An Atheist's Defence of Christianity

Thanks for pinging me to the thread. I really have no comment on this article, though. I have always recognized the influence of religion on society, and would agree that it generally has a positive effect.

Christianity has done a fair job of influencing society for good...at least in recent years. There have been times, however, when the influence was not so positive. Even today, we can see the remnants of those times in Northern Ireland.

Overall, though, it has provided a center of belief that has held people more or less together. I wonder, though, whether that can last. Christianity, in the past couple hundred years, has fractionated itself into a vast multitude of sects and denominations, each believing that it has the correct interpretation of Christianity.

We see this every day here on Free Republic, and even here in the Religion topic. Even though the Religion Moderator does a fine job of keeping the dissension among Christians to a low roar, I'm alarmed at the number of posts that discount one denomination or another as somehow not "true" Christianity.

It is a shame, and it is divisive. I'm sure it's not what Jesus would have taught.

For me, as an outsider, but a former believer, there is a core to Jesus' teachings that should suffice to unite all Christians. It used to, I think, mostly. These days, I am not sure.

I'm sure someone will come along now and ask me, in either a nasty or reasonable way, what right I have to even discuss Christianity, since I am an atheist. Well...I've been studying Christianity (along with other religions) all my life. It is the most successful of all modern religions, reaching worldwide. Islam is probably the second most successful.

Christians should unite, despite their differences, it seems to me. Islam has far less sectarianism in it. It is that unity that makes it such a dangerous enemy.

Hi HungarianGypsy

H.G Wells was a antheist and socialist, with an intense hatred of the Roman Catholic Church.

You might find these links interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._G._Wells

http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/

Hank

Please don't judge Christians and Christianity by what you see posted on FR. This forum is a self-selected group of vocal people who come to FR for reasons of their own and is in no way representative of Christianity any more than it is representative of the silent majority of conservatives.

As to Northern Ireland, are those really religious problems or a historical political fight dressed up in religous clothing for cover by people seeking power?

Were the Crusades religious violence or a response to an Islamic invasion of Europe? Was the Inquistion really a witchhunt or a response to injustices and depredations occuring in the feudal and civil courts at the time?

A great many beliefs about historical Christianity are misguided or propaganda by those who dispise the idea of a Creator God and those who worship Him.

There is a lot of unhistorical history being taught these days.

"This forum is a self-selected group of vocal people who come to FR for reasons of their own and is in no way representative of Christianity any more than it is representative of the silent majority of conservatives. "

Who, then, would you say is representative of Christianity. There are many who consider themselves Christians here. I take their word for it.

As to Northern Ireland, are those really religious problems or a historical political fight dressed up in religous clothing for cover by people seeking power?

The answer is both. The roots of the situation occurred when England separated itself from the RCC. That created both religious and political tension, which is still being expressed.

Were the Crusades religious violence or a response to an Islamic invasion of Europe? Was the Inquistion really a witchhunt or a response to injustices and depredations occuring in the feudal and civil courts at the time?

Again, the answer is both.

The reformation occurred in response to certain abuses of the Roman Catholic Church during one of its periods of needing more money. That split was the beginning of the fractionalizing of Christianity.

For this discussion, I am ignoring the Eastern church, which is, today, relatively irrelevant.

For greater clarity, the life of society could be divided in three more or less autonomous areas [albeit they influence and interpenetrate one another]:
1. Economics;
2. Culture [everything man-made [excepting economics and sociology] in the life of that society - from national cuisine and architecture to song, dance and pottery shards - the stuff of ethnologists and archaeologists.
3. Sociological [i.e. civilization proper] aspects - how that society exists and self-perpetuates as a sociologically distinct entity, i.e. how its members relate to one another and to their groups in socially important situations. Sociological aspects of "national character", value systems [weltanschauung] and dominant religions come right here. This is merely an elaboration of Huntington's thesis - he used the whole religion [and not only its sociological side] as a convenient marker. Such an elaboration is perfectly justified - Huntington did not split the Western Civ into several Protestant civs and a Catholic civ, after all.
Now, the objectionable [or praiseworthy] parts of any religion are to be found in its sociological/civilizational aspects. This boils down to what kind of a society the particular religion favors or helps to promote - in the here and now, on this earth. These are the fruits by which one knows the tree, and not the immaterial parameters like 'filioque', the number of prescribed daily prayers or whether its clergy is married or celibate, wears beards or shaves, and whether their ritual headgear resembles overturned chamberpots or not. The Western Civ grew out of Western christianity, but outgrew it when the civilization assumed its secular orientation. This orientation and the Western individualistic focus have been the cause of all Western progress since the Renaissance at least.

