Insufficient Christianity 29.1
After this chapter, there are only four more chapters of Mere Christianity! I think Flimsy and I have decided to either tackle a Lee Strobel book that has not previously been tackled excessively, or Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, a book recommended by a commenter. Our other option of interest is the Alcoholic's Anonymous Handbook. We're still waiting for the philosophy book to come in the mail before we decide which we'd like to do next. Anyway, onward to C.S. Lewis!
Lewis spends the first part of this chapter explaining that one of the things his god wants us to do is pretend to be Christ-like, despite the fact that we realize Chris is utterly amazing and we are but pieces of trash in comparison. He says that this pretending will make us more Christlike, much in the same way that smiling when you are unhappy might make your unhappiness fizzle away. Children do this all the time – though they are not adults, they play games of pretend where they imagine that they are adults, and this is fodder for future adulthood. Lewis insists that when you do this, the real god will be at your side to show you the right way to be Christian and to turn you into a Christlike being. The reader is told again that Christians who are very faithful are so real and alive whereas non-Christians are shallow, hollow "tin" versions of real people.
It seems to me that this is a version of dehumanization, only instead, non-Christians are mere humans while Christians are a sort of spiritual superhuman. According to Lewis, Christians are "coming alive", they have a life that non-Christians do not have. Non-Christians are but a shadowy and symbolic resemblance to Christians. Christians are like a place, whereas non-Christians are like a photo of that place. Christians are like men, and non-Christians are like statues of those men.
To be fair, what Lewis actually says is that the "spiritual life" is the higher life. The spiritual life, obviously, is the life you get when you're a Christian. But the implication is clear. Lewis believes that when you become a Christian, you go from being a shadow and symbolic representation of real people, to a real and alive person. Of course, perhaps some Christians will say that they really aren't better. I call doublespeak. If you claim that one subset of humans are on a higher plane of existence than another subset of humans, than you are dehumanizing – not in the literal sense of the word but with the same effect – you are asserting the superiority of one group over another and thus asserting that one group s inferior to the other. When people become things, they become dispensable.
Similarly, if I were to assert that when one becomes an atheist, one's mind becomes open to freely think and freely question, my unstated assertion is that people who are not atheists do not have the ability to think openly, freely think and freely question. If I were to assert that when a Christian deconverts and becomes an atheist, it is like turning a stone sculpture of a person into a real, in the flesh person, my unstated assertion is that Christians are mere representations of real people.
To Lewis, even the good works done by humans are only by the power of Jesus. He encourages us to dismiss all of the help we have received from humans as not due to their pure unselfishness but due to Christ:
Apparently Jesus is all around us, mirroring himself whether we are Christians or not, so that we may at times unconsciously leads other people to Christ. This is especially true if you're a Christian, such that "you might say that when two Christians are following Christ together there is not twice as much Christianity as when they are apart, but sixteen times as much." Dude. Christianity can be measured in units! Let's call one unit of Christianity a CU and one Christian a ©. One © following Christ together is 1 CU, but two © following Christ together are 16 CU!
Doing a little math, it seems that Clearly a CU is ©⁴. So one © is 1⁴ CU. Two © are 2⁴ CU = 16CU. Clearly then, three © are 3⁴ = 81CU. A whole congregation of 300 members sitting in pews for Sunday services are a whopping 8,100,000,000 units of Christianity. I wonder what a unit of atheist (AU) is per atheist?
Okay, fine, I'm digressing again. Lewis finishes the chapter by waxing poetically about how when people become Christians they kill that tired old, shadowy natural self and are literally reborn into a new special Christlike person. After this, of course, we start to notice just how sinful and bad we are, which of course means that non-Christians are simply blind and ignorant to how terrible they are. It all sounds very nice and wonderful to someone who is a Christian but I can completely understand how this type of thinking has been used in the past to commit terrible atrocities against non-Christians. If you think you have the spiritual highground because you "realize" how sinful and bad you are, you believe you can reduce your sinfulness of your own accord. Someone who you believe is unaware of how sinful they are cannot reduce their sinfulness of their own accord, because they do not "realize" how sinful they are. If you believe someone's eternal soul is on the line here, then you can be justified in oppressing them in the name of saving their souls and diminishing their efforts at finding the truth as efforts of blind Chihuahua's to climb Mount Everest. The problem is, that there is no reason for me to believe that Lewis, or anyone else, has found the spiritual highground.
