It is no small observation to note that religious people have done a fantastic job in convincing everyone not to blame the religion when so-called adherents commit antisocial acts.
"What!? That Christian stabbed a man and said Jesus told him to do it? He must have been hallucinating."
"What!? That man stoned his disobedient child to death? He must have misinterpreted that passage."
It's not supposed to matter how many abortion doctors are murdered by Christians. Christianity is still proclaimed as a moral religion. It not supposed to matter how many Muslim children blow themselves up in the name of their religion. Islam is still trumpeted as a religion of peace. It's not supposed to matter....ummm.... how many Amalekites the Jews once killed. Wait, that one was most certainly ordained by God. Sorry Jews.
So, let me skip to the point. Are non-theists afforded the same luxury? No, actually it's worse for them. Some religious people look upon the non-theists with suspicion, as though the non-theists were synonymous with satanists (a term which itself has varies degrees of meaning).
How is this fair?
But there are tons of news stories talking crap about non-theists committing crimes?
ReplyDeleteNo, because no one cares if you're a non-theist.
If you ever kill someone, even if say you kill me because I'm taking too long on my blog, the headline won't be non-theist kills someone. That will never happen unless you are shouting "I'M A NON-THEIST" while you do it. And even then I but it doesn't happen.
But if someone is well known (even locally) as a member or advocate of a particular religion, then the headline will often put it on the religion instead of the person.
Futhermore, I say go ahead and judge Christianity on it's actions because while there's a handful of dark chapters, the pages of that book will be limitless with the stories of work by missionaries, charitable people etc. That stuff far outweighs the bad things but gets much less attention.
I disagree. In our culture, when an extremist commits a violent act, say, directed at an abortion clinic, my impression has been that news media tie the act to the religious rhetoric pretty well. They may not indict all of the theistic world for that crime, but for a moment the spotlight is put on that particular criminal, and the circle he runs in.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you expect the general public to accept the notion that theism of any kind is inherently violent (regardless of particular religion or sect), you'll obviously have a harder sell. Folks who just want to go to church and have no intention of hurting anyway do not want to be associated with violent extremists, merely because of a common belief in an Abrahamic God, any more that I want my secular lifestyle compared to the acts of non-theistic criminals like Nazis and Soviets.
I would assert that rigid ideology that tries to put things in an absolute, "life or death", with us or against us, "won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?!"is the root cause of violence like this - be it religious in nature or not.
It's probably true that religious is a disproportionately large source of this kind of polarizing rhetoric, but it's certainly not the only source. Politics comes to mind. Tea Partier's seem to think that the country is really on the verge of sinking into the ocean because the President's a demy-crat. I'm surprised they haven't taken a shot at him yet.
John: I don't think you're really being fair. Living in Cinci, I get to see a fair share of reports on violent crimes and criminals. I can't remember the last time a person's religion (or lack therein) was brought up at all. On a national level, when it is brought up regarding a crime, it's usually relevant to the motive. If a church is defaced, and the perps were found to be affiliated with an atheist or nihilistic group, do you think that info would be suppressed?
ReplyDeleteMy point is that I don't think the non-religious are treated fairly. The non-religious are treated with suspicion just through the virtue of being non-religious. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter what horrendous acts are committed by religious people, religion as a whole is still regarded as a good institution - even by the non-religious!
ReplyDeleteI think you're making a moot point.
ReplyDeleteA good religion is a good thing no matter how many Artards blow themselves up when they don't understand it.
The tenets of non-religiosity, whatever they are, are likewise unchanged but the actions of those in that class.
I think it just comes down to the fact that theists and believers identify better with other people of faith than they do with atheists and hence the suspicion.
Personally, without the existence of a God I see no reason whatsoever for moral behavior. I think that sums up a lot of theists views on the matter.
It's not moot, it is potentially dangerous. Theists have been allowed to cast non-theists as "The Other." This is ignorant thinking that enables bigotry and violence. It is hardly a moot point. Think of all the skeptics hiding in the closet because they are afraid of being ostracized by their community.
ReplyDeleteStart a blog if you want to debate God and morality.
"A good religion is a good thing no matter how many Artards blow themselves up when they don't understand it."
ReplyDeleteMeg, think your ideas out thoroughly before expressing them. What constitutes a good vs bad religion? How is that judged in your book? And no, it does matter how many artards blow themselves up. There's a certain threshold, perhaps in the millions of artards where it should give you pause.
"Personally, without the existence of a God I see no reason whatsoever for moral behavior". John, even with the existence of God, You sometimes see no reason for moral behavior. Seriously though, I challenge the notion that God is the lynchpin of morality, and without belief in His existence, we would descend into chaos. 90% of morality has nothing to do with God.
Matt, I couldn't really hold it against theists for demonizing me, when I am certainly demonizing them. Since I view it as just to consider them alien and backwards, it's only fair to let them reciprocate.
ReplyDeleteThis is a question of human nature, not religion. We oversimplify and misunderstand those who are different than us. Since theism and atheism are somewhat adversarial, this only amplifies the feeling, and rightfully so.
Matt, you are the other. Pretty much the bulk of people have always believed in a God, those who don't are in the minority.
ReplyDeleteDungy, I see reason for morality, I'm just a bad person.
I don't have criteria for judging a good or bad religion, but one that is good, would be good. It's kind of a hypothetical I was making there.
People have been blowing shit up for lots of different reasons forever, sometimes about God sometimes not. Crazy folk don't really get to count.
My point is: Does the number of crazies generated (even as an unintended byproduct) by a religion, say something about the value of that religion?
ReplyDeleteIf one religion had a disproportionately large number of crazies, far exceeding other religions, wouldn't that diminish it's goodness?
Fair, as long as we considering it per capita to a point.
ReplyDeleteJohn, being part of a minority and being part of the "other" are not entirely the same thing. The "other" specifically implies negative connotations. People feel needlessly threatened by the "other." The "other" is viewed as dangerous, wicked, and foreign. The way in which the Nazi's viewed the Jews would be a powerful example of what I am referring to. If theists come to feel truly threatened by non-theists, then I hope you can see why this whole situation could become potentially dangerous.
ReplyDeleteDungy, the problem is that the charges theists bring against non-theists are incorrect. Non-theists are not immoral, their lives are not meaningless, they do not worship science, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWKDOikIgIs&feature=relmfu
ReplyDeleteJust for fun.
