What do you think of liberal Christians, and how do you deal with them?

[Amethyst]

I think this is why you have a lot of people who call themselves Christian that don’t go to any church at all. It’s not simple for liberal leadership to appeal to those with a non-traditional mindset, while giving those of more traditional views a place to feel secure and at home. Frankly, I could easily stand before a liberal congregation and speak “Humanist” teachings to them using Christian language. Quite simply in fact. I could even talk that way without flinching about it, seeing it in my mind as simply a vehicle of language to communicate these human truths, having no thought about any of the symbols being literal beings up in the cosmos somewhere, but simply symbols of ideals (as they are). Consider it being bilingual.

 

The real question I have though, is how many in that congregation could wrap their minds around that understanding? If I were to announce to that congregation that there is no literal god in the sky watching over you and I, but that these are connotatively rich forms of language that inspire the heart that accepts them non-literally, symbolically, poetically, and aesthetically; how many of them would get up and walk out feeling I am rejecting everything they came for, even though it is giving them exactly that, despite my explaining the mechanisms of how it works? That’s my point. How do you have any church that can appeal to the more enlightened “spiritual humanist”, and the average social Christian who processes the symbols on a less “aware” level?

 

I think the problem is that people want something to believe in. They want a security blanket/teddy bear to comfort them when someone they know dies. They want an authoritative figure in their lives to tell them that everything will be all right in the end and that they will see that person again someday. They want to be comforted. Christianity provides that, as long as you are willing to do the mental gymnastics to ignore the ugly stuff too. Atheism does not provide that. The best you can tell someone is that someday, their loved ones will become stardust. (Ok, granted it won't be for awhile, but still...)

 

The most effective lies tend to have the most beautiful appearances in life. Christianity is an effective lie for most people. They believe it. It's probably one of the most ingenious lies ever invented in human history.

[wonderer]

Liberal Christianity has been a historical flop. In the 1960s, their heyday, they believed that the pews would be stuffed to the gills with young people looking for a kinder, gentler alternative to their parents' orthodoxy. It was kinder and gentler alright, but once people didn't have to worry about going to hell anymore, once it no longer mattered much what you did or how you did it or what you believed in as long as you were "good" and shit... people decided to 1) keep their money; 2) stay home, sleep in, and watch the game.

 

Fundamentalism thrives because they scare the shit out of people with hellfire, and once you're hooked, they demand the world of you or else you're a worthless quasi-Christian. Liberal Christianity, while being more palatable for genteel intellectual sorts, can't compete with that.

 

I think you've nailed it. Take the specter of eternal torment out of the equation, and you take the parishioners out of the pews.

 

Rob

[trekkie]

They want an authoritative figure in their lives to tell them that everything will be all right in the end and that they will see that person again someday. They want to be comforted. Christianity provides that, as long as you are willing to do the mental gymnastics to ignore the ugly stuff too. Atheism does not provide that. The best you can tell someone is that someday, their loved ones will become stardust. (Ok, granted it won't be for awhile, but still...)

The most effective lies tend to have the most beautiful appearances in life. Christianity is an effective lie for most people. They believe it. It's probably one of the most ingenious lies ever invented in human history.

 

Interesting insights. Amethyst. Your post made me wonder, in the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of way: which came first, the longing to be transcendant, the desire to live forever, or the religion that creates/supports that desire?

 

What is it about being human (unlike other animals) that makes us so damn preoccupied with our own mortality (or desire of immortality)?

 

We look around us and the rest of the animal/plant kingdoms and none of these "lower life forms" are plagued with such existential questions. Why are we? Why does death, especially for Christians, so consume humans that to some extent we never really live?

 

(Sidenote for extra credit: Evangelicals love to ask, "If you died today, do you know where you would go?" This is often their opening question. Their theological approach has little to do with experiencing the wonders of life now; with the world concerns of starvation, disease, poverty, and war; with here-and-now relationships; with making life better for other people. Instead, the focus is on ME and MY fate to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. Just give me my "mansion over the hilltop" with a couple of heavenly Lexus's (or is that Lexi) to tour the streets of gold with and I'll be just fine. Why is this? Why is Christianity such a self-centered religion?)

 

bill

[wonderer]

I think the problem is that people want something to believe in. They want a security blanket/teddy bear to comfort them when someone they know dies. They want an authoritative figure in their lives to tell them that everything will be all right in the end and that they will see that person again someday. They want to be comforted. Christianity provides that, as long as you are willing to do the mental gymnastics to ignore the ugly stuff too. Atheism does not provide that. The best you can tell someone is that someday, their loved ones will become stardust. (Ok, granted it won't be for awhile, but still...)

