What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[Sanoy]

Morality is a concept, but that concept doesn't necessarily exist in reality in the way that Christians claim God does, as something separate from peoples own moral intuitions.

People simply don't need the "insights" of the Bible to be moral. And I believe even Jesus himself understood this, which is why he often used parables that drew from pastoral imagery of his day, rather than from religion.

Sure, I fully agreed to this in my replies. Morality is whatever our moral intuitions point toward. If God exists, it points toward Him, because He created them. If He doesn't it could point toward anything, like north facing tree branches, and that would be called morality. So yeah, everyone who abides by their moral faculties is moral. The murderer whose moral faculties tell him to murder is moral when he murders, but the murderer whose moral faculties tell him to murder and he doesn't is immoral. Humans are incredibly moral people, immorality has nearly been eliminated from our society.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure, I fully agreed to this in my replies. Morality is whatever our moral intuitions point toward. If God exists, it points toward Him, because He created them. If He doesn't it could point toward anything, like north facing tree branches, and that would be called morality. So yeah, everyone who abides by their moral faculties is moral. The murderer whose moral faculties tell him to murder is moral when he murders, but the murderer whose moral faculties tell him to murder and he doesn't is immoral. Humans are incredibly moral people, immorality has nearly been eliminated from our society.

Now it seems you are just trying to ridicule the concept of moral intuition.

 

[Sanoy]

Now it seems you are just trying to ridicule the concept of moral intuition.

It's an ad absurdum, if you are seeing the consequence as ridiculous then you are operating under a hidden paradigm of expectation regarding morality. If morality is subjective then it is literally whatever we think it is, whether it is murder or healing.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's an ad absurdum, if you are seeing the consequence as ridiculous then you are operating under a hidden paradigm of expectation regarding morality. If morality is subjective then it is literally whatever we think it is, whether it is murder or healing.

Except nobody that is psychologically healthy thinks murder, in the abstract, is a good thing.

 

[Sanoy]

Except nobody that is psychologically healthy thinks murder, in the abstract, is a good thing.

And here is that hidden paradigm again. Why think your morality is "psychologically healthy" as if there is some standard to obtain? Does not anyone who abides by his morals think themselves "psychologically healthy".

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think it's true that morality must be a fiction if it's not absolute. It exists relationally, and is therefore relative. That's not nihilistic, contrary to your assertion, that's realistic and actually potentially life-affirming. That means we can think rationally about morality beyond the superstition of religion and conceive of truly life-affirming values, like not burning witches at the stake, or allowing gays to marry instead of stoning them to death.

Eh, this only works if there's something objectively good about life affirmation. That is one of the handful of absolutes that I'm interested in. Without that, like I said, I would be an anti-natalist. If all that matters is subjective morality, then I am subjectively a nihilist. If there's something wrong with that (and I think there is), then we're moving back towards an objective grounds of morality.

The problem is that I've never seen anything outside of the "superstition of religion" that actually provides compelling grounds to hold to the value of life affirmation. If people subjectively want to, they're welcome to, but if they want to turn around and tell other people that abandoning a religious worldview does not invite this sort of issue, that's demonstrably false.

 

[FireDragon76]

Eh, this only works if there's something objectively good about life affirmation. That is one of the handful of absolutes that I'm interested in. Without that, like I said, I would be an anti-natalist. If all that matters is subjective morality, then I am subjectively a nihilist. If there's something wrong with that (and I think there is), then we're moving back towards an objective grounds of morality.

The problem is that I've never seen anything outside of the "superstition of religion" that actually provides compelling grounds to hold to the value of life affirmation. If people subjectively want to, they're welcome to, but if they want to turn around and tell other people that abandoning a religious worldview does not invite this sort of issue, that's demonstrably false.

You make points worthy of further reflection, and perhaps I overstate my case.

I just don't see Christianity as it exists as being something I can participate in and maintain my mental health. Those lofty principles you talk about are betrayed in practice. Christianity is ruled by blind traditionalism, and refuses to engage in serious reformation, for the most part.

 

[FireDragon76]

And here is that hidden paradigm again. Why think your morality is "psychologically healthy" as if there is some standard to obtain? Does not anyone who abides by his morals think themselves "psychologically healthy".