Those charges may well be true in the particulars, since neither you or I can be sure how every non-theist conducts his life. I'm sure specimens could be found of immoral, nihilistic atheists who put a psychological emphasis on material knowledge which is out of proportion.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that criticism would be unfair, since they would be citing particulars as evidence against the whole. Right?
But aren't you basically doing just that in your introduction to this blog? You list some hypothetical instances that theists would shrug off as unrepresentative of the whole and imply that they should take responsibility.
The criticisms on both sides are flawed, for the same reason. However, I think there's some truth to each criticism.
There's a lot of "gnashing of teeth" violent rhetoric in Abrahamic religions that probably produces a more than average amount of extremist violence.
Also, lack of belief in such a God may invite some (through a lack of fear) to debauch themselves and wallow in nihilistic apathy, and torpid immorality (Jeff Bruce, exhibit A).
But it's a moot point because it's impossible to determine which is MORE true than the other, without taking some elaborate census to tie lifestyle to religous viewpoint (assuming everyone participates and doesn't lie, which of course they would).
First, Boom goes the dynamite. Second, you're right about violent rhetoric which is why an interpretive authority is so key. Last on jeff, let's leave him out of it till he joins the fun lol
ReplyDeleteWhat if the interpretive authority is supportive of aggression in the name of God?
ReplyDeleteDungy, I am not so sure the theists and non-theists are on an even playing field. Why? Well, because the issues brought up about religion are, for the most part, legitimate problems that the theist is either unable to answer, unwilling to answer, or cannot provide an adequate answer for.
ReplyDeleteThe "issues" brought up against non-theists are stereotypes. Yes, of course we can find particulars, but I doubt most non-theists are compelled to live horrible, immoral lives in the name of their irreligiosity.
This brings me to another issue. These religious outliers, the people who commit heinous crimes, typically cite holy scripture or claim a personal revelation. In other words, they feel as though they are fully endorsed by their religion to commit these acts. Is there anything specific about agnosticism, deism, or atheism that endorses (<-- this is the keyword here) immoral acts? I don't think so, but if you don't agree, we can discuss that later.
Dungy, that's the dicey part. The institution of the church is not protected from error except on matters of faith and morals, the teaching if you will. Pop Benedict could if he wanted ask all Catholics to take up arms in Libya whether god wants it or not, hence the duty of men to make sure the cardinal college and bishops are good men. It's dicey indeed.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I wish we had an example of how a truly atheistic society fared over a long period to see what crazy people blame, but we don't. I submit all these crazy acts would still occur under other names
"These religious outliers, the people who commit heinous crimes, typically cite holy scripture or claim a personal revelation. In other words, they feel as though they are fully endorsed by their religion to commit these acts. Is there anything specific about agnosticism, deism, or atheism that endorses (<-- this is the keyword here) immoral acts?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's a pretty good point. "Non-theism" isn't really an ideology at all. It's barely even a position on the matter, but rather a lack of a position, simply saying "I don't believe THAT"... So it really doesn't positively endorse anything at all, moral or immoral.
Folks like you and I, as a sample, do indeed care a great deal about morality, good character and truth. However, those are personal values, and aren't necessarily related to (or caused by) our lack of faith.
Christians (enough with this Theist crap), on the other hand, have their values tightly coupled to their beliefs. Most (even the most admirable) will not allow themselves to consider the darker aspects of their faith, for fear of losing grip on values. The two are considered one and the same.
I don't approve of that instinct, but I understand it. Instead of trying to force them to examine it, we should offer a worthy alternative.
"Matt, I wish we had an example of how a truly atheistic society fared over a long period to see what crazy people blame, but we don't. I submit all these crazy acts would still occur under other names."
ReplyDeleteAre you insinuating that all people who commit deplorable acts in the name of religion are mentally unstable?
"Christians (enough with this Theist crap)"
Why should we pick on the Christians alone? Religion in general is worthy of criticism.
"Instead of trying to force them to examine it, we should offer a worthy alternative."
I doubt any theist would embrace a secular lifestyle unless he could see and understand the flaws of his religion.
Matt, all of them? I don't think so, but many.
ReplyDeleteThe people who latch on so desperately and misinterpret the faith are often mentally disturbed if not all out nuts. If they didn't latch onto God, it could be to another idea.
Also, why anyone would want to live a secular lifestyle is somewhat beyond me. Aside from the understanding that there are no eternal consequences for any action, the rest of it is depressing.
I'm not saying that theists should remain so for that reason, but it is.
If there were no God, and we're all here because of all kinds of random shit happening just right, then life truly is meaningless.
That's not going to overpower our instincts for self preservation or anything but if people really thought the world were so meaningless I'm not sure we'd have come this far.
But who knows. I suppose we'd get over that eventually. Still depressing.
"If there were no God, and we're all here because of all kinds of random shit happening just right, then life truly is meaningless."
ReplyDeleteThis statement was my whole reason for getting into faith in the first place. What I eventually came to realize is that there's a difference between knowing life is meaningless, and simply not knowing what the meaning is.
Faith is the short, easy path to positive knowledge of meaning. To reject that is not the same thing as rejecting any meaning at all..
So you're saying there may be some meaning but what?
ReplyDeleteThanks for curtly paraphrasing with deliberate lack of enthusiasm...
ReplyDeleteI'm saying there's a significance to this universe beyond what value we choose to assign it. Something above and beyond our wants and needs, that's not easily packaged and delivered like a religious "purpose". Something that's quite indifferent to our perceptions, that doesn't exist for our convenience or peace of mind.
You seem to think that this exists as a choice between nihilism and despair or accepting the neatly prepackaged purpose offered by a particular religion. Such a purpose could be summed up thusly: "Obey your creator." What deeper meaning does such a purpose offer? Maybe if I throw in the word "love", as Christianity often does. "Love and obey your creator, who loves you." Does that addition really add any dimension to meaning? We're supposed to believe that it does. I say no. There's no deeper significance to that view of the universe than the nihilistic "nothing really matters" view that it seeks to replace.
Your beliefs are your business, but I'd rather accept "there may be some meaning but what" over the religious alternative. I'd rather spend my life seeking and not finding than contaminating myself with a convenient lie. Keep your meaning, John. Build a temple in your heart to your own sense of self importance (to borrow words from Alex). My stronghold is the truth!
