"Nonsense" about Christianity

[danlo]

As a Deist I see God's plan in every molecule and atom and await the immanent connection between quantum science and spirituality. Surely we never left the 'garden' but the midnight of good and evil will happen 3 years hence and you can be assured that she have something to say about everything.

[rusmeister]

I also would like to see what Cyberweez meant, because "nonsense" cuts both ways. As an example:

If Christianity wins every time, maybe that ought to tell you something... (although the true view is that it DOES, but we choose not to hear.)

I would classify this statement as "nonsense", if only because it presupposes that every other belief system (or non-belief system) fails every time. Of course, my statement pointing this out as "nonsense" might be the very thing Cyberweez was referring to, but I generally try to avoid making nonsensical statements when discussing belief systems.

Hi Rob!
I made two statements - one objective, the second subjective. You can say this about the subjective statement (although I hold it to be objectively true, and other views as wrong),
but applied to the first it would be logical error - not nonsense, as I prefaced the statement with "If".
IF we accept x as a given, or as proven, then y results. Not nonsense. Logical. (As written.)

[rusmeister]

OK I'll drop "persecution complex", but I stick by aggrandizement and would add elitism.

Hi Danlo,
I think this would also fall under "misconception". This is probably due to the prevalent modern philosophy of individualism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism, which, if applied to traditional Christian beliefs, could make them seem aggrandizing and so on - only individualism is something that really arose only in the wake of the so-called "Enlightenment" (Endarkenment in my book), and Christianity was around LOOONG before that. If the basis is not the individual as ultimate authority and center of the universe, then your charges fall off. Again, it really involves learning what the best of Christianity is, what has really been known to Christians for millenia (OK, only two millenia). If you ever really read, for example, what the ancients said in the context they said them in, or even a modern writer who refers directly to that tradition (I recommend Alexander Schmemann en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Schmemann), it is impossible to see it as either elitest or self-aggrandizing - especially when the self (the part of us that places self first above others, not the individual personality) is what we are to kill.

Understanding this would also enable you to see Chesterton's comments in a completely different light.

[rusmeister]

There are perhaps no two conceptual systems as diametrically opposed as theism and atheism, to the degree that their adherents view each other with such fundamental contention. Think about it. One group thinks the other is incorrect on the single most important feature of our existence: our reason for being. We each view the other as mistaken at scale which encompasses Eternity—or the atheist counterpart, the Void. So even among civilized fans of the same author, there is going to be strained emotions. I think the feelings of persecution can run both ways. Atheists are not immune. We are the forgotten minority. We do not have marches on Washington and powerful lobbyists.

Rus, it seems you are trying to present an alternative complaint to the persecution charge, by saying that Christianity doesn’t get a “fair shake” because people don’t know enough of its intellectual arguments. Is it fair to say that’s your main point, here? I’m assuming that for the following:

One objective difference, I think, is that in the public sphere there is plenty of awareness of intellectual atheism but very little awareness of intellectual Christianity. Freud is a lot more well-known than Lewis, for example - at any rate, if you ask the average Joe to describe Freud's ideas you'll get a lot more than you'd get on an analogous question about Lewis (or any other major apologist.)

LM was correct to point out you need to amend your analogy. There are so many reasons, I don’t know where to start. LM gave some good ones. Here are some more.

First of all, the easy one: Freud doesn’t have multi-million dollar fantasy movies being made from his books. So I find it amusing that you actually think more people know about Freud than Lewis.

Secondly, it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose that people would know more about one of the pioneering giants of an entire branch of science, than just another commentator in long string of commentators running back 2000 years. Lewis might be a good writer (not in my experience), but he’s no Freud.

But I suppose you’re talking about their arguments, not merely their names? Ok, let’s look at that next.

