think billions of Muslims who believe in an absurd, primitive religion must take some blame for the extremists who carry out atrocities in the name of that same religion. And before I'm accused of picking on Islam I would say the same applies to all religions to some extent, it just happens that Islam is the worst at this point in history.
Look at the latest horrific religion-inspired crime in Pakistan where Farzana Iqbal, a 25 year old pregnant woman, was bludgeoned to death by several people - including her female cousin, her brother, and her father - for marrying against their wishes (they wanted her to marry her cousin). And just to make it worse the man she married had already killed his first wife so he could marry her. He was not punished for that crime because his son forgave him under Pakistan's blood-money laws. I promise, I'm not making this up. This really happened in the 21st century! It would almost be funny if it wasn't so horrendous.
Only belief in religion can make people act so irrationally and hatefully. And the people who claim that these "honour killings" are not condoned by Islam should look more closely. The official punishment for adultery is death by stoning (not in the Qur'an but in Hadith). Of course the moderates claim that the punishment is "...death by stoning for adultery..." but "...these punishments are not really meant to be performed as much as they are meant to make these crimes hated in the eyes of the society in order to minimize their occurrence." This sounds like a very convenient re-interpretation of the original meaning to me, but even if it wasn't it is easy to see how the rule could be taken literally.
If the moderates simply deny that the punishment prescribed by their religion is primitive and hateful and creatively re-interpret the text then it just makes extremist interpretations easier. What they should do is say that it is primitive nonsense with no place in modern society and then they should leave the religion until such blatant problems are fixed. But here is a problem there: the penalty for apostasy is also death! (as stated in Qur'an 4.89)
At this point it may seem that the moderate believers in all areas should take part of the blame for any associated extremism. So should people like me who identify with atheism and skepticism also be blamed? Sure, if those belief systems caused any atrocities, but they don't of course because they aren't belief systems in the same way as Islam, Christianity, fascism, or feminism are. If anything they are belief systems based on lack of belief (maybe apart from the belief that there should be no irrational beliefs).
So all Muslims should be ashamed of their religion when they see honour killings (thousands happen every year and most aren't punished) happening because of religious belief. The moderates are partly to blame. Need I repeat my favourite Voltaire quote again: those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.
I would contend that most slaughter committed in the world is simply caused by terrible people who wish to remain in power, and they use religion, race, ideology or anything they can to try to prove to one lot of people that the other group are sub humans and can therefore be eliminated at will. Even atheism had been twisted (Joseph Stalin) for sinister use. This reign of terror keeps them in power. You can't really blame whatever religion or ideology they claim to follow. They are just horrible people and they twist whatever they can. It is frightening how long they stay in power until they finally get taken down.
Comment 2 by richard on 2014-06-05 at 12:26:54:
I agree with you on this one Owen, that it is a nuanced issue, and Steve, in that such people will often make the claim that something like their religion, race, ideology to justify immorality, when in fact it is often not the driver at all. Many 'religious' wars in Africa or even Ireland, are more 'cultural' or land grabs, where the people on each side also happen to have different religious beliefs.
I also agree with you that sometimes the case can be made that the religious belief IS fairly to blame for the actions, or at least their motivation. This is generally pretty quick and easy to test, as you have actually done in this post.
I will make this comment (but only once - lol) since again you have tried to suggest that Athiesm is magically immune to such 'blame' because it is based on a a lack of belief. Sorry, but this is also a nuanced claim, and depends on your definition of athiesm, (see the three common definitions used in Wikipedia for example). Athiesm can justifiably be described as a belief that there are no deities, and I suggest that this is the most intellectually honest interpretation that people hold - whether they like to admit it or not is another qn. That is just as much a 'positive' statement of belief as the opposing answer to the same qn. Put simply: Theism = One of More Deities exist, Atheism = No deities exist.
Stating athiesm as a lack of belief, has only one purpose in the real (practical) world, which is for the purpose you are using it - to try to avoid any moral responsibility. However, in the real world, it is very easy to make a link between ideas (athiesm OR theism and theistic religions) and their logical, reasonable, moral consequences. ALL ideas have such consequences, and as Steve pointed out, if you look at any particular actions, such as Stalin, which world views result in obvious and specific condemnation of said events. Athiesm as an 'idea' provides absolutely no resources that can be used to condemn Stalins actions, when examined with intellectual integrity.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2014-06-05 at 13:22:02:
Steve: Nobel Laureate, Steven Weinberg said that "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." I think he has a point.
Do you think all the family members who killed the young woman in Pakistan would have done that if they weren't motivated by religious fanaticism? Were they all naturally evil? I doubt it.
Comment 4 by richard on 2014-06-05 at 16:41:43:
Wow: So even Nobel Laureates are not immune to stating nonsensical things. Only one question: What is Mr Weinbergs criteria for the 'good person' (as in the 'good' person that does evil things)?! Having mentioned that as an aside - with respect, I have no quarrel at all with your earlier careful assessment of this particular religion, and it's capacity for inciting the truly 'evil' events in this case.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2014-06-05 at 21:33:48:
Re comment 2...
Let's keep it simple. Oxford dictionary: "atheism (noun) disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Not the phrase "lack of belief". That's what atheism is to me and to every other atheist I know. All the rest of your attempted explanation is irrelevant.
Theism is unnecessary to provide a framework for establishing good and bad as many philosophers have observed. You could have a social evolutionary approach, a utilitarian approach, etc. None of these require a god.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2014-06-05 at 21:38:24:
Re comment 4...
I agree that many Nobel laureates have said really stupid things and I also admit that this is just a quote with no empirical research backing it up. I will ask you though: do you think anything apart from religion could have elicited such irrational and hateful thinking that resulted in the atrocities committed against Farzana Iqbal?
Comment 7 by richard on 2014-06-06 at 12:14:17:
RE Comment 5: While I stand by my assessment of Atheism as the positive status of a belief that no God or gods exist (it is still perfectly compatible with the Oxford definition) I think my point is not so much debating the strict definition, but to acknowledge that it is a philosophical 'position' (an idea) and ALL ideas have consequences. They could be other ideas that fall out of the first idea, and/or actions that make sense given the idea(s). Surely this is obvious, and trying to claim immunity for atheism is inconsistent with that. Lets not start up another diversionary and possible stalemate topic though, like the failure of those other 'approaches' to create any 'real' morality - which is also the 'observation of many philosophers'. I wasn't going there - I was just commenting on an entirely internal logic problem with Mr Weinbergs statement. Cheers.
Comment 8 by richard on 2014-06-06 at 12:17:08:
RE Comment 6: You will recall I have already agreed with you on your post, but making a very important distinction. It is NOT 'religion' (general) that has elicited this atrocity, it is a specific religion ALONE that has done so.
Comment 9 by OJB on 2014-06-06 at 12:41:23:
Re comment 7. Atheism. A-theism. Not theism. Not believing in a god isn't the same as believing there isn't a god. I realise both interpretations are possible but when I use the word I specifically mean not believing there is a god (for the reason that the evidence is hopelessly inadequate).
Ideas do have consequences I agree. Not believing in something which seems to be obviously untrue has the consequence that atheists have a better grasp of reality. Is that a problem?
I don't think Wienberg's statement has any consistency issues, it just doesn't seem to have any good, empirical evidence backing it. On the other hand I don't believe it was meant as a statement of scientific fact, more as a starting point for discussion.
Comment 10 by OJB on 2014-06-06 at 12:46:23:
Re comment 8. It is a specific religion which has caused this atrocity. Other religions have caused other atrocities. Need I list them? OK, I will: the Crusades, witch burning, Catholic child abuse, AIDS caused by banning condoms, war in Rwanda, persecution of Jews, Spanish Inquisition, etc, etc... Now which religion was behind all those... Oh yes, it was Christianity!
Religion is irrational, primitive, and an insult to human intellect. While there are some aspects of it which are good, overall it is the greatest evil ever to have infected the human mind!
Comment 11 by richard on 2014-06-06 at 18:22:38:
RE Comment 10: I had figured this was where you would head. Remember I said in comment 2 that a decision on whether a specific religion could be blamed for an atrocity is fairly quick and easy to test? It is. Those atrocities were done 'in the name' of Christianity yes - and that is in itself an atrocity, because an honest look at the (verified original) teachings of the primary 'authority' for Christianity, i.e. Jesus Christ, shows clearly that such things are EITHER explicitly condemned, OR not encouraged, OR they are not mentioned, such that attempts by some power hungry Christians to impose rules 'in the name of Christianity' (you mentioned banning condoms) is actually unjustified.
As an aside I would mention however, that banning condoms is not the cause of AIDS deaths - the decision to have sex with multiple partners and/or multiple partners of the same sex is the cause there, and that is explicitly condemned I have not heard of a single case where couples acting according to Christian principles (i.e. abstinence before heterosexual marriage) contracts AIDS because they didn't use a condom.
Anyway - back to the point - the 'Christians' performing atrocious acts (or imposing such unjustified rules) were/are acting against core 'Christian' principles when behaving in this way. In contrast, when examining the original verified teaching of Mohammed (in Islam for example), it can be shown (as you did earlier) that many atrocious acts are if not actually encouraged (Jihad), they are certainly not condemned.
Can you please tell me what specific atrocities you feel ARE (justifiably) encouraged (or not specifically condemned) by classical Christianity. Or put as another question - if ALL the world were to convert to Christianity tomorrow (and were to genuinely follow it's core principles around how we should treat one another - 'sorta' summed up in the well known expression 'Love others as you Love yourself'), what particular atrocities 'must' result from that? Cheers, Rich.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2014-06-06 at 21:10:31:
And I figured this would be where you would head too - denying that Christianity is just another religion responsible for more than its fair share of atrocities. The problem is that being part of it you can't see it for what it is: exactly like every other religion, no better, no worse. It just happens that we live in a period of history where Islam is responsible for the majority of atrocities, unlike the past when Christianity was.
There is no easy way to test a religion as you suggest because there are no teachings of Jesus, just stories and interpretations of those stories, plus there is the big issue of when the OT teachings conflict with the NT (as most of them do) which should be followed.
I'm sure that all the people who committed atrocities in the name of Christianity fully believed they were following the true teaching of their religion, just like you do. From my perspective none has greater authority than another because the whole thing is fake and everything is open to interpretation. That is just one of the problems with religion.
I would say that all the atrocities were encouraged by Christianity because that is exactly what the believers thought. If you deny this you sound exactly like the Muslims who claim that their religion doesn't encourage violence, when it clearly does.
Comment 13 by OJB on 2014-06-06 at 21:35:12:
A little cartoon for you...
If you can't read them the two captions are "So this is where our movement came along and finally got the Bible right" and "Jesus is so lucky to have us".
Comment 14 by richard on 2014-06-09 at 09:45:36:
Did you actually read my post? You certainly didn't respond with anything but stories, straw men, and totally irrelevant cartoons, which intelligent readers should see right through. While it is indeed funny, it has no relevance to the basic question under discussion: whether significant moral actions can be pretty clearly weighed against classical christian teaching, that was already well in place at the time it occurred.
You even ended your post by affirming that it is in fact relatively easy to test whether (in this case) Muslims can be shown they are wrong when they claim that their religion doesn't encourage violence, when (and I quote) 'clearly it does'. Surely you can see the important question is not whether the Christians were 'fully believing they were following the teachings of their religion' but whether 'clearly it does not' applies to them also. Whether they are corrupt religious brokers (as was often the case in history), or they were people misled and deceived by such leaders and acted in ignorance, the blame doesn't sit with Jesus nor Christianity.
I asked this question plainly I thought in my last post but it was very obviously and deliberately ignored. I'll ask it only once more with an example to help you grasp the concept here. It is possible for any honest analysis of Jesus teaching to suggest that(for example) Catholic priests are following Christian teaching to abuse children? If not, then they alone are (and will be) held responsible for the truly horrific actions that are a product of their own minds, not Christianity itself. The fact they wear a collar puts no more blame on the religion, but all the more blame on them because the bible does in fact explain how much more they will be held accountable for such mis-representation.
Comment 15 by OJB on 2014-06-09 at 10:48:47:
Yes, I read your post. The relevance of the cartoon is that the standard justification that believers from all religions have for the atrocities committed by other believers is that the others have the story wrong and only they have it right. This is clearly ridiculous because everyone thinks they are the only ones to get it right. Why? Because religion is based on myths which can be interpreted in many ways and there is no way to verify the truth of different claims by comparing them against reality.
The only thing that is clear is that the followers of all major religions have used that religion to justify violence, oppression, and intolerance.
I can't think of any honest interpretation of Jesus' (alleged) teaching (whatever that is, because it isn't clear) leading to sexual abuse of children, but I can think of interpretations which lead to hate crimes, violence, and refusal to accept new progressive ideas.
Comment 16 by OJB on 2014-06-09 at 12:39:55:
I think a lot of the problem comes back to the old OT vs NT conflict. The two have almost opposite philosophies and are quite contradictory, yet Jesus (allegedly) was a Jew and said we should follow the laws of the OT while he preached the exact opposite. Strange, eh?
If everyone followed only the vast majority of the content of the NT, which is primarily peaceful, there would be few problems with violence. But it's just too easy to pick and choose, especially from the OT, and that's the reality.
The real problem, as the name of this post suggests, is that being religious tends to lead people to stop thinking, to stop questioning their assumptions, and to not analyse what their leaders tell them. That's why I think all religion is just inherently wrong.
Oh, and to be fair, there is a possible cause and effect thing going on here... Do people become religious because they stop thinking (critically), or do they stop thinking because they become religious? A bit of both, I guess.
Comment 17 by richard on 2014-06-09 at 14:48:24:
RE Comment 15: I do understand what you were trying to say with the cartoon, and yes, picking and choosing (I agree primarily and inappropriately from the OT) was and often still is, at the heart of the problem wrt people using Christianity as a means to their own ends.
However, it isn't true that there is no way to 'test' such bad claims, certainly not wrt major topics like the atrocities under discussion. This is even irrespective of whether they are actually 'myths' or not - they can still be assessed for 'internal consistency', and then the atrocity can be tested against that - as you have indeed demonstrated 'clearly' with Islam in this very post, which I don't think you require to be true for that assessment? There is likewise an abundance of Christian theology and philosophy material available which allows anyone without any hidden agenda to adequately discern that the atrocities are just that.
RE Comment 16: As for religion causing people not thinking or not questioning leaders, I agree!! - this may indeed be a problem with some religions (Mormons and JW's spring to mind here) and too often even with some Christian 'groups' but not Christianity itself. These behaviours (just like the atrocities) can also be reasonably tested for internal consistency with Christianity. Does the bible encourage such unthinking blind allegiance to leaders? Not at all. The Bible specifically encourages people to think critically AND to test their leaders advice for such 'internal consistency'. So anyone choosing not to do this, is also choosing to ignore Christian teaching. As for thinking itself - your hypothesis doesn't tally with the multitude of Christians in the last 200 years or so that have provided the major backbone of our Scientific history - for example.
Finally - any difficulty in assessing any truth claims like this is certainly not limited to religion. Science in fact has exactly the same problem - would we abandon science itself or label it as 'evil' because people can't agree?! Once again - atheism conveniently escapes such criticism if it is conveniently portrayed as a lack of belief. Yet (as discussed before) the atrocities committed by essentially atheistic regimes makes all religious atrocities in history pale into insignificance. But hey - no fair - ya can't blame something on 'nothin' - oh except a universe LOL!
Comment 18 by richard on 2014-06-09 at 15:25:45:
Just to re-iterate the problems with that cartoon - First, is that it doesn't educate on (and thus mis-represents) the reasons for the vast majority of such 'splits'. Truth is that all those different groups will have occurred for reasons completely unrelated to Christian doctrine significant to the moral assessment of atrocity. Most come down to different (and pretty insignificant) preferences, or internal (non critical) Christian issues. In fact most christian churches (but not all) are to Christianity as restaurants are to food and nutrition - a matter of personal preference. Mexican, Italian, Thai, many fine and healthy options - just choose your preference! In fact - just like food - culture has alot to do with the preferences for food, and christian groups. Nothing wrong with that at all.
So if anything the cartoon nicely illustrates that in order to call itself a 'Christian' movement in the first place, there MUST be a fairly standard set of central core doctrines that match - these are in fact the only ones you need to use to test various atrocities for their morality.
And have you also considered that in some cases, splits occur when an early group may have 'strayed' and started misbehaving in some way, always under bad leadership (by definition). It is the very commitment to the critical thinking and individual responsibility you ask for for that would both allow and encourage individuals from that group (if they couldn't convince the leaders to 'the right path') to split from that group and sometimes form a new group. Indeed - to not do so, in the face of such immorality, would be itself a moral crime. So thanks for the cartoon, it's been helpful.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2014-06-09 at 16:57:50:
Yes, maybe "clearly" was the wrong word to use since many Muslims deny the clarity of the message of violence in the Quran, just like many Christians deny the violence inherent in the Bible, and many people deny evolution, global warming, etc.
I dispute the claim that any unbiased person will conclude that Christianity doesn't encourage violence. Looking at opinions there is a clear dichotomy, but I don't think anyone would deny the fact that the Bible, and religion in general, has encouraged people to do bad things. Their reasons might rely on a different interpretation of the religion than yours, but that is all.
Again I disagree with you regarding whether Christianity encourages questioning religious claims. There are many passages in the Bible which encourage people to believe rather than question, and faith is a highly prized attribute of most religious people.
The Christians who made scientific discoveries didn't use their religious beliefs or philosophies to make those discoveries. Their religious and scientific lives were quite different. They sort of made the discoveries *despite* being religious.
There are no "atheistic regimes" in the context of the regime being based on atheist dogma (or perhaps I'm wrong - maybe you can name one). That old red herring is designed to disguise the truth. I really hope you don't really believe that but I suspect it is a classic example of what I said above: just parroting religious propaganda without thinking about it.
Comment 20 by richard on 2014-06-09 at 17:27:28:
RE Comment 19: Lots of claims there without any actual evidence. If you dispute that any unbiased person will conclude that Christianity doesn't encourage violence, please provide evidence to support that claim, which shows that any opposing opinions are not 'fringe', or poorly supported by the evidence. Peace & Love etc is practically the Nike style 'Just do it' logo of the religion in most peoples understanding, a position backed up by the text.
Likewise, tell me which passages in the bible encourage 'blind unquestioning faith', and we can look at them more closely to discover whether that claim is valid.
The rebuttal about the christian scientists is also irrelevant even if it were true. The point in question was whether their religion stops them 'thinking'. Clearly not true. Read their biographies and discover how their belief in a created order of things, WAS the motivator that encouraged (not hindered) them to discover the marvels of that order.
You have just restated the point I made that athiesm is made out to be a 'nothing' that can't be blamed for anything. Its a great system where you can freely claim religion stops free thought, or blame IT for evil, simply because it dares to make a claim, and simultaneously balk at the thought that the opposing side of the same coin is exempt, simply because the other side is defined as 'not' to be making a claim. I would suggest any regime is in this category IF it denies it is religiously motivated.
Fun discussion... still responding so far;)
Comment 21 by OJB on 2014-06-09 at 20:48:44:
Sheesh, haven't noticed a lot of supporting evidence for your claims either! I just Googled the question and found about equal numbers supporting either side of the argument. And I didn't notice a great deal of difference in the credibility of the two sides either. Did notice a few religious people admitting it was an issue they had difficulty in resolving though!
The whole Bible is full of material about the importance of faith. Here are a few to start with: Matthew 21:21, Hebrews 11:6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Matthew 18:3.
People can compartmentalise their lives. I know of scientists who believe utter nonsense at church yet follow the scientific method at work. If your idea was true they would be doing their science based on Biblical faith - but on one does that.