 

The most effective lies tend to have the most beautiful appearances in life. Christianity is an effective lie for most people. They believe it. It's probably one of the most ingenious lies ever invented in human history.

 

It's been my experience that what people really want is to believe that they know how it all works, because knowledge begets power, and power begets comfort. That's why we pay the priests to explain it all to us. In that regard, Atheism and Christianity are both religions, in that they provide a mindset that explains the universe. That's what people really seem to need: explanations. What's really hard, but has become extremely rewarding to me, is to forgo the explanations and definitions, and simply live each day to the fullest. I no longer mind that I don't know.

 

Rob

[Antlerman]

They want an authoritative figure in their lives to tell them that everything will be all right in the end and that they will see that person again someday. They want to be comforted. Christianity provides that, as long as you are willing to do the mental gymnastics to ignore the ugly stuff too. Atheism does not provide that. The best you can tell someone is that someday, their loved ones will become stardust. (Ok, granted it won't be for awhile, but still...)

The most effective lies tend to have the most beautiful appearances in life. Christianity is an effective lie for most people. They believe it. It's probably one of the most ingenious lies ever invented in human history.

 

Interesting insights. Amethyst. Your post made me wonder, in the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of way: which came first, the longing to be transcendant, the desire to live forever, or the religion that creates/supports that desire?

 

What is it about being human (unlike other animals) that makes us so damn preoccupied with our own mortality (or desire of immortality)?

 

We look around us and the rest of the animal/plant kingdoms and none of these "lower life forms" are plagued with such existential questions. Why are we? Why does death, especially for Christians, so consume humans that to some extent we never really live?

I was going to respond directly to Amethyst's post here, but will include yours as well to address both. You left out the first part of her quote where she says, "I think the problem is that people want something to believe in. They want a security blanket/teddy bear to comfort them when someone they know dies."

 

That's the point I want to address first. I think the operative phrase is "people want something to believe in". I honestly think that death is only a fear of the unknown but this desire to believe in something goes far deeper than the fear of death. People need to have hope for living. I do. Everyone does.

 

In a very true sense, we all live by faith to some degree, believing in the unknown. If we look at tomorrow and conclude there is no hope, then we have no reason to make any effort to live. We live by hope. Our survival instinct tells us to live, but our reason could conclude fatalistically, if we are true literalists in every sense of the word. There was a thread started recently that was abandoned by the apologist who started it trying to make a point. His conclusion was nihilism is the logical answer. In a sense he was right, but I answered that point of view here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=410555 It's too bad he's never returned to respond to it.

 

So to answer Trekkie's question, I think the desire to find hope came before religion. Religion is basically the bottling up of myths that we created to give ourselves hope.

 

What is it that makes us preoccupied with morality and the meaning of life in general? Answer: Our big brains and leisure time!

 

 

(Sidenote for extra credit: Evangelicals love to ask, "If you died today, do you know where you would go?" This is often their opening question. Their theological approach has little to do with experiencing the wonders of life now; with the world concerns of starvation, disease, poverty, and war; with here-and-now relationships; with making life better for other people. Instead, the focus is on ME and MY fate to the exclusion of everyone and everything else. Just give me my "mansion over the hilltop" with a couple of heavenly Lexus's (or is that Lexi) to tour the streets of gold with and I'll be just fine. Why is this? Why is Christianity such a self-centered religion?)

 

bill

You just keyed on specifically what the boil on the face of Evangelical Christianity in America is. It's the ME religion. My salvation, my prosperity, my relationship with Jesus, my being filling with Holy Ghost intoxication, my spewing in tongues, me, me, me. No wonder they are so non-spiritual.

 

Freedom is what allowed me to see others. Too bad they're so worried about what God and Jesus is grading their performance, that they are living. If some Evangelical asks me if I died today if I would know where I was going, I'd answer that what really matters is that I did having lived sincerely, then ask if they know they could say that. What matter is the living, not the dead.

[R. S. Martin]

A mention was made about 'religious humanists.' I've never heard of this term and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to what it means.

 

Thanks.

 

bill

 

Hi Bill, religious humanism is something relatively new to me as well. I only recently was introduced to humanism and as I began looking into it I found myself wondering if there might be a religious aspect to humanism as well, thus I began a search on it. The first in the search engine was this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

 

 

I'm still in the process of examining the possibilities within both. The possibility that religion can be integrated within, instead of being excluded from humanistic ideals.