Being aware that “intellectual atheism” and “intellectual Christianity” exist is not at all the same thing as knowing what they are (which you’d need to show in order to make your general point). Just because people are aware that there is a movement of atheism doesn’t mean that they have read any of its authors or know their arguments. As such, there is virtually no difference between not knowing the arguments of “intellectual Christianity” and the arguments of “intellectual atheism.” Ignorance is still ignorance. Just because a person can name a few authors on one side doesn’t alter this basic ignorance—certainly not enough to justify your point that Christianity doesn’t get a “fair shake” because of a greater amount of ignorance of its most intellectual arguments.

Atheism, btw, is intellectual by definition. This is another reason your analogy fails. There is no “populist” component to atheism which is then over-emphasized at the expense of the intellectual component—as you claim happens with Christianity. Atheism doesn’t have a core of unreasonable, superstitious beliefs that can be held by the unlearned masses. And this difference between the two systems is yet another argument against religion: its most basic tenants can be mastered without reason because they are at the core unreasonable. If they weren’t unreasonable, then you wouldn’t see millions of people accepting them without logic, accepting them despite this sweeping ignorance of the intellectual defenders (which you’ve pointed out).


No amount of intellectual discourse can make something that is fundamentally unreasonable into something reasonable. This complaint is like saying that people don’t believe in Middle Earth because they haven’t read all the Tolkien commentators yet. A belief system of God or gods, whether it be roundly recognized as a work of fiction or one believed by millions, has exactly the same amount of reasonable arguments for its veracity: zero.

“Intellectual Christianity,” is an oxymoron. I’m not say that there aren’t intellectual Christians. I’m saying that the more energy you spend trying to make the supernatural seem reasonable, the more you yourself diverge from that which you ostensibly support: a miraculous being performing miracles. Neither logic nor empirical evidence can ever prove a miracle. So you don’t need to know the intellectual arguments of religion in order to give them a “fair shake.” You can disagree with them on the most basic principles alone, and the whole house of cards falls down. What difference could it make to read the semantic juggling of one particular Christian author, if the atheist rejects the basic ideas which make it possible for there to be Christian authors?

Hi Malik,
As soon as you say

“Intellectual Christianity,” is an oxymoron.

you kill any reasonable chance to understand what Christians are saying. You seem to approach it as if Christians were trying to scientifically prove faith. So far, we agree with you. Faith cannot be proven scientifically. Science is limited to examining this universe. It cannot examine the super-natural, by definition. So if I understand you correctly, then you are attacking something that we are not defending.

Atheism, btw, is intellectual by definition. This is another reason your analogy fails.

The logical weakness of your main argument is in incorrectly identifying the nature of the dispute. The dispute is not "which is more 'intellectual'" but "Is faith in that not amenable to rational examination compatible with the use of reason?" And what we ARE saying is that it is. That is the thrust of Christian apologetics.

Now on your examples in analogies, it is not difficult to find the correct ones. Let us take Lewis and Pullman. One Christian, the other atheist, both have had multi-million dollar fantasy films made from their books, and imo Pullman does lean toward Freud.

Oh, and as far as powerful lobbies go, I'd say the ACLU qualifies. Certainly, all of its efforts in recent years have been against Christians and at the very least, by default in favor of atheism.

Freud is an intriguing writer, but he is no Lewis. (It's really easy to turn that one around. I'll concede that I haven't read as much Freud, but here I'll refer to Russell, who I have gone through as a defender of atheism, and I found holes large enough (specifically in his understanding of Christianity) to sink a battleship.

a core of unreasonable, superstitious beliefs that can be held by the unlearned masses.

(A side note to Danlo: THIS is elitism) Here you take as an assumed given that the beliefs are unreasonable and superstitious. Again, reason, in our terms, includes compatibility of reason with faith; that is, it does not claim that truth resides only in that which is accessible to our reason.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you are unfamiliar with Lewis's arguments in "Miracles", which shatter your arguments denying miracles.
www.amazon.com/Miracles-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060653019
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(C._S._Lewis)

On a less partisan note, did you ever take a gander at the non-partisan PBS program on Lewis and Freud? www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ I have no idea if they'll keep it up forever.

[rusmeister]

Well, this forum has been quiet lately, so I thought it was time to start a new discussion.