To put it another way: Muslims believe they have the spiritual highground too. It is not that they are "evil islamofascists who just hate freedom".
Mere Christianity online
Lewis spends the first part of this chapter explaining that one of the things his god wants us to do is pretend to be Christ-like, despite the fact that we realize Chris is utterly amazing and we are but pieces of trash in comparison. He says that this pretending will make us more Christlike, much in the same way that smiling when you are unhappy might make your unhappiness fizzle away. Children do this all the time – though they are not adults, they play games of pretend where they imagine that they are adults, and this is fodder for future adulthood. Lewis insists that when you do this, the real god will be at your side to show you the right way to be Christian and to turn you into a Christlike being. The reader is told again that Christians who are very faithful are so real and alive whereas non-Christians are shallow, hollow "tin" versions of real people.
It seems to me that this is a version of dehumanization, only instead, non-Christians are mere humans while Christians are a sort of spiritual superhuman. According to Lewis, Christians are "coming alive", they have a life that non-Christians do not have. Non-Christians are but a shadowy and symbolic resemblance to Christians. Christians are like a place, whereas non-Christians are like a photo of that place. Christians are like men, and non-Christians are like statues of those men.
To be fair, what Lewis actually says is that the "spiritual life" is the higher life. The spiritual life, obviously, is the life you get when you're a Christian. But the implication is clear. Lewis believes that when you become a Christian, you go from being a shadow and symbolic representation of real people, to a real and alive person. Of course, perhaps some Christians will say that they really aren't better. I call doublespeak. If you claim that one subset of humans are on a higher plane of existence than another subset of humans, than you are dehumanizing – not in the literal sense of the word but with the same effect – you are asserting the superiority of one group over another and thus asserting that one group s inferior to the other. When people become things, they become dispensable.
Similarly, if I were to assert that when one becomes an atheist, one's mind becomes open to freely think and freely question, my unstated assertion is that people who are not atheists do not have the ability to think openly, freely think and freely question. If I were to assert that when a Christian deconverts and becomes an atheist, it is like turning a stone sculpture of a person into a real, in the flesh person, my unstated assertion is that Christians are mere representations of real people.
To Lewis, even the good works done by humans are only by the power of Jesus. He encourages us to dismiss all of the help we have received from humans as not due to their pure unselfishness but due to Christ:
"You may say `I've never had the sense of being helped by an invisible Christ, but I often have been helped by other human beings.' That is rather like the woman in the first war who said that if there were a bread shortage it would not bother her house because they always ate toast. If there is no bread there will be no toast. If there were no help from Christ, there would be no help from other human beings. He works on us in all sorts of ways: not only through what we think is our 'religious life'. He works through Nature, through our own bodies, through books, sometimes through experiences which seem (at the time) anti-Christian. When a young man who has been going to church in a routine way honestly realises that he does not believe in Christianity and stops going-provided he does it for honesty's sake and not just to annoy his parents-the spirit of Christ is probably nearer to him then than it ever was before. But above all, He works on us through each other."
Apparently Jesus is all around us, mirroring himself whether we are Christians or not, so that we may at times unconsciously leads other people to Christ. This is especially true if you're a Christian, such that "you might say that when two Christians are following Christ together there is not twice as much Christianity as when they are apart, but sixteen times as much." Dude. Christianity can be measured in units! Let's call one unit of Christianity a CU and one Christian a ©. One © following Christ together is 1 CU, but two © following Christ together are 16 CU!
Doing a little math, it seems that Clearly a CU is ©⁴. So one © is 1⁴ CU. Two © are 2⁴ CU = 16CU. Clearly then, three © are 3⁴ = 81CU. A whole congregation of 300 members sitting in pews for Sunday services are a whopping 8,100,000,000 units of Christianity. I wonder what a unit of atheist (AU) is per atheist?