 

 

In case you're interested (and if it hasn't been discussed yet; I haven't read all the posts yet), from existentialism I see how a lot of stuff can be brought together. I got the idea from Paul Tillich's Courage to Be and Abraham H. Maslow's Psychology of Being, which includes his Hierarchy of Needs. Some of Jesus' teachings fit into the model for me as follows:

 

In the Beatitudes in Matt. 5, where Jesus says all the "Blessed be's" it seems to me he is saying, "Be true to who you are and you will be happy." When he shifts to the part about persecution, I think he's acknowledging that some people will not accept us if we are true to who we are but we will have inner peace (kingdom of god) regardless.

I and my Father are one John 10:30).

 

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).

Jesus=God. Jesus also=Truth. Therefore, God=Truth. In my experience, truth--or honesty--gets me through tight spots when nothing else does. This makes truth "the Way of Life." Truth, as I see it, is that which is consistent in all times and places under all conditions no matter what. I'm not talking about some "Objective Truth." I am talking about facts as they are commonly understood in the human experience. If it rained while I was waiting for the bus at three o'clock at such and such a bus stop on Nov. 14, 2008, then that fact holds true no matter what cross-examination takes place, who asks the question, or where the examination takes place. It's the truth concerning the situation. Was it wet snow that turned to water as it entered the atmosphere, a drizzle, a driving rain, a torrential down-pour, or some other kind of rain? That would call for further interpretation in the case that it was important. The fact remains: It rained. Perhaps this establishes what I mean by truth.

 

With this perspective on God/truth, I think as an atheist I "follow god/Jesus." Call it religious if that makes you feel good. All but the progressive Christians will reject it. I think those who follow truth, are true to themselves, and live genuinely, are the preservers of human values.

 

As for "religious humanism," in my specific geographical area, the Christians seem to want to distance themselves as far as possible from anything tainted with humanism. Yet the values I learned in social work classes are the same as I see practiced by humanists. I asked a Christian social work prof for the name of the social work values and she called them humanitarian.

 

I feel like I'm all over the map with this post. Just skip over it if it makes no sense.

[bubbleloulicious]

A mention was made about 'religious humanists.' I've never heard of this term and would appreciate someone enlightening me as to what it means.

 

Thanks.

 

bill

 

Hi Bill, religious humanism is something relatively new to me as well. I only recently was introduced to humanism and as I began looking into it I found myself wondering if there might be a religious aspect to humanism as well, thus I began a search on it. The first in the search engine was this link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

 

 

I'm still in the process of examining the possibilities within both. The possibility that religion can be integrated within, instead of being excluded from humanistic ideals.

 

 

In case you're interested (and if it hasn't been discussed yet; I haven't read all the posts yet), from existentialism I see how a lot of stuff can be brought together. I got the idea from Paul Tillich's Courage to Be and Abraham H. Maslow's Psychology of Being, which includes his Hierarchy of Needs. Some of Jesus' teachings fit into the model for me as follows:

 

In the Beatitudes in Matt. 5, where Jesus says all the "Blessed be's" it seems to me he is saying, "Be true to who you are and you will be happy." When he shifts to the part about persecution, I think he's acknowledging that some people will not accept us if we are true to who we are but we will have inner peace (kingdom of god) regardless.

I and my Father are one John 10:30).

 

I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6).

Jesus=God. Jesus also=Truth. Therefore, God=Truth. In my experience, truth--or honesty--gets me through tight spots when nothing else does. This makes truth "the Way of Life." Truth, as I see it, is that which is consistent in all times and places under all conditions no matter what. I'm not talking about some "Objective Truth." I am talking about facts as they are commonly understood in the human experience. If it rained while I was waiting for the bus at three o'clock at such and such a bus stop on Nov. 14, 2008, then that fact holds true no matter what cross-examination takes place, who asks the question, or where the examination takes place. It's the truth concerning the situation. Was it wet snow that turned to water as it entered the atmosphere, a drizzle, a driving rain, a torrential down-pour, or some other kind of rain? That would call for further interpretation in the case that it was important. The fact remains: It rained. Perhaps this establishes what I mean by truth.

 

With this perspective on God/truth, I think as an atheist I "follow god/Jesus." Call it religious if that makes you feel good. All but the progressive Christians will reject it. I think those who follow truth, are true to themselves, and live genuinely, are the preservers of human values.

 

As for "religious humanism," in my specific geographical area, the Christians seem to want to distance themselves as far as possible from anything tainted with humanism. Yet the values I learned in social work classes are the same as I see practiced by humanists. I asked a Christian social work prof for the name of the social work values and she called them humanitarian.

 

I feel like I'm all over the map with this post. Just skip over it if it makes no sense.

 

I can see the connections you are making and I think they are expressed quite well. (I'm not very familiar with existentialism. I'll have to look into that a bit more.)

