By Vorjack
Most of the advanced schools of theology, feeling less adequate in a time of science’s empirical miracles and permanent, mathematical truths, protected themselves with scaled-down promises and vague imitations of the scientific method….
Theology, which had once ruled all science as well as all being, was resorting to more and more elaborate shrugs.
—Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters, 91
That phrase, “elaborate shrugs,” pretty much sums up my experiences with liberal Christianity. I was raised in a moderate Christian household and remained an unreflective moderate Christian despite four years of Catholic highschool. I became a liberal Christian after college when I discovered the writings of men like Rev. John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg.
I have to admit, there was a sense of relief to the transition. Finally I was finding a way to be Christian that didn’t inflict cognitive dissonance. But the price of that was a Christianity that was vague and maddeningly complex. Spong called it a state of “radical uncertainty” — I called it exhausting.
Christianity had become a series of increasingly elaborate shrugs, and after four or five years my shoulders were worn out.
I don’t want to knock it. It was bracing while I was in it. I know that there are many folks out there who continue to find deep meaning in the mysticism and traditions of liberal Christianity. But I know that there are just as many who followed the same path I did: liberal Christianity to pious agnosticism to atheism.
We spend a lot of time talking about fundamentalists and evangelicals. This time, let’s hear from the liberals, those who are still in and those who have left. How are your shoulders doing?
much better now, thanks. (really. i can’t add more. other than reading spong and borg, your story is my story.)
Much better as well. Though I guess I was more liberal catholic to deist to amorphous theist… either way the theology didn’t make sense the moment I stopped and thought about it.
Yep, my story too. Spent time with the Unity church and Unitarian Universalist, trying desparately to find some way to keep God that didn’t make my brain and soul if I had one hurt. Going to churches with less and less God helped with the transition until I could with a sigh of relief chuck the whole thing altogether.
In fact, few people appreciate the tremendous sacrifices made and the hardships endured by military personnel. ,
Daniel,
You describe yourself as:
I’m Daniel Florien. I was a passionate evangelical Christian for over a decade.
Now I’m figuring out what it means to be an unbeliever and skeptic.
In many ways, that describes me as well, although I haven’t yet left the Christian fold.
I’ve come to embrace a radically different epistemology than I did as a conservative fundamentalists, the most important part of that being I accept my belief as just that — belief. I’ve consciously chosen the Christian worldview (although in a more classical, not-American-Evangelical Jesus died for your sins way) of Creation — Sin — Redemption not because I insist that it is ultimately true, but because I’ve found it to be the best explanation of my own human experience.
I’m fully aware that death could be end, and I’ve accepted that, and frankly, if death is the end then it ultimately won’t matter if I believed in the resurrection during my lifetime or not–because I’m dead either way. However, I do find hope in the defiance that the resurrection represents, for the present, not just the future.
I’ve also found that believing that I am participating in the redemption of creation when I pursue justice is the best motivation to do so. I’ve tried (and continue to try) to find a better explanation for why justice matters, but I’ve yet to find one that’s convincing to me. If it were there, maybe it would change things.
I wouldn’t call myself “liberal,” but I would definitely not call myself “conservative.”
I don’t really care that much about evangelizing people, because I feel a lot like Morpheus in the Matrix. If my beliefs are true, then they certainly don’t require that everyone believe in them. If God is full of justice and mercy, then I don’t see eternal damnation for those who rationally reject a being they can’t prove as a possibility.
I don’t anticipate ever becoming truly agnostic or an atheist.
And I really enjoy talking to those who are — at least when conversation can be civil and rational, instead of being dominated by emotional reactions (read: how can you believe that?!?! you must be stupid, you ignorant fool! Just accept the obvious evidence!!).
Frankly, I guess I’ve admitted that there are philosophical and theological problems I will never solve no matter which side I come out on. So, I’ve come to accept my own broken epistemology and the worldview that comes with it. Obviously, that makes persuasion difficult, but persuasion’s not really my point anymore. Understanding is.
I followed this very same path. My girlfriend is a very liberal ‘catholic’ – that is, she’s pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc – we both despise fundamentalists and think they are destroying everything good about the world.
The only remaining difference is, she believes in some sort of god that allows for her to have free will, while simultaneously intervening when necessary. It’s extremely complex, and every time we discuss it, all I get are shrugs.
Part of me thinks that now that I’ve planted a few seeds of atheistic thought (for instance, The Problem of Evil, and a few contradictions in her beliefs), I need to just let it grow and not touch it for a while, so that it can bloom into full blown atheism.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m actively trying to de-convert her or anything. If she stays a pseudo-catholic for the rest of her life, that’s fine by me. But understanding religious belief is an extremely important part of my life, and she knows it – so she’s mostly fine with me asking her questions.
You will be assimilated.
My progression is quite similar. Indoctrinated kid–>fundie zealot–>(massive closet case)–>superannoying fundie zealot–>out of the closet–>liberal Christian–>waitaminit, this still doesn’t make a lick of sense. By the time I had gotten into and progressed through graduate school, I had come to describe “God” vis-a-vis pragmatic naturalism and the writings of Robert Corrington/Jerome Stone: in other words, God was simply the world, and the “patterns and processes therein.”