A well written and interesting article. I predict the author will eventually come to the Lord. I have been where he is at in my life.

The author understands that reality is the final arbiter of the rightness of one's decisions and actions. But the author does not yet see that a personal, loving God who came and died on the Cross for us is the creator of our reality. We don't get to choose that reality. We can only recognize and accept it. Our life has to be molded by that, not by philosophical grasping-at-straws to find objective truth and morality thru reason.

The Jews got this early-on. The fundamental tension of early Genesis is between obedience to God and eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I have always understood that to mean that, on the ultimate questions that religion and philosophy address, it is God who sets the rules (who establishes reality), we do not make them up on our own and should not attempt to. As Genesis describes in IMHO, allegory (but TRUE allegory), down that path of "knowledge of good and evil" lies insanity and death. We see this process being acted out all over America and Europe today.

The author bemoans that Objectivists do not model the philosophy they espouse. But that is inevitible, given the author's notion that reality is the final arbiter. He assumes that reality will punish what he intuitively knows to be wrong behavior. But it doesn't--hence the eloquence of many of the Psalms and Job. Were he consistent with his philosophy, he would do whatever he liked as long as his odds of getting away with it were good--strictly reality driven. But he's not doing that because of his intuition that there is good and evil, regardless of consequences. As CS Lewis points out, that intuition is universal and it comes from Someone.

Who, then, would you say is representative of Christianity. There are many who consider themselves Christians here. I take their word for it.

I always find it best to judge people by what they do, not what they say. A poster who comports himself respectfully most of the time (everyone loses it at least once on forums, it seems) may be exactly what he claims to be. But this is the internet, not reality and should not be substituted for reality. Those who are most representative of Christianity are those around you in the real world who are striving to live Christ-like lives in a decidedly unChrist-like world.

Here's a very good article on the Inquisition from National Review Online The Real Inquisition that I found interesting.

If I had more time I'd dig something up for you on the actual roots of North Ireland violence which has more to do with power and fascism that it does with religion.

Please remember that religion is often used by evil men to cloak their ambitions from the simple, but that doesn't make Christ or Christianity responsible for their activities.

I've never seen the fractionalizing of the Christianity as a bad thing. There are many peoples on the earth with different histories and spiritual needs to minister to. God did not make a one size fits all humanity, why should he make a one size fits all church? We will all one day worship Him in spirit and in truth and how many ways that truth is celebrated in the here and now is inconsequential to eternity.

Now, the objectionable [or praiseworthy] parts of any religion are to be found in its sociological/civilizational aspects. This boils down to what kind of a society the particular religion favors or helps to promote - in the here and now, on this earth. These are the fruits by which one knows the tree, and not the immaterial parameters like 'filioque', the number of prescribed daily prayers or whether its clergy is married or celibate, wears beards or shaves, and whether their ritual headgear resembles overturned chamberpots or not.

Cutting to the chase... Thanks for the ping.

Hi ModelBreaker

"He assumes that reality will punish what he intuitively knows to be wrong behavior."

No, he makes no assumptions and there is no such thing as intuition. All is learned.

Reality, including an individual's nature and the requirements of that nature determine objectively what is good for an individual and what is not. For example, because man is a volitional being, he must have knowledge to choose correctly, because nothing is provided in this world, he must produce to live, because he psychologically requires a sense of self-worth and the knowledge that he is worthy of what he enjoys in this world, he cannot live as a parasite or thief. He can live that way, but only with that sense of chronic fear and guilt it deserves. Which is the way most people live. There are no assumptions.

Hank

"I always find it best to judge people by what they do, not what they say. "

Yes, that's my rule, too. Still, writing or speaking is an action, too, so I judge based on what people say or write as well.

If someone tells me he or she is a Christian, I must take their word for it. They're "confessing with the mouth," and that's part of the whole deal.

Now, if that person acts otherwise in a way that is not in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, I might consider that person something of a poor Christian, but if he or she proