Pages

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The usual suspects

Todd: Where did I say I was an atheist? Unlike you, I'm at least OPEN to the possibility that there MIGHT be (or MAY have been) a Being that poofed everything into existence. Evidence suggests, however, that He might have left for an extended vacation since then.

SH: So Todd’s an agnostic who’s open to the possibility of deism. That makes him a functional atheist. So I’ll treat him as an honorary atheist.

Todd: Do I have an "axe to grind"? Maybe. You wrap all of your theology in this flowery prose to hide the fact that it's foul.

SH: Actually, my critics don’t ordinarily characterize my prose-style as flowery. Rather, they find it overly polemical.

Todd: What evidence do I have (Steve)? Well, for starters, these ideas were powerful to allow John Calvin to stand and watch while Servetus screamed in agony as he burned to death for having the wrong ideas about God ... it was not a slow death, since it was reported that the winds carried the flames somewhat away from his body. He ended up roasting for hours.

SH:

i) One thing I’ve noticed is that Todd likes to change the subject. He’s strayed very far from the topic of the original post.

He raises one set of objections. When those objections are refuted, he moves on to another set of objections. When those are refuted, he moves on to another set of objections.

Now, a man of honor would withdraw his objections after they’ve been refuted and reexamine his operating premise.

ii) He then proceeds to wheel out the rusty cart of old chestnuts, viz. Servetus, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, ecclesiastical anti-Semitism, &c.

You know the joke about fruitcake. There’s only one fruitcake in the whole world. No one likes fruitcake, so everyone keeps exchanging the same fruitcake. When someone gives you a fruitcake for Christmas, you mail it off as a Christmas present to someone else the next year.

The moral objections to the Christian faith are fruitcake objections. Unbelievers keep recycling the same moldy old fruitcake.

iii) One initial question is I have is whether unbelievers want to be treated as halfway intelligent or not.

If they want to be treated with a modicum of intellectual respect, then it isn’t asking too much that they at least make the effort to raise logical objections instead of constantly resorting to selective guilt-by-association at ten degrees of separation from the source.

iv) Calvin was a man of the 16C. As such, he was, in some measure, a creature of his social conditioning. Persecuting dissenters of all stripes, whether political or religious, was standard operating procedure back then.

It was a stratified society. Every member had his place according to his social status, whether ascribed or achieved. If you chose to buck the system, you paid the price.

In fact, there are some rather backward parts of the world in which things haven’t changed very much—such as the average Ivy League university, what with its speech codes and all—or the bunker mentality of the evolutionary old guard.

v) Historically speaking, freedom of dissent is a rather novel idea. It owes a lot to the Reformation, with its belief in the right of private judgment and the priesthood of all believers.

Todd: These "great saints" like Chrysostom preached no less than seven sermons on the entire Jewish race with terms one would hesitate to use against an animal.

SH:

1.Greek Orthodoxy isn’t my bailiwick. Maybe Chrysostom was an anti-Semite and maybe he wasn’t.

Much depends on the historical context. Cf. R. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Wipf & Stock Publishers (October 2004).

2.In any event, that’s ancient history.

I’m more concerned with contemporary anti-Semitism. And where we find contemporary anti-Semitism is not in Calvinism or Christian Fundamentalism, but in Islam and the Far Left.

Just consider the way in which the Far Left takes the side of suicide-bombers over against the state of Israel.

The time is past due to put your own house in order, Todd. We’ve already done our own spring-cleaning, thank you very much.

Todd: The early American settlers set people on fire and drowned them for being suspected "witches".

1.I happen to think that one bungled witch-hunt in 150 years of colonial American history compares very favorably with the routine miscarriages of justice in we witness in a judicial system dominated by the values of the Warren court, where habitual violent offenders are regularly acquitted on legal technicalities dispensed at the whim of tyrannical judges.

2.Speaking of judicial abuse, we can also thank the highly secularized psychiatric community for all of the lives ruined by the junk science of recovered memories.

