nyx

I, like many others, have a hard time understanding how Christians select those passages of the Bible which to take literally.

Without this written record of what was once an oral history, exactly what would define Christianity?

How does one escape dogma and continue to practice Christianity?

Politics have been rather closely linked to religion. I would find it just as odd for a person to blindly accept a political position as I would for them to accept a religious one.

Nyx

ManM

wildernesse,
I could not agree more with your original message. I think you hit the nail right on head. I often get the sense that if I don't believe in a Christian theology an atheist has shown to be rediculous then I must be making stuff up and am not a Real Christian(TM).

Bibliophile,
Saint Isaac the Syrian wrote, "Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this" (Homily 83). He died in 700 AD.

Starspun

You have been deluded into your delusion.

delusion-2. a false belief or opinion.

Pretty much sums it up.

Brian63

I disagree. It is fundamentalism and ignorance that is largely responsible for much of the items you mention, NOT religion.

I find it pretty interesting that oftentimes when some (but certainly not all) theists are trying to argue how beneficial religion has been to society throughout history, they will only focus on those aspects that are virtually universally agreed upon to be socially desirable-they provide a sense of hope, goodwill, community unity, etc. and they will IGNORE the negative aspects of religious belief-the oppression, violence, and hatred.

Similarly, when some (but certainly not all) nontheists that are hostile to religion argue for their position, they commit the same flaw but, the reverse of it. They will usually mention only the harmful consequences of religion throughout history and IGNORE the beneficial aspects of it.

To an objective observer, I think the question of whether religion has been more beneficial or harmful to society throughout history does not have such an easy answer. We have to account for both and weigh them each.

The tentative conclusion that I have come to is that religion is generally beneficial to society, and fundamentalism is generally harmful. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, and not all fundamentalists are religious (aka there are some fundamentalist atheists).

At some point in the (probably far-off) future, I would like to discuss this topic far more in-depth than I would care to for now.

Your question is a bit loaded, insinuating that religious beliefs are based on a "lack of understanding," a highly questionable contention. It could be that Christian theism is in fact true, in which case the "lack of understanding" would fall on the shoulders of us atheists.

It may be the case that you have personally made up your mind permanently that all religions are false and you will never change from that position, but for some of us atheism is more of a tentative position, and we are open to changing our beliefs should the evidence warrant it.

Anyway, back to the meat of your question:

I would suggest that you read the thread that I linked to at the top of this page. Bill offers several ways in which religion (even if false) is still beneficial to society. I am in general agreement with him and how he outlines it, and may even go slightly further. This is an area in which I am interested in, but still sorting out my thoughts.

I would also highly recommend reading the book "The Power of Myth." Joseph Campbell was himself an atheist, but he found tremendous social value in having religions and myths in our culture, even if they are not based on literal truth. They still hold "metaphorical truth" as he might say.

I would probably summarize his main points here, but I feel I would not be able to do his thesis justice. It's a book that people should just read for themselves.

DMB



As I said before, based upon the evidence/arguments that I have seen thus far, the case that religion is inherently harmful is a weak one in my (admittedly humble and perhaps naive) opinion. If new evidence comes to light, I will of course modify my view.

I used to believe that religion was evil, but one of the thoughts that eventually changed my view occurred when I took a glance at the religious people in my immediate family. They are not fundamentalists by any stretch, but are mildly religious (liberal Catholics). Their religious beliefs do not compel them to do anything "evil" (like burning witches or bombing abortion clinics), but it does provide many useful benefits to them. Believing in an afterlife allows them to cope with death much easier, for an obvious example. However, their belief in an afterlife really doesn't affect their views in other ways, such as trashing the things in "this world." Their views are fairly similar to wildernesse's as outlined in another thread-<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=000806" target="_blank">New Worries</a>. Their religious views compel them to care for other people and the planet that we live on, which is great!

Again, I do not see religion as a problem for society to fix, but it is fundamentalism that is unhealthy. I am a big fan of liberal religious beliefs, and Christianity in particular although I do not believe they are based on literal truth.