We can know about psychological health through empirical observation. It doesn't require a religious a priori.

 

[Silmarien]

You make points worthy of further reflection, and perhaps I overstate my case.

I just don't see Christianity as it exists as being something I can participate in and maintain my mental health. Those lofty principles you talk about are betrayed in practice. Christianity is ruled by blind traditionalism, and refuses to engage in serious reformation, for the most part.

I understand that. The problem is that people will always betray their ideals, whatever those ideals might be. There are always going to group dynamics, institutional issues, and abuse of power. What I find compelling about Christianity is that despite its constant stumbles, despite the fact that its whole history seems to be a matter of nailing Christ to the cross over and over again, we have still managed to creep forward. I really do think that the trend towards a world where there would be neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no male and female, has been a real one. So I think it's worth taking the theme of betrayal in the Gospel seriously, and not reject it simply because it has been betrayed. It's still been pushing us forward, even in spite of ourselves.

Have you ever spent any time in the Episcopal Church? Sometimes it seems that the only point of dogma for us is radical inclusiveness. I find the doctrinal ambiguity a bit frustrating at times, since I'm a traditionalist by Episcopalian standards (but a radical Marxist by any other standard, so I'll stick with the people who won't chase me out with pitchforks ), but given the concerns you have with the Christian approach to sexual identity, I would be surprised if it were not a real option for you. (Assuming your local diocese is not significantly more conservative than the national church, at least.)

 

[FireDragon76]

I understand that. The problem is that people will always betray their ideals, whatever those ideals might be. There are always going to group dynamics, institutional issues, and abuse of power. What I find compelling about Christianity is that despite its constant stumbles, despite the fact that its whole history seems to be a matter of nailing Christ to the cross over and over again, we have still managed to creep forward. I really do think that the trend towards a world where there would be neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no male and female, has been a real one. So I think it's worth taking the theme of betrayal in the Gospel seriously, and not reject it simply because it has been betrayed. It's still been pushing us forward, even in spite of ourselves.

I don't want to devote an ounce of my energy to a movement that is deeply complicit in injustice and cruelty. So I'm not sure where that would leave me even if I did believe Christian dogma.

Have you ever spent any time in the Episcopal Church? Sometimes it seems that the only point of dogma for us is radical inclusiveness. I find the doctrinal ambiguity a bit frustrating at times, since I'm a traditionalist by Episcopalian standards (but a radical Marxist by any other standard, so I'll stick with the people who won't chase me out with pitchforks ), but given the concerns you have with the Christian approach to sexual identity, I would be surprised if it were not a real option for you. (Assuming your local diocese is not significantly more conservative than the national church, at least.)

I have. Episcopalians down here are Evangelicals and more aligned with the Evangelical wing of Anglicanism, though they are also more Ritualist, as is common among Episcopalians. Evangelical Anglicans are tinged by religious fundamentalism, in my experience. Their attitude towards gays can be hardly different from other evangelicals at times, though the local diocose has taken stands in the past few years that show a change of course. I know a woman that was a reader at the cathedral and she was asked to read the names of those slain at the Pulse massacre at a tolling of the bells they had in memory of those who died. And they also had the Orlando Gay Chorus for the first time in a long time, at the cathedral (the previous bishop forbid them to sing there ever). But by that time, I'd already become a member of Reformation Lutheran Church (which is close to the Pulse nightclub).

I don't think they are given to particularly progressive perspectives, on the whole, unless they are forced to do so by circumstances. It's not like the rest of the US Episcopal Church known for liberalism.

BTW, I don't think Christianity is the only religion capable of articulating an ethic of equality or social justice. That has existed to some extent in Mahayana Buddhist contexts, particularly through the influence of the Pure Land and Lotus Sutra teachings. Both Nichiren and Renyo were persecuted for advocating policies, directly or indirectly, that would involve social reform along egalitarian lines in Japan, including (in Renyo's case) sympathizing with, if not harboring, rebels who were fighting for an egalitarian republic.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't want to devote an ounce of my energy to a movement that is deeply complicit in injustice and cruelty. So I'm not sure where that would leave me even if I did believe Christian dogma.