"The people who latch on so desperately and misinterpret the faith are often mentally disturbed if not all out nuts. If they didn't latch onto God, it could be to another idea."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to make a counter proposal. I think religion is a powerful enabler for erratic behavior. Take, for example, those children who blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Why do these kids kill themselves, and others, just to gain some brownie points with the man upstairs? Is it because they were all mentally ill? No, it's because they were raised to absorb an ignorant and intolerant set of beliefs. This would not be such a prevalent problem in a culture that valued reason, tolerance, and education, as opposed to blind, unquestioned belief.
"Also, why anyone would want to live a secular lifestyle is somewhat beyond me."
Because they care about reason, and evidence, and are not afraid to face reality, and they see no more reason in believing bronze age scribblings than believing Raelism.
"So you're saying there may be some meaning but what?"
Like Dungy, I am not particularly fond of the theist notion that the only alternative to religious meaning is nihilism (by the way, if you could quote the biblical passage in which God describes the whole purpose behind creating the universe and humanity, I would greatly appreciate it). However, I think I have a slightly different response than what Dungy gave.
Is there some ultimate purpose behind the creation of this universe? I don't know. If there is a God, it might seem reasonable to postulate that he created the universe for a purpose. Still, we have no means in knowing if this is true, and it is always possible that he created this universe without any purpose at all. It is, therefore, merely a notion taken for granted.
Maybe there is no God at all? Maybe there most certainly is no ultimate meaning behind our existence?
Personally, I find these secular stances to be more humbling. They come with an understanding that we are but one minor blip within a deep and nearly unfathomable universe.
However, though we are insignificant in a galactic sense, we are quite unique in a more localized, planetary sense. No other known creature can match the power of our minds! It has allowed for the creation of literature and art; The ability to love and feel loved in return; A comprehension of ourselves and our surroundings thanks in part to the development of the sciences.
Yes, there are many wonderful things to enjoy about the world we live in. I don't know why anyone would wish to feel indifferent about it.
So, in conclusion, there might not be an ultimate meaning behind the universe, but that doesn't mean you have to a nihilist. So, what do you do? Discover your own meaning!
I do not appreciate it when moronic theists go around saying my life has no meaning. They have no right or ability to judge that. I find my life to be meaningful enough without religion.
Dungy, I was actually asking, not paraphrasing. I wanted to know what basis you have for saying there is any meaning in a sans-God universe.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the only difference in our positions is that I believe to have succeeded in finding the truth, where you believe it to be nearly impossible.
Nevertheless we both are holding to the idea that there is some meaning out there despite having no empirical evidence of it. The difference here though is I can argue my reason for meaning with a religion I believe (though can't prove) is true where you're basis for meaning comes from....what? I'm actually asking.
I see no way to determine which of our views is more lie than the other, though certainly mine seems more convenient.
Also, and this is for both of you, I'm not so concerned with our purpose. I believe life has value, we're here because God wants us to be here. If existence has a purpose, I don't know. I do believe we have a purpose within the scope of existence but I don't know and am not terribly bothered by not knowing what it is.
Matt,
"I'd like to make a counter proposal. I think religion is a powerful enabler for erratic behavior. Take, for example, those children who blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Why do these kids kill themselves, and others, just to gain some brownie points with the man upstairs? Is it because they were all mentally ill?"
More often than not suicide bombers are engaging in moral disengagement, something that doesn't need religion to happen. They believe goal a needs to be achieved and believe thing a must be done regardless of consequences. Same sort of thing happens in say political revolutions.
Also, I looked up that something like only 29 percent of suicide bombers had a high school education and something like 53 percent had no schooling. Many of them are poor and desperate.
While religion may promise them a paradise, even a with a secular understanding they could say at least their death can advance a cause, while escaping their situation like any suicide.
"Because they care about reason, and evidence, and are not afraid to face reality, and they see no more reason in believing bronze age scribblings than believing Raelism."
This statement has nothing to do with how almost anyone "lives" their life. In my day to day, reason and evidence and provable reality guide the vast majority of my decisions. In the other cases, my faith serves to have me donate money to something, help someone out etc. But as far as day to day, I don't see a real difference from that point.
"So, in conclusion, there might not be an ultimate meaning behind the universe, but that doesn't mean you have to a nihilist. So, what do you do? Discover your own meaning!"
That's just relativism, which maybe that's what you're going for. I create my own meaning and will decide for myself what it good etc. That's all well and good but it would lead to a lot of chaos if you ask me if everyone took it to heart.
"I do not appreciate it when moronic theists go around saying my life has no meaning. They have no right or ability to judge that. I find my life to be meaningful enough without religion."
No Christian anyway has any business saying anything like that to you and that certainly isn't what I'm saying. Every human life is meaningful. Your belief in God is not required for that to be so. The concern of the Christian in regard to what you believe should be only to tell you about Christ, give good witness and hope and pray you get there one day.
If you don't, that's no one's business but yours.
"The difference here though is I can argue my reason for meaning with a religion I believe (though can't prove) is true where you're basis for meaning comes from....what?"
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that the "meaning" that I perceive is purely subjective. There is nothing empirical that I can point to which would end all dispute, in the same way as religious meaning/purpose. However, to be a good sport, I'll try. I think that it's significant on it's own that the universe exists at all. That the laws of the universe seem to be consistent, and that the world makes sense. That the universe has produced life that's capable of asking these questions is, to me, very significant.
Above all, that there exists an objective reality that doesn't adapt to my wishes and judgements, that indeed I must adapt to in order to survive, is above all what I find most humbling, meaningful and, dare I say it, sacred.
The difference between you and I is that you derive meaning from a sense of certainty, whereas I derive it from doubt. I don't know the deep mysteries of "life, the universe and everything", I also don't know that it's impossible to find out. The higher being which gives my life meaning is merely reality.
Matt, are you trying to say that all religious faith is intrinsically or ultimately violent? If so, I'm skeptical.
ReplyDeleteHeh, John you brought up relativism. It was inevitable. I know Benedict's got a boner for the subject, but I really think it's a non-starter. The reason why is because it's so hard to differentiate relativism from an independently formed conclusion. The two look, sound, smell and taste the same. It's easy to attack relativism (I've never seen anyone actually defend it) it's practically a straw man, it's much more difficult to attack independent thought, especially here in the good ole USA.
"More often than not suicide bombers are engaging in moral disengagement..."