Atheism isn't made out of anything. Atheism isn't a thing, it is the lack of acceptance of any theistic belief (because none of them have any good evidence). It's not just another belief system as you would like to think.
Comment 22 by richard on 2014-06-10 at 18:06:48:
I appreciate your point about me supplying some evidence too :), but in this case, I was appealing first to what I think is our pretty common understanding of the topic/qn under analysis to avoid an even longer debate. I think its a fair assessment that one has to cherry pick particular passages in the bible carefully to successfully promote an idea that Christianity actually encourages acts of atrocity, requiring one to ignore the vastly more obvious overall 'theme' of peace, love, forgiveness etc. A long post needed to fully 'document' I think.
Well done with the Biblical faith references Owen. I certainly always agreed that 'faith' is a very important biblical concept, and most of these verses certainly do point this out. Unfortunately while they do indeed promote the importance of faith, they don't quite get to the heart of what biblical faith actually IS, which is what my earlier point was addressing.
My suggestion here (as yet no evidence provided I know) is that surprisingly contrary to the popular notion of faith as the purely blind 'leap' when the real data runs out, the Bibles portrayal of faith is actually somewhat different, and this is especially the case in the NT in the historical references to Jesus. I would suggest it more as an 'extension of trust' that is asked for based on prior evidence of some kind that has in fact been provided. The general idea is that when Jesus (or any other writer in the NT especially) requests or commends faith, they do it ONLY after providing reasons (that were completely relevant and compelling at the time) for that 'trust'. The difficulty is that the objects of 'faith' being talked about here, are the more difficult 'invisible' things like 'God', Life after Death, the Soul, Forgiveness etc, so of course some measure of 'leap' must be inevitably required. However, biblical faith is not 'blind' because it provides 'reasons' for asking for it. A good model account of this, is Matthew 9: 1-7. Jesus says to the cripple 'Your sins are forgiven' (an 'invisible' authority claim - Jesus has the power to forgive sins'). To believe that invisible claim will ALWAYS require faith. Jesus however doesn't expect 'blind' faith, - he knows what they are thinking (or more correctly 'doubting'), and so provides a sound reason for them to extend that trust. That's the sort of 'faith' model repeated right throughout the bible. It's precisely why Jesus performed a huge number of miracles, before a huge number of witnesses, as did later biblical characters. They always provided verifiable reasons to call for faith for those things that are unseen.
Just as an aside though: It's a common (popular) misconception but your last reference Matt 18:3 (Become like little Children) isn't really about the virtue of 'faith' at all. It's about a different virtue: Humility. The chapter starts with the 'followers' asking Who is the Greatest? (Not a faith question, a prideful one). Jesus responds in your quoted verse saying think like this child. Verse 4 clarifies this completely when He says 'The greatest person in Gods kingdom is the one who makes himself humble like this child'.
Children are humble, they haven't developed their adult vice of pride yet - as we have! ;-)
Other than to say it's a no brainer to expect that religious scientists use the scientific method to 'do science' - of they have to - otherwise it wouldn't be science would it! That's simply not relevant to the false assertion you made that religion stops people thinking.
We'll save space and leave the Atheism thing because we have gone over the same ground a number of times already. Perhaps I should simply claim that I simply do not hold any belief (I merely have a lack of acceptance) that there is no God due to lack of evidence, and leave it at that. You can hardly complain. Cheers.
Comment 23 by OJB on 2014-06-10 at 21:20:39:
I think the overall tone of the NT is peaceful however I think the opposite is true in the OT and there are good reasons to take the OT as seriously as the New. As I said above that is the problem. There are specific problems in the NT as well, of course. And there's the problem: any normal work of philosophy, etc we would just say "this part is wrong even though most of this philosophy in this book is good" but we can't say that about the Bible because it's supposed to be all true. That's the danger of religion: unthinking acceptance.
Biblical faith is about accepting what a religion tells you. It's about treating people who disagree as if they are evil and dangerous. It's about propaganda and a total lack of reasonable skepticism. Biblical (or more accurately religious) faith is a huge problem.
It's not as simple as religion stops people thinking. Did I say that? Obviously in relation to religion people aren't applying proper logic and skeptical processes but they often do use those processes in other parts of their lives. I heard two interviews with Francis Collins for example, one about his scientific work which was fascinating, and one about his religious beliefs which were embarrassing.
You can't propose the existence of something without having reasons to think it exists therefore you do have a belief. Not sure if you were totally serious there. I hope not.
Comment 24 by richard on 2014-06-11 at 13:49:52:
Well, this is where it is coming down to personal opinion. Simply stating claims like 'the opposite is true' in the OT, without specific examples that can be analysed, is problematic to determining the facts. Don't get me wrong though Owen, I DO agree with you that if I was motivated to cherry pick biblical passage to try and support some atrocity I wanted to commit, I'd be heading to the OT too, but that is NOT a tacit acknowledgement that an OT passage (when properly examined and understood) does support it. Even the OT's (somewhat acknowledged in most circles) overarching 10 commandments provides a fairly good framework for making that case. Just try to commit atrocities while following those to the letter! Each case (OT passage) would need examining on its own merit, as with any historical document - what did the author 'really' intend to communicate?
Obviously I also disagree with your arbitrary personal claims about definitions of biblical faith and certainly that it demands a total lack of 'reasonable' skepticism. There is no such demand for this in Biblical Christianity. There is however, a number of times where 'unreasonable skepticism' is admonished! Jesus was more than happy to provide adequate evidence to 'doubting' Thomas by encouraging him to satisfy that doubt by nothing less than empirical evidence: Read John 20: v 24 to 29. And don't be confused and try to claim that v30 instructs it's better if we have faith without ANY such evidence (as a general principle). This is not what that is saying. It is relating specifically to the specific belief under discussion in this passage (the resurrection event), without the benefit of having Thomas' personal evidential experience - the situation we are all in as a matter of fact. v30 explains this completely, and also is another proof text regarding the true 'reasonable' nature of 'biblical' faith: "Truly, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; (31) but THESE (signs) are written THAT you may believe...
Finally, it seems obvious to me anyway that the rest of the complaints you raise in Comment 23, come down in the end to your personal assessment of the particular 'evidence' in such cases, and you then use that to conclude a lack of logic, as if it was actually a case. This is itself flawed logic. You announce for example that Francis Collins 'is applying logic and skeptical processes' in one area of his life, but not in another area of his life?! How can you possibly know that?! There is simply no sound (logical) basis for such an accusation. No, IF Christianity is a false picture of reality as you claim, then it is actually much more reasoned to assume it is Mr Collins poor application of logic and skeptical thought processes on the basis of the evidence he has personally assessed, than claiming he has somehow suspended that process in this one area of his life. That however, cannot be leveled at him until the result is in! And that applies both to you (wrt his Theism) and to me (wrt to his Theistic Evolution) which I personally find embarrassing. Note btw (just to be clear) that's not simply the evolution, but the attempt to marry Theism and an obviously naturalistic by definition process like Evolution. Maybe we'd even agree on that one?! :-)
And with that, I think we have possibly played the relevant cards in this thread, unless you wish to raise something new? It's been fun!