 

This thread has been very helpful to me. Posting my thoughts here make me realize that even though I separate from christianity, that does not change who I am. In other words, what I believe, or think, might change...but that does not change me.

 

It might sound silly, and I might not be expressing this very well. I am not very good with words, but I do find a certain sense of peace in realizing that.

[webmdave]

For myself, after I left fundamentalism, I found it wasn't just because their idea of truth was wrong, it was their whole manner of literal thinking that was holding me back from something really exciting, the exploration of humanity in all it's shades of colors, rather than straight-edged, sharp contrasting lines. It's that shift, that de-conversion from linear thought that's been my real struggle.

 

My first problem here (and in the following comments) is the apparent implication that anyone who is linear or literal in their thinking is limited or underdeveloped or simply not as advanced as other types of thinkers. This opinion, as expressed, stinks of dogmatism.

 

Secondly, iconoclasm, literally, is the smashing of physical religious symbols -- statues, artwork, etc. The redefining of iconoclasm to include verbal criticism of superstitiously held concepts and ideas is a defense, that if allowed to stand unchallenged, wards off nearly all rational inquiry that may give even the slightest appearance of undermining religious belief.

 

If some people want to hug the teddy bear of imaginative falsehood, you won't find me in their faces ripping it from their arms. However, if those same people insist or even suggest that everyone needs a teddy bear to live, I would have to strongly disagree. Not everyone needs a (fill in the blank). As soon as the word "everyone" enters the conversation, so does the word absolutism. Think about it.

 

It is obvious that people think differently regarding philosophic matters, and arguments and discussions on these matters will continue until our species goes extinct, but whenever an artificial hierarchy is assigned by one person to identify the "proper" philosophical way others should think... Well, be careful when you start to believe that your own narrow philosophy is the drumbeat by which everyone should march.

[Antlerman]

For myself, after I left fundamentalism, I found it wasn't just because their idea of truth was wrong, it was their whole manner of literal thinking that was holding me back from something really exciting, the exploration of humanity in all it's shades of colors, rather than straight-edged, sharp contrasting lines. It's that shift, that de-conversion from linear thought that's been my real struggle.

 

My first problem here (and in the following comments) is the apparent implication that anyone who is linear or literal in their thinking is limited or underdeveloped or simply not as advanced as other types of thinkers. This opinion, as expressed, stinks of dogmatism.

My criticism of linear thought is not to elevate non-linear thought as the pinnacle of human enlightenment and that all must attain it, and if you somehow aren't there you have fallen short of your humanity. My criticism of literalism is that it can in fact limit discussion of ideas, and in the context of criticizing other views, it itself becomes dogmatism because it can't allow for ideas outside its own system of thought. That fact is apparent, both from my experience not allowing myself to consider possibilities outside my views, and in seeing the level of zealotry of various black and white ideologies all the time in our culture and elsewhere.

 

I do believe I did say that "for myself I found [that]... it held me back" etc, so I wasn't intending to judge everyone as needing to see things as I do. I do choose to counter hard assumptions with a strong alternatives, in the hope that those hard assumptions themselves don't become a new dogma. I suppose it's being dogmatic about not being dogmatic. It's sort of like saying "I'm intolerant of intolerance". Is that being intolerant? Is a criticism of that, itself being dogmatic, and on and on?

 

I'm sorry if it's come off as judgment or a put-down. It's a criticism, but not a judgment in my eyes. I'll try to be more mindful of how it may come across.

 

Secondly, iconoclasm, literally, is the smashing of physical religious symbols -- statues, artwork, etc. The redefining of iconoclasm to include verbal criticism of superstitiously held concepts and ideas is a defense, that if allowed to stand unchallenged, wards off nearly all rational inquiry that may give even the slightest appearance of undermining religious belief.

I didn't mention it in reference to verbal criticism, nor do I believe it is. Here's what I said about it:

Iconoclasm is the smashing of cultural icons. The icon is not a real thing, but the signification of it is. By smashing the icon, you smash or attack the idea. God is an icon. The flag is an icon. There are symbols of ideals. It’s those ideals that are real, and the symbols are what we look to as “real”; whether you are for or against that ideal.

What I was saying is that the act of smashing a physical representation is a symbolic attack on the what the icon represents, what it's a symbol of. My mention of iconoclasm was in the context of Trekkie saying we don't know what a god is, so it can't have any sort of symbolic meaning, unlike a rose which is a physical thing. The smashing of icons, was my illustration of how in fact people do find meaning in non-literal things. If not, then why would a statue of a god hold so much meaning that one would feel compelled to destroy it? It obviously does hold meaning.