Recently, in a locked topic in the tank, Cyberweez said(in an unrelated conversation) that he has to put up with 'nonsense' about Christianity in the close...

So to spark discussion, I ask: What 'nonsense' do you mean? Cyberweez, or anyone, of course. What has been said by 'Watch members that is 'nonsense'?

I rarely venture into the shark tank... er, sorry, think tank, so I only today saw that post.
Examples?

As an example of potential misconception - and the attempts to clear it up, I wonder, Dromond, if you have any comments on this post (which was a direct response to your inquiry) kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=683500#683500
If one begins to understand what Christianity is REALLY saying (instead of what they think it says, so many misunderstandings are cleared up...

[danlo]

Elitism in this context is the inner circle of true Xtian believers believing that they alone are God's chosen when I know I am one too. That they don't possess the grace to love all others-even the atheists-is beyond me.

[lucimay]

But now that I think about it, a good example is this:

heh. i was just thinking... its a rare christian that i've met that doesn't have a bit of a persecution complex anyway!! seems (to me) endemic to /in the religion.

heh. well, if you can call my personal experience or my stating of my personal experience nonsense.

you could say i have misconceptions except for the fact that i was raised christian and considered myself christian for...oh...about 45 of my 50 years.

nope, i believe i'm gonna stick by my statement.
thats the way it seems to me.
(by the way, that was, since i reckon nobody picked up on it,
a reference to how the christians as a young cult in roman society
were indeed persectuted)
of course it may have been out of line for me to say so since this ISN'T
the religious humor thread.

anyhoo, since i'm not really interested in a real argument on this topic i'll butt out!

[rdhopeca]

I also would like to see what Cyberweez meant, because "nonsense" cuts both ways. As an example:

If Christianity wins every time, maybe that ought to tell you something... (although the true view is that it DOES, but we choose not to hear.)

I would classify this statement as "nonsense", if only because it presupposes that every other belief system (or non-belief system) fails every time. Of course, my statement pointing this out as "nonsense" might be the very thing Cyberweez was referring to, but I generally try to avoid making nonsensical statements when discussing belief systems.

Hi Rob!
I made two statements - one objective, the second subjective. You can say this about the subjective statement (although I hold it to be objectively true, and other views as wrong),
but applied to the first it would be logical error - not nonsense, as I prefaced the statement with "If".
IF we accept x as a given, or as proven, then y results. Not nonsense. Logical. (As written.)

Dude, I've seen a lot of "logical" nonsense in my time. Logic is no excuse.

[iQuestor]

I recently had a conversation that bears on this topic.

I was at a customer doing some work last month. One of the engineers is a guy, about 55 who , along with his wife, had a conversion to Christianity. SoO now its all he talks about. Its a life changing experince I am told, so thats cool.

SO he start talking to me, and I tell him I am an atheist, or an agnostic at best. And he asks me some questions about my non-beleif and I told him I was uncomfortable with religion anyway. He asked me why.

I replied that most religions, and sects of these religions all believe thier way is the only way to heaven. The catholics, the muslims, the christian, etc. So following this logic, only one way is the right way. This means that only a small portion of humanity is going to get to go to heaven, and there is going to be a lot of shocked faces when they are cast into the pit of hell or whatever eternal punishment awaits them. And I have a problem with a God who would allow this kind of problem.

"Oh No," he assured me. "It's not about religion; its about a relationship. A relationship with God. " He was quite calm, and most reassuring. God wouldnt let that happen. God has a plan.

"SO, what about the catholics? " I asked.

"Well, They are going to hell. Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, and they dont believe in his Divinity. They revere Mary but neglect the real messiah. They have access to the Bible, but they don't read it. I hope they all repent."

"OK, The muslims?"

"Ditto. They put Muhammed before Jesus Christ. The Bible says that the only way to Heaven is through jesus Christ. They should know that. But they disregard it and merit what punishment they get."

"Seventh Day Adventist"

"God doesnt care when you worship. They are caught up in a technicality. The focus should be on Jesus. Not on rules. "

Hellbound.