Is there any movement that hasn't been deeply complicit in injustice and cruelty? The banality of evil is kind of our thing as a species. As much as I'd rather be a bird sometimes, that's obviously not an option.

I have. Episcopalians down here are Evangelicals and more aligned with the Evangelical wing of Anglicanism, though they are also more Ritualist, as is common among Episcopalians. Evangelical Anglicans are tinged by religious fundamentalism, in my experience. Their attitude towards gays can be hardly different from other evangelicals at times, though the local diocose has taken stands in the past few years that show a change of course. I know a woman that was a reader at the cathedral and she was asked to read the names of those slain at the Pulse massacre at a tolling of the bells they had in memory of those who died. And they also had the Orlando Gay Chorus for the first time in a long time, at the cathedral (the previous bishop forbid them to sing there ever). But by that time, I'd already become a member of Reformation Lutheran Church (which is close to the Pulse nightclub).

I don't think they are given to particularly progressive perspectives, on the whole, unless they are forced to do so by circumstances. It's not like the rest of the US Episcopal Church known for liberalism.

Well... yes. The Episcopal Church is very much known for liberalism, given the election of Gene Robinson as bishop a few years back. You do not get much more liberal than having bishops in openly homosexual relations, and there is the looming issue of the relationship of the Episcopal Church with the rest of the Anglican Communion because of this type of stuff. I don't think they're being forced by circumstances to embrace controversy like this.

Obviously individual dioceses are going to vary significantly. I'd thought that most of the Evangelicals had schismed and joined the ACNA instead, but I guess that's not the case where you are. If it's not an option, it's not an option.

BTW, I don't think Christianity is the only religion capable of articulating an ethic of equality or social justice. That has existed to some extent in Mahayana Buddhist contexts, particularly through the influence of the Pure Land and Lotus Sutra teachings. Both Nichiren and Renyo were persecuted for advocating policies, directly or indirectly, that would involve social reform along egalitarian lines in Japan, including (in Renyo's case) sympathizing with, if not harboring, rebels who were fighting for an egalitarian republic.

Well, my concern is that a religion both (a) articulate an ethic of equality or social justice, and (b) have the metaphysical resources to really back up that ethic. I'm more familiar with Hinduism than Buddhism, but a quick search of Pure Land Buddhism makes it look like one of the central aspects is trusting in Buddha and letting him shape one's personality? That is... well, it should be pretty obvious what that looks like.

I'm fine with the claim that other religions can articulate decent moral values, as long as they've got some sort of objective basis for them. That seems to always require revelation, though. I don't know how you can escape the problem of subjectivity otherwise, and I am much to cynical to view subjective approaches to morality through anything but the lens of the will to power. Once you've been a real Nietzschean, morality becomes really problematic if you divorce it from a transcendent source.

 

[FireDragon76]

Is there any movement that hasn't been deeply complicit in injustice and cruelty? The banality of evil is kind of our thing as a species. As much as I'd rather be a bird sometimes, that's obviously not an option.



Well... yes. The Episcopal Church is very much known for liberalism, given the election of Gene Robinson as bishop a few years back. You do not get much more liberal than having bishops in openly homosexual relations, and there is the looming issue of the relationship of the Episcopal Church with the rest of the Anglican Communion because of this type of stuff. I don't think they're being forced by circumstances to embrace controversy like this.

Obviously individual dioceses are going to vary significantly. I'd thought that most of the Evangelicals had schismed and joined the ACNA instead, but I guess that's not the case where you are. If it's not an option, it's not an option.



Well, my concern is that a religion both (a) articulate an ethic of equality or social justice, and (b) have the metaphysical resources to really back up that ethic. I'm more familiar with Hinduism than Buddhism, but a quick search of Pure Land Buddhism makes it look like one of the central aspects is trusting in Buddha and letting him shape one's personality? That is... well, it should be pretty obvious what that looks like.

Pure Land is a compassionate teaching for people frightened by death and the prospect of rebirth and retrogression in the cycle of Samsara. It's not quite like Christianity in general. Perhaps the closest analogy is Lutheranism, specifically. People trust in the Buddha (not the historical Buddha, but a semi-mythical, archetypal one who communicates spiritual truths), but the work of "salvation" is largely or completely done.