 

I'm absolutely fine with, and celebrate verbal criticism. If we didn't have any, then we wouldn't be have a discussion and would be under the control of priests in a church.

 

If some people want to hug the teddy bear of imaginative falsehood, you won't find me in their faces ripping it from their arms. However, if those same people insist or even suggest that everyone needs a teddy bear to live, I would have to strongly disagree. Not everyone needs a (fill in the blank). As soon as the word "everyone" enters the conversation, so does the word absolutism. Think about it.

I'm in complete agreement here. I will always criticize those who say you need to convert to their system. There is no one size-fits all solution. However I would say being non-dogmatic is a positive thing for everyone, and I suppose that could be criticized as a religious belief itself, but I don't see it that way.

 

It is obvious that people think differently regarding philosophic matters, and arguments and discussions on these matters will continue until our species goes extinct, but whenever an artificial hierarchy is assigned by one person to identify the "proper" philosophical way others should think... Well, be careful when you start to believe that your own narrow philosophy is the drumbeat by which everyone should march.

Certainly. Apparently something in the force of how I say this gives the impression otherwise. I understand everyone has different needs at different times, and I'm not trying to put down nor suggest they shouldn't be where they're at for where they are. My hope in this discussion is to talk about some way that will allow for everyone - as in all of society - to understand each other better, and hopefully we all learn and grow for that together. I think opening up the box for possibilities, for different understandings and points of view helps that. It's not to insist anyone become one thing. Hell no. Another ideal of mine is diversity, because I believe homogeneous groups leads to dogmatism and consequently limited views that make it hard to be in a community that incorporates those beyond ones own borders, as we have in today's world.

[webmdave]

@Antlerman:

 

Thanks for clarifying those points. I suppose it is statements like “People need to have hope for living. I do. Everyone does,” which raises my eyebrow in a “Star Trekkie” sort of way.

 

What is needed, perhaps, is a definition for “hope.” I’m not sure what my own “hope” for living might be. I enjoy being alive and am content with my lot in life. I’m not sure what my “hope” might be, as I have no idea what “hope” is supposed to mean. In the framework of most of the discussions in which “hope” is trumpeted, “hope” tends to include the embrace of supernaturalism or mysticism or spiritualism or some other magical “ism.”

 

You wrote in reference to iconoclasm:

“One brief point to make here that supports this is to make mention of the reaction of people who hear you don’t believe in God. Typically, from your average citizen, this is met with dismay and near disgust, in that they see this as you essentially saying you don’t believe in Family, Country, Community, Love, Charity, etc. God is a symbol of tangible ideals in their lives, and hearing you say ‘I don’t believe in God' is translated to mean you reject those ideals.’"

 

While I find myself nodding assent at your general assessment of average people’s dismay and disgust toward atheism, I conversely think comparing “I don’t believe in God” statements to iconoclastic vandalism as possibly misleading. Ingersoll was labeled an Iconoclast by the religious majority. The label was, in their usage of the word, a misnomer (link) that conveniently dismissed, without answering, his points. The labeling, while true in a positive, reformational way, was used by his detractors as an appeal to emotion that was intended to blunt the effectiveness of his pointed observations.

 

However, it may be that all I am doing here is quibbling about semantics and tone. The constraint of the written word (especially in a forum setting) frequently lends itself to misunderstanding.

[Neon Genesis]

when i was a fundamentalist christian, liberal christians used to upset me because of what i thought to be their illogical thinking. For instance they are fond of saying that all religions are about the same God. That can't be right, because the different religions are contradictory, eg. 'Jesus is the only way', 'there are many gods'. if Jesus is the only way, then none of the other reigions can be true. if any of the others are true, Jesus can't be the only way.

 

another thing, if they don't think the bible is completely the Word of God, if some of it is myth, some originates in the mnds of fallible men, how would anyone know which parts were from God? it'd be guesswork and speculation., it'd be just people's opinions. it wouldnt be folliowing God, it'd be following one's own or other people's ideas. no point in it. well there might be a point, but no point in calling it 'following Jesus', which was my idea of what being a christian was.

 

And if our only knowledge of Jesus and the heaven of Jesus, the Father of Jesus, is from the bible, and if the bible is only true in parts, and we dont know which parts, there no way to really know what God wants or is like. again, guesswork.

 

i think some people want to have a religion but dont actually believe in the biblical one, so they try to follow a different form of christianity, which doesnt really work or make sense. well, it only works if they dont think it trhough, llike fundamental christianity.