Okay, fine, I'm digressing again. Lewis finishes the chapter by waxing poetically about how when people become Christians they kill that tired old, shadowy natural self and are literally reborn into a new special Christlike person. After this, of course, we start to notice just how sinful and bad we are, which of course means that non-Christians are simply blind and ignorant to how terrible they are. It all sounds very nice and wonderful to someone who is a Christian but I can completely understand how this type of thinking has been used in the past to commit terrible atrocities against non-Christians. If you think you have the spiritual highground because you "realize" how sinful and bad you are, you believe you can reduce your sinfulness of your own accord. Someone who you believe is unaware of how sinful they are cannot reduce their sinfulness of their own accord, because they do not "realize" how sinful they are. If you believe someone's eternal soul is on the line here, then you can be justified in oppressing them in the name of saving their souls and diminishing their efforts at finding the truth as efforts of blind Chihuahua's to climb Mount Everest. The problem is, that there is no reason for me to believe that Lewis, or anyone else, has found the spiritual highground.
To put it another way: Muslims believe they have the spiritual highground too. It is not that they are "evil islamofascists who just hate freedom".
Mere Christianity online
Labels: atheism, biases, blasphemy, books, C.S. Lewis
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
22 Comments:
Please pardon both my ignorance (as I am speaking from never reading Lewis' book), and my long-winded response.
That in mind...just call me "spirant." :)
Perhaps if we really want to understand what Lewis is trying to say, we ought to put his comments in the best light possible. If we just want to make fun of his book, then we just make fun of his book; and what we have is something possibly entertaining, but probably not greatly enlightening. Further, I think examining a book with an emphasis on trying to find errors in it introduces a strong bias which might very easily cause us to extract things from the text which the author never intended (false positives, if you will).
I think I might be observing this situation with this post.
In the fourth paragraph above, you said:
"Lewis believes that when you become a Christian, you go from being a shadow and symbolic representation of real people, to a real and alive person."
I assume this is paraphrasing. I am somewhat familiar with some of Lewis' work (however, I am admittedly not an expert in Lewis Literature :)), and it would surprise me if this is, in fact, what Lewis is saying.
Further, you continue:
"If you claim that one subset of humans are on a higher plane of existence than another subset of humans, than you are dehumanizing..."
I agree, this would be a horrible situation. Then again, not being an expert in Lewis, I still wouldn't assume that he would be claiming that Christians are on a "higher plane of existence." That would be akin to a rather careless metaphysical statement by Lewis (see Wikipedia's introductory remarks on "metaphysics" for an approximate understanding with which to see how I am using the word here - a sense which is not the common usage of the word).
Further, you continue:
"– not in the literal sense of the word but with the same effect – you are asserting the superiority of one group over another and thus asserting that one group [i]s inferior to the other. When people become things, they become dispensable."
Again, I agree. This kind of mentality has led to disastrous consequences. However "superiority" is an interesting way to describe what Lewis is doing in what I assume is a comparison. However, perhaps his proposition of Christian "superiority" (if that is his term) is closer to an analogy described by exercise: it's a "superior" way to live when you include regular exercise (as opposed to not including it); by not exercising you don't become less than human, you just are not actualizing some potential - an omission of something which is helpful. It's not exactly a shift of ontological status, which would lead Christians reading Lewis' book to treat "non-Christians" as inferior beings (despite the fact that this kind of self-righteous snobbery is present among at least some Christian adherents).
Nevertheless, I find this to be a fascinating statement:
"When people become things, they become dispensable"
The question I ask is: Why is this mode of thought (people as dispensable) not valid?
I am avoiding the term "bad" for a reason - it has ethical overtones. "Not valid" on the other hand has syllogistic connotations to it. Is this thinking a result of poor logic, an unreasonable statement, an unethical proposition, an immoral way of thinking, or something else?
I think further mediation on this facet of your post captures a common thread through it, and allows you to see the grounds for condemning religious (or otherwise defined groups) violence.