And don’t take my word for it. Here’s a source from your side of the fence:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmt.htm

3.Not to mention the prosecution of peaceable prolife demonstrators under racketeering laws—only recently reversed.

4.Or what about all of those lovely show-trials during the halcyon days of Communism?

5.Not to mention the judical license to kill, c/o Roe v. Wade.

Todd: "In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world -- hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception, -- these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell" - (Ingersoll)

SH: Yes, it never takes long to get around to the Inquisition, now does it?

1.Once again, that’s not my bailiwick. Catholicism is an inherently authoritarian organization because it came of age during the Roman Empire. Its ecclesiastical polity is modeled on the imperial polity of the day.

2.But I’d add, in fairness to Catholicism, that Ingersoll is not exactly a church historian. And it says something about Todd and his ilk that they feel free to quote Ingersoll as if he were some sort of authority on the history of the Inquisition.

Ingersoll was a demagogue, not a scholar.

Todd: Are all Christians like this? Of course not. If you're telling me that believing in Jesus makes men "good", I'd humbly suggest you and I have very different definitions of "good.

SH:

1.Todd is now imputing to me a claim I never made, and then taking offense at his own imputation—like a cat clawing at its own reflection in the mirror.

2.Oh, and by the way, being a Christian was never about being a good person.

The basic difference between a believer and an unbeliever is that a believer is penitent sinner while an unbeliever is an impenitent sinner.

10 comments:

  1. Steve writes: "The basic difference between a believer and an unbeliever is that a believer is penitent sinner while an unbeliever is an impenitent sinner."

    I see. So the believer is one who walks around feeling "guilty" for doing the same things that everyone else does? Based on the typical scandals that Christians seem to involve themselves in, I have to wonder how really "guilty" they even feel.

    So, hey, John Calvin set a dude on fire. Hey, everyone was doing it back then, right? Sounds like moral relativism to me.

    You guys spend so much time defending the actions (or non-actions) of this God you worship, one must wonder why He can't do it Himself. Is He incapable of it? Is He lazy or mute? Theologians ramble on and on defending the massacres in the Old Testament at the hands of "God's People". The book practically drips with the blood of men, women and children. Perhaps Adolf Hitler had it right and genocide IS a moral good?

    Then you have others defending why God sentences infants to Hell because either they didn't have "mystical water" sprinkled on their heads or because they didn't win God's cosmic lottery of "election". What fool believes such rubbish?

    Others will to go great lengths to defend a God who does nothing as millions starve to death (despite the Bible's promise that God provides for even the sparrows -- more lies!). Forget the wrongs that men do! Nature would be enough! Tidal wives wipe out entire villages, diseases ravage people bodies and minds on a daily basis.

    As if there weren't ENOUGH suffering, you good people would have most the world spend eternity in a literal lake of fire where their skin burns off their bones simply because they didn't give Jesus 10% of their paychecks or didn't flatter him with sufficient regularity.

    "All for God's glory", you say. Well, I say a God that is glorified by the suffering of His creatures is not much of a god. You can write that down. If God is ETERNAL and LACKS NOTHING, sending some person to a flaming Hell to be sodomized by demons for all eternity could not possibly give him any more glory than he already has.

    Good luck with your continued sales pitch ... but, no thanks, I'm not interested in buying.

    - Jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. ps ... that's James Todd ...
    I'll stand by my own words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Penitence and feeling guilty are two different things.

    For the rest, you indulge in nonstop emoting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd add that, his postscript notwithstanding, Todd doesn't stand by his own words. By my count, this is the fourth time he's changed the subject. He raises an objection, he's challenged, he changes the subject.