To be fair, fundamentalists Christians cherry pick the bible just as much if not more so. For example, fundamentalists claim to believe the bible is the literal word of God, but if they believe the bible is literal, why do they take any verse that's inconvenient for them to follow as being metaphorical? Like, when Jesus says you have to hate your family to be a Christian, how many fundamentalists will admit they literally believe that? Why do fundies claim to follow the bible literally yet they reinterpret that verse to mean to put Jesus as your number one priority? This is where I respect liberal Christians more than fundies even if I might not agree with everything they say because at least they're being honest about the inerrancy of the bible. Here's another way of looking at it.

 

If Christianity is just a fairytale that acts as a security blanket, then why do so many non-Christians get offended when fundies damn others to hell? If Christianity was just a fairytale, why don't we just shrug off their condemnation as delusional and go about our merry old way? I can't speak for others, but for me at least, when a fundie damns me to hell, it's not the hellfire itself that offends me. It's that I recongize that the underlying symbolic meaning of the phrase "you're going to hell" really means "I think I'm better than everyone else." Thus, I'm not being offended by the condemnation, I'm being offended by their attitude that they think they're superior to everyone under the guise of hell. So, even as non-believers, don't we still in a sense view myths through symbolic language when we debate with Christians? How many times when we debate with Christians do you see someone point out to a Christian that claims to speak for God that they're really speaking for themselves? When we do that, are we not breaking down the language of myth and exposing the Christian's beliefs they claim to be literal for the metaphors that they are?

 

And vice versa. It is turning the symbols into idols that bothers me.

But when fundies hail the bible as being the inerrant word of God and try to confine God to a single collection of ancient mythology, are they not turning their belief in the bible itself into a form of idol worship? Aren't they worshiping the bible more than they do God? I've lost track of how many times I've asked a xtian if they care more about turning Christianity into a form of escapism than about the teachings of Jesus and why the bible must be literally true to have value in it, yet they refused to answer my question. Why do they refuse to answer my question if fundies really care about the teachings of Jesus? I still try to follow the positive teachings of Jesus as an atheist, like the Golden Rule etc, yet I've also lost track of how many times a xtian has said they would be immoral if the bible wasn't true. Why do they say that if they really believe Jesus' teachings have value? Is this really worshiping God or is this biblotary?

 

But let’s not forget, my friend, that people were KILLED for not buying into or countering this “framework.” To me, superstition elicits fear. Superstition causes us to recoil in fear of the unknown. Good religion, if there is such a thing, would cause us to seek out the unknown. That is what I love about science. I know that, strictly speaking, science is not a religion. But it calls to me to come closer, to learn more, to be more than I am. In the religion that I have known, God says, “Stay back. You are worthless. I’m a mystery. To know Me would kill you.” That is, to me, more than a framework of religious language, it is a means of keeping people ignorant and existing in fear.

But plenty of people have been killed over secular reasons, too. The Cold War, Vietnam war, anyone? Wars have existed since practically the dawn of time and probably before religion. It's not like the world was a perfect utopia before religion came along and I doubt it will be even if religion went away. Many anti-theists like Dawkins and Hitchens act like the world would be this perfect heaven if we only had atheists but I think it's just as mistaken to say we can only get to "heaven" so to speak, if we get rid of all the theists as it is for the theist to say we can only get to heaven if we get rid of all the non-believers. As the saying goes, the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

 

I don't think just because we get rid of religion the world will suddenly be a better place without any division. Like, for example, a lot of people act like if we get rid of religion, then disputes over things like abortion and gay marriage will go away. But I remember just awhile back we had a debate here at ex-c in the ex-christian life forum about whether or not abortion is murder even though religion wasn't even brought up once in the thread and there were no Christians participating. Just the other day I had a debate here at ex-c about whether or not gay marrige should be legalized and the person I was debating the issue with was an atheist. So, it's not like all our problems are suddenly going to go away if we ditch religion. The biggest thing that will have changed is the way we approach the arguments, like switching to a different language after speaking one language your whole life.

[Antlerman]

@Antlerman:

 

Thanks for clarifying those points. I suppose it is statements like “People need to have hope for living. I do. Everyone does,” which raises my eyebrow in a “Star Trekkie” sort of way.

 

What is needed, perhaps, is a definition for “hope.” I’m not sure what my own “hope” for living might be. I enjoy being alive and am content with my lot in life. I’m not sure what my “hope” might be, as I have no idea what “hope” is supposed to mean. In the framework of most of the discussions in which “hope” is trumpeted, “hope” tends to include the embrace of supernaturalism or mysticism or spiritualism or some other magical “ism.”