"Perhaps if we really want to understand what Lewis is trying to say, we ought to put his comments in the best light possible"
Are you willing to do this for every writer? Or just the believers?
What would I gain from just doing this for only believers? I would've missed some great insights from guys like Friedrich Nietzsche if that was indeed my policy (then again, it's really hard to say what Nietzsche was if you read more closely than a few infamous quotes of his...).
Have I demonstrated myself to be arbitrarily unfair to non-believers in some regard?
The point is that you should read you know, what they actually say, not twist everything to be in the best light.
@Spirant
"Perhaps if we really want to understand what Lewis is trying to say, we ought to put his comments in the best light possible. If we just want to make fun of his book, then we just make fun of his book; and what we have is something possibly entertaining, but probably not greatly enlightening. Further, I think examining a book with an emphasis on trying to find errors in it introduces a strong bias which might very easily cause us to extract things from the text which the author never intended (false positives, if you will)."
I think it is incorrect to characterize my review of Lewis' book as "making fun of" it. Certainly, I occasionally use humor as a digression or to make my writing more interesting, but that is far and away not the bulk of my posts.
The point of critically examining a book is to determine not only what the writer meant but the implications of what the writer said. Reading his book in "the best light possible" is the antithesis of "objective".
"Lewis believes that when you become a Christian, you go from being a shadow and symbolic representation of real people, to a real and alive person."
I assume this is paraphrasing. I am somewhat familiar with some of Lewis' work (however, I am admittedly not an expert in Lewis Literature :)), and it would surprise me if this is, in fact, what Lewis is saying."
I usually link to the chapter in question from Lewis' book, but I made a mistake in not linking it in this post - I will fix that. Go read it. This is, in fact, what he says.
"If you claim that one subset of humans are on a higher plane of existence than another subset of humans, than you are dehumanizing..."
I agree, this would be a horrible situation. Then again, not being an expert in Lewis, I still wouldn't assume that he would be claiming that Christians are on a "higher plane of existence." That would be akin to a rather careless metaphysical statement by Lewis (see Wikipedia's introductory remarks on "metaphysics" for an approximate understanding with which to see how I am using the word here - a sense which is not the common usage of the word)."
Again, please read it. He does not say those exact words but it is clear.
"– not in the literal sense of the word but with the same effect – you are asserting the superiority of one group over another and thus asserting that one group [i]s inferior to the other. When people become things, they become dispensable."
Again, I agree. This kind of mentality has led to disastrous consequences. However "superiority" is an interesting way to describe what Lewis is doing in what I assume is a comparison. However, perhaps his proposition of Christian "superiority" (if that is his term) is closer to an analogy described by exercise: it's a "superior" way to live when you include regular exercise (as opposed to not including it); by not exercising you don't become less than human, you just are not actualizing some potential - an omission of something which is helpful. It's not exactly a shift of ontological status, which would lead Christians reading Lewis' book to treat "non-Christians" as inferior beings (despite the fact that this kind of self-righteous snobbery is present among at least some Christian adherents)."
Yes. This is an implication that people could take from reading Lewis' book.
@Spiriant
Your best bet is to go back to chapter 23, where Lewis sets up the "natural life" and the "spiritual life". He gives these lives to names, "Bios" and "Zoe" and then talks about how awesome men become when they have Zoe (which they get when they become Christian) for what seems to be the rest of the book.
Bios and Zoe is an awesome name for a band
@Ziztur from Spirant
"I think it is incorrect to characterize my review of Lewis' book as "making fun of" it. Certainly, I occasionally use humor as a digression or to make my writing more interesting, but that is far and away not the bulk of my posts.
The point of critically examining a book is to determine not only what the writer meant but the implications of what the writer said. Reading his book in "the best light possible" is the antithesis of "objective"."
-If making fun of his book is not your intention, then it is not, and I apologize for writing in a way that seemed suggest that. Only you know your intentions.