Which is, frankly, a bunch of philosophical bullshit. The more I thought about it, the less it made any sense. It was like being weaned off of heroin or some other drug. I guess I can say that I’ve been rational and sober since summer 2007.
But I know that there are just as many who followed the same path I did: liberal Christianity to pious agnosticism to atheism
Me too, pretty much (though preceded by a fundamentalist period). There came a point where it was all just the old familiar words, but they didn’t seem to *refer* to anything concrete any more.
So why bother?
After fundamentalism, I went through a Spong-Borg phase. At the beginning, I found the stuff heretic, then I found it brilliant, and finally, totally unconvincing.
For me it was, like, “Listen folks, there really is no God, but let’s pretend there is one so we can still have our religious traditions in times of trouble and the community of believers we’ve always relied on for social purposes.”
Utter hogwash is what I think it is.
The term “elaborate shrug” is a good one. It kinda reminds me of the elaborate leaps of faith required to maintain and nurture a belief in the bible. Comment from another site:
Unlike scientific knowledge that is based on ONE leap of faith, the naturalistic assumption/faith, religious knowledge requires hopping around like a mad kangaroo. First you have to jump to the existence something outside nature. Then you have to jump to the idea that what is outside nature controls nature. Then you have to jump to the idea that what controls the nature is personal. Then you have to jump to the idea that that person has a plan with us. Then you have to jump to the idea that the plan was dictated to some Jewish people in the bronze age. Then you have to jump to the idea that those people wrote it in a book and that miracles defying the laws of nature happened. Then you have to jump to the idea that Satan didn’t mess with the book. And in the end you have to jump to the idea that is OK to make these jumps. And then you have to disbelieve others that make the exact same number of jumps as you made and reach a different conclusion.
As I said, I agree ONE leap of faith is not intellectual suicide. But how many leaps of faith does it take to declare brain-death?
That comment is from here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/03/guest-post-by-dr-douglas-groothuis.html
which by the way is a really great article/comment thread. Very interesting.
“Elaborate shrugs”… very interesting way to put it. I too have been a life-long passionate follower. I grew up in a fundamental/evangelical home, went to Bible College, became a missionary for 10 years, then basically de-converted. My family are all evangelicals and to break with them would be too much to bear. I “appreciate” my Christian upbringing and tradition. And I still find myself keeping the Jesus story as the central defining story of my life. My family and I are now members at a United Church of Christ which is filled with just about any kind of “Christian” you could find – conservative, liberal, literal, non-literal, etc. My family and I need a “community” to be a part of, and this community brings meaning and purpose to our lives, and a sense of mission (social justice, serving the poor, caring for others, etc.). And our UCC community accepts just about anyone.
To me, theology is something that must be lived, not just a list of beliefs. So if I’m shrugging about something, it might not be too relevant to everyday life and I might just toss it out. I think certain personalities embrace uncertainty better than others. Just embrace the shrug.
My path weaved in between Baptist/Bible Church and Conservative Presbyterian (those are the churches of my family) –> Baptist/Bible Church in college –> Baptidome after college (where I sought out aplologists to help me rationalize the faith) –> deep dissatisfaction with apologetics –> seeking churches with pastors who were very intellectual (ie would teach a sermon like you’d find in a seminary classroom with history, hermeneutics, etc.) –> more dissatisfaction which tempted me to read Spong, but I was afraid to because I had been programmed to be afraid of liberal churches as “not true chuches” –> turning to academics (of course! What’s more liberal than liberal churches? The uni, right? But learning feels different than church going) –> exploring religion in the university –> current beliefs (a functional naturalist, but a hope that there is a god).
It sounds like Lorena and I grew up in the same place. I was raised in the Methodist church and it was just what one did in polite society. You attended church, said all the right things, it was just an exercise in politeness. I was never gripped by religious fervor, even as a child I remember wondering what the hell the big deal was, none of it made sense. It seemed to be a self-soothing mechanism, and even at 10 I didn’t need it.
I tried being born again in high school thanks to Young Life. Even then when we prayed I looked around and wondered what they were all on, I liked the singing though. It was just what the un-cool kids did, and I was one of them.
Now my family has all become mired in the church of their choosing. The saddest thing is they have become pretty bigoted the deeper they embrace their new faith. Is that what Jesus would do, I wonder.
So these generalizations are wrong? Sometimes, but not when holding people’s actions up to their “beliefs”. They don’t call it hypocrisy for nothing.
I think I’m on that path. I have a feeling that atheism is where it might end, but right now I’m exploring Theravada Buddhism (one of the earliest surviving forms) and I’m learning that it really isn’t concerned with reincarnation or the afterlife or any of that. When people asked Gautama Buddha about the afterlife he usually just remained silent or he said that that’s not what this was about.
I’m in love with that idea: here is the way to live a happy life. Even if I don’t stick with this as a way of life I know it will be worth it.