More than happy to. I would rather have the opportunity to clarify my points. I think what may be happening here, is I'm usually quite cautious over my word choices as to cover the bases, giving multiple examples etc, where in this conversation I've been a bit of a roll just been dumping huge amounts of my thoughts in a more stream of consciousness kind of way and making certain assumptions along the way. I think the example of the iconoclasm in one case of this.

 

As to the "hope" statement above, in that case I was aware I said everyone, as that is what I believe. Where I should clarify is that I don't mean a hope in anything supernatural; a life beyond this one; that some cosmic entity will sweep us up in it's arms and make all our troubles disappear. Rather than that I mean it in the sense that we need to believe that we will find a way to meet the challenges of life or we are doomed. That belief is what keeps us going. We have hope that we can make it, because it motivates us. It's what we act upon. If we had no hope that we could survive a world of challenges, a world that is agnostic to our plights, then we would simply not try. Hopeless leads to despair, despondency, and eventual death. It is not hope in the religious sense of the word, but I would say that religion exploits this aspect of being human.

 

On Wiki it defines hope this way (in the non-religious sense)

 

"Hope is a belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life. Hope is the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best. [1] To hope is to wish for something with the expectation of the wish being fulfilled, a key condition in unrequited love. [2] Hopefulness is somewhat different from optimism in that hope is an emotional state, whereas optimism is a conclusion reached through a deliberate thought pattern that leads to a positive attitude."

 

That's what I mean.

 

You wrote in reference to iconoclasm:

“One brief point to make here that supports this is to make mention of the reaction of people who hear you don’t believe in God. Typically, from your average citizen, this is met with dismay and near disgust, in that they see this as you essentially saying you don’t believe in Family, Country, Community, Love, Charity, etc. God is a symbol of tangible ideals in their lives, and hearing you say ‘I don’t believe in God' is translated to mean you reject those ideals.’"

 

While I find myself nodding assent at your general assessment of average people’s dismay and disgust toward atheism, I conversely think comparing “I don’t believe in God” statements to iconoclastic vandalism as possibly misleading. Ingersoll was labeled an Iconoclast by the religious majority. The label was, in their usage of the word, a misnomer (link) that conveniently dismissed, without answering, his points. The labeling, while true in a positive, reformational way, was used by his detractors as an appeal to emotion that was intended to blunt the effectiveness of his pointed observations.

Actually, what happens is that even though metaphorically he could be called an iconoclast, which that link you offered does indicate. What the misnomer was is that he was attacked as just an iconoclast and not a reformer. He was a reformer, and iconoclasm is part of that (according to what is said in that link, which I can agree with). One can smash an icon or an idol by overturning all sorts of cultural assumptions, such as class, gender, race, religious beliefs, etc. That is a healthy thing to do, if you are trying to point out a reform that needs to occur, which is what Ingersoll was hoping to do. What his detractors did was to basically just use the term as meaning he was blatantly smashing their idols out of mindless disrespect; a brute; an immoral animal, and the like.

 

However... My jumping over to people reacting negatively to hearing you say you reject God as meaning you are against any and all positive social values, was actually not meant to be a continuation of thought about iconoclasm directly. As I said, I was doing a bit of stream of consciousness typing there. The comparison was again to both statues and words like God do in fact have very clear meaning in the real world even though they are not anything we can relate to like a Rose, as in Trekkie's example. It all related back to his rose analogy.

 

But... talking about this now in light of the link you offered, saying you don't believe in God really could not be considered Iconoclasm. However, if I were to put a bumper sticker on my car which says "Christ Sucks", now that would be. You are smashing and idea, a symbol: the word "Christ", by fusing it with the negative word "Sucks". That is in effect what visually the broken pieces of a statue of a god does. That is iconoclasm. And that has it's place, whether it's burning a bra, stamping on a flag, or mocking our precious assumptions about our gods.

 

Again, it wasn't an intentional connection in my post, but this does make for some interesting dialog.

 

 

However, it may be that all I am doing here is quibbling about semantics and tone. The constraint of the written word (especially in a forum setting) frequently lends itself to misunderstanding.

You know, my posts are usually too long as it is because I try so hard to make my thoughts understood. I was just having too much fun typing like a mad man because this is a very interesting subject to me, and was just running with it. I'll try to keep in mind some of the concerns raised, but sometimes it may just take some clarification after the fact regardless.

 

Iconoclasm. We should start a separate topic just on that. Fascinating subject.

[webmdave]

@Antlerman:

 

Well and satisfyingly expressed.

[chefranden]

I have a liberal Lutheran Christian friend and it is fun to discuss religion with him.

 

At the end of most of these discussion he says a version of I see what you mean, but I just have to believe.