Brian

[The 3rd edit is the charm! It's now a "perfect post"-as far as formatting goes anyway ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Brian63

Oh, one more item worth mentioning:

Much of the debate on whether religion is beneficial/harmful is underlied by the premise that theism is in fact false. We then discuss the relative merits starting from that point.

However, suppose that theism (Christian theism in particular, for instance) is actually true; then it changes the entire makeup of the debate. I really do not see (although I have not given it a whole lot of thought) how Christian theism can be argued to be overall harmful, if it is in fact true. Presumably, God has a plan for humanity that involves achieving some sort of "greatest good." Much of the debate on the issue of whether religion is overall harmful/beneficial rests on whether religion is in fact true or not, I believe.

Something to chew on (and then maybe spit out),

Brian

wildernesse

Starspun:

delusion-2. a false belief or opinion

Even if I am having a delusion, that doesn't mean that I was deluded. Who deluded me? Who deluded them? Can you prove it was intentional trickery? I think that to delude someone you are intentionally telling them something that you know to be false.

But I also don't think that my beliefs are false. Your saying so isn't proof.

I still don't think it's polite to call you deluded for being an atheist. I may disagree, but I don't think you're deluded. Most atheists would be rather offended, I think, to be told they were tricked into disbelief by the evil atheist conspiracy.

That's all I have to say about the word deluded. I will try not to continue talking about this particular topic, because it's not very constructive and I feel I can spend my time better than discussing the meanings/connotations of the word "deluded".

--tiba

wildernesse

nyx:
Without this written record of what was once an oral history, exactly what would define Christianity?

That’s a really good question. Are you talking about the OT exclusively, when you say oral history, or do you include the Gospels in this?
I would say that the Bible doesn’t define Christianity, in that Christianity existed without the NT for a while. What defines Christianity is Christ—a sacrifice who reconnected humans to God, so that we could have a spiritual relationship with God.

But, if the written OT never existed—or if you say that it doesn’t matter to the message of the NT, then what do you have? I think that is a great question, and something that I am still thinking about and considering. I don’t believe that the OT has no bearing on the NT or is irrelevant to the NT. I just think that I should consider what it’s trying to teach me—and I personally don’t think that it’s trying to teach me how to say, become ceremonially cleansed from leprosy.

It’s a good question about original sin—if Adam and Eve didn’t literally exist, and didn’t bring sin into the world, then why was there a need for Jesus? I don’t think that we are born with a black mark on us—that babies who die go to hell. This is something I’m still pondering myself.

How does one escape dogma and continue to practice Christianity?

I’m not really sure what you’re asking here.

About politics—my point was only that religion isn’t always the reason for wars and terrorism. And that people can get all worked up about anything. In the U.S., we didn’t rally around our “Christian nation” to go and defeat that evil Muslim Saddam Hussein; we said “How horrible that poor little country is invaded by this evil madman (by the way, our oil supplies are in jeopardy)”. Maybe some of you heard the first message—I’m probably too young to remember all the implications of Gulf War news. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

I would be interested in hearing other Christian viewpoints on these points as well! Although, if you’d rather not discuss, I’ll understand.

--tiba

ManM

Brian63,
I'm just curious, but have you deconstructed fundamentalism? What are the beliefs/behaviors that create harmful components in religion?

Zippy,
It is true that theism is haunted by the riddle of God's relationship with the world. However, a naturalistic worldview also has it's riddles. Specifically, I find that naturalism has trouble describing man's relationship with the world in a manner consistent with our experience. I have not yet heard a good argument reconciling our experience with freedom and naturalism. Also, I think an atheism without naturalism finds itself bordering on the religious and loses it's skeptical roots. Could you do something about my ignorance?

ansarthemystic

ignorance=evil

I always thought that ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Therefore according to this statement by Zippy, The things we don't know, and there are a lot, make us all very evil!

ManM

wildernesse,
For a different view on original sin, poke around <a href="http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm" target="_blank">in this article.</a>

ansarthemystic,
The old Platonic view of ignorance as evil makes a lot of sense. First we assume that someone who knows what is good will act according to the good. It follows that evil is a direct result of ignorance of the good. I think it becomes shady when natural knowledge is automatically correlated with the good.