-On the other hand, I do think it is impossible to be "objective" when examining something like this. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle teaches us this: any attempt to examine a system is going to modify it. In controlled systems this has a certain effect. In complex systems like linguistics, this has a much greater effect (a cascade effect, perhaps). What we must understand is that we ALWAYS bring our own bias. It is called the problem of hermeneutics. The best way to minimize that bias, is to try to think like the author. I have found that putting his or her writings in the best light possible helps me do this. At the very least, it helps me extract useful points from his or her writings.
- I will consider responding to the comments which require reading only after I have had time to track down a copy of the book and to read all of it. I need to have the context of his entire book (and not just a excised section out of it), because he might develop a specialized vocabulary early on in the book. Without familiarity with this vocabulary, I might not be tuned even close to the right frequency, so to speak (and therefore espouse greater bias). This is necessary, because criticism is more of an art than a science.
"Yes. This is an implication that people could take from reading Lewis' book."
-This is very possible (and someone has likely done just that). Nonetheless, based on how he has written in works which I have read, I sincerely doubt that this (that is, some kind of posture of superiority which validates treating other humans like sub-humans) is what he wants his readers to glean from the text. What someone intends to write is one thing; what people have done by misunderstanding someone's writings is quite another thing. We might think we see implications in a book's content, but this could very well like how we "see" things in the inkblot test.
-Here's my point: many believers will say they see horrible implications in atheistic writings which they claim could validate the same kind of inhuman behavior. I see this kind of thing happening here. I'm getting sick of this nonsense from both sides. Is either party really trying to be objective, or are they both trying to make "objectivity" serve them as some kind of invocation which endorses and validates their personal view (which cannot possibly be entirely objective because of hermeneutics)? This is not open-mindedness on either side! This is witch hunting! >:-\
@Ziztur from Spirant: Continued from above. :)
"Your best bet is to go back to chapter 23, where Lewis sets up the "natural life" and the "spiritual life". He gives these lives to names, "Bios" and "Zoe" and then talks about how awesome men become when they have Zoe (which they get when they become Christian) for what seems to be the rest of the book."
- As I have said, I have not read the book, but I have seen the terms "Bios" and "Zoe" used before in other literature. They are two Ancient Greek words whose meanings are both captured under the less specific English word, "Life" (one gives us Bio-logy, the other gives us Zo-ology). Nonetheless, they entail different ways of looking at the single reality of life, under a distinction of which I have never been entirely clear. Perhaps what he is trying to do is look at two distinct aspects of the same reality of life in general. Then, it's back to the exercise analogy - as a Christian writer, of course he's going to see the "participating in exercise" analogue as "participating in the spiritual life" as better/superior than its alternative of not participating. Then again, I'll have to read the book at some point.
Anonymous,
Some of your remarks on hermeneutics make a certain amount of sense, but I think your speculation is beginning to rather suffer from comments of the form “I haven’t read the book, but he might have meant X”. Yes, void of context it is certainly possible that Ziztur is misconstruing Lewis, but do you have any solid reason to think it is? (Recall that the whole book is available for free online; it’s not that hard to check!) Educated reservations on hermeneutics (while useful) should not obscure the fact that some writings truly are wrong and/or morally reprehensible.
It’s not altogether irrelevant that we, the Zizturian collective, don’t particularly care for the book in question, but if you simply assume that our analysis stems from our distaste rather than vice versa, it seems you have not read our writings in the best possible light. (I, personally, was disappointed: I had heard so many good things about it that I was prepared for something to challenge me, but was sorely disappointed.)
Mr. Häggholm,
-In what manner have the hermeneutical remarks made sense?
-As far as "solid reasoning," what would you accept as "solid reasoning?"
-I prefer to read entire books in bound format: the computer screen doesn't allow me to underline things and to scribble in the margins as I am accustomed to do (which allows me to retain the information more effectively, and to understand its concepts more clearly).
"...but if you simply assume that our analysis stems from our distaste rather than vice versa..."
-Are you suggesting that this is my assumption? Please show me how you have come to this conclusion.
"it seems you have not read our writings in the best possible light."
