Ch. 3: Unjust
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:00 pm
Please use this thread to discuss Ch. 3: Unjust.
A major problem with this - recognizing you don't live in America - is the majority of Americans are illiterate in the way you mention. As a result, religious publishing and broadcast companies are controlled by Bible literalists/fundamentalists. That's the only brand the vast majority of Americans hear about and will tolerate. So we may get tired of "absurd literal ideas in the Bible", but that dominates faith in America.It is really pointless from an atheist perspective to engage with literal faith, since the only real meaning of faith is symbolic, and claims of literalism are mainly a way of reinforcing moral teachings to an illiterate audience. Until Dawkins and Barker discuss the possible cultural meaning of the absurd literal ideas in the Bible their critique is rather empty. Atheist analysis of religion often looks like an elaborate exercise in shadowboxing, aiming to denigrate faith by finding the simplest caricature and showing it is not literally true.
This has been stated before, but the person making the claim never comes out and clarifies what sort of religious groups do not have this problem, which ones should be discussed as examples of a more complicated or nuanced philosophy? And if they're a tiny minority, how relevant would that be?...aiming to denigrate faith by finding the simplest caricature and showing it is not literally true.
Secular institutions built communities and social values in America. The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. Our legal system is secular. Our systems are opposed to many of the Ten Commandments - we have freedom of religion, there are no legal requirements to honor a sabbath or one's parents, adultery is not illegal, coveting is good because it leads to increased sales, etc...The truth is secondary, given that the ethics of science have no practical replacement for the role of religion in building community and instilling social values.
Hi LanDroid, I think you missed my point. Barker (and Dawkins) imply that by proving absurdity wrong, the necessary conclusion is that we should entirely abandon religion. That is an absurd implication, but it is central to the arguments of atheism. What I am saying is that the replacement for absurd religion is not the equal opposite atheist absurdity that man can live by bread alone, but rather a recognition that within the absurdity of religious faith there exists an adaptive memeplex that can be engaged by rational people to enable human evolution.LanDroid wrote: we may get tired of "absurd literal ideas in the Bible", but that dominates faith in America.
So what? These intransigent religious leaders you mention are damned by their insanity. Serious discussion can only engage people who are open to truth, which does not include religious leaders in America, who are a pack of delusional ideological political hypocrites.LanDroid wrote: religious leaders in America will NEVER "discuss the possible cultural meaning of the absurd literal ideas in the Bible."
My sense is that the ability to hold a sensible conversation about religion is an extremely rare thing, since it is such a complex emotional topic. But that does not imply we should not try to find such conversation. I personally quite like the reformed theologians of Germany from the mid twentieth century such as Barth and Brunner as examples of a more nuanced theology, but I think we are on the cusp of a major revolution in theology based on the importance of the central fact that Jesus Christ was invented and did not exist, something that completely blows apart the tradition of literal faith.LanDroid wrote: what sort of religious groups do not have this problem, which ones should be discussed as examples of a more complicated or nuanced philosophy?
Only tiny minorities have ever created serious reforms.LanDroid wrote: And if they're a tiny minority, how relevant would that be?
The USA is the most religious country in the western world. These secular institutions that you mention were infused by an assumption of a central place of religion in civil society, while maintaining a deliberate Jeffersonian wall between church and state. I think that a big factor in the polarisation and decline of civil society in America is precisely this problem of the derision towards religion, which religion brings upon itself by holding absurd beliefs. I also think that in days of yore sensible people were able to recognise the symbolic meaning in religion without getting so huffy about literal errors.LanDroid wrote: Secular institutions built communities and social values in America.
The inference there seems to be that salvation can come from the abandonment of all faith. That seems a treacherous path. The city upon a hill is a phrase from Jesus Christ in the sermon on the mount. It entered the American lexicon through the 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity" by Puritan John Winthrop. The new community would be "as a city upon a hill", watched by the world—which became the ideal that the New England colonists placed upon their hilly capital city of Boston. The Puritans' community in New England would set an example of communal charity, affection, and unity to the world or, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant of God, "we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world" of God's judgment. Winthrop's sermon gave rise to the widespread belief that the United States of America is "God's country" because, metaphorically, it is a "Shining City upon a Hill," an early example of American exceptionalism.LanDroid wrote: The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. Our legal system is secular. Our systems are opposed to many of the Ten Commandments - we have freedom of religion, there are no legal requirements to honor a sabbath or one's parents, adultery is not illegal, coveting is good because it leads to increased sales, etc...