    Clearly his objections are not his real reasons for infidelity. Otherwise, when he's answered on his own grounds, he'd come around to the opposing position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seemed to me back in HS and college that the people I knew who were atheists weren't atheists because they'd thought about anything. They were atheists because they wanted to fornicate with somebody, or because they were mad because someone they cared about died. The first motive is completely self-serving -- the second motive might evoke more sympathy, except that it doesn't really make sense (why does death and pain disprove a Creator, especially One who killed His own Son in order to permanently undo all of man's death and pain?).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jack,

    I'm sorry you met so many unthinking people in college and HS. Probably went to a Bible college?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Funny Daniel, but most atheists are atheists on moral grounds, that is, they haven't thought out many of the philosophical reasons for atheism (like you). They just don't like moral constraints when it comes to what they do with their bodies, and evolution seems to make enough sense for them (what else could there be if you throw God out of the picture, right?). Or something bad happened to them or they didn't get something they really really wanted, and of course if God doesn't give them what they want then there must not be a God, right? So, that's where I think Jack is coming from. Most atheists are practical ones, living as if there is no God, there are not too many that I know of who are as sophisticated as you....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Funny Daniel, but most atheists are atheists on moral grounds, that is, they haven't thought out many of the philosophical reasons for atheism (like you).
    I don't know about this sentence -- esp the parentheticals -- is this sarcasm? Please let me know so that I know whether or not to seriously respond to this.

    They just don't like moral constraints when it comes to what they do with their bodies, and evolution seems to make enough sense for them (what else could there be if you throw God out of the picture, right?).
    Moral constraints exist whether we want them to or not. The world is about symmetry in the sense that it is what we make it. If we rape and pillage and murder, we introduce the symmetry that living in such a world will likely lead to our own rape, murder, and pillaging. Moral behavior is cooperation and leads to progress and success. Thus, it is quite within our self-interests to act morally. And, like all animals, we 99% of the time act in our self-interests, consciously or not. [A good example of the latter is when we think we are being altruistic but it is actually so that our conception of what we "ought" to do doesn't give us guilt, and/or we will feel more virtuous and better about ourselves for having done it]

    Or something bad happened to them or they didn't get something they really really wanted, and of course if God doesn't give them what they want then there must not be a God, right?
    What if that something was promised as a part of the "covenant"?

    So, that's where I think Jack is coming from. Most atheists are practical ones, living as if there is no God, there are not too many that I know of who are as sophisticated as you....
    I'm still not sure if this is sardonic wit, so I'll wait to dignify it with a response.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daniel,

    I wasn't being scornful or sarcastic, I was stating that most atheists aren't atheists because they have thought through the reasons or implications for their atheism. I was asserting that most atheists are practical atheists (i.e. they live as if there is no God) and they do so on moral grounds not philosophical ones. Societal moral constraints only touch on outward behavior, I was referring to inward morality (which is the seed to outward morality). So fornication, adultery, lust, hatred, covetousness, etc. is what I had in mind when referring to moral constraints. Your worldview only has the husk of morality without its heart. It is interesting that your point about symetry really boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", of course the Lord meant that in regard to doing good to others and treating them with the same care as you would treat yourself. Anyway, the promises of the covenant have to do with believers and those things which are according to God's will. It is a frequent mistake to misunderstand the nature of God's promises and then to be disappointed when your expectations are not met. I confess that I didn't have time to read your linked post, so I apologize for being ignorant of it. I think it is easy for someone to be an atheist because essentially all you have to do to be one is believe nothing. Most atheists don't think much about it. You guys at DC and others like you are the exception because you are actually seeking an apologetic justification for your atheism--hence the constant debate about ethics, morality, metaphysics, etc., but that is mostly to defend yourselves against the challenges of Theism, Christian Theism in particular.

    This may be somewhat off topic, but how do you account for guilt in your worldview? Is it something that has no real basis for it's existence? Something that has been forced on people because of various religious influences? How about morality and the inner man? Is it OK to be as vile as you want on the inside as long as you don't hurt anybody else? Is there any connection between the inner man and outward morality in your view?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I wasn't being scornful or sarcastic, I was stating that most atheists aren't atheists because they have thought through the reasons or implications for their atheism.
    Sorry I really couldn't tell if I was being baited.