“I’m in love with that idea: here is the way to live a happy life. Even if I don’t stick with this as a way of life I know it will be worth it.”
Nicely said, Caleb. Nicely said.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m actively trying to de-convert her or anything. If she stays a pseudo-catholic for the rest of her life, that’s fine by me. But understanding religious belief is an extremely important part of my life, and she knows it – so she’s mostly fine with me asking her questions.
So you are not trying to convert her.
Part of me thinks that now that I’ve planted a few seeds of atheistic thought (for instance, The Problem of Evil, and a few contradictions in her beliefs), I need to just let it grow and not touch it for a while, so that it can bloom into full blown atheism.
So you are trying to convert her.
/Rick Warren’d
“I’ve also found that believing that I am participating in the redemption of creation when I pursue justice is the best motivation to do so. I’ve tried (and continue to try) to find a better explanation for why justice matters, but I’ve yet to find one that’s convincing to me. If it were there, maybe it would change things.”
I’m far from an expert or well-read, but I think one of the keys to justice being relevant is enlightened self interest. The reason being that if you accept that the rights of the individual are supreme to all other rights, then injustice is when an individual’s rights are violated. If one accepts that violation, then they are implicitly accepting that their own rights be violated. By protecting the rights of others, you strengthen the protection of your own.
There are some questions that are still interesting and difficult to resolve (in my mind at least), such as abortion, the right to end one’s own life, and legalization of certain drugs. Each of these activities directly or can indirectly have a negative impact on others, hence the problems I find in deciding what’s right. Outside of these, and maybe some other edge cases, I think it provides a great reason for justice, even if one is really only looking out themselves.
< blockquote ?I’ve also found that believing that I am participating in the redemption of creation when I pursue justice is the best motivation to do so. I’ve tried (and continue to try) to find a better explanation for why justice matters, but I’ve yet to find one that’s convincing to me. If it were there, maybe it would change things.
Ultimately, justice matters because justice matters in experience. I think your belief will continue to be eroded in a system where morality is supposedly revealed. When I left conservative Christianity I spent little time in liberalism. When I compared the archaic epistemology of Christian tradition with the Theory of Evolution and resultant humanistic systems, I found the former to be anemic in comparison for the formation of moral and social foundations.
That’s not fair. Talking to your significant other about your beliefs is an integral part of the relationship. If explaining one’s rational position to a believer causes them to experience cognitive dissonance that they need to work out (ie planting seeds), that’s not deconverting, that’s an exercise in logic, IMO.
Seriously, what is he supposed to do? Not talk to her about religion? Lie to her about his own thoughts on the matter?
If he kept at her every day with more and more pressure – you know, like what some Christians feel obligated to do to the rest of us – that would be one thing. But he specifically said he’s not doing that.
You == epic FAIL.
Haha. don’t worry. I take no offense to your comment.
I think I may have just not made myself totally clear. When I say “planted seeds”, all I mean to say is that – upon discussion of the topic of her beliefs and the inherent contradictions in some of the things she has told me she believes – I believe that these are things she will think about as times goes, being the very intelligent girl that she is, and eventually this may lead to some deistic or atheistic views.
Again, maybe it won’t. And that’s ok, too – because her views on policy issues are very humanistic and well developed.
The point is: I love discussing what people believe and why they believe it. She knows this and she’s a sweet enough girl to let me blather on about it whenever I feel. I’m hypothesizing that since I was in the same position she was (raised catholic, turned more liberal christian, eventually became unsure, and now atheist) that she may very well follow in the same lines I did.
Maybe there’s a distinction between evangelizing my atheism and simply discussing it – or maybe there isn’t. I think there’s an arbitrary line to be drawn out there, somewhere. In my case, the line is drawn at whether or not she feels like discussing it – she doesn’t think I evangelize to her, though, if that clears it up.
As a side note: she hopes that I’ll someday see her point of view and become a catholic again, so that we can get married in a catholic church, etc etc…
She believes she’s planted the seed of faith in me, I have no doubt. It’s a give and take relationship – and I LOVE IT.
“It was like being weaned off of heroin or some other drug.”
Like opium? ;)
I think some nonbelievers are too hard on liberal Christians. I think most people find life more fulfilling with a purpose. It could be scienctific endeavor, betterment of the community, or climbing Mt. Everest. So if peeps want to hang with a welcoming and loving community centered around a religious tradition as their defining “purpose”, then cool.
Good one! :-D
Heroin is made from opium….
I’m reading Spong now, and I enjoy what he has to say. But I’m always left with, “So why in the world would you still believe in God and call yourself a Christian?”
“I went through a Spong-Borg phase. ”
I think we’ve just found why liberal Christianity isn’t very popular. Any faith that has a “Spong-Borg” phase is going to be laughed at unmercifully.
It sounds like bad techno-babble, doesn’t it?
“… then the negative energy in the plasma chamber goes through the Spong-Borg phase, then enters the nexus …”
Yes, Liberal Christianity, to me, is like knowingly being deluded.
Yeah, yeah, there is no god, but if we can call it the “ground of our being,” or something to that effect, we don’t have to give up our dear religion and will always have something to pray to when in great need.”
