Colin made a great point in his comment on my previous post about science and religion. He posited that "The problem with religion is that...it is static...very much the same as it was thousands of years ago." I just don't agree that it's a problem.
The basic tenets of christianity (the religion I know the most about)are, and should be "static" or unchanging. These are: Love, hope truth, faith and compassion. They also include the concept of inalienable rights for all of mankind, that are endowed by a greater power than man, and exist beyond man's laws. Christianity (as well as other religions) teaches that these tenets and conduct are more important than material wealth, or power. I have seen no discovery that changes these. Perhaps that is why they endure.
A couple of things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, if those are the basic tenets of Christianity then I guess that makes me Christian, along with the rest of the world. Few people reject "love, hope, truth, faith and compassion". But wouldn't you agree that to be 'Christian' in the traditional sense of the word one has to believe in some things about the cross and a resurrection?
Secondly, I just want to point out that although the idea of inalienable rights is compatible with Christianity, it is not particular to it either. Philosophers during the Enlightenment argued about human rights based on reason and the nature of man, and Roman philosophy and law.
Third, how does your Christian faith influence your views on Guantanamo Bay? For example, is the right to a trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty one of those "inalienable rights for all mankind, that are endowed by a greater power than man"? Is waterboarding consistent with the thousands-of-years old tenets of "love...and compassion"?
-Freyguy
I agree with Eric. If the fact that certain tenets of morality have remained consistent across many cultures and time periods is evidence of anything, it is evidence that such things have developed independently of any certain religion's influence. Complex human society is a delicate thing, that requires specific rules and ideals to exist. Even herds of animals have sets of rules that they live by, such as caring for each other's young when a fellow mother dies, sharing their food in equal portions with all members of their herd, and even risking their lives for each other when the herd comes under attack.
ReplyDeleteWhat are our morals then, but more developed and defined instincts that we've inherited from our hairier ancestors? I think there are perfectly reasonable anthropological explanations for things like the development of morality and societal codes of conduct. More likely, religion was not the cause of social order, rather, religion was invented to enforce the rules already in place (among other reasons). Little makes would-be anarchists fall in line faster than the threat of eternal hellfire, or something else as equally unpleasant.
Luckily, today, we can recognize the value that certain rules have to our society, religious opinion notwithstanding. We can understand how a community which allows murder and stealing would quickly deteriorate, and would be unsafe and unstable--we don't need religion to explain it to us. If we applied such logic to every law we have, our society might be much different, however, it would not necessarily be any worse off. Religion (with its static nature) causes us to hang onto old, outdated laws that, although they might have served a purpose long ago, are now superfluous.
That's why Orthodox Jews follow such strict dietary laws. It's why some Christians are so inexplicably scared of gay marriage, and its also why some Muslims think that you and your whole family should be killed if you make fun of the Prophet Muhammad.
Our most important rules and moral tenets can be explained and sustained without religion, so why should we keep holding onto it and all of the baggage it carries, which does nothing but keep society from progressing as it should? How many human rights atrocities will be justified by religion before we figure it out? (Exhibit A, Slavery. Exhibit B, Islamic Jihads. Exhibit C, various genocides. The list goes on.)
Personally, I try to make my rules and decisions by analyzing things logically and looking at the evidence involved, instead of blindly following a 1500 year old book that's been proven wrong before. I think the Old Man agrees with this on some level. I certainly know that he makes his decisions with more logic than I've personally learned to accommodate. I just don't think he's ready to admit that he doesn't need religion to do it.
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteTo your "First" point: I hope you do conduct your life according to those tenets of my religion (and other religions)and the teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as I hope everyone in the world would. (Please note, any left loonies out there, I did NOT say I wanted to make everyone conform to my religion or even my beliefs). But the world would be a better place if all people lived holding up those tenets. Unfortunately, more people profess them than actually value them more than power, material wealth, and pleasing themselves. (I'm reminded of Shelley on Love, for example; "...one word too often profaned, For me to profane it").
But I agree with you that one has to believe more than the teachings themselves to be a "Christian" (i.e. a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ). One also has to strive to live them (although we all fall short), and accept that Christ was sent by God to deliver this message, and that the message (the word) is everlasting, and that Jesus Christ was crucified and killed, yet still lives. I believe all of those things, and therefore, count myself as a Christian (a common sinner, but a believer).