I named off a few other religions, including the Chuch of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All hellbound.

"So, what happened to it being about a relationship, instead of religion?"

"Well, they do have to be in the right religion, for starters. "




that, my friends is why I cant be religious.

If there was a God, and He/She cared about Their creation, there wouldn't be so much confusion about the right or wrong way to fulfil Their Divine Wishes. Or about whom to pray to, whom to love.

If God exists, he is late for some serious Smiting.

[rusmeister]

Elitism in this context is the inner circle of true Xtian believers believing that they alone are God's chosen when I know I am one too. That they don't possess the grace to love all others-even the atheists-is beyond me.

Not much I can say to such an inverted and selective definition. As to what exactly you mean - it requires extensive definition. In one sense, many Christians (not sure what you want to put an "X" for in there - it strikes me as irrational) strive to apply Christ's commandments and love God and love their neighbor (which certainly means all the people that they can love in any practical and meaningful sense) as best they can. (I imagine some non-Christians also do so.) In another sense, they generally (I may dare say universally) fail in doing so perfectly. On the other hand, so does everyone else, by this standard. Also, who exactly considers themself to be "elite" and in what sense varies widely. Surely you are not trying to apply this to all forms of Christianity?

[rusmeister]

I recently had a conversation that bears on this topic.

I was at a customer doing some work last month. One of the engineers is a guy, about 55 who , along with his wife, had a conversion to Christianity. SoO now its all he talks about. Its a life changing experince I am told, so thats cool.

SO he start talking to me, and I tell him I am an atheist, or an agnostic at best. And he asks me some questions about my non-beleif and I told him I was uncomfortable with religion anyway. He asked me why.

I replied that most religions, and sects of these religions all believe thier way is the only way to heaven. The catholics, the muslims, the christian, etc. So following this logic, only one way is the right way. This means that only a small portion of humanity is going to get to go to heaven, and there is going to be a lot of shocked faces when they are cast into the pit of hell or whatever eternal punishment awaits them. And I have a problem with a God who would allow this kind of problem.

"Oh No," he assured me. "It's not about religion; its about a relationship. A relationship with God. " He was quite calm, and most reassuring. God wouldnt let that happen. God has a plan.

"SO, what about the catholics? " I asked.

"Well, They are going to hell. Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, and they dont believe in his Divinity. They revere Mary but neglect the real messiah. They have access to the Bible, but they don't read it. I hope they all repent."

"OK, The muslims?"

"Ditto. They put Muhammed before Jesus Christ. The Bible says that the only way to Heaven is through jesus Christ. They should know that. But they disregard it and merit what punishment they get."

"Seventh Day Adventist"

"God doesnt care when you worship. They are caught up in a technicality. The focus should be on Jesus. Not on rules. "

Hellbound.

I named off a few other religions, including the Chuch of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All hellbound.

"So, what happened to it being about a relationship, instead of religion?"

"Well, they do have to be in the right religion, for starters. "




that, my friends is why I cant be religious.

If there was a God, and He/She cared about Their creation, there wouldn't be so much confusion about the right or wrong way to fulfil Their Divine Wishes. Or about whom to pray to, whom to love.

If God exists, he is late for some serious Smiting.

The trouble with this as a rationale is that it takes random and poor samplings of people who claim the label "Christian" and uses that as an excuse to write it all off. It is simply not a reasonable examination of what Christianity is.

On your last statement (bar one), it is non sequitur to assume that God's "existence" (a term problematic in terms of our applying it to God - from the Christian perspective it is very much like the characters in, say, Romeo and Juliett discussing the possibility of the existence of Shakespeare). So it does not follow at all that God's 'existence' would exclude confusion. All the more if there were such things as demons - that, really did want to cause such confusion. And we are to try to love everyone we come in contact (it's really a learning process) - although sometimes that would take the form of tough love.

[iQuestor]

Rus, thanks for your post. Let me clarify:

If God is as my christian upbringing has taught me, then he is a loving God who cares for us, his children. He sent His son to die for us so that we might have a path to him.