Comment 25 by OJB on 2014-06-11 at 14:34:27:
The OT encourages its followers to kill their opponents in many situations and God sets a bad example this way in many of his extremely violent murderous activities. How many innocent people have died because of this passage, for example: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". You really are demonstrating the big problem with religion: you recognise problems with everyone else's beliefs (for example Muslim's) but completely ignore those in your own belief system. Just more blind faith.
Well I disagree with your totally unfounded claims about skepticism in religion too. The fact is that faith is an extremely important part of Christianity and most people would agree with that. So I think I win that one!
I know Collins doesn't apply a reasonable level of logic and skepticism in his religious life because I heard the interview. It was a while back so I'm not sure if I can find a transcript but it was very obvious even to the interviewer. And it has nothing to do with the "result". It wasn't his conclusion I dispute, it was the way he reached it. Even if the Christian God did exist he would still be wrong!
Thanks for the discussion. All I would ask is that you recognise the problems with your own worldview. Christianity has been the cause of most of the great atrocities in the past. A failure to admit its weaknesses is dangerous, as we see with Christian groups who fully believe they are following the Bible more accurately than you, such as Westboro Baptist.
Comment 26 by OJB on 2014-06-11 at 14:53:57:
Westboro Baptist's most famous slogan is probably "God hates fags". Many people find their views disgusting and offensive but they are right: god *does* hate fags! Leviticus specifically tells us they should be killed. In fact reading the OT I think your God hates everyone. He is a capricious, evil, jealous, dictatorial, violent monster and no amount of re-interpretation can change that.
Comment 27 by richard on 2014-06-11 at 17:18:04:
Lol - you sound like a 'disciple', quoting your great leader Richard Dawkins from 'The God Delusion'. Actually, I don't ignore the 'problems' in my own belief system at all. When you raise them, I have tried to tackle them openly and honestly for you every single time, and I have acknowledged in previous posts that some issues specifically like OT judgements can be very complex and difficult to navigate. OJB Blog history will verify 'Completely ignore' is simply unfair I think. :(
The question around those OT passages, revolves around the history and development of Christianity itself, which very obviously cannot even have existed before the central events around Jesus' life occurred. Sure according to its view, God did, Jesus did 'exist' eternally etc, but as for the actual point we are debating, (whether 'Christianity' encourages atrocities), the very 'Christianity' that must be examined to answer that question simply cannot have 'existed' before then - basic common sense logic.
The general principle to apply here Owen is that the OT describes events in history AND an agreement ( a 'covenant') that WAS specifically between God and the Jews PRIOR to the NT, where Jesus stated that A NEW 'testament' (agreement/convenant) which changes the rules not only for the Jews, (who have largely rejected it) but is extended to all nations now applies.
While yes the OT is 'just as important', this does not change the plain fact that the NT in many significant ways does actually supercede the original guidelines that were provided to a single specific people group at a single specific point in history. This is a perfectly plain reading from the texts. So for the last time, it IS still true that in order to cherry pick and claim use of particular historical references or no longer applying rules specifically to justify an atrocity that is specifically denounced in the NT, is to completely mis-represent Christianity.
Shame you totally missed the specific discussion about the actual definition of biblical faith - NOT whether faith is important - even when provided with more than one example of evidence for biblical internal consistency which contradicts your view. Your 'reasoned' response was to just repeat your previous claim (that I had clearly already agreed with you on about the importance of faith) and then claimed a victory. What is that demonstrating if not a blind allegiance to your view?! If that is a victory, you are welcome to it.
Ok - I should change my view (and am exhibiting blind faith if I don't) because... 'you heard the interview'. Hey I am not denying that you may even be right about that particular interview, but to ask me (or other readers) to adjust our view simply because... 'you heard the interview', is the very blind faith you are complaining about.
This is usually why discussion threads end Owen - I refuse to go back round in silly circles where you blame Christianity itself for the very real (and sad) failures of some self promoting groups like Westboro. To quickly dismiss their claim - Jesus also made it VERY clear that adultery was immoral (just like homosexuality) - so how did he treat the woman caught in adultery? - he saved her life from the (OT) Jews who were about to stone her! Note v11 - (Go and SIN no more). It is NOT allowing acceptance of the behaviour (It's still 'Sin') but LOVE to the people exhibiting the behaviour in question. That's plainly the NT Christian example to follow.
The question of blaming Christianity was the one being dealt with right at the start. We are now going round in circles because you can't keep to topic.
Or it also ends when you start introducing brand new 'battles' like how God (IF HE exists) doesn't meet your particular moral standards, before dealing at all satisfactorily with the responses I placed on the table already. With respect, we can all see you are starting to struggle when these sad old cards start to be played - in multiple posts in quick succession.
Comment 28 by OJB on 2014-06-11 at 22:49:00:
Huh? I wasn't aware I had quoted Dawkins here. I do agree with a lot of what he says but I didn't see any direct relevance. I'm sure you think you are tackling these problems honestly but in fact you can only ever arrive at one conclusion because your belief system forces you to one conclusion no matter what the facts are. The OT stuff isn't difficult at all. It's very simple: your god is a violent primitive invention of a violent and primitive tribe.
I know the OT passages were not invented by Christians but they are allegedly the word of the same god Christians recognise, they are in the Christian holy book, and the OT was still seen as relevant (allegedly) by Jesus. I don't see how you can escape from this rather inconvenient point!
So are the Ten Commandments are no longer relevant? Also, please have a look at: Luke 16:17, Matthew 5:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, John 1:17, John 10:35, etc. Seems clear to me, or do you have yet another alternative explanation... one that the vast majority of Christians would disagree with?
You can argue about whose interpretation is correct all you want. The fact is that huge numbers of people who might have otherwise been quite reasonable have done terrible things because of the way they interpreted your holy book. What authority do you have to say your interpretation is right and their's wrong?
Internal consistency means nothing. For a start the Bible is often very inconsistent and secondly many works of fiction are quite consistent (the Lord of the Rings for example). This has nothing to do with faith. Again your interpretation is just an opinion out of step with the majority of Christians who are quite happy to admit that faith is the most important factor in their belief.
I gave that interview as a single example. The fact is that no scientist uses Biblical principles in their work so clearly their lives are compartmentalised in that way. Obviously Christian faith doesn't help science.