That's taking it too far. Counteracting literal stupidity in Christianity or Judaism doesn't mean "we should entirely abandon religion." We might abandon those two due to the rickety foundations they're built on, but that would say nothing about Hinduism, the Vague Generic Deity, or Zoroastrianism to name a few...Mr. Tulip wrote:Hi LanDroid, I think you missed my point. Barker (and Dawkins) imply that by proving absurdity wrong, the necessary conclusion is that we should entirely abandon religion. That is an absurd implication, but it is central to the arguments of atheism. What I am saying is that the replacement for absurd religion is not the equal opposite atheist absurdity that man can live by bread alone, but rather a recognition that within the absurdity of religious faith there exists an adaptive memeplex that can be engaged by rational people to enable human evolution.
I think though, that the effort to abandon religion provides the tenor of the new atheism, which is the school of thought Barker advocates for in this book. The argument, as I understand it, is that theology is an obsolete method of thought and learning, which is completely and adequately replaced by modern scientific rationality. Therefore, in the New Atheist view, religious ritual should be abandoned as a harmful practice, serving only to inculcate false belief.LanDroid wrote: Counteracting literal stupidity in Christianity or Judaism doesn't mean "we should entirely abandon religion."
My view is that this atheist mentality that sees Judeo-Christian culture as evil and primitive involves a major misunderstanding. Judeo-Christian culture is the foundation of western civilization. Its foundations are indeed flawed and rickety, but the solution here is repair, not demolition. The great thing about the Judeo-Christian tradition is its evolution at the centre of human existence, drawing from a whole range of influences such as those you mention from India, Persia and Europe. There is certainly a strong problem of error within the monotheist traditions, but my view is that these errors arise from misinterpretation, and are not what you might call congenital. It is quite untrue to suggest to abandon Christianity “would say nothing” about other non-Western religions. It would say a lot about our attitude to spirituality, mythology, ritual, worship, reverence, tradition, authority, and numerous other social and identity factors that relate to religion.LanDroid wrote: We might abandon those two [Judaism and Christianity] due to the rickety foundations they're built on, but that would say nothing about Hinduism, the Vague Generic Deity, or Zoroastrianism to name a few...
For a start, and sorry for the minor pedantry here, but the Bronze Age ended in 1000 BC, and the books of the Old Testament were not compiled until half a millennium later, well into the Iron Age. Such sloppy denigration is indicative of how atheism regards religious scholarship with disdain.LanDroid wrote: The implication that a secular world view is living by bread alone is absurd. Perhaps you should read The Varieties of Scientific Experience by Sagan. We can leave behind savage bronze age myths and instead marvel at the Universe.
This reminds me of Donald Trump complaining about media bias against him. "They show every speech I give live and report verbatim on everything I say and do. I've had astonishing amounts of free media publicity. It's so biased and - I can tell you - it is terrible." <=paraphrasing. Similarly, Barker quotes directly from Scripture. To complain about "mockery and derision" you'd have to explain how this former preacher misunderstands each passage. Otherwise mockery and derision (plus outright denunciation) for Holy Scripture like the following quote from this chapter is well deserved.Mr. Tulip wrote:The point of Barker’s trawling of the Bible is mockery and derision of religion, serving as a commissioned addendum to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, justifying the assertion that God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
Hosea 13:16
Excellent point. Potentially. The problem is religion is highly resistant to "repair." I'd say it has indeed improved, but mainly because secular laws have largely prevented religion from regaining government power in America and UK. All religious programming we hear is fundamentalist, hostile to repair, and aching for more power in government.Mr. Tulip wrote:Judeo-Christian culture is the foundation of western civilization. Its foundations are indeed flawed and rickety, but the solution here is repair, not demolition.