The egalitarian emphasis is present because the Bodhisattva Dharmakara's Primal Vow was especially made for the foolish, the unworthy, the poor, women, and so on. In the Pure Land, all people reborn there are equal, so all people that entrust themselves to the Vow share an equality that transcends their circumstances.

That seems to always require revelation, though.

I don't think so. I don't think religion and morality has to be based on absolutes. It's true there is a certain amount of trust or confidence in a religious path, but I think that's subtlely different from what creedal Christianity asks of people. The Buddha always invited people to test his ideas through practice, and he apparently taught a pragmatic definition of truth: what causes harm is wrong, what leads to happiness is good.

I don't know how you can escape the problem of subjectivity otherwise, and I am much to cynical to view subjective approaches to morality through anything but the lens of the will to power. Once you've been a real Nietzschean, morality becomes really problematic if you divorce it from a transcendent source.

Morality has to be tested against actual human experience.

Don't read Nietzsche out of his context. Nietzsche was reacting to a religious milieu that insisted we should all just settle for mediocrity masked over with envy and resentment, and codified these values as eternal truths.

 

[Silmarien]

Pure Land is a compassionate teaching for people frightened by death and the prospect of rebirth and retrogression in the cycle of Samsara. It's not quite like Christianity in general. Perhaps the closest analogy is Lutheranism, specifically. People trust in the Buddha (not the historical Buddha, but a semi-mythical, archetypal one who communicates spiritual truths), but the work of "salvation" is largely or completely done.

Eh, if you've got a semi-mythical, archetypal figure communicating spiritual truths, we're definitely in the same ballpark.

I don't think so. I don't think religion and morality has to be based on absolutes. It's true there is a certain amount of trust or confidence in a religious path, but I think that's subtlely different from what creedal Christianity asks of people. The Buddha always invited people to test his ideas through practice, and he apparently taught a pragmatic definition of truth: what causes harm is wrong, what leads to happiness is good.

That sounds like an absolute to me. Closest to the sort of absolutes you'd get with an Aristotelian ethics, but still an absolute in that it's realism and not subjective.

Morality has to be tested against actual human experience.

Don't read Nietzsche out of his context. Nietzsche was reacting to a religious milieu that insisted we should all just settle for mediocrity masked over with envy and resentment, and codified these values as eternal truths.

I have studied Nietzsche formally. He is one of my major philosophical interests, so I'm confident in saying that he was reacting to a great deal more than simply the religious milieu, though obviously that was one of his targets. Setting aside his conflict with Platonism, he was challenging the notion of favoring the interests of the weak over those of the strong altogether. There's a reason he admired figures like Napoleon--his ethic of strength is much more radical than I suspect you would like.

I don't think he's entirely wrong, but the underlying issue is much deeper than whether the 19th century was plagued by envy and resentment. It's about whether moral values should be shaped around producing figures like Alexander the Great, the darling of Antiquity, or about helping those who cannot help themselves. Unless you think the whole ancient world was psychologically deficient, that is a difficult question to answer.

 

[FireDragon76]

That sounds like an absolute to me. Closest to the sort of absolutes you'd get with an Aristotelian ethics, but still an absolute in that it's realism and not subjective.

I don't think its necessarily implied in an absolutist way. Killing is generally wrong for instance, according to the Buddha, but according to the folk tales, in his previous lives he gained merit as the Bodhisattva through wisely killing those who were endangering others.

I have studied Nietzsche formally. He is one of my major philosophical interests, so I'm confident in saying that he was reacting to a great deal more than simply the religious milieu, though obviously that was one of his targets. Setting aside his conflict with Platonism, he was challenging the notion of favoring the interests of the weak over those of the strong altogether. There's a reason he admired figures like Napoleon--his ethic of strength is much more radical than I suspect you would like.

I don't think Napoleon was all bad. I think he was smeared in the ANglophone world. I think Napolean was more of an enlightened despot than most English-speakers are willing to credit. He rationalized a great deal of European political life and instituted better forms of government. He also instituted religious freedom and emancipated the Jews.