That’s a question which all too few theists are prepared to ask themselves.
For me it seems obvious: If I have to twist and distort that which I know to be true and/or if I have to play games with semantics in order to shoe-horn provable facts into “agreeing” (or at least not seeming to directly contradict) my position – Why, then I have to admit that my position is just plain wrong, and must concede that gracefuly.
Why is the question of religion any different? If I were to ask a Ku Klux Klan member, I’m sure he would tell me with passionate zeal about his belief in the superiority of the caucasian race, in the face of the evidence against his belief.
The KKK man would, of course, be wrong. The strength and passion of his belief would not mean a thing; they wouldn’t be a virtue, they’d be a rope to bind him and prevent him from learning and growing.
Thus with religion. Theists say that the strength of their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence against them is somehow a virtue – that it’s somehow a good thing to shut down our ability to enquire, to examine, to critique. If you were to put this to most theists without mentioning religion, though, they’d argue that of course you shouldn’t just accept what people tell you on faith alone, without evidence.
The hypocrisy, denial, wilful ignorance and just-plain-idiocy of it all is mind-bending, really.
You think that’s bad, Daniel, try reading Kelly Brown Douglas’s “What’s Faith Got To Do With It?: Black Bodies/Christian Souls,” where she tries to respond to a student who flat out asked her why she, as a Black woman, could remain in a religion that has historically participated in racist/sexist oppression. Her response boils down to, “Well, my grandmother was a Christian, and it was good enough for my foremothers.”
“So why in the world would you still believe in God and call yourself a Christian?
Because Spong doesn’t like the alternatives? Maybe it’s as simple as that.
I love the question “What would Jesus do?”
The answer, very simply, is “Whatever the person who’s asking the question would do.”
People don’t ask seriously “what would the actual Jesus (assuming he really did exist) do?”, they ask “What would my own version of Christianity’s contrived and pre-conceived idea of who we think Jesus should have been, do?”
I think my experience with Christianity was similar… Growing up, my mom sent me to Sunday school (no idea what flavor). The one lesson I learned from it was that if you were quiet and well behaved then you were one of the kids that got to pick a prize out of the box before going home. :)
By some time in Jr. High, I had discarded mysticism in general having read about things like Big Foot, UFOs, ghosts, etc., and working through some personal issues that prompted me to think about it all in the first place. My conclusion was that they were all ghost stories that are fun when you’re little, but, as beautiful as the world is, there’s no magic.
It wasn’t until high school that I realized that people really, truly, actually believed any of it though. I was hanging out with some of the other choir geeks during lunch and a couple of them were talking about their religion and I had the epiphany that they actually believed what they were saying. Up until that point, I loosely figured that it was kind of like a special club where you learn all the rules and how you’re supposed to respond to various things, but that no one who was in it took it all that seriously.
Exactly! Thank you for that, gotta write that one down for future use.
That’s an absolute absurd generalization, one that you are in no way qualified to make.
Logically speaking: in order for you to have a legitimate epistemological basis for such a claim, you would have to have interacted with every person who has ever worn a WWJD bracelet.
Generalizations are ignorant. They aren’t in any way rational, and they should be avoided at all costs.
That’s not an opinion; it’s a truly rational statement.
Elemenope understood me right.
My point is that generalizations are inherently irrational, because the person who makes them lacks the epistemic knowledge needed to make the claim.
For example, you have not personally interacted with every single person in the universe who wears a WWJD bracelet; therefore, you do not have adequate knowledge to claim that “all” of them do “example activity.”
You could have said something like, “I know a few people who wear WWJD bracelets, but I don’t think they really understand what it means. Instead of asking what the Jesus of history would really ask, they just use the question to justify what they already think.”
That’s a rational statement and may be exactly what you meant.
However, you used a generalization, and as I explained, those are inherently irrational.
“Well, my grandmother was a Christian, and it was good enough for my foremothers.”
I’ve got a response I’m waiting to try out the next time I hear that one: “Judaism was good enough for Jesus, why isn’t it good enough for you?”
Wow. That is pathetic. Even I don’t believe just “cuz the Bible tells me so” or “cuz my great granny said it was good for me.” Do I seem like that, though?
My point is not to say that you’re wrong in what you’re doing. You have every right to be “evangelical” in your atheism if you want to be. And you have every right to not be if you choose to be.
But, for you to say that you’ve planted 1) “seeds” and then clearly imply that you hope that those seeds “can bloom into full blown atheism,” and then 2) that you are not “trying to de-convert” her is an outright contradiction.
Are you actively planting seeds in her mind? You’ve said yes. Mind you, I’m not saying you should be doing this. But, if you have — and you’ve admitted that you have — then it’s a contradiction to say you’re not being evangelical about your atheism.
I suspect that if the roles were reversed and a religious person was “planting seeds” in hopes of those seeds “blossing into full-grown faith,” you would perceive that as evangelical — “de-converting” you from your atheism, to use your words.
Again, I want to be clear: I think you have every right to share your atheism, and you have every right to be persuasive about it.
I just think you are being more persuasive than you are admitting to yourself. If you are intentionally planting atheistic “seeds” then it’s fair to expect her worldview will be altered in some way.
I’m a little confused. You addressed that response as if I was u747. Well, anyway, the point is that others are welcome to discuss their beliefs with me. If they see it as planting seeds, fine. I can think for myself, and I can also work through other people’s claims to decide if they are rational or not. I think in a relationship it is important to talk through your beliefs with your significant other…. whatever you choose to call it.
There is a distinction between hoping a thing will come to pass and actively trying to make it so.
As I said above, of course he’s free to talk with her.
My point was not to dispute whether or not he can/should talk about such issues and not to dispute his right to be persuasive if he chooses to be.
Yesterday, there was a post that claimed Rick Warren was a liar, and there were two videos given as proof. One showed him on Larry King saying one thing, the other showed him in another video (source is still unknown) contradicting what he said on Larry King.
My point is this:
If you are admitting that you are planting seeds that you hope will grow into full-blown atheism, then it’s a contradiction to say that you’re not trying to de-convert someone.
Drawing an analogy between the KKK and liberal Christianity seemed like an intelligent, rational move to make? Seriously?
@elemenope:
Again, I disagree. I have close familly who are born-again, and who refuse utterly to even consider anything which goes against the word of the bible. They consider that, where observable evidence contradicts the Bumper Book of Sins, then the observable evidence must be wrong. To me, that is just a clear a case of belief preventing development as in the example of the KKK member.
Touche. But generalizations are kind of like a blanket prejudice. Christians aren’t the only people who are hypocrites.
Comparing a specific person’s actions to something they specifically said in order to search for hypocrisy is not a generalization. That’s a completely fair thing to do.
But notice how you have compared one person to something they themselves said. That’s specific, not general.
NOTHING is simple with the Right Reverend John Shelby Spong. He calls himself a “non-theist,” and you can parse that as you want.
He walks right up to the line between Christianity and Agnosticism, and the proceeds to taunt us:, “Hey look guys, I’m an agnos .. wait, no I’m not, I’m a theist … ooops, just kidding, I’m really a naturalist … Ha! Changed my mind, I believe in an afterlife …”
Sheesh. It was tiring just watching that guy.
I disagree completely. How am I less qualified to make that statement than the people who ask themselves “What would Jesus do?” are qualified to have the first clue what the actual answer to their question is?
The point is, that (assuming for a second that he did exist) those people have no idea whatsoever what Jesus would do – they only know what their idea of Jesus would do.
Or do you seriously think that a collection of stories, written up to 200 years after they events that they claim to portray occured (and which bypassed every major historian living in the area at the time, by the way, so one wonders how “miraculous” they could ever really have been) after having been passed down for six to eight generations, give an accurate portrayal of who Jesus really was (again, assuming he existed at all)?
See my reply to brgulker above. Sorry, brgulker, but your statement isn’t rational, because it wasn’t thoroughly thought through.
I didn’t compare the ethos of the KKK with the ethos of Christianity (though I, oh so easily, could have), I merely used the KKK as a tool to highlight the irrationality of believing something against the available evidence. Given that I had to find a cogent paradigm outside of the sphere of religion to illustrate illogical beliefs, somebody like you could always twist it into a way of taking offence – but frankly that’s your problem for having a victim mentality, not mine for using an unrelated example.
Incidentaly, you never actually made an attempt to answer my point. Since we’ve established that I wasn’t comparing the KKK to liberal Christianity, please do so!
The problem with your analogy is that unlike the KKK guy who is prevented by his beliefs from learning valuable things about and from people not Caucasian, the Liberal Christian is not prevented from learning anything that he or she wouldn’t otherwise learn (unless someone rationally disproved God while I was asleep, in which case w00t! and I’m wrong about this point).
custador, my point wasn’t to dispute your claims. I didn’t start posting here to do that.
I started reading this blog because of its premise that rational human beings should be atheists (my own interpretation, obviously).
My point was to say that drawing an analogy between the KKK and liberal Christianity (mind you, not Christianity, but “liberal” Christianity, which is what the original post was about), is an irrational analogy to make.
In fact, one could easily argue that your point was not your “evidence” argument but rather to connect all Christianity with an explicitly racist organization and thereby undermine religious faith in general.
My point is that your analogy is ignorant and uninformed and that I think you are being intentionally inflammatory.
Moreover, my suspicion (which I will readily admit could be wrong) based on your posts about Christians in the past (which seem to be caricatures of fundamentalists) is that you don’t really know much about “liberal” Christianity. If you did, you would realize how irrational comparing the two groups actually is.
If you knew liberal Christianity as well as you seem to know the KKK, then I think you would realize comparing the two is more than a bit bizarre.
somebody like you could always twist it into a way of taking offence – but frankly that’s your problem for having a victim mentality, not mine for using an unrelated example.
I’m not taking offense. Like I said, I’m here because of the premise of the site. Since I’ve been posting (not that long, been a reader much longer), I’ve seen a lot of posts that I think are irrational. Because this blog is about rationality, I think it’s completely fair to point out comments I think are irrational and explain why.
I’m not going to take the bait and fight about evidence for God, because that’s not why I’m here. And I sincerely doubt that I’m one of those “people like you” that you think I am. I hope I can change your mind about that.
Dude, chill. It’s seeming like you just want to start something. The point isn’t what the KKK member believes, but how.
Totally. I can at least respect somebody who actually knows what their beliefs are and has the balls to declare them. People who play semantics like that because they’re too cowardly to commit just annoy me.
For him I don’t believe it’s cowardice. He’s embarking upon a project that he sees as critical to “reform” Christianity, because he believes the mumbo-jumbo isn’t necessary to the core structure. I think he’s *wrong* about that, but it doesn’t mean he’s acting out of fear.
Maybe he’s not a coward. Maybe he just hasn’t decided yet? Not everyone’s comfortable making the black and white decisions for God or against God, and that’s not necessarily indicative of cowardice.
Well, arguing that “faith” is what supports a belief in an unseen, amorphous “god” to me sounds about as reasonable as saying “cuz the Bible tells me so.”
Do I seem like that, though?
No.
@Roger
I could just be crazy and think I have reasonable evidence. In which case, my believe is justified. But the doc in the nice clothes at the clinic says that I’m just “special”… Jk :)
And I have a hard time seeing the problem with that.
” By protecting the rights of others, you strengthen the protection of your own. ”
Exactly this has always been my justification for bieng kind and helpful to others.
What some christians are to dense to understand is, no other justification or bases or other explaination is needed for altruistic behavior.
Word.
I feel that moderate religion creates the context in which extremist religion can never be adequately opposed. I think it is obviously false that people are free to believe whatever they want… if the Inquisition were alive in Spain, would we say, “Oh, well, we think torture is terrible, but it’s what they believe, we can’t criticise their beliefs”? Slavery? Oppression of women? (Oh wait…)
cello: “So if peeps want to hang with a welcoming and loving community centered around a religious tradition as their defining “purpose”, then cool.”
yeah very cool indeed… especially for the young and impressionable virgins… :)
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/inside-a-cult-3401/Overview?#tab-Videos/05168_00
brgulker’s point is slightly different; it’s not that the average wwjd? bracelet wearer has access to what the actual Jesus would actually do, but more that your assertion as to what they do instead is not likely to hold over all wwjd? bracelet wearers.
And he’s probably right about that.
Hmmmmm…. I think I see your point, but that’s not really what I said. I don’t think that all WWJD? questioners would do the same thing as in take the same ultimate course of action, just that I believe that they would all do whatever they believe that Jesus would do – their beliefs all being different meaning that their ultimate actions are all likely to be different. However, I think I pointed out the ultimate pointlessness of the question.
I say I am a liberal Christian, but I am not sure if its really the right way to define me. I do believe in God, although there are those doubting moments. I don’t think I could ever embrace atheism, but I could see moving to agnosticism. I try to read as much about other religions as I have about Christianity. I think I say liberal Christian more for cultural reasons then religious ones. I identify with Christianity because I was raised to. I think each relgion has a pieces of the puzzle but none have the complete picture.
What an excellent analogy you have come up with here, “elaborate shrug.” I definitely understand what you’re saying. So many are unwilling to turn a critical or even truly contemplative eye on their own beliefs, that it really is just shrugging it off.
I shouldn’t even go that far, truthfully, because I can only really speak for my own experience. I identify with your trip through spirituality a lot.
You hit the nail on the heal with “But I know that there are just as many who followed the same path I did: liberal Christianity to pious agnosticism to atheism.”
I was raised and confirmed in the Methodist church, but my family was never one for strict weekly church attendance. We quickly became Christmas-Easter Christians by the time I was in my teens. I always “believed” because…that’s what you do. I wasn’t afraid or unwilling to explore the foundations of my proclaimed faith, just uninterested. I cared about religion as much as I cared about politics…none. By high school I considered the institutions of government and church to be essentially corrupt, and largely not worth my attention. I still considered myself Christian, however, because that’s what I’d always been.
It really wasn’t until college, of which I am now a junior, that I started really exploring my own faith and beliefs. Not surprisingly, this was also when I began to care about politics and world affairs as well.
I finally came upon agnosticism, and embraced it wholly. How perfect it was! Finally I could throw off the dogma and reliance on scriptures and fear and burden of conformity I found in organized religion, without denying the possible existence of God. “God’s nature is unknowable to man,” sounded just right, and married the grandiose of the universe with the acknowledgment that there is much more to it than we are able to perceive.
It’s only in the last six months, I’d say, that I’ve really come to challenge this too. What I’ve really been doing with agnosticism, and what I think I secretly loved about it, was that it was NON-Christianity but WASN’T atheism. Why did I like this? Because atheism carries weight. Atheism suffers prejudice. Atheism is, in the eyes of MANY, taking a firm stand – and indeed declaring adversity against belief. When I was a child, an atheist was an anarchist and a devil’s advocate. And even though I’d long since thrown out that sterotype, I still avoided it.