But, those additional attributes of being a Christian have little to do with what Colin and I were debating. Colin put forth that the "problem" with religion is that it is "static"...unchanging. My rejoinder was not about Christianity particularly. It rather addressed the reason that religion being "static", "very much the same as it was thousands of years ago" is not necessarily a "problem", because religion is based on values and faith which perhaps should be unchanging, even though science needs to continually be updated and corrected.
As to your "second" point (about people arguing for human rights based on reason), I agree that man may "reason" what God endows; but man's "reason" seems to have been such a mercurial thing over the years when it comes to the "rights" of other men.
As to your third point (about the law, Guantanamo Bay, and waterboarding); whether one agrees with that treatment or not, those were men who made the laws and "reasoned" that this approach was just,...correct?
The Old Man
The Old Man,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question in regard to the third point: yes, human beings crafted US and international law using reason in principle, and human beings in charge of Guantanamo broke those laws using reason. Whether their reasoning was compelling or not is a separate question, of course. But in fairness, what does that have to do with my question? I'm interested in how your faith-based commitment to the Christian values of love, hope, compassion, etc., and to the teachings of Christ, who commanded everyone to "love thy enemies", influence your views on Guantanamo.
With your permission can I respond to the other two points in a new post?
Freyguy
Freyguy,
ReplyDeleteSure you can start a new post, using the religious theme if you wish. But, we've discussed some views of religion for a week. Perhaps a timely subject for a new post would be President Obama's new budget proposal (or should I say, President Pelosi's new budget proposal being presented by Obama?)It is rather remarkable and would change America, as promised.
The Old Man
First, a response to Abby's well written points about religion and social order (then we'll move on to another volatile area and try to discuss it without too much emotion...race relations.
ReplyDeleteAbby mentions that "even herds of animals have sets of rules" and that is, of course, correct. But the sets of rules for all other animals (and the plant knigdom) are derived from survival and procreation instincts. The physically powerful (and most likely to survive) get to lead, procreate, eat the most, and discipline the rest. The weak usually get left behind, or become prey. The only "risking of their lives for each other" comes from mothers driven by the instinct of procreation and species preservation.
Social order among men is actually more easily brought about with rules similar to those in the rest of the animal kingdom, (but I do not support that approach).
Abby is, it seems to me, making the common assumption that organised religions, as structured and directed by men, as well as actions by men in the name of religion, are one and the same as Faith, God, and the teachings of Jesus Christ (to me, the word of God). Atrocities by men are justified by men, sometimes in the name of God, but not by the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Exhibit A...slavery, wasn't brought about by the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was brought about and sustained almost exclusively as a political and/or economic element of "social order", and could still be, in some cases, justified on those grounds and contribute to a social order that was effective and safe. But it would still be wrong.
Exhibit B...Islamic Jihads, are done in the name of the Islamic faith, and I am not expert enough to know if they represent directly the teachings of Mohammed or not. Perhaps a devout member of that faith will write in and clarify that for us. But I am not a proponent of worldwide religions. I am a believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Exhibit C...various genocides, is an interesting one, since more major genocides of history were commmitted by secular leaders like Hitler (discounting his on again-off again following of the occult); Stalin; Idi Amin; Saddam Hussein; and several genocidal wars between peoples in Africa. We could throw these listings of heinous killers back and forth all day, but the point is, whether it is a so called religious leader during the great crusades, or a secular leader like Stalin, these are men making these value decisions...and I find no direction from the teachings of Jesus Christ in the new testament directing or encouraging them to do so.
But I am not, for the record, advocating religion as social order or government, but rather understand the teachings to be about individual moral conduct and faith in a higher purpose than man's self interest (render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and what is God's unto God).
Lastly, I agree with Abby that one is well served to analyze facts and use logic in making decisions (that alone will put you into an elite group). Some of my logic about Faith is embedded in the statement I've often made to Freyguy: "I can't prove to you that there is God, but I have a lifetime of evidence (from fieldwork) that man just can't be the highest form of being". Abby is right, I don't need religion. But I, personally, do need faith...faith that there is a higher purpose, a higher moral authority than man's political, economic and social order exigencies. I do believe that this compassionate God endowed each of us with "inalienable rights"; is in each one of us; and was in Jesus Christ as he served his purpose to teach the "word"; and that the world would be better off (or saved) if each one of us lived by those tenets. I also draw great peace and hope from that faith. Those are my beliefs, stated realizing the loss of standing they cause me in the intellectual community (it was never a very high standing anyway).
The Old Man