ReplyDeleteNow, is this a fact or is this just what you'd like to think is happening? I really don't know, but my guess would be that they are under the impression they are performing a morally good act. After all, the people who teach them these things claim that such an act will make them martyrs, which is the quickest way to earn their virgins, booze, and infinite boner.
"This statement has nothing to do with how almost anyone "lives" their life. In my day to day, reason and evidence and provable reality guide the vast majority of my decisions. In the other cases, my faith serves to have me donate money to something, help someone out etc. But as far as day to day, I don't see a real difference from that point."
I fully trust you rely on reason and evidence...for as long as they're useful to you, anyway. However, once reason and evidence start to question the validity of your religious beliefs, well, it suddenly becomes time to ignore them. Your dedication to them is, quite frankly, half-assed.
"That's just relativism, which maybe that's what you're going for. I create my own meaning and will decide for myself what it good etc. That's all well and good but it would lead to a lot of chaos if you ask me if everyone took it to heart."
We rely on order and the performance of mutually beneficial acts in order to survive. Collectively, our minds are simply not geared towards chaos. Our species wouldn't have survived this long if they were.
John, I think this disaster you like to predicts is unfounded.
"Matt, are you trying to say that all religious faith is intrinsically or ultimately violent? If so, I'm skeptical."
Well, no, not really. I'm rather certain religion encourages ignorance, which can lead to dangerous situations.
Keep in mind that we're surrounded by relatively tame versions of these faiths.
I think it was David Hume whom made the observation that the more well-defined the tenants of a religion is, the more intolerant it is. I think it's fair to say the Abrahamic religions have demonstrated the validity of this observation. They certainly lack the tolerance that this characteristic of polytheistic religions.
So, no, I don't think all religions are evil, but I do suspect some religions are more inclined to encourage horrific acts.
I got the moral disengagement term off some article on the psychology of suicide bombers. Seemed legit. I still think if you take out the afterlife equation, persuading troubled, uneducated youths to give their lives for an earthly cause would still occur.
ReplyDeleteReliance on mutually beneficial acts works now, but if you transplanted this idea and the atheistic viewpoint back to a much earlier time in human history, would we have ever made it here? Maybe, I'm not sure.
I think there is good evidence to show that rising to power and ruling with dominance can provide one with a much more comfortable lifestyle than mutual beneficial acts.
And how is my dedication to my beliefs half assed? My beliefs cannot tell me whether or not I should use effect or affect in a given sentence or tell me whether a better financial investment is a CD or stocks. These are determinations for which we have only reason. My faith cannot really help me there so failing to apply it in that situation is not half-assing it.
---
Throwing my hat in on what you said to Dungy.
I can see how people think religion encourages ignorance, I really can. But I can only speak from experience in my religion and I don't think that's the case.
Pope John Paul II and Benedict, both scholars, spent countless time encouraging the reading and study of scripture, the internal reviewing of one's faith. While they weren't turning blind followers away, they were actively dissuading blind faith in favor of understanding.
Yes that understanding is that of the church teaching. They weren't encouraging Catholics to consider ALL the alternatives, but why would they? 265 popes ago was a dude named Peter who walked and talked with God made flesh. (I know you guys don't buy that but obviously we Catholics do.)
Active, practicing Catholics are among the world's best in many fields of intellectual pursuit.
Also, I find the church to be fairly tolerant even though it is well defined. Less so than polytheistic faiths for sure though.
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteSo you're going with universe from nothing type approach and ascribing a function of the divine to reality?
Do I understand that right?
Not really.
ReplyDeleteI am not asserting that the universe came from nothing.
ReplyDeleteI am not asserting that reality is divine, or has divine properties.
I hold a special significance to reality, and the process of reasoning and understanding. I take a little poetic license by calling it "sacred". Of course I don't mean that I worship reality. I draw a comparison because I as a believer, I drew inspiration from the notion of a higher power which is above and beyond myself (perhaps you feel the same now). Now, as a non-believer I draw inspiration from a natural universe which conforms to it's own laws, not my will; which I am subject too, and which is not subject to me.
"I still think if you take out the afterlife equation, persuading troubled, uneducated youths to give their lives for an earthly cause would still occur."
ReplyDeleteFIGHT for an earthly cause, perhaps, but blow yourself up for one? Seems like a bit of a stretch.
Yes, of course you'd be able to find a few people willing to do it, but if we're taking heaven out of the equation, then I take it we're talking about secular suicide bombers, right?
A secularist doesn't need a high school education to realize that this life is probably the only one they're going to get. Do you really think these people would be willing to commit suicide if there was not a promise of a clear and immediate reward?
"Reliance on mutually beneficial acts works now, but if you transplanted this idea and the atheistic viewpoint back to a much earlier time in human history, would we have ever made it here? Maybe, I'm not sure."
You really think atheists are fucking savages, don't you?
"And how is my dedication to my beliefs half assed?"
I didn't say your dedication to your beliefs is half assed. I said your dedication to reason and evidence is half assed.
"Also, I find the church to be fairly tolerant even though it is well defined."
There is a reason I said we're use to tamer versions of these religions.
Secular suicide bombers...yes. I think poverty, poor education and a cause are enough for some people to blow themselves up. I will though concede that religion probably increases that number a tad. No way of knowing how much though.
ReplyDeleteNo atheists aren't savages, but atheism on a massive scale is still new in terms of world history. The bulk of our development as a species took place with the bulk of people and leaders believing in the divine in one form or another.
One possibility is that these atheist principles transplanted back in time would have made us advance further, but I speculate that they would not.
No evidence for this, just my hunch.
And yes then my dedication to reason etc is half assed. No argument.
Last, we need a fresh blog. I'll see what I can do at lunch.
I gotta say that I find John's position more persuasive when it comes to violence, suicide bombers, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe moment that human beings discovered it was more efficient to settle down into cities, cultivate grain (as opposed to hunting and gathering), form governments and divide our labor into specialized groups, we've been spending our free time fighting other civilizations over resources. Religion, both then and now, is a reflection of that way of life, not the cause.
Religion plays a special part in mobilizing and directing violence, but the underlying motives are, I think, the same as they ever were. If I had a magic button to make religion disappear everywhere, things might change shape, but terrible violence would still exist, perhaps even on the same scale.
Jesus...I guess I'll finally form a response.