I don't think he's entirely wrong, but the underlying issue is much deeper than whether the 19th century was plagued by envy and resentment. It's about whether moral values should be shaped around producing figures like Alexander the Great, the darling of Antiquity, or about helping those who cannot help themselves. Unless you think the whole ancient world was psychologically deficient, that is a difficult question to answer.

I'll have to consider that more. Needless to say, I don't think Christianity has the market cornered on talking about the value of compassion.

There's a short film on Amazon Prime called Tashi and the Monk. It's about Lobsang Phuntsok, a Buddhist monk that runs an orphanage near the Himalayas (I believe in India). Lobsang's motivation to help orphans ultimately comes down to discovering healing for himself, because he himself was an orphan. There's a Buddhist saying that when you light a candle for yourself, you also light a candle for others, and I think that's a better motivation than the fundamentalist Christian image of a cosmic potentate threatening people with punishment for not following his arbitrary edicts.

Like the Dalai Lama says, "My religion is compassion". When was the last time a Christian public figure in the US rallied around such a sentiment? Usually it's petty things like gay marriage, or lamenting the supposed decline of society. I'm tired of sucking at the tit of resentment like that.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think its necessarily implied in an absolutist way. Killing is generally wrong for instance, according to the Buddha, but according to the folk tales, in his previous lives he gained merit as the Bodhisattva through wisely killing those who were endangering others.

That's still moral realism.

I don't think Napoleon was all bad. I think he was smeared in the ANglophone world. I think Napolean was more of an enlightened despot than most English-speakers are willing to credit. He rationalized a great deal of European political life and instituted better forms of government. He also instituted religious freedom and emancipated the Jews.

Eh, I'm primarily a Hispanophile, so if you want to see people who don't like Napoleon, take a look at what they think about him in Spain, where there were such large scale revolts that the word "guerrilla" became international. Meanwhile, his reforms in France involved rolling back a lot of the social reforms of the French Revolution, including the progress made by women. He wasn't Hitler, but an enlightened despot is still a despot. Should we be admiring enlightened despots?

In any case, I don't think it was whatever progressive policies that he had which Nietzsche admired. He was an advocate of egoism.

I'll have to consider that more. Needless to say, I don't think Christianity has the market cornered on talking about the value of compassion.

I'm less interested in the fact that it talks about the value of compassion, and more about the manner in which it challenged the pre-existing values of the classical world. The focus was very different--much more aristocratic and based in systems of honor. That is very common throughout history. More so than an emphasis on compassion, I would say, so if people are going to say that modern humanistic values are subjective, but somehow also demonstrably the best way to run a society, I don't think that is at all self-evident.

Like the Dalai Lama says, "My religion is compassion". When was the last time a Christian public figure in the US rallied around such a sentiment? Usually it's petty things like gay marriage, or lamenting the supposed decline of society. I'm tired of sucking at the tit of resentment like that.

Er... I'm pretty sure "my religion is compassion" is Pete Buttigieg's entire campaign platform. Then we've got Obama's involvement with the black church, Jimmy Carter's blending of Evangelicalism and social issues. Just because the GOP is really obnoxious about religion doesn't mean that they're the only ones talking about it at all.

Outside of politics, of course we have to mention Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Dalai Lama isn't in the United States, so I also don't think it's fair to invoke him and not invoke someone like Archbishop Desmond Tutu also.

 

[Sanoy]

We can know about psychological health through empirical observation. It doesn't require a religious a priori.

They don't come with labels so this is not an empirical observation. You are using internal expectations of how one ought to be, and your own moral faculties. You are using your own moral faculties to determine what is and isn't moral, just like everyone else.

 

[FireDragon76]

They don't come with labels so this is not an empirical observation. You are using internal expectations of how one ought to be, and your own moral faculties. You are using your own moral faculties to determine what is and isn't moral, just like everyone else.

I'm not making absolute moral claims. As long as your morality doesn't hurt me or people I care for, then that's your own business what you believe is right or wrong.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not making absolute moral claims.

I'm not saying you are. I am challenging your belief that you are doing anything morally different than the murderer, because you aren't.

