That’s an interesting thought.
I used to be a nice guy, … until I joined the Navy.
Managed to get back to being a nice guy, more or less, after I got out. But then I got married and became an in-law. I’m still married, but I’m a "recovering ‘in-law’ now.
3 Likes
The reason I think this quote is unhelpful is he needs a working definition of “good” “evil” and “religion” (which there is no scholarly consensus for) to make such an argument, not that I’m blaming you for posting it, but it illustrates my point. It becomes easy to redefine what “religion” is to suit one’s ends (does Marxism count as a religion? What about secular humanism? What about atheism?)
I get very frustrated when new atheists and apologists resort to slogans, because it dumbs down the conversation to me. Unfortunately, we seem to live in an age where we expect ideas and arguments to fit into a tweet or bumper sticker, rather than being complicated and nuanced. People are either “good” or “evil,” either conservatives or liberals are right and the other side is wrong, etc.
1 Like
For the three cited I think “egoism” is probably a better religion label.
Atheism is just an answer to the question “Do you believe in deities?”. Atheism itself isn’t a religion. It is possible for atheists to belong to a religion or follow an ideology, but atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in deities.
For the purposes of that quote, I think we could speak more broadly of ideologies. The main impetus is a social group that convinces people to abandon their own inner sense of morality and instead obey the commands found in that ideology. This could include political movements, standard descriptions of religions, or social movements.
1 Like
I think it’s the ‘scapegoating’ mechanism in operation around which so many various tribes (religious, political, or otherwise) attempt to build their unity. Nothing causes a group to coalesce more quickly (and put more power into the hands of its leaders) than having a common enemy (and better yet a very powerful and threatening one - the more fear and urgency, the better, as far as political coalitions are concerned). This may sound like it’s always a bad thing - and I tend to think it frequently is. But it’s also the same kind of ‘unity’ that made so much of the world come together against … say … the Nazis too. For better (and perhaps more often for worse) - stuff happens when a group unifies against a threatening (or seemingly threatening) enemy.
1 Like
And there “It” is, ain’t it?. Moral: Be wary of all ‘Common Causes’. Name a ‘Common Cause’ that couldn;t become a mob over night.
2 Likes
Challenge accepted … how bout … “Pacifists unite!” We could still form a mob I suppose. Lot’s of people with attitude meandering in somewhat closer to passive-aggressively turn their other cheek toward you.
4 Likes
Maybe, … Does the sign say: “Bring guns, we’re expecting trouble”?
1 Like
The world was also united against the Japanese Empire, and in the process the US place it’s own citizens in internment camps for the crime of being born Japanese. When you dehumanize the enemy bad things can happen.
1 Like
Ya mean, like when you hear the chant: “Lock him/her/them up!” ?
1 Like
I’ve heard it said that Christianity is actually the only “religion” in which violence would NOT result by people following their God radically and zealously. In other words, if we are truly Jesus-followers as we claim to be, and if we actually followed his instructions from the Sermon on the Mount seriously, we would love our enemies (love the other tribe), and not kill them…
6 Likes
Absolutely, totally agree with what you’re saying about dehumanization and your earlier point too about ideologies. Dr Haidt (who I mentioned earlier) makes a very good case for the idea that “morality binds and blinds” in his book The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by religion and politics. In my view, groups with a shared ideology and moral system are at risk for dehumanizing the “other” who disagrees.
I believe that sometimes those most qualified to point out issues in a moral system or a religion are those not affiliated with it, who may have a more objective view of what is going on. Of course, those who consider themselves in the opposite group may dehumanize those who are in such a group, which is what I think Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc do with religion-they take fair criticisms of religion and generalize them to religion as a whole.
I do think every Christian should read The Righteous Mind, it does a good job illustrating how easy it is to judge others when people share a moral framework. I did have some issues with his chapter on the “evolutionary origins” of religion because most of it rested on speculation, but the book as a whole was excellent (part of the reason I reached out to him about this topic specifically).
Matthew 7:1-5 to me is such a good analogy, and I think Jesus really hit the nail on the head when he said, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye”
I interpret this passage as illustrating how easy it is for our judgment of others to “blind” us, keeping us from actually helping one another because we are judging them. In my view, if we really care and want to help, we need to make sure we aren’t judging and instead come from a place of humility and good will. I struggle with this every day. It’s a brilliant analogy, and this humility is echoed in Luke 18:9-14 in The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. If I have “already decided” that I am right and the “other” is wrong, in my opinion I am already blinded by my own judgement.