However, in the 2000+ years since that event, there is more confusion than ever, if you judge by the number of people in different religions.

Therefore, I would think that God, who loves us, would find a way to clear up the right path for us so that we might choose. Christians are right, they have the bible. Muslims are right, they have Muhammed and the Kran. Jews are right. Catholics are right. They are all convinced they are right, but the basic tenants of their religion exclude the possibility of other religions having a path to God.

Christians also seem to always revert to the "God works in mysterious ways" argument when there is no good answer to give.

[Vraith]

The trouble with this as a rationale is that it takes random and poor samplings of people who claim the label "Christian" and uses that as an excuse to write it all off. It is simply not a reasonable examination of what Christianity is.

No. When the majority of Christians one meets respond as the person iQuestor dealt with, and when the majority of people who have such encounters meet with this kind of response, it is not a random and poor example, it is a representative sample. They may not represent "true Christianity" in the sense that you mean, but they do represent a true relationship between Christianity and society.
YOU, as a Christian who examines his faith closely, takes care to be as true to it as possible, engage your beliefs and others beliefs thoughtfully are a 'random and poor sampling' in a statistical sense, though [as far as I can tell] a representative of what 'true' Christians could be. [though personally, I won't be persuaded unless the Christian God, or any other, sits down in my living room for a chat]
Of course, it is also worth noting that as far as I can tell the majority of Christians don't adopt a "you're all going to hell" stance/attitude in their daily lives/personal relationships, except when religion itself becomes an issue/topic for discussion. An interesting separation.

[rdhopeca]

Christians also seem to always revert to the "God works in mysterious ways" argument when there is no good answer to give.

That, or the "you haven't done enough personal research into our religion to understand where we are coming from" argument.

[Zarathustra]

As soon as you say
“Intellectual Christianity,” is an oxymoron.
you kill any reasonable chance to understand what Christians are saying. You seem to approach it as if Christians were trying to scientifically prove faith. So far, we agree with you. Faith cannot be proven scientifically. Science is limited to examining this universe. It cannot examine the super-natural, by definition. So if I understand you correctly, then you are attacking something that we are not defending.

I didn’t say anything about science. I was dealing with the terms you gave: intellect and reason (though I did in one sentence mention empirical evidence, for completeness). However, the issues are connected. See below.

The logical weakness of your main argument is in incorrectly identifying the nature of the dispute. The dispute is not "which is more 'intellectual'" but "Is faith in that not amenable to rational examination compatible with the use of reason?" And what we ARE saying is that it is. That is the thrust of Christian apologetics.

I think you have just done exactly what you accused me of doing. You incorrectly identified my main argument. I was certainly not trying to show which is more “intellectual” (which I think is obvious already and doesn’t have to be proven). My main argument was to shoot down what I viewed as your main point: that religion doesn’t get a “fair shake” because people are ignorant of its intellectual arguments (i.e. how faith is amenable to rational examination).

I agree that we can examine faith in rational terms. And the result is either atheism, or acknowledging that faith in the supernatural is itself an act that transcends (or otherwise avoids) reason. I understand that there are apologist arguments for faith. But at the core, they are apologist arguments for something which you admit above can’t be proven scientifically. So, it seems you are the one confused about what you’re defending, not me. How do you rationally argue for something that is impossible to prove scientifically? And this “something,” according to Christian belief, just so happens to be responsible for every single thing that we examine with science. So how can you claim there is no connection between rational arguments for this Thing and scientific proof of this Thing when your core belief is that the universe exists as Its creation? That is a (pseudo-)scientific theory, you’re proposing: the origin of the universe. And as such, it is entirely vulnerable to the criticism that science can’t examine it. When you make claims about the universe which can’t be examined with science, you are talking psuedo-science. There are no legitimate, rational arguments for applying psuedo-science to our existence. To do so is fundamentally irrational. To do so is an act of faith.