    I was asserting that most atheists are practical atheists (i.e. they live as if there is no God) and they do so on moral grounds not philosophical ones.
    Well, this is a pretty bald assertion, so far. Why not just believe in a far-off deity who cares nothing for our moral behaviors, or only cares a little? Immoral behavior doesn't necessitate atheism. One could be a follower of many different religions, or a "liberalized" version of your own, and still be "immoral". There is no logical necessity for one to abandon god-belief in its entirety to have moral autonomy.

    Societal moral constraints only touch on outward behavior, I was referring to inward morality (which is the seed to outward morality). So fornication, adultery, lust, hatred, covetousness, etc. is what I had in mind when referring to moral constraints.
    There seems to be some confusion here. Is lust "inward" or "outward"? Is adultery "inward" or "outward"? You don't seem to have cleanly dileneated the "sins" you are trying to put into categories.

    Your worldview only has the husk of morality without its heart.
    The "heart" of morality is actually wanting to know what it is to do good, how to do it, and choosing to do it, in a given context. Is that a "husk"?

    It is interesting that your point about symetry really boils down to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
    Sort of. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, except to modify it a bit and say, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Consider the fact that I don't want to be evangelized, yet you want me to be, and so if you come along and evangelize me, [symmetrically speaking] you're doing the same thing as if I came along and tried to deconvert your family -- something I'm sure you would not appreciate.

    My version is more symmetric with respect to the concept of "others first" in terms of how you treat people.

    of course the Lord meant that in regard to doing good to others and treating them with the same care as you would treat yourself.
    Yes and Jesus also claimed that you may as well go ahead and act out adultery or murder if you feel lust or hatred in your heart. I'm not sure that you ought to follow Jesus' advice on everything, ol' chap.

    Anyway, the promises of the covenant have to do with believers and those things which are according to God's will. It is a frequent mistake to misunderstand the nature of God's promises and then to be disappointed when your expectations are not met. I confess that I didn't have time to read your linked post, so I apologize for being ignorant of it.
    Well I accept your apology and it is clear you didn't read it, because I wrote it from the context of the believer...and so your objection makes little sense.

    I think it is easy for someone to be an atheist because essentially all you have to do to be one is believe nothing.
    That would be nihilism, not atheism.

    Most atheists don't think much about it.
    Hasty generalization.

    Same as if I said, "Most Christians don't really think much about being Christians."

    You guys at DC and others like you are the exception because you are actually seeking an apologetic justification for your atheism--hence the constant debate about ethics, morality, metaphysics, etc., but that is mostly to defend yourselves against the challenges of Theism, Christian Theism in particular.
    Again, you're almost on target. I seek answers, wisdom, and truth. I found that in seeking those things, the most reasonable and well-evidenced position I could find was one in which all the religions of man are inventions of man. You agree with me, minus one religion. I am an atheist because of the problem of evil and the problem of God's hiddeness. If I found satisfactory solutions to those I may be an agnostic or deist. So far...

    This may be somewhat off topic, but how do you account for guilt in your worldview?
    Cultural conditioning and empathy -- placing yourself mentally in the shoes of one you've wronged.

    Is it something that has no real basis for it's existence?
    Obviously yes. I think all things are "real", as a materialist. I even think your spiritual experiences are "real"...they are neural responses to particular stimuli. I think that yoga and meditation are "real". I think that many things are "real". I just don't think they imply that God exists.

    Something that has been forced on people because of various religious influences?
    Sort of. You can't have a stable culture or society without placing expected behaviors on the young.

    How about morality and the inner man? Is it OK to be as vile as you want on the inside as long as you don't hurt anybody else? Is there any connection between the inner man and outward morality in your view?
    This is a complicated question. I'll think about it and reply later.

    ReplyDelete