 

I think he does "have to believe" to stay sane. He's had a pretty horseshit life (childhood abuse, war, war wounds, cancer...) and he fears admitting that this is all there is.

[Bodhi]

I don't know if I have any advice for you on how to deal with liberal Christians. Since we're each coming from different histories and different perspectives, as all people are, I'm sure we would both deal with them differently. I'm so tired of dealing with fundys that I usually find liberal Christians somewhat refreshing actually. In any situation, I try to respect other people's beliefs while also staying true to my own, even though that's much easier said that done.

 

However, I do believe it's possible for different people to have radically different interpretations of the Bible. For example, Eckhart Tolle in the The Power of Now, which I'm currently reading, has reinterpreted certain passages in the Bible in a way that's often exactly the opposite of how most Christians think, and I find it quite fascinating. Anything mythological can be used in a good way or a bad way, depending on who's using it. But the power of myth cannot be denied. It's been one of the driving forces in humanity forever. Science and reason may speak to our minds, but myth and fantasy speak to our hearts.

 

One thing I've learned from experience is that once you've become more enlightened than you were before, everything you see, read and hear comes across differently to you. I think some people interpret the Bible differently than others because different people are at different levels of consciousness.

 

Of course, some things in the Bible are said point-blank and are just plain stupid, like the verses that say slaves should obey their masters or that women should submit to their husbands. There are other things even sillier than all of that, like stuff about what to wear or whatever. I think it even says that anyone caught working on a Sunday should be killed. That's why the Bible can't be the absolute truth. It would be retarded if it was.

 

I agree with the person who said that as long as they aren't trying to shove their beliefs down your throat, you should deal with liberal Christians just like any other human beings. A lot of liberal Christians are really good people and can be really good friends, but I guess I don't need to tell you that since you were once for a long time. Besides, what else can you do? Everybody has to find their own way.

[Bodhi]

Hey Webmdave,

 

Wait until you meet a New Age Christian who channels the spirit of Jesus through a crystal. Or a Wiccan who uses Jesus and Mary as the God and Goddess. Then you really won't know what to do.

[Bodhi]

Btw, this later reminded me of something and I had to crack up. I stopped being Christian when I was fourteen but have never been atheist. I've always believed in something. But in my mid-twenties I went through a Marxist socialist phase and tried to reconcile my spirituality with my Marxism by saying that I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god, but I do believe in energy that scientists can't yet measure, that humans are capable of far more than we realize and that if there are beings of higher consciousness or a more "spiritual" nature then they are part of the natural world as well. I could go on and on about this, but atheists weren't buying it so one day I realized I just wasn't like the rest of them and stopped trying to call myself an atheist. Then I quit being a socialist, which you'll probably be happy to hear about even though you're probably disappointed that I'm also not an atheist.

 

Anyway, I later once got into a debate with someone about the definition of the word "materialist." I said I'm not a materialist because I believe that the world is created from consciousness. Ultimately, I think that we create our own world, but I mean that quite literally. Not in the sense that you make a frog magically appear, but in the sense that it's our brains that interpret the soup of information around us to create a "world." Quantum physics has recently been revealing many very interesting things, such as the fact that particles behave differently when being observed by humans. We've known for a long time that there's as much space between the nucleus and the protons and electrons of an atom as there is between the sun and the planets, that everything is 99% space, that nothing is really solid matter, that all we really have is our energy systems interacting with energy systems around us and that they all intertwine. Our brains and bodies interpret information to make things into "chair" and "table." But what if we could recreate the world? What if we could reinterpret the information to make a different reality, through our consciousness? What if that is what we already do?

 

Well anyway, these people who were very political wanted me to call myself a materialist and, in my view, found all kinds of ways of redefining materialism in order to convince me that I really am a materialist and that they are as well, even though they have views similar to mine. I thought they basically came up with a very loose definition that didn't really mean what the world "materialist" means in a classic sense, which is that matter precedes consciousness. They meant something more like caring about the world and believing that the real world matters. So I can understand what you mean by not wanting to buy into a watered-down version of something, but from a different point of view.

 

However, since religion IS just all made up anyway, who's to say whether or not liberals Christians are "really" Christian because does that question really matter? You could also say that all philosophies are made up, so how a person chooses to use a word is their prerogative and certainly languages are always evolving, but people need to be able to agree on definitions in order to have a conversation.

 

Anyway, a person's spirituality or lack thereof is something you can't talk them out of very easily. Just be glad they're not fundies. But yes, I think they do cover for fundies sometimes, as somebody else mentioned. But not all of them do.

[Vomit Comet]

Why do we have to deal with them in the first place? I think I might know one, and from overhearing me speaking about this shit to others, he knows not to bring it up.