OK perhaps I should have said "ancient age" instead of bronze, big deal. This is the sort of nit-picky stuff that I don't have much energy for these days, but I'm finding the bronze age existed from about 2500 - 700 BCE and parts of the Old Testament may have been written as early as 1000 BCE so your point is not clear cut...For a start, and sorry for the minor pedantry here, but the Bronze Age ended in 1000 BC, and the books of the Old Testament were not compiled until half a millennium later, well into the Iron Age. Such sloppy denigration is indicative of how atheism regards religious scholarship with disdain.
Hi LanDroid. I appreciate the comparison, but it is easily refuted. The Bible contains lines like ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ and the main idea from Jesus Christ in his Sermon on the Mount is that the blessing of God is upon the meek, mourners, peacemakers, the pure, the poor in spirit, the merciful and the persecuted. The existence of views in the Old Testament which argue that unbelievers are damned does not invalidate the positive ethics within Christianity. Jesus goes on to explain that he is bringing a new system of ethics that supersedes these old fashioned ideas which Barker mocks. Barker is taking a highly biased reading of the Bible and suggesting it is objective. That is not good scholarship.LanDroid wrote:This reminds me of Donald Trump complaining about media bias against him.Mr. Tulip wrote:The point of Barker’s trawling of the Bible is mockery and derision of religion, serving as a commissioned addendum to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, justifying the assertion that God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.
If only Barker did the same!! Instead he quote-mines for a few lines which support his extreme prejudice and ignores the vast quantity of scripture that refutes his view, while also ignoring any attempt to place the morality of the ancient Jews in historical context.LanDroid wrote: "They show every speech I give live and report verbatim on everything I say and do. I've had astonishing amounts of free media publicity. It's so biased and - I can tell you - it is terrible."
It is not similar. Trump’s critics do, as you say, “show every speech” and form a rounded systematic view of Trump. But Barker has such a big chip on his shoulder that he is motivated to present a highly distorted picture of Christianity, even ignoring its central main teachings. As he later explains this is due to his Native American ancestry and his realization of how Christianity destroyed native theology and myths and culture. That opens a reasonable debate, but Barker is an extremist, and the value of his work is in pushing the centre of debate away from fundamentalism, not providing a balanced view.LanDroid wrote:Similarly, Barker quotes directly from Scripture. To complain about "mockery and derision" you'd have to explain how this former preacher misunderstands each passage. Otherwise mockery and derision (plus outright denunciation) for Holy Scripture like the following quote from this chapter is well deserved.
Well said. But I think that in assessing Christianity, treating American Fundamentalism as typical is wrong. It is interesting in reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin at the moment (Booktalk’s fiction selection) to see how Fundamentalism served to justify slavery. I think that traumatic distortion remains a serious problem in American Christianity today. Fundamentalism is a heresy.LanDroid wrote:Excellent point. Potentially. The problem is religion is highly resistant to "repair." I'd say it has indeed improved, but mainly because secular laws have largely prevented religion from regaining government power in America and UK. All religious programming we hear is fundamentalist, hostile to repair, and aching for more power in government.Mr. Tulip wrote:Judeo-Christian culture is the foundation of western civilization. Its foundations are indeed flawed and rickety, but the solution here is repair, not demolition.
Many thanks for making this observation LanDroid. Yes indeed, my view is that literal orthodox Christianity is a fallen corruption from an original symbolic Gnostic faith, and that the recognition that Jesus Christ was a fictional invention is central to the rehabilitation of Christianity. I argue that my view is purely scientific and correct, and is entirely able to demolish the old paradigm of supernatural tradition, while restoring its superb ethical inner meaning.LanDroid wrote: If I understand it correctly, your "repair" involves proof and agreement that Jesus did not exist. Somehow that would lead to a symbolic understanding of Christianity rather than a literal one. I don't want to get distracted by your beliefs here other than it's very difficult to see how a general agreement that Jesus didn't exist would not lead to the "demolition" of that faith. Your efforts could be more destructive than those of secularists?
That could work if it actually catches on...Fundamentalism is a heresy.