But what I’ve found in atheism is so much more wonderful than anti-Christianity. What I have found is respect and admiration for the beauty and wonder in the world, the freedom to explore personal beliefs and ADAPT them, and above all, dedication to REASON.
Atheism for me isn’t about REJECTING and CONDEMNING the idea of spirituality. I see the magnificence of our universe and existence, and I don’t see evidence of or a need for a God as we tend to think of it – particularly not a personified, parent-like god like Yahweh.
Anyway, a quick run-through of my experience! Great post, great blog!
There probably is no problem with it. People are entitled to believe whatever they want. It’s kind of silly to espouse belief you don’t really have just to retain belief in “something,” but to each their own.
I do have some concern that this type of “belief” contributes to a culture where belief in and of itslef is seen as a positive trait. Along the line of: “belief is so important we should pretend to believe even if we don’t really.” Personally I think a culture with less belief would be better.
There may be no “problem” per se…other than such arguments being a load of bosh.
I actually think that there is a really cool metaphor in this;
He isn’t evangelizing by actively planting seeds because atheism grows wild; the planting is incidental to its expression.
This is perhaps another distinction between atheism and Christianity; Christianity uses and needs meme-farmers to nurture and protect it, whereas atheism does not seem to. At most it uses them to a much lesser extent and very different way (even if folks like Mr. Florien count as meme-farmers, we still don’t have a clergy who we see weekly, or buildings in which we meet as membership requirments).
And you would consider them Liberal Christians? That’s who I was talking about.
I have no doubt that you are right about your “born-again” relatives. I, too, know and love people who think that way.
But please do remember that not all Christians fit in the “born-again” category. What I mean is that in order using “born-again” to describe one’s own faith is very telling — it means they are part of a very specific flavor of Christianity that believes very strongly in some things that not all Christians acccept.
In other words, don’t make the mistake of generalizing about Christians. Not all Christians are part of the sect that you know.
I’m not trying to discredit your experience, because I know for a fact that you are correct — there absolutely are a lot of Christians who patently reject scientific evidence in favor of a particular understanding of the Bible. You are 100% right about that.
Into what category do we place generalizations about generalizations?
“Up until that point [high school], I loosely figured that it was kind of like a special club where you learn all the rules and how you’re supposed to respond to various things, but that no one who was in it took it all that seriously.”
You’re smarter and/or more observant than I am. It wasn’t until high school that I finally, and with great relief, catagorized religion as a club with meaningless learned responses that no one took seriously. It wasn’t until middle age (and 9/11) that I realized some people actually took it seriously, and I’m still having trouble integrating that bizarre realization into my thinking.
You do not have the needed knowledge to claim that:
“everyone who wears a WWJD bracelet is thinking primarily about their interpretation of Jesus rather than the historical Jesus.”
You only have the knowledge needed to make the claim:
“the people I know who wear WWJD bracelets …”
The former is irrational because rational thought hinges on evidence. You made a claim for something based on evidence you do not have. Because you are lacking sufficient evidence, it’s irrational. It’s basic epistemology here. You can’t make rational claims for or against something about which you have no/insufficient evidence.
Isn’t that exactly how the argument goes? And isn’t that the point of the entire blog?
If you’re going to use that reasoning to counter the claims of faith, then at least be consistent enough to apply to yourself.
You made a generalization. Generalizations are inherently irrational. Therefore, you made an irrational claim.
Black holes.
I disagree completely. How am I less qualified to make that statement than the people who ask themselves “What would Jesus do?” are qualified to have the first clue what the actual answer to their question is?
We’re talking past each other. I’m not even disputing whether or not people who wear WWJD bracelets are thinking about the Jesus of history or their perception of Jesus.
My point is not about your specific generalization but about generalizations in general :P
A generalization like the one you just made is inherently irrational because you do not possess the knowledge needed to make the claim. You are insisting that your claim is valid, even though you don’t have the evidence to make it.
(by the way, you’re wrong about the 200 years part, and that’s fact, not opinion).
@ brgulker
” (by the way, you’re wrong about the 200 years part, and that’s fact, not opinion). ”
Maybe 200 years is too long but it is a fact that the invisible Divine sky daddy that christians claim is god, didn’t get around to inspiring folks to write his word( the bible) until years after Christ supposedly died.
” My point is that generalizations are inherently irrational, because the person who makes them lacks the epistemic knowledge needed to make the claim. ”
Dont you think christians and theist of all striped have proved this point decively as well.
I agree on the point of creating context. See my post above.
Slight disagreement on the later point. I do think that people are allowed to believe whatever they want. They aren’t always free to act on those beliefs though.
Believe torture is fine? – Ok by me.
Actually torture people? – Not ok by me.
Also I am free to criticize beliefs vene if the person if free to have them
“Believe torture is fine? – Ok by me.
Actually torture people? – Not ok by me.”