ReplyDeleteJohn, yeah, we'd be able to find non-theists willing to blow themselves up for a cause, but I bet it would be a lot rarer. Why would a group of people who claim to know of no afterlife be so willing to kill themselves without the sign of an immediate reward?
Dungy, so, the underlying motive of all crimes committed in the name of religion is to garnish resources? A suicide bomber gains nothing material by killing himself. I think you need to embellish upon your position a bit further.
No, the bomber himself gains nothing. The terrorist organization that equips and trains him, however, is attempting to meet political ends. While the rhetoric is invariable bound up with religious matters, the goals of Islamic groups are centered around matters of territory (Palestine) or political influence (Al-Qaeda & US).
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to say that 100% of the motivation for 100% of religious crimes is resource allocation. However, I will say that it's difficult to find an historical example of religious violence that isn't also connected to material gain. There are a lot of reasons to kill a man. There are a lot of reasons to kill a thousand, or a million. The prime culprit is human nature, it would be a mistake to shift the focus away from that.
Look, I don't think the world would become engulfed with endless peace if religion were to suddenly disappear, but I do believe that a prominent excuse and motivator for violence and suppression would be eradicated.
ReplyDeleteExactly as Dungy said. On a nobler front it's the same reason a war hero runs into bullets to save a friend etc. He will gain nothing, but those people and ideas he cares about will.
ReplyDeleteAnd what of the motivation of the individiual? Is it of no importance? I doubt the soldier sacrificing his life for his comrades was thinking, "I must jump on top of this grenade so my friends may continue the struggle for more resources." I would like to think most soldiers in this position have purer intentions for why they would lay down their lives.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for religiously motivated crimes. Yes, someone might be pulling the strings with the sole or main intention of obtaining more resources, but is this the goal of.the average individual? Does the Muslim suicide bomber kill himself to help someone else gain something, or does he do it because he harbors a large amount of hate for certain people and because he's been promised an everlasting, immaterial reward for his deed?
"Look, I don't think the world would become engulfed with endless peace if religion were to suddenly disappear, but I do believe that a prominent excuse and motivator for violence and suppression would be eradicated."
ReplyDeleteI'm satisfied by this statement. As for the matter of the individual, I'll say this. No, the individual doesn't think much about the high-level motivation for warfare or terrorism. Individuals are inspired to self-sacrificing acts by demonizing of their enemies, notions of patriotism, the promise of keeping their loved ones at home happier and more secure, and invoking any multitude of higher ideals (like liberty or racial purity) meant to put the goals of the many above the individual.
I would think that pushing the button on religion would destroy the most potent motivator, and deal a harsh - but non-fatal - blow to the ability of authorities to mobilize these "soldiers". There are other sorts of "immaterial rewards" to dangle in front of a prospective bomber/soldier/killer. None so potent as religion, but authorities can make due with what they have. But, yes, in a "top 10 most wanted" list of causes of violence, YHWH is at the top.
John - Refreshing myself on this discussion, I saw this:
ReplyDelete"I can see how people think religion encourages ignorance, I really can. But I can only speak from experience in my religion and I don't think that's the case."
And I want to comment on it, because it's something I've given a lot of thought to recently.
I don't think that Christianity encourages ignorance. I also don't think it discourages it. While I was perusing your future inheritance, St. Augustine's Confessions, I came across the following passages:
"Lord God of truth, surely the person with a scientific knowledge of nature is not pleasing to you on that ground alone. The person who knows all those matters but is ignorant of you is unhappy. The person who knows you, even if ignorant of natural science, is happy. Indeed the one who knows both you and nature is not on that account happier...
A man who knows he owns a tree and gives thanks to you for the use of it, even though he doesn't know how many cubits high, or what is the width of its spread, is better than the man who measures and counts all of its branches but does not own it, nor knows its Creator"
Is Augustine saying you should not pursue material knowledge? No. He's only saying that it won't make you happier, it won't make you any better, and it won't make you more pleasing in God's eyes. That's hardly a ringing endosement, is it?
The Catholic Church has a long history of intellectual pursuit both religious and scientific. However, it also has a longer, and totally unbroken history of making such pursuits secondary to religion. And in the world of the believer, where this world is only a temporary stop, a layover, on the road to eternal salvation - why bother? Why put such knowledge ahead of further securing your place in the afterlife?
If I'm a medieval serf, and I just finished my 23 1/2 hour workday in the fields, and I've come home to do my 15 minutes of light reading before bed, and I'm looking at my bookshelf (humor me) and see the Bible, Cicero and Biology 101, and I call out my window to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury who just happens to be passing by and say "Help, I can't decide!" what do you figure the chances are he'll say "You've done enough bible learning in your life, learn a little science before you die"?
"I don't think that Christianity encourages ignorance."
ReplyDeleteYoung-earth creationism and abstinence-only education are both good examples of how a persons religious convictions can encourage ignorance (and the spreading of ignorance). Both rely on misinformation and ignoring the evidence in order to further their goals.
To play devil's advocate, Catholics (I'm thrusting towards catholicism in specific, since John doesn't care to defend protestant positions and he's the only Christian in this discussion, generously playing the role of adversary to you and I at various times) don't care much for Young-earth creationism, and when it comes to abstinence-only education, I'm sure they have their own evidence showing it's superiority and would take issue with opinions to the contrary. I'm not saying that's any more persuasive than Nick Naylor's evidence against cancer/tobacco connection, but the matter is certainly disputed, and it's difficult to make the case that advocacy of abstinence is the same as advocacy of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know Catholicism is friendly towards the evidence for evolution and an old universe, but I'm not attacking Catholics specifically. You said you don't believe Christianity fosters ignorance and I was merely trying to provide an example of how they can.
ReplyDeleteA person can find "evidence" to support almost any belief, but that doesn't mean their evidence is reliable. Their unwillingness to weigh the evidence and see what works and what doesn't is what makes them ignorant.
Advocacy for abstinence-only education is advocacy for ignorance. Abstinence-only programs rely on keeping the students ignorant or misinformed on their options about sex.
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. Catholicism, and probably most forms of Christianity, don't place their focus on things of the world. That isn't the point.
The Catholic Church has been friendly toward intellectual pursuits so long as they don't contradict the Church and for a time so long as it was done by priests, not serfs. But my point is there has always been a place for that. And as I have said before the Church can be wrong about things outside the doctrine of faith. A great example is the way we dicked over Gallileo and now have apologized and we support his museum.
As for young-earth, I don't buy it so I won't defend it.