-I assumed that you are trying to protect what you see as the truth about reality from corruption by a collection of traditions which have demonstrated a tendency to produce violence in the past
- Do I need to modify this?
-What I have not found upon my investigation of Anglicanism, (which Mr. Lewis was an adherent to) is anything that would suggest him espousing a kind of ontological Christian superiority posture. Certainly he will suggest that Christianity is superior to non-belief (as he sees it as a fuller truth compared to the truth he had previously known), but that's different from an ontological difference which would justify an act of a Christian wherein this would be a danger:
"If you claim that one subset of humans are on a higher plane of existence than another subset of humans, than you are dehumanizing..."
-The alarming language here is "higher plane of existence." This is what I'm taking issue with. He is likely suggesting a 'higher plain of spiritual activity' or a 'fuller life' (especially with him talking about bios and zoe - again two Ancient Greek words which mean "life"), but I don't imagine that he is making an ontological claim.
-I finished reading the principle part of your critique (minus the linked to digression you mentioned) as I was writing this, and I would suggest that if you would like a challenge, you may consider Anthony Flew's work: There is a God - How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. It's not quite an apologetic, but it is an interesting read. He by no means ends up Christian, but rather Deist.
On Anthony Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
If I want to read the thoughts of an old man who has lost his mental faculties I'll read Burroughs.
"Here's my point: many believers will say they see horrible implications in atheistic writings which they claim could validate the same kind of inhuman behavior. I see this kind of thing happening here. I'm getting sick of this nonsense from both sides."
I can see where you are coming from, but I think that the horrible implications of theist writings have actually been used to validate inhuman behavior. But maybe I just listen to my local Christian radio station too much, where the Bible and other theist writings are used to justify undermining science (evolution, stem cell research, geology, cosmology, etc) and oppressing people (gays, women, atheists, etc)
The book you mention is by Antony Flew - not Anthony. I've read parts of it, and it might be something we'll consider doing in the future.
Ziztur, stop listening to your local Christian radio show.
"Similarly, if I were to assert that when one becomes an atheist, one's mind becomes open to freely think and freely question, my unstated assertion is that people who are not atheists do not have the ability to think openly, freely think and freely question."
Its not an unstated assertion, its the very name of your website. Its flat wrong, as skeptics by definition only deal in what they see as tangible evidence, while theists see 6 sides to every 4 sided object. Theists are just as free to question as the atheists. Its that questioning that lead people like myself, Lewis, Strobel, etc, all to become Christians, rather than the opposite.
@Ziztur from Spirant
"I can see where you are coming from, but I think that the horrible implications of theist writings have actually been used to validate inhuman behavior."
-This is true, but an example which shows we're all kind of all dealing with this problem is Soviet Russia: as it has a rather dismal history embracing one version of an atheistic system. Any involvement Soviet Russia had with religion was by all estimates Machiavellian (if it was not suppressed by the state). I don't know many who would claim that Soviet Russia was a religious concept (rather it was often hailed as a reason-based system).
-By this example I AM NOT claiming that all atheists would ascribe to this kind of behavior (or even most of them for that matter), but my point is that writings operating in an atheistic framework have been used to justify atrocities as well. Atheism, as a collective group, cannot claim impunity from this nonsense either. All I'm asking for here is honesty that no one can claim impunity for inhuman acts on either side of the fence.
"The book you mention is by Antony Flew - not Anthony."
Correction noted. Even with some formal training in philosophy, I found his book to be a bit opaque at times, and I'm probably am going to have to go through it a few more times, so I can clearly understand what he's arguing in a few places.
Spirant beat me to a point I wanted to make. They are still to this day determining how many deaths were as a result of Stalin and his antireligionanticapitalistantianythingthatpisseshimoff regime, upwards of 18,000,000 people. It doesn't stop with writings, but science. Hitler used the theory of evolution as justification for his final solutions. Atheism and theism are never the cause for inhumane acts, they are just two more lame excuses. Trust me, even if religion were wiped from memory, there would be no less deaths. We'd just find a different reason.
@highboy from Spirant
You point out some ponderous things to consider.