2 Likes
I agree but would love to see it made a high school essential life knowledge course for everyone. (I do realize we can’t keep loading those demands but in an ideal world…). I first learned of the book here and had it recommended strongly by Christians here on this site. One of the most brilliant books I’ve read and there is stiff competition for that distinction. As a non Christian I admit being turned off by the title at first. But once I started reading of course I realized how fitting it was.
I’m not sure if you’re new here but if so welcome. I’ve enjoyed reading your recent posts. I’ll bet you’ve heard about the discussion thread for Penner’s book The End of Apologetics which @Kendal started and will continue not quite two more weeks. There is also a Pithy Quotes From Our Recent reading thread which I started a while back which has been a source of so many good book recommendations for me. If you have others you feel as strongly about I hope you’ll post some there.
4 Likes
Hey Mark, really appreciate your thoughts and your welcome (I am new here, just joined the other day). I actually had not heard of the book The End of Apologetics but now that you mention it I’ll definitely check it out.
I’m always in the lookout for new books and reading material, so thanks for pointing me to that forum :).
-Paul
1 Like
If you go to the first page of the thread for discussing the Penner book there is a link to a free online copy.
This place is so welcoming even I feel like I belong. I do think apologetics should be more about helping and sharing with each other without regard to branding. In a book Merv shared that I liked a lot called Holy Envy a Muslim cleric tried to put a mostly Christian group of college students on a field trip to a mosque at ease. He told them he did not want anyone to give up the path they were on to adopt their way. Better that a Jew should become a better Jew and so for every other group. I liked that.
3 Likes
So far so good.
Indeed. Atheism is not a lack of belief or lack of ideology.
No. That is incorrect and inconsistent with the majority use of the word. It may not be a decision or belief that God or deities do not exist. But atheism is a decision on the question of the existence of God/deities, and not something people are by default. Atheism is a belief - a belief regarding the question of the existence of God or deities. Most likely it is a belief that there is insufficient reason to believe God or deities exist – not according to most definitions of the words “God” or “deity” anyway.
Clearly people do not identify as atheist simply because they lack a belief in a deity. When I was young and determined to get to bottom of all this “god” stuff, I lacked belief in a deity. but I was not an atheist. People who have not even considered the question of whether God or deities exist are not atheists. People unfamiliar with the idea are not atheists. Infants are not atheists. It not an infrequent judgement by people who come to a decision that God exists that they always believed even when they were unfamiliar with the concept. It ties to the meaning the find in the word “God.”
Some atheists find the idea of God and the existence of the supernatural odious. I think that is subjective and intellectually dishonest.
I would say over and beyond the question of deity existence there is a bigger question concerning what we are, what the world is to us and what we are or should be here to do. We absolutely must adopt a belief regarding those matters and what those are will go a long way toward shaping who we are and what meaning and fulfillment we find in our lives. It isn’t really possible to defer those questions or hope science will eventually illuminate them. We are all already thrown into a life and have absorbed operational assumptions/hypotheses which we are running on whether we are aware of them or not.
But of course imagining that there is a powerful but kindly God who created everything and has a plan for us need not play a part in the assumptions we are running on, but such a belief does not require objective evidence as justification. The real justification is the quality of self it enables you to be and the quality of relationships and community they support. The assumption/hypothesis that there is no meaning or purpose and anything we do is essentially arbitrary is no more or less objectively justified than God belief but there is little support in it for good self development, relationships or community. So subjectively the nihilist POV is less justified on that basis. Of course God belief is neither a guarantor of a good outcome nor the exclusive pathway to one. But it is the Western way that has evolved to serve those purposes and of course continues to evolve theologically and/or philosophically. Of course a godless point of view need not be nihilist but then it needs some other way to account for and promote a life that allows for a full expression of our humanity.
I think God belief is a good match for what is needed. But I don’t think the effectiveness of God belief requires the literal existence of a being apart from ourselves which matches any particular culture’s formulation. Then again it might be that a traditional approach with a fairly well articulated and shared formulation is more effective still - but who could ever be in position to make that determination?
What is required does not equal what serves the purpose best. And if the belief in an actual God serves best, then what purpose is served by the suggestion that we only need to believe in an actual God not that there be an actual God? I would guess that it serves purpose of hypocrisy for those who would cheat – like a sociopath/psychopath pretending to human caring simply to trick and manipulate. One can sit on the sidelines with observations and pronouncements of wisdom, but what about actually taking your own advice and living accordingly yourself?
1 Like
A pity that we won’t see that the enemy is social injustice.
2 Likes