As for abstinence only. I've always been on the fence on this one. I think I'd prefer a serious abstinence focused sex ed that does talk about STDs and condoms etc.
Let me get curmudgeony for a moment. In American society a long time ago, there was premarital sex. Same is true now. Same will be true tomorrow.
There was no time of true chastity, I know.
But it's also true that our societal values were such that sex was discouraged before marriage (at least sex with someone other than a hooker). Say what you will for the reasons but that was the case.
Nowadays I believe that while some even very liberal adults would lightly suggest their kids wait on sex, our culture supports it. Every TV show, every celebrity magazine and the actions of most people give example to the idea that sex is something to be had NOW. In that sort of society, abstinence only education isn't going to work.
Also Matt, you say
"Their unwillingness to weigh the evidence and see what works and what doesn't is what makes them ignorant."
Seeing what works is one thing, but the Church isn't always about the practical. The Church is for what is right. If it is right to abstain from sex until marriage, then teaching so is right, whether it works or not.
"The Catholic Church has been friendly toward intellectual pursuits so long as they don't contradict the Church and for a time so long as it was done by priests, not serfs. But my point is there has always been a place for that."
ReplyDeleteThere is a level of deemphasis that reaches discouragement. Limiting knowledge to matters which do not contradict church doctrine, and further limiting this knowledge to the clergy is not a "friendly" attitude to intellectual pursuits. It basically amounts to tacit, implicit discouragement and suppression. Placing emphasis on another subject (religious study), and making that emphasis open-ended and unlimited is equal to discouragement. I find it astonishing that you can gloss over this period of history, without feeling it necessary to go back and modify your earlier assertion that "the church doesn't encourage ignorance".
"And as I have said before the Church can be wrong about things outside the doctrine of faith"
Well, are YOU saying that the Church was wrong about this? I'm thinking you're going to state that the past doesn't matter when it comes to this, since TODAY's church is very open regarding this matter. Is that true?
"I think I'd prefer a serious abstinence focused sex ed that does talk about STDs and condoms etc."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the real difference between this and a comprehensive sex education? A comprehensive sex education encourages abstinence as well.
"Nowadays I believe that while some even very liberal adults would lightly suggest their kids wait on sex, our culture supports it. Every TV show, every celebrity magazine and the actions of most people give example to the idea that sex is something to be had NOW. In that sort of society, abstinence only education isn't going to work."
Was there ever a time it did work?
"Seeing what works is one thing, but the Church isn't always about the practical. The Church is for what is right. If it is right to abstain from sex until marriage, then teaching so is right, whether it works or not."
Well, that comes as no surprise. Anyway, just remember that your religious values have no place in public policy.
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteI don't always think it's wrong to discourage intellectual pursuit. First, based on our beliefs, Augustine is right. I'd go a step further though and say it is good to know these things and that one can come to a better appreciation of God through earthly knowledge.
Was it wrong to keep knowledge out of the hands of the people. Yeah, probably. Still I don't think there was any other way to do it. When did 23 1/2 hour workaday serf have time for intellectual pursuit? He didn't With that sliver of free time why not focus on something more important. It's prioritizing.
So when you said:
"The Catholic Church has a long history of intellectual pursuit both religious and scientific. However, it also has a longer, and totally unbroken history of making such pursuits secondary to religion."
I should have just said:
Yes, as it should be. How can anything take primacy over God?
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI attended public high school too and I remember sex ed. The teacher, (albeit this is just a micro example) did mention that abstinence is the best way to not get an STD or knocked up, but I wouldn't say it was encouraged. The focus was NOT on abstinence.
To your next question, I don't know Matt. I'm not the highlander. I vaugely remember reading once that there was no sex ed until the early 1900s and the amount of STDs and teen pregnancy were lower then.
"Well, that comes as no surprise. Anyway, just remember that your religious values have no place in public policy."
My religious views on this matter concern society. I think abstinence until marriage IS what's best and should be encouraged. This isn't a spot where I believe in Jesus so we should have a crucifix on the wall kind of issue.
Also, you seem a little bitter? Need a hug?
John,
ReplyDeleteSo you admit, the Church encourages ignorance?
"I attended public high school too and I remember sex ed. The teacher, (albeit this is just a micro example) did mention that abstinence is the best way to not get an STD or knocked up, but I wouldn't say it was encouraged. The focus was NOT on abstinence."
ReplyDeleteMeh, I'm not really fond of this abstinence focused concept of yours. I'd prefer it over abstinence-only, but it's still too enclosed within a single ideology.
What of the students who don't value marriage? What if marriage is not an option for them (ie they're gay)? What of the students who value the liberty of sex?
"I'm not the highlander."
Well, maybe you should be?
"My religious views on this matter concern society. I think abstinence until marriage IS what's best and should be encouraged. This isn't a spot where I believe in Jesus so we should have a crucifix on the wall kind of issue."
Ok, I can accept that, but do you think you'd still hold the same belief if you weren't a Christian? Of course, one does not have to be religious in order to support abstinence-only education, but just like Pro-Life, the majority of its adherents are of a "particular persuasion."
"Also, you seem a little bitter? Need a hug?"
Nope, I'm not bitter at all. However, I'll still take that huge, sweet cheeks!
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteI''m not biting. I don't believe the Church encourages ignorance, I believe it encourages knowledge of what it most important. Are we dancing around semantics here? Probably.
Matt,
ReplyDeletePerhaps for the sake of public schooling we could say abstinence until the formation of an intended lifelong partnership?
And also know I'm not advocating abstinence only. I want abstinence focused. The sexually liberated 10th graders (and the rest of the class) will still learn about condoms etc.)
One day I hope to be the highlander and you'll get that hug....oh you'll get it.
I have no way of knowing what I would believe if I weren't a Christian because I am one. It's kind of a big influence in my life. I'd like to say yes, because it seems to be that the familial unit in some form has always served humanity well but I can't given an honest answer.
I'm not dancing around semantics, I just wanted a clear affirmation or denial from you, for the sake of getting my bearings.
ReplyDeleteSee, it's difficult to know at any given moment what your position actually is, since you're in a constant state of dialectic thrash. What I mean is, with each response you seem to be flailing in random directions, rushing to defend points which, you later decide aren't important, and subsequently walk away from nonchalantly, as if you never really gave a shit about them in the first place, and then boldly affirm the exact opposite, casting vaguely defensive thoughts into imperceptibly opaque arguments about how plain and obvious to everyone the Holy Church's purpose is, and has always been - like, Duh.
