waj

Some of these folks argue (fairly persuasively, in my opinion) that blind faith isn't necessarily characteristic of religion, and that, historically, it hasn't always been. The claim is that linking "faith" to "believing regardless of the evidence" is a modern invention that wasn't central to the early Christian church and isn't necessarily central to religious experience. We can find examples of things we think of as religions that aren't based on blind faith: the admonishment of the Buddha, for instance, to "believe only that which you test for yourself."

As to a lack of critical thinking being anathema to religion, I'm not sure one can call these polar opposites. Sure, I like to think that critical thinking about religion was at the root of my own deconversion, and that of many others (it's nice to think that I think what I think because I'm smarter). But there are an awful lot of smart, insightful, critically thinking people throughout history that are also religious.

And, contrary to the "opium for the masses" assumption, there's a history of religiously based groups being the major players in nonviolent resistance against "being led like sheep," dismantling apartheid, hiding and evacuating Jews and others from the Nazis, and combatting segregation in the U.S., for instance. We can surely also point to cases where religion has been used to suppress dissent, but I don't buy that uncritical obedience necessarily follows from religious belief.

I appreciate all the responses so far. I'd be especially interested if anyone had pointers to criticisms of the arguments of liberal theologians from an atheist perspective -- I've only been able to find challenges from the far side of their positions.

Vesica

Um, I think peteyh was refering to the practice of tithing....giving 10% of your income...It's in the Bible and all.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I don't like any brand of Christianity. The fundies I don't like for obvious reasons. But at least the fundies hold a position that is incredibly untenable. The liberal Christians believe something where they can just wave their hand and say poor translation or some other liberal excuse and you can't argue with them. They pick a choose what to believe, so it does no good to point out problems. Fundies at least you can feel like you might eventually put enough reason in front of their face that they renounce their ways. After all, they ARE smart enough to see that "if the Bible contradicts itself, or if you start picking things to take metaphorically, you might as well throw out the whole thing!". So pretty much all Christians suck in one way or another. Liberals ARE better, though.

-B

SynchroKnight

This is something that has always confused me.

It seems to me that liberal Christians would have a vested interest in standing against the excesses of their conservative counterparts.

Don't they realize that when Falwell or Robertson make a bonehead statement and claim its straight from God, Christianity becomes a laughingstock.

If I were a liberal Christian, I'd be madder than hell over the fact jokers like these are speaking in the name of my religion.

So, why are they so silent? Apathy? Fear?
Is there something I'm missing here?

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: SynchroKnight ]</p>

fcuk

most of the christians i know are of the liberal type. they claim to love everyone, hate no one, and just want to 'spread the love of jesus' around to a jesus-less world. most of them fervently believe that, regardless if you actually believe in jesus/god or accept him into your heart, if you are a good person, you're automatically a christian because you are unknowingly acting christ-like. this has always pissed me off.

Ut

It doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible contains something like this. What surprises me is that liberal Christians are following this practice.

Where I live, anyone who contributed such an important amount of his income to his church would be considered an over-the-top fundie.

southernhybrid

I like liberal Xians. Many of those in my community are liberal and moderate Xians. They give a lot of money to community charities, like the local free health clinic and food bank. I think if we atheists want to be taken more seriouly, we should make alliances with liberal theists of all types to fight the negative influences of the fundamentalists of all religions.

Sephiroth

*shrug* They don't bother me, I don't bother them.

Amie

do you think your position that you hold is untenable?

whats wrong with that? people adapt things to their beliefs, and if someone is not a bible literalist so be it...

don't we all?

because most liberal Christians are already aware of the problems...

you can probably change their views as much as they can change yours...

are you suggesting that liberals are not as smart as fundamentalists?

why do we suck? because we have a different belief than you? how are liberals better? I am just curious because there is absolutely no continuity between your "liberals are better" statement and everything else you posted...

will someone please help me collect my worms that are escaping from my can

The Lone Ranger

Amie:

I think that Bumble Bee Tuna's points may have been somewhat inelegantly expressed, but I think there's some validity there.

The Fundamentalists' position is untenable, utterly so. It is completely contradicted by the real world. Indeed, the very notion of Biblical Fundamentalism is illogical, because the Bible itself contains contradictory passages.

The claim that the Bible presents a narrative that corresponds perfectly with the real world, and is free from error is utterly ludicrous. The world is far older than a few thousand years. There has been no global flood within human history. The world is not flat. The world is not immobile and supported by "foundations." There is no dome "hard as beaten metal" that covers the Earth.

Nonetheless, the Fundamentalists are at least correct in one thing: whether or not the Bible is true matters.

As astoundingly illogical as one must be in order to actually insist that the Bible is free of error or contradiction, it does matter whether or not this is the case. If, as is claimed, the Bible is the work of a Perfect Creator, then it should be free of error and contradiction. If it does contain errors of fact and contradictions, then there's no reason to believe that it is divinely-inspired -- in fact, there's very good reason to believe that it's not divinely-inspired.

In this, at least, the Fundamentalists are correct.


If the Bible is demonstrably wrong about some things, then what reason is there to believe that any of it is correct? The literalists ignore reality when they pretend that the Bible is free of errors and contradictions, but they correctly recognize that a divinely-inspired book should be entirely free of error and contradiction -- otherwise, what reason is there to think that it's divinely-inspired? To disprove anything in the Bible is to cast doubt upon the validity of all of it.

Biblical "literalist" pick and choose which passages to believe and which passages to ignore just as much as do liberal Christians. The difference is that the literalists deny this. In that sense, the liberals are being more honest, at least to themselves.

***

Biblical literalists must, perforce, ignore much of reality in order to maintain their beliefs. Furthermore, any absolutist belief system tends, by it's very nature, to promote distrust and outright hatred of non-believers. Because biblical literalism is anti-science, and because it promotes intolerance, I think that it's clearly dangerous.

This doesn't mean that biblical literalists are necessarily stupid, though the belief that the Bible is without error or contradiction is utterly ridiculous. It's amazing what people can make themselves believe, if the will to believe is strong enough.

It doesn't mean that biblical literalists are necessarily bad people, either, though such beliefs tend to encourage what most of us would consider bad behavior -- intolerance of those who don't share the "One True Faith," for instance. People who are good-hearted but misguided can perpetrate horrors in the name of their beliefs, as history has repeatedly shown.

Any belief system which emphasizes absolute belief and discourages critical thinking is dangerous.

***

Liberal Christians, as a rule, tend to be far more tolerant than are literalists. Also, I think that they are, by and large, far more empathic than are literalists.

There's a strong tendency among absolutist belief systems to assume that anyone who is not of the "One True Faith" is a follower of evil. As such, absolutist beliefs generally do not encourage charity or kindness toward those who are not of the "One True Faith." I'd have to look it up, but there have been several psychological studies claiming that Fundamentalists tend to be considerably less likely to donate time and/or money to charitable enterprises than are people of less-dogmatic faith or no faith at all.

***

All in all, while I don't believe that Christianity (or any religion) is correct, I find that liberal Christians tend to be, on the whole, much more pleasant people than literalists. Liberal Christians tend to be much more open and tolerant, much less anti-education, and are generally nicer.

Such is my experience, anyway.

Cheers,

Michael