To touch briefly on the rest of your points . . . ACLU doesn’t target religion. It advocates the separation of church and state, which actually benefits religion. This separation is crucial to freedom of religion. And that’s why both concepts are married in the 1st Amendment. Freedom of religion is defined in that amendment as an absence of government laws respecting the establishment of or prohibiting the exercise of religion. So in no way can you say that the ACLU is an atheist lobby, no more than the 1st Amendment is an atheist right.

Quote:
a core of unreasonable, superstitious beliefs that can be held by the unlearned masses.

(A side note to Danlo: THIS is elitism) Here you take as an assumed given that the beliefs are unreasonable and superstitious. Again, reason, in our terms, includes compatibility of reason with faith; that is, it does not claim that truth resides only in that which is accessible to our reason.

If it’s not elitist for you to point out people’s ignorance of “intellectual Christianity,” then it’s not elitist for me to point it out, either. And if this vast ignorance is indeed a fact, as you say, then it is also a fact that millions of people believe in Christianity for unlearned, unreasonable reasons. How could it be otherwise? If they are ignorant of the intellectual arguments, then their belief can’t be based on them. I’m not assuming they are unreasonable, I’m proving they are unreasonable by the facts you have given yourself.

It is inconsistent for you to criticize the atheists as mistaken because they don’t know these arguments, but reserve your criticism from the majority of Christians when they share exactly the same ignorance. In fact, I have seen you be critical of our “personal experience” with Christianity, and its manifestations here in America. So “elitist” seems to be your entire perspective on both atheism and those unlearned masses who by sheer accident of faith just happen to (almost) agree with you.

Again, I think your charges apply to yourself, not me.

[rdhopeca]

[iQuestor]

Malik, now thats exactly what I was going to say.

JK -- great post, great points!

[rusmeister]

The trouble with this as a rationale is that it takes random and poor samplings of people who claim the label "Christian" and uses that as an excuse to write it all off. It is simply not a reasonable examination of what Christianity is.

No. When the majority of Christians one meets respond as the person iQuestor dealt with, and when the majority of people who have such encounters meet with this kind of response, it is not a random and poor example, it is a representative sample. They may not represent "true Christianity" in the sense that you mean, but they do represent a true relationship between Christianity and society.
YOU, as a Christian who examines his faith closely, takes care to be as true to it as possible, engage your beliefs and others beliefs thoughtfully are a 'random and poor sampling' in a statistical sense, though [as far as I can tell] a representative of what 'true' Christians could be. [though personally, I won't be persuaded unless the Christian God, or any other, sits down in my living room for a chat]
Of course, it is also worth noting that as far as I can tell the majority of Christians don't adopt a "you're all going to hell" stance/attitude in their daily lives/personal relationships, except when religion itself becomes an issue/topic for discussion. An interesting separation.

Here I can say, "No." You can't claim to understand Christianity just because you have met (even) a large number of people under various Christian labels in North America. If you don't know the history (and I mean well) then you can't understand why these divisions arose. If you don't know the various theologies - if you only know Calvinism, or fundamental Baptist views - and especially if you don't know the bases they have for having them, you are ignorant of the both the causes and nature of the divisions. You have come in on a movie late in the film where you have only seen one side of the story, so to speak. You can't from that claim to understand the film. Chesterton put it better, and evidently it bears repeating:

entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard.

I've said this before on other threads, but it gets summarily dismissed as if irrelevant - although if I applied it to a similar claim of any other humanitarian study, I would be instantly derided for being 'unscientific'. I guess it's only in religion that one need have nothing but personal experience to know what they are talking about. This is what I see as nonsense.

[rusmeister]

That, or the "you haven't done enough personal research into our religion to understand where we are coming from" argument.

See my response to Vraith. Your presenting the argument in a denigrating way does not invalidate the argument. I think you really DON'T understand where we are coming from, Rob. It takes a really anti-intellectual attitude (at least regarding this one thing) to summarily dismiss the need to know the things I have been talking about and still claim understanding.

[lucimay]

sorry rus...malik has you by the...well..you know.

helluva good post Malik my man!!
i LOVE it when you do that logic thing you do!! well done!