That is where we disagree. Beliefs are where actions come from. Humans act based on beliefs. Only on beliefs. You go to work because you believe they will pay you. You are saying “it’s okay to believe whatever this book says, and act on sayings A, B, and C, as long as you don’t act on sayings X, Y, or Z”… how do we decide where the line between ABC and XYZ are? Why would a sovereign country allow itself to have two (sometimes contradictory) sets of laws?
“Also I am free to criticize beliefs vene if the person if free to have them”
There is the sticky part: what if the person’s beliefs say it is not ok to criticise their beliefs?
How far should intolerance be tolerated?
That is, I don’t think it’s okay to believe torture is fine.
Maybe your belief in torture does not threaten me in any way, in which case I’ll probably let it slide; I have other things to worry about.
Maybe your belief in torture poses a credible threat that you’ll torture my mom. Then I’ll confront you about it. If the threat is strong enough, I might even fight you over it.
Good point, bdemong.
You’re hilarious, btw. Such dry humor.
You are teetering dangerous close to “thought crime” here. If we start saying that individual beliefs, without action on those beliefs, are impermissible, we are essentially criminalizing thought. Not a good idea.
Now – If you one belives torture is fine. They can think it all they want. doesn’t mean it’s right – doesn’t mean I have to agree.
The counter to abhorent thought isn’t supression of that thought but the expression of opposing ideas.
“There is the sticky part: what if the person’s beliefs say it is not ok to criticise their beliefs?”
They can believe it’s not ok all they want – they don’t get to tell me what to believe. Just like i don’t get to tell them what to believe.
We may try to persuade each other if we want to though.
If some styles of thought champion irrationality and frequently lead to violence, should those styles of thought be opposed?
Keep in mind I don’t think religion should be outlawed or otherwise “forced out”, just that there is a good reason to oppose it.
“They can believe it’s not ok all they want – they don’t get to tell me what to believe. Just like i don’t get to tell them what to believe.”
I agree, but I also contend that moderate/liberal religion doesn’t promote this caveat. Religion would, in fact, be okay if all religious discourse took place inside people’s heads or with other people who share their belief. But that’s not so.
Also, in retrospect, I apologize for framing the analogy with “you” “torture” “my mom” etc. I think we mostly agree, and my intention was absolutely not to offend you. But I think moral relativism is really dangerous, and that is the perspective widely supported by liberal people in general.
It immediately made me think of Sponge Bob, personally…
Hey- sorry to insert myself here, but are you following the latest from Prespreacher over there on the Christian Cliches thread?!? Holy crow! I’m not sure if it’s a joke or what, but he makes Spong look like the Rev. Phelps! And, to reiterate what Daniel says, why bother calling yourself a Christian? Criminy, start your own freaking faith system, but this horseshit ain’t got nothing to do with Christianity! It’s almost enough to send this atheist right back to the fold just to report in that there’s a traitor in the ranks. Egads! Talk about liberal Christianity- I would think even liberals would be highly offended.
Hmmmm…. I accept your point.
:::::You do not have the needed knowledge to claim that:
“everyone who wears a WWJD bracelet is thinking primarily about their interpretation of Jesus rather than the historical Jesus.”
You only have the knowledge needed to make the claim:
“the people I know who wear WWJD bracelets …”::::
—–I don’t disagree with your arguement because you are correct…but don’t you feel you’re really driving at something that could have been summed up much more peacefully i.e. “thats a pretty broad generalization there, how many WWJD bracelet wearers do you know?”
Moreso, how are you any more qualified to discredit his claim? I agree that it is “probably” a generalisation, but I couldn’t name 5 people who have a WWJD bracelet, let alone attack someone for something that you are SURE is a generalization. How many people have you talked to about this topic that you are sure he’s wrong?
Plus with basic understanding of cultural anthropology and the human brain its not a very big leap to assume (which IMO is ok since this is a message board) that most/all peoples make behavioral decisions via their “interpretations” of variables which would include a combination their notion of Jesus’ actions and intentions as well as their own religious and ethical indoctrination. Which lends the easy assumption that everyone thinks just a little differently and that a universally accepted “historical Jesus” (that you are sure people are thinking about when they look at their WWJD bracelets) probably doesn’t exist. That would leave the “what would my interpretation of Jesus do” arguement as a far more rational option.
There is a difference between generalization and hasty generalization.
Your argument using generalization is irrational.
I’m no Buddhism expert, but I am fairly certain that Theravada Buddhism and atheism are not at all mutually exclusive; that is, you can be both at the same time without confusing yourself.
“The Borg? Sounds Swedish.”
…
“Ugh. Definitely not Swedish.”
True. It’s not necessarily incompatible with Christianity, either. An Episcopalian friend of mine told me he thought that Buddhism “fills in the gaps”, so to speak.
Me too — SpongBorg Theology Pants.
Heeeee lives in a Bible in Hyopcri-Sea – Spong Borg GOD PANTS!
I love this! I have called myself a Presbyterian with a Buddhist chaser at times.
My path has led me to a belief in Something, but not a being… I don’t think I could be an atheist, because I do believe in a spiritual connectedness in the universe. But absolutely, the biblical god with the virgin-born son and the resurrection… it all comes off as fairy tale to me.