I blame Christianity because you have no answer that makes sense. If you debated a Muslim about Islamic violence and they offered some weak excuse would you not get back to the orignal points they failed to address?
If a person behaved the way your god did then I think all sensible humans would say he was a hideous monster, so it's not just me. I really, really hope you aren't so blinded by your religion that you think the senseless murders described in the Bible are OK?
Comment 29 by richard on 2014-06-12 at 13:16:20:
The relevance to Dawkins was simply that with your very similar quote you 'appeared' rather like a disciple and thus not immune to the same charge you are making. But it was meant to be a bit light hearted on my part, mainly because I can see that even if you did quote him, actually this is not always an indication of the blindness or lack of thought, you are complaining about, but merely about agreement with the same position as you stated in this case.
This thread may be difficult to grasp because (as I understand it, there are TWO distinct points under discussion.
1 - Does Christianity actually encourage violence? It is NOT can people take verses out of context with the bible and use them to commit atrocity? Yes - I agree - they can and have done this with the Bible, and could do it with Lord of the Rings. The important point is whether Christianity can be 'blamed'. I'll try this way of summing up this qn - IF at some point after you have died, someone reads some material in one of your blog posts and decided they would use it as motivation to commit an atrocity (maybe killing some Muslims?!) would you be happy that your post has real moral responsibility, simply because the possibility existed that your words could be mis-used in this way? No - that would be completely unfair to your memory. We'd have to look at the general 'spirit' implied by ALL your blog posts as a whole to see if you actually encouraged the acts. Or do you still claim that no-one has any authority at all to claim their interpretation of the chosen quote is right and someone elses is wrong? That is a red herring. Of course all communications are subject to such interpretation problems, but that does not mean it is not possible in the vast majority of cases to make a rational case one way or another.
Second point: 'Faith' is an important component in all Religion including Christianity. Answer = YES. The bible make this obvious. I have twice now agreed with this?! My point (as yet totally unchallenge) is about the definition of faith (in the Christian sense). If (as above) no case can be made for any biblical interpretations over any others that allows us to make a reasoned determination, then this is all a waste of space and time.
Cheers.
Comment 30 by OJB on 2014-06-12 at 15:50:49:
You see the difference between you and me is that I would never be a disciple of anyone because all my decisions are based on rational examination of the facts (as much as is possible) instead of just believing what someone tells me. That's another difference between atheists and believers and is one reason that the atheist agenda has never been well organised: we are all very much individuals.
Clearly Christianity does encourage violence because there are many cases of violence where the perpetrators specifically cite a religious motive. Whether their interpretation of the Bible agrees with yours or not isn't particularly relevant because there can be no "correct" interpretation of a work which is primarily fiction. If many people interpreted my blog as a call to violent action it would be at least partly my fault for not making my ideas clear enough. The same applies to the Bible.
You claim that your definition of faith is the "true Christian" one yet surely you would agree the vast majority of Christians simply follow what they are told by their parents, church, or friends, so they become Christians with no real critical analysis. That is the type of faith most people have. And even those who claim to have a "faith" based on critical analysis (like yourself) are (I think) just kidding yourself.
Comment 31 by richard on 2014-06-12 at 18:09:32:
The first paragraph I find a rather odd charge to make, given the direction and content of most of my posts to date, but hardly surprising.
The second is (imo) simply not true. Lets assume (for a tiny moment lol) that the Bible is fiction as you claim. So what? A rational case can be made for the 'correct' interpretation of any work of literature whether fiction or not. Even the word 'correct' needs fully defining in your worldview of course, because it's a moral term (making a distinction between a 'right' interpretation and a 'wrong' one.
What does 'correct interpretation' mean for you when applied to a piece of literature? If it's not the most generally understood and acknowledged view by expert scholars, then what is it? If anyone gets to determine that for the Bible, it is Christian scholars, not atheist ones, in the same way it's LOTR scholars who get to resolve questions on the correct interpretation of that work of fiction. Likewise it's not me (or anyone else) who can arbitrarily define the 'correct' interpretation of a passage in your blog above yourself. I don't see why that's so difficult to grasp?
As for the third paragraph - same applies - your charge about WHY many Christians might have 'faith' is simply not on topic - (and it's not 'my' definition of faith btw, I am just letting you know the generally accepted one by the expert Christian scholars as the one with more right to answer the qn as above). Again - even granting it was true that the vast majority of Christians don't apply critical analysis, it does not change that fact at all. I do agree with that there are a lot of people who follow their parents Christian view without a great deal of critical thinking and that in once sense is very sad yes, but again - it doesn't change the outcome of the only point I was defending which was whether Christianity itself asks for that kind of totally blind faith. It demonstrably does not. Cheers.
Even your last charge is a bit ambiguous until defined clearly, sorry. Am I kidding myself because critical thinking ONLY occurs IF you come to the RIGHT conclusion (which must be yours)? Or do you accept that people like me may actually do critical analysis and yet bizarrely come to the wrong conclusion anyway (and are thus kidding ourselves). Given that people DO actually think very carefully about lots of things other than religion and yet come to different conclusions, I think the first charge is rather hard to defend logically. The last doesn't fail by a logic, and so I accept you can freely 'make' that charge, but of course that's the difference of opinion from the beginning - so no surprise there. Just clarifying the logic. Cheers.
Comment 32 by OJB on 2014-06-12 at 21:57:39:
I wasn't being totally serious with the first paragraph even thought I think it's basically true. Does sound rather arrogant though and that's not like me at all! :)
Do you deny many people have performed acts of atrocity as a result of their interpretation of the Bible? And by what authority do you claim that your (presumably less violent) interpretation is any better than theirs? I didn't mean the word "correct" to have a moral meaning, just that it reflected reality. A work of fiction isn't usually judged in terms of how well it represents reality.
Exactly. There is no "correct" interpretation. In many ways the extremists view is as valid as yours. I don't quite understand what you think I don't understand... wait, was that a recursive statement?
So these "expert Christian scholars" would be the ones who support the sort of beliefs your particular sect prefers? Sort of like the cartoon again, huh? If Christianity required objective and logical analysis why would its guiding principle be called faith? And why does the one area of human activity which genuinely involves careful objective analysis (science) not conclude that a god exists?
There is no way that careful critical analysis can lead to believing something as childishly absurd as Christianity. I can possibly see how, if you are prepared to take a few logical shortcuts and maybe reduce your skepticism a bit, you might conclude a generic god of some sort exists, but the Christian story is just so blatantly obviously a silly old myth that you really need to be totally blinded to take it even remotely seriously. If there is a god he would be really offended that you think he is anything like the fairy tale character in the Bible!
Comment 33 by OJB on 2014-06-12 at 22:24:17:
Hebrews 11.1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Does this sound like sound reasoning and logic to you? The "things not seen" presumably doesn't just mean things that aren't visible, it means things we have no evidence for. And the "substance of things hoped for" sure doesn't sound like reality is an important part of this philosophy. In fact it sounds very much like blind faith to me!
Comment 34 by OJB on 2014-06-12 at 22:28:49:
I've just noticed something else too. I'm quoting the Bible more to disprove its truth than you are to prove it! Reminds me of a quote by Isaac Asimov: "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
Comment 35 by richard on 2014-06-13 at 09:53:17:
Ok - perhaps asking for a reasoned approach is asking a bit much here? Lets recap the original premise of your post, which was can all adherents be blamed for the actions of extremists in the same group. I took a position to defend Christianity (and therefore Christians) from that particular charge (as opposed to Islam) due to the fundamental difference between them wrt encouraging its followers to violent acts towards others when taken as a whole. Pretty simple really isn't it, and of course if your view was right, and Christianity does in fact encourage such atrocity rather than completely condemn it when read intelligently, then isn't it obvious to even the 'childish' that the world would be a completely different place?
You ask what I think you don't understand? I thought it was obvious I have never denied that many people have performed acts of atrocity, claiming an interpretation of the bible. I deny though, that it isn't possible to determine whether their interpretation is a fair reading of the literature, as you actually agreed to when you stated that Muslims claimed non violence when it 'clearly does not'? I agree - but you must be consistent in your use of logic - even if it doesn't help you condemn the bible.
I also never said there is no correct interpretation (within my world view), I pointed out that this only becomes a problem in your world view. And you also remarkably didn't get that I already pointed out that any literature's 'reflection of reality' is irrelevant to this discussion. The only exception to that is (of course) that the atrocity being assessed happens to be a reality, but again this too is irrelevant because we could be equally discussing whether some fictional atrocity was consistent with some 'teaching' in some fictional literature or not.
Your final jabs in 32 serve no purpose in helping us answer the specific qns in this thread.
Re 33: As for other things I am surprised you don't understand given previous posts, I also pointed out the difficulty with religion (including Christianity) is that by definition it deals in the realm of meta-physical topics around God and the spiritual, so of course passages like Hebrews 11:1 (probably the most famous 'faith' verse of all, talks about things 'unseen'. This is by nature impossible to avoid - but it does not change my argument at all.
Let me explain with an example - You plan to take a trip to LA flying AirNZ. It is by 'faith' you believe that you will arrive at your destination. Whether actually will or not is unavoidably a 'truth' that is completely 'unseen' before you step on the plane. There are a huge number of factors that could cause your trip to end in disaster and cannot be predicted with certainty. However, even though that is undoubtedly the case you DO NOT therefore step on the plane in 'blind faith' in Air NZ and it's employees. No you intuitively use the available empirical (purely historical) evidence of successful trips that suggests strongly that the truth is you will actually get there OK. Given the overwhelming examples given elsewhere in the bible (I gave you a few already) that shows support for evidence based faith, then reading Hebrews 11:1 in that context is perfectly consistent with this view.
I commend you for using the bible quotes for your queries - I generally don't do it in this forum, mainly because I understand your view that it's mythical, so using it to defend some feature of 'reality' is 'not helpful' for you. In this case though, the reality being discussed IS one of internal consistency of the Bible and so yes - it's useful (indeed required) in the discussion. Cheers.
Comment 36 by OJB on 2014-06-13 at 11:43:15:
Yes, if there was a belief system which clearly stated that peace was good and violence could not be tolerated and if everyone followed that system then the world would be a better place, at least in terms of there being less violence.
But there are some problems if you think Christianity is that system. First, nothing is clearly stated anywhere in the Bible and the failure for Christians to agree on anything which has lead to about 20,000 different sects clearly shows this. Second, no reading of the Bible - except the most convoluted and artificial one - leads to an unequivocal message of peace. And third, being peaceful because of an untrue belief might have unexpected side effects such as failure to explore areas of science which contradict that belief, so the overall outcome could even be negative.
I did correct myself regarding the "clearly" claim. Because so many Muslims disagree with what I think is a clear interpretation then I guess it isn't so clear. The same applies to what you think is a clear reading of the Bible extolling peace.
In paragraph 3 we seem to be getting really mixed up. You seem to be claiming I said that you said what I said. Please reset this part of the discussion, I've forgotten what we were debating there!
My "final jabs" are interesting though. Has it never occurred to you that the behaviour of your god in the OT doesn't seem consistent with a wise and powerful entity which created the whole universe? He's cruel, capricious, murderous, vain, jealous, etc. I think it is very obvious your god is just an invention of men, and reflects their own inadequacies. Answer me honestly: have you never considered this point?
The way I understood your argument was that Biblical faith was based on some form of logic and objective analysis. This seems to contradict what the verse says.
No, your analogy with flying doesn't work. I don't have "faith" that the flight will be successful, I have "confidence" based on previous experience, empirical data, statistics, and well understood engineering. There is no parallel whatsoever with religious faith, which has none of those.
Comment 37 by richard on 2014-06-13 at 14:41:55:
There is no such failure of Christians 'to agree on anything' - that's is silly. Any group can 'call themselves' a christian group, and any individual can call themselves a christian, but that doesn't make it so. Yes there are lots of different groups, but there is also a core set of accepted 'doctrine' that unites them all, and within that core set is a pretty clear denouncement of shall we call it 'initiated aggression'. It is (as stated before) what Christianity is recognised for, probably above anything else. That there is plenty of non significant stuff that groups can and do differ on, is a completely different topic (and not relevant in this thread).
I am at a loss as to how you can assert that 'being peaceful because of an untrue belief leads to a failure to explore areas of science which contradict that belief' is a 'real' likleyhood. Even if it is, then how is that only for religious belief and somehow not applicable to any other belief system like any any of the scientific beliefs that happen to be false? And what on earth is your description of an 'overall negative outcome', that is worse than the world living in peace rather than violent atrocities?! Not having hover boards McFly?!
Sorry if you did correct the 'clearly' claim. Actually, part of our problem is perhaps that I think that just because 'so many Muslims disagree with what you think is a clear interpretation' doesn't necessarily mean it isn't clear. Are you prepared to make the same admission about some particular scientific notions, i.e that so many might disagree then it cannot be clear at all? I would be surprised given all previous comments about how anyone with such ideas needs to be institutionalized (that's humour btw - I know you didn't say exactly that, but that's the gist!).
p3 was referencing my earlier point that the question of whether the Bible (or any piece of literature) is factual of fiction, doesn't change 'our' (i.e. humanity over the ages) ability to come to general consensus (ignoring radical fringes) about whether it endorses (or not) a particular behaviour, like the atrocities this post was about. This is in response to your repeated charges that we cannot do this in the case of the bible - because it is a fictional/mythical doc. I am saying - so what - not relevant to the particular debate we are having.
Yes - it has occurred to me to seriously consider the behaviour of God in the OT. We have in fact discussed this very topic at length in another post already, where I agreed this is a very difficult issue. However, the questions here are, 1) is that reason enough to dismiss all the other evidences/arguments for His existence which (imo obviously) promote the Christian world view to #1 on the 'Can my world view reasonably tie up ALL the features of reality I need to account for' stakes. Answer - NO - not by a long shot! and 2) Given answer (1) He does then exist - can I reasonably reconcile Gods OT behaviour - even while acknowledging it might not be what I (in my puny position i.e. creation not creator) finds pleasant.
In the last paragraph you have simply chosen to deny my definition, by choosing your own definition for your 'trust' to suit your purpose. OK - to deny your action is faith you need to supply... evidence. So my claim then is that the 'confidence' you describe you use is a good analogy of biblical faith, as shown by the evidence I HAVE provided. Again this is a straight forward 'internal' term definition analysis based on biblical texts.
Cheers.
Comment 38 by richard on 2014-06-13 at 16:50:46:
That's is silly?! - LOL - Sorry in a hurry. Must try to remember to close brackets too! Seem to be forgetting that a lot lately! :)
Comment 39 by OJB on 2014-06-13 at 20:02:22:
According to Wikipedia "...there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations...". These are all groups which are broadly Christian yet have sufficiently different beliefs that they feel the need to start their own distinct branch. Can't see how there can be much agreement going on there! I see no reason to think there is any significant shared core doctrine, some don't even believe in a god*. And many put a lot of emphasis on the (violent) OT.
My point was that believing in something which isn't true might lead to some positive outcomes (possibly less violence) but would also very likely lead to bad outcomes as well. It would be hard to judge if the situation was good or bad on balance. In fact scientific advances have given people far longer and better lives than any religious, economic, or political action in history.
Obviously some science, like evolution, isn't clear to some people because they approach it from the wrong perspective, have an innate bias, or are just ignorant. There might be a way to make it as clear to them as it is to all honest, informed people, but we haven't found it yet.
Yeah OK, I see your point regarding that what the Bible teaches isn't necessarily related to whether it is true or not. I guess my problem is that if a book is based on myths there is no need for internal consistency and logical argumentation like a book based on fact would need, so interpretation becomes a problem.
So it sounds like you just given your god a free pass to be a hideous monster. That's pretty irresponsible. No wonder Christianity has been responsible for so many atrocities over the centuries!
When I fly I know many people have flown before, I have flown before, I know the physics and engineering involved, I know the statistics about the safety of flying, I know the strict regulations for safety. None of this applies to your fairy tale world. That's the difference between confidence and faith!
* A group who follow Christian atheism say "God is a projection of the human mind" but like Christian philosophy.
Comment 40 by richard on 2014-06-16 at 14:04:16:
You see here's the problem. Unless we are able to agree on some basic principles, then it's very hard to make any sense of the debate. You are confusing the fact that many or these groups like to associate themselves with the Christian label because (and this is interesting in itself btw) of the legitimacy that brings in many peoples minds. However, to accept 'on blind faith' that it is appropriate to include for example the 'Christian Atheism' group as a Christian Group, simply because they added name and like some Christian philosophy is profoundly unintelligent, and it makes a complete mockery of any statistics quoted. Don't use blind faith - look at the evidence.
I literally don't know of anyone that doesn't understand the simple logic that Christianity (where Theism is an absolute requirement) and Atheism are mutually exclusive, and thus disqualify that group from legitimately using the label.
What IS interesting there though is trying to figure out which worldview is to blame if the Christian Atheists committed an atrocity?! :)
And of the groups that do meet the 'minimum' criteria, your assumption that they all started due ONLY to 'sufficiently different beliefs' is also not supportable. There are lots of other legitimate (or theologically benign) reasons why a new group might be started, as mention earlier. Churches are started and they are filled with people - it's it's people that have different cultures, tastes, preferences etc and it's the FREEDOM inherent within Christianity that allows people everywhere to start a group if they wish that suits them perfectly, is one of the real virtues, not a cause to dismiss it.
Comment 41 by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 14:36:16:
I totally agree that many of the disagreements we have get back to definitions and basic principles. I would say that anyone who genuinely (note I used the word "genuinely" there, so I'm not talking about anyone who is doing it dishonestly) associates themselves with the Christian label is a Christian. What other definition do you suggest?
The "Christian Atheists" are on to something I think. They take the positive philosophy associated with Christianity and ignore all the superstitious nonsense. Sounds like a good solution. Of course, I take it one step further. I ignore the superstition and accept all positive philosophy: Christian, Buddhist, secular, etc.
I think if you bother to research it you will find that most of the major divisions in Christianity arose because of theological differences. I do agree that sometimes these were cynical manipulations for political purposes, but this just further illustrates the fact that there is no right or wrong interpretation of Christianity.
Comment 42 by richard on 2014-06-16 at 16:22:33:
Isn't that about as sensible as saying anyone who 'genuinely' thinks they aren't breaking the law, actually isn't and cannot therefore be labelled criminals? No - you have to examine the agreed 'laws' - a groups 'genuineness' is irrelevant. There is an agreed standard of measure that is regarded as the benchmark - which has outlined the core doctrines well enough to describe 'Christian' belief. The Nicene creed has been in place more than long enough to serve this purpose.
Of course I can see the appeal of your 'philosophy' there - why would I not agree with picking bits I like. Of course the issue for both of us as actual thinkers, rather than mere 'wishers', is that what we like is not as important here as what is actually 'reality'.
I think research shows that 'many' divisions occurred due to theological differences yes. But I never denied that - I was merely calling you out on your inconsistent application of the number 41,000 which is highly mis-leading to your readers when you implied ALL those were due to 'significant' theological differences. Simply not true. Cheers.
Comment 43 by OJB on 2014-06-16 at 21:45:57:
Yeah, I'm not sure if some rules thrown together by a committee 2000 years ago are necessarily the best to suit modern requirements, but I guess if you follow a religion you believe nothing really changes so yes, the Nicene Creed could be used as a definition. All I see there is that there is one god and Jesus is the son of God who was crucified and resurrected and will judge everyone one day. How does that help?
In the end everyone picks "the bits they like" and that is exactly what they should do. Everyone has their own personal morality even if they think they haven't. By choosing to follow a particular brand of Christianity you have made a personal moral choice yourself, just like me. I just am a bit more open minded about it!
I certainly didn't mean to imply that all 41,000 were the result of significant differences, how could there be that many significant differences in anything!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