Sorry, I had a powerful lust to craft a very bitchy, catty and unnecessarily wordy run-on sentence. Oooh I'm nasty! NOW, back to business...
You freely admit that the church has, and possibly continues to, discourage intellectual pursuits outside of faith-related subjects. You claim that this is not the same as encouraging ignorance. As a general rule, I agree. Choosing not to endorse something is not the same thing as rejecting it. If you ask me my opinion of a pastrami sandwich and I decline to comment, that's not the same as saying "pastrami sucks", is it? It's certainly not equivalent to saying "pastrami is evil, throw it in the fire". I'm not saying anything about pastrami at all, if you like pastrami, then good luck to you. God bless.
Right? Ok, hold on to your butts because this analogy is about to get REAL...
I'm Augustine and I'm stating loudly and proudly "Roast beef is the way and the light. It's not just a luncheon meat, it's EVERYTHING. Roast beef brings meaning to life, pursue it at all times, with your whole heart. Pastrami will not make you happier or better. Roast beef will. A sandwich with both pastrami and roast beef will not make you happier than a sandwich with roast beef alone."
At no point in that speech did I say you shouldn't eat pastrami, did I? Not exactly, anyway. I just said that roast beef should be eaten all the time, you should never stop eating it, and it's the only thing in this WHOLE EXISTENCE that means anything. If people take what I say literally, and follow through faithfully, they'll be too busy eating beef to try pastrami.
Do you get what I'm saying, here? It's not just encouragement to pursue beef/god sometimes, it's to pursue whenever possible, to the greatest extent possible. That really doesn't leave any room for other pursuits. It's not the same thing as saying "make roast beef your #1 lunch meat".
Now... Isn't that tantamount to encouraging pastrami-lessness?
"Perhaps for the sake of public schooling we could say abstinence until the formation of an intended lifelong partnership?
ReplyDeleteAnd also know I'm not advocating abstinence only. I want abstinence focused. The sexually liberated 10th graders (and the rest of the class) will still learn about condoms etc.)"
Meh...maybe.
"One day I hope to be the highlander and you'll get that hug....oh you'll get it."
I changed ky mind. I don't want you to be the highlands anymore.
"My religious views on this matter concern society."
The more I think about this sentence, the less accepting I am of it. I trust that you're not really concerned about what's best for society as a whole, but about sneaking Christian values into public policy. Even your abstinence focus education is meant to uphold a single ideology.
John, if you had the opportunity to change all of the public policies in the United States to reflect Christian values, wouldn't't you take it?
Seriously, what would you do?
Dungy,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say that was an exquisite metaphor. Very enjoyable and I think accurate.
"Do you get what I'm saying, here? It's not just encouragement to pursue beef/god sometimes, it's to pursue whenever possible, to the greatest extent possible. That really doesn't leave any room for other pursuits. It's not the same thing as saying "make roast beef your #1 lunch meat"."
Yes correct. It's not the same. Knowledge is a good thing generally. Augustine was not defining church doctrine but conceptually, you are correct. God is more important that understanding how an atom is set up. Salvation is at stake vs. understanding. So is knowledge of the world discouraged in comparison to knowledge of God, yes. But I don't call that encouraging ignorance especially when one considers that great though he was, Augustine was not the definer of of all doctrine.
As for my thrashing, yeah I notice that too and I don't like it much. Thing is I appear to be immersed in study and learning of the Church right now and as I learn more, my opinions on things change. I'm hoping that's my main issue here. Otherwise I'm just wildly inconsistent for funsies meaning my great onset of alzheimers has probably arrived.
Matt, change things to reflect Christian values....I'm not sure.
ReplyDeleteSome aspects of my faith I believe are directly beneficial to society as a whole. Believing that life has value and that sex is better left for married life are among them. On the other hand, an essential element to my faith is the choosing of it. People need to be free to choose against it as well without punishment (at least in this world).
I really don't know. There would be benefits, but the drawbacks could be worse. I know I'd like to make Christianity and other religions of majority in their communities less demonized. For example if in a mostly Muslim US community they want to put a verse from the Koran on a city building during Ramadan, they should be allowed to.
Otherwise I'm not sure. Let me think it over.
"But I don't call that encouraging ignorance especially when one considers that great though he was, Augustine was not the definer of of all doctrine."
ReplyDeleteOK, I accept that. He was not the author of all doctrine. But I have "ante'd up" by providing a source of evidence. Not just any source, but a Church Father. You are always welcome to contradict that point and that author, but I think you are obliged to provide a source to back that position up.
Find either a canonical definition of church doctrine (dunno if that would be in the catechism, is the catechism considered canon doctrine?), or someone of equal or greater stature to Augustine (either a pope or church father would be fine) who described the church's position on this matter.
I'm willing to wait, just don't forget about it.
Ok I don't know if this satisfies or not but here is something from Vatican I. This, by virtue of being a Vatican Council, is doctrine as far as I know.
ReplyDelete"Faith and reason are of mutual help to each other: by reason, well applied, the foundations of faith are established, and, in the light of faith, the science of Divinity is built up. Faith, on the other hand frees and preserves reason from error and enriches it with knowledge. The Church, therefore, far from hindering the pursuit of arts and sciences, fosters and promotes them in many ways. . . . Nor does she prevent sciences, each in its sphere, from making use of their own principles and methods. Yet, while acknowledging the freedom due to them, she tries to preserve them from falling into errors contrary to Divine doctrine, and from overstepping their own boundaries and throwing into confusion matters that belong to the domain of faith. The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not placed before the human mind for further elaboration, like a philosophical system; it is a Divine deposit, handed over to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Hence, the meaning once given to a sacred dogma by holy mother Church is to be maintained forever and not to be departed from under pretext of more profound understanding. Let knowledge, science and wisdom grow with the course of times and centuries, in individuals as well as in the community, in each man as in the whole Church, but in the proper manner, i.e., in the same dogma, in the same meaning, in the same understanding."
Man, it's really hard to parse and understand these churchy statements. They don't so much speak or write the language as chew it into a thin mush.
ReplyDeleteReads like every other philosophy related item to me. I gotta read it twice at least.