I would also like to challenge your own self assessment of your moral standing. Christ came for the sick not the well, so the church is a hospital for people to get well, and all you can do is criticize it because some fail to do so? I think your self assessment is overlooking pride and humility. Few have ever been in the situation where their true morality has had the opportunity to be discovered, but most will kill their brother for bread when hungry and torture someone because someone with authority tells them to. I know who I am, I'm an evil person that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit. If you think you aren't an evil person as well perhaps you have never had the opportunity to reveal true yourself.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not saying you are. I am challenging your belief that you are doing anything morally different than the murderer, because you aren't.

You seem to be implying I'm just as guilty as a murderer. I'm not sure how that works out without seeming absurdity.

I would also like to challenge your own self assessment of your moral standing. Christ came for the sick not the well, so the church is a hospital for people to get well, and all you can do is criticize it because some fail to do so?

If it is like a hospital (a claim I do not accept, that simplifies religion's function in peoples lives far too much), it's often more like a hospital run by the sick. As Jesus said, "the blind leading the blind".

I know who I am, I'm an evil person that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit. If you think you aren't an evil person as well perhaps you have never had the opportunity to reveal true yourself.

I went through the better part of half a decade of therapy to be able to accept myself. I am not prepared to throw that all away and believe something that is untrue merely because it would get me access to potential social networks and empty and hollow promises about the afterlife.

No, I reject your implication that I am an evil person, or that people in general are evil. People are often ignorant and can be educated, that's different from being evil.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's still moral realism.

I like that term better than implying moral absolutism. Usually that is nothing but an attempt by Evangelicals to try to sell you on Jesus as the solution to a seeming deficit in perceived moral rectitude.

... Meanwhile, his reforms in France involved rolling back a lot of the social reforms of the French Revolution, including the progress made by women. He wasn't Hitler, but an enlightened despot is still a despot. Should we be admiring enlightened despots?

I think in the end that's a personal choice. I just don't find Napoleon to be all that bad compared to some figures of the time period. The British moral hypocrisy was rather borish, in comparison.

In any case, I don't think it was whatever progressive policies that he had which Nietzsche admired. He was an advocate of egoism.

Egoism isn't necessarily all that great of an evil in my book. If you don't look out for yourself, who will? "Love your neighbor as yourself" implies you actually love yourself in the first place.

On the other hand, Christianity tends to tell people they must sacrifice for the interests of others or they are a horrible human being.

I'm less interested in the fact that it talks about the value of compassion, and more about the manner in which it challenged the pre-existing values of the classical world. The focus was very different--much more aristocratic and based in systems of honor. That is very common throughout history.

I'm not a fan of bronze age values, either. But I'm not convinced your representation of Christianity is accurate to the way it is actually practiced.

More so than an emphasis on compassion, I would say, so if people are going to say that modern humanistic values are subjective, but somehow also demonstrably the best way to run a society, I don't think that is at all self-evident.

Maybe it's even self-contradictory. But I'm not convinced that's what people who reject Christianity are actually saying. I think you are generally drawing up a strawman here.

There is a book you should read. It's about nine prominent artists and intellectuals, and why they ultimately left Christianity behind. It seems to me many of their motivations are alot more noble than simply being nihilistic and not caring:

https://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Disenchantment-Portraits-Faith-Doubt/dp/0300140673

Er... I'm pretty sure "my religion is compassion" is Pete Buttigieg's entire campaign platform.

Pete Buttigieg is an Episcopalian, and his views don't represent most American Christians.

Then we've got Obama's involvement with the black church, Jimmy Carter's blending of Evangelicalism and social issues.

Liberalism in the Church is dying and insignificant in the US. People aren't becoming religious liberals, they are simply leaving. Liberalism is failing to inspire people to actually be religious. Perhaps that is the terminus for Christianity, some have speculated about that of course, including Bonhoeffer.

I also don't think it's fair to invoke him and not invoke someone like Archbishop Desmond Tutu also.

Tutu is a liberal Anglican whose views likewise wouldn't be well represented on this forum. He's fairly outspoken about gay rights and environmentalism, for instance, and he seems to have somewhat universalist sentiments. All those things could get you in big trouble here, and people would say you aren't really a Christian if you believe those things. So it's problematic to hold him up as an example of a Christian without acknowledging how unpopular and unrepresentative his views really would be.