Be very careful how you word things. You don't want to make "science" or "evolution" into some kind of scapegoat for problems either.
@highboy from Spirant
One other thing, this...
"antireligionanticapitalistantianythingthatpisseshimoff"
...is hilarious, not to mention grammatically atrocious. However, the Germans do this kind of thing all of the time:
Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz
Watch out for those "beef labeling oversight transfer laws." :)
"Hitler used the theory of evolution as justification for his final solutions."
Except he didn't and he used Luther instead.
Its not an unstated assertion, its the very name of your website. Its flat wrong, as skeptics by definition only deal in what they see as tangible evidence, while theists see 6 sides to every 4 sided object. Theists are just as free to question as the atheists. Its that questioning that lead people like myself, Lewis, Strobel, etc, all to become Christians, rather than the opposite."
So theists are morons who fail at geometry? I'll tell you, as a DM I would kick the ass if one of my players tried to sub a D6 for a D4
"my point is that writings operating in an atheistic framework have been used to justify atrocities as well. Atheism, as a collective group, cannot claim impunity from this nonsense either."
True, which is why I have never claimed this. Though I think the problems with Russia is not that it is atheistic but that it is authoritarian.
I think I agree with highboy that if religion were wiped off the face of the earth, people would just find something else to justify for treating others inhumanely. I don't advocate for the desecration of religion, I advocate for the desecration of ideas that undermine science and infringe on people's rights. If atheists undermined science and infringed on people's rights, I'd call them out on it too.
@highboy - no way will I stop listening. I realize they are the fringe, but I want to know what kind of hate they are spewing, rather than merely speculating.
I also realize that some people come to Christianity by free inquiry - and that's fine. The subtitle of my blog is a complex one that people misunderstand all the time, but here is how I see it - atheism (that is, lack-of-theism, the neutral position of not assuming there is a god before one sets out to look for god) is a starting point for a free mind. If rational inquiry leads one from atheism to theism, then that's fine. You started with a free mind and concluded theism. If after careful exploration and philosophical inquiry, one concludes that atheism continues to be the correct position, then that's fine too.
Also, I don't want to speak for other skeptics, but I have found that skeptics value philosophy as well as tangible evidence.
@Ziztur from Spirant
-Wouldn't your position be more like agnosticism then? Atheism and Theism are assertive replies to the question of God in the negative or the positive, respectively. Agnosticism, however doesn't answer the question, but rather claims the neutral position of "neither asserting nor denying."
-Interestingly, the assertion that atheism is the "neutral position," actually was one of the concepts Antony Flew developed in his former days. I take issue with it, however. I think Agnosticism is the neutral ground.
"True, which is why I have never claimed this. Though I think the problems with Russia is not that it is atheistic but that it is authoritarian."
-Russia's history doesn't seem to support that conclusion. One example I have come across is the story of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow: the first manifestation of this building was dynamited and destroyed because it was incompatible with the Soviet materialist doctrines (in fact, they wanted to build a monument to Socialism in its place as a kind of mocking move toward religion - the Palace of the Soviets, but they were invaded by the Germans so they had to stop). Further, with magazines like "Безбожник - the Godless" and groups like, "Союз воинствующих безбожников - The League of the Militant Godless" often as vehicles for the direct religious persecution of the Russian Orthodox, the Muslims, and other religious groups, I don't think that the atrocities can really be totally blamed on authoritarian antics (although catalyzed by them). Sure, Stalin killed countless people on personal gain, but how many brainwashed (and this is exactly what they were), not-Stalin individuals, indoctrinated by anti-religious concepts from Soviet propaganda targeted SPECIFICALLY religious groups? The state even was quite blatant about its concept of "gosateizm" (state atheism) which was a direct feed from the Marxist-Lenninism doctrines which were at the backbone of the Soviet system. Soviet Russia's history is fairly nasty, and it gets even nastier the closer you look at it.
@ing
-Please read Antony's arguments before you simply dismiss him as, "an old man who has lost his mental faculties." That's a fairly close-minded thing to write.
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home