ReplyDeleteI want to be fair, and I don't care to drag this out any longer than necessary but I don't think I can accept that excerpt as a contradiction of Augustine's strong deemphasis of worldly knowledge and science. I think "contradiction" is even too strong of a word for what I'd accept. I'm just looking for an acknowledgement of the value of such knowledge. Something that goes in a different direction than Augustine's dismissal.
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt seems to acknowledge the difference between doctrine and the sciences (which we are not contesting) and describes the policy of non-interference, when possible, in areas that do not contradict doctrine. Which is fine, but I thought we have moved past that point.
I don't think this is asking too much. I recognize the function of the church is not to promote secular education, but with a history of such rhetoric against education, it seems likely that at some point in the last 100 years (or more) the chuch must have clarified the position, urging schoolkids not to drop out or something. Afterall, how many k-12 schools does the Catholic church itself operate? I mean, it's in the business, for God's sake.
I just made another go at finding something for this (my plane doesn't leave til 2)and I don't have a good snippet.
ReplyDeleteWhat I can say is I've found a prevailing sense that all science and reason are in total accord with the teachings of the Church properly understood.
As yet, I've not found much that really answers you on this but I can say that the purpose of Catholic schools has always been to teach the faith first alongside a high standard of learning and I think the results show it's doing better with the secular learning than anything.
I'll keep up the search.
I don't think I need a doctrinal endorsement of worldly knowledge. Augustine's confessions, which I quoted as evidence, are not doctrine. Neither is City Of God, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteBut here you have St. Augustine, one of the most influential voices in the Catholic church, a man who helped shape the church, basically discouraging knowledge. His opinion may not be official doctrine, but it certainly holds influence.
And if that opinion is not "on the record" so to speak, then what of Augustine is? What can be held to account, from this man who supposedly had such an integral role? What about others who came before or after him?
If spent years gathering evidence about prominent members of the clergy who held very influential, and very public opinions which devalue knowledge of anything but Christ, from all the ages of history, would this mean anything? Could such evidence be "admissable", considering that Church doctrine says nothing about the matter?
I think it's safe to say that what is taught in practice amounts to more than just a strict reading of doctrine. Isn't the church responsible for what is taught?
This feels like trying to convict a mafia boss. I know that the Church would never say anything against secular knowledge, at least "on the record". At the same time, I'm certain it's likely the church has, in the past, and perhaps even still discouraged knowledge in prospective believers, off the record, in a conversation between two people, say.
I don't deny that the Church teaches knowledge of Christ above all else, I just know I grew up in this church and I was taught science and math and music and art and english for 6 hours of a seven hour school day with just one hour for religion and an all school mass once a month.
ReplyDeleteAs for Augustine, certainly he carries weight and yes the Church is often responsible for what is taught.
So while prominent theologians and probably popes have all talked about the importance of spiritual knowledge over secular knowledge, in practice we produced some of the words greatest mind of science and literature as well.
I don't have any answer sir.
"in practice we produced some of the words greatest mind of science and literature as well"
ReplyDeleteShall we take an inventory of every great ignoramus produced by the Church, too? A little difficult since they typically don't make it into the history books. It's a question of how much better things would have been, had intellecutal pursuit been encouraged, instead of merely tolerated.
After all that you've accepted about this argument, can't you just admit that the Church has sometimes encouraged ignorance?
I don't think so. I'm not yet willing to say that encouragement of what the church deems the most important knowledge can be the same as encouraging ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI see your point, but I don't think that's right wording.
Not the most important knowledge. The ONLY important knowledge. Important in the eternal sense.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that sometimes the Church has encouraged what you call ignorance by asking/telling people to put their focus on God over other things.
ReplyDeleteThat work?
No.
ReplyDeleteIt's not "what I call ignorance", it's ignorance. Either it is or it isn't, we're not going to split hairs over our perceptions on the meaning of a word.
Then we don't agree (surprise!). I don't describe a physicist who knows lots about physics but nothing about say pop culture, art and sports ignorant.
ReplyDeleteNor is a fiction writer who barely understands algebra or politics ignorant.
They know what is important to them.
To the Christian, God is most important so forgoing other knowledge for knowledge of him is not ignorant.
"I don't describe a physicist who knows lots about physics but nothing about say pop culture, art and sports ignorant."
ReplyDeleteWell, you should. Because that's the definition of ignorance. They know nothing of pop culture, art and sports, so they are ignorant of those subjects. If your subject places such a supreme emphasis on physics that they know almost nothing of any other subject, then they are ignorant of all but physics.
If a physics professor encourages his students to place such a disproportionate emphasis on knowledge of their subject, then I would consider that professor just as contemptible as Augustine.
"They know what is important to them."
So all that matters is that you know what's important to you? If I were a Detroit thug who values nothing except money and hos, and consequently knows nothing but the streets, would I be just as valid as Da Vinci, who labored to have a vast array of general knowledge? After all, according to you they are both pursuing knowledge of what's important to them. Would it be wrong to label either as "ignorant", since they each possess knowledge of what they value?
I know you well enough to know that you don't really believe such garbage, so don't even try. One was a brilliant person who vigorously pursued all forms of knowledge available to him. The other is an ignorant bum who only values his own gratification.
Look, the bottom line is that the Catholic Church views this world as a temporary place with ultimately no significance. All that is significant is in the hereafter. Knowledge of worldy, temporal things is necessary only in the bare minimum sense. Just enough to help you reach God, and no more. The knowledge of this world is a temporary means to an end, it has no intrinsic value. That's more than just indifference. It is encouraging the deemphasis of worldy knowledge. It is, in other words, encouraging the relative devaluation of worldy knowledge. It's encouraging ignorance of everything but God.
Good analogy. Granted, knowing what is important to one self is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBut take that last paragraph you wrote. Consider for a moment that it is true...the all the focus would be where it belongs and to call that ignorant seems foolish even if such a person wouldn't be a jack of all trades.
Unless of course it's not true, in which case it is foolish.
I'm in a bit of a lunch coma right now so I hope that made sense.
I think I follow, but you're straying from the point. I'm not attempting to prove that the church is "ignorant" as a slam or a label. I'm trying to prove that they promote ignorance of worldly knowledge. Remember? That is what we've been arguing about all the this time.
ReplyDeleteIf you take my last paragraph for granted as true, then yes, they are promoting ignorance of worldly things. Does that make them "ignorant", as in "dumb"? I don't know. I don't think so. That's not what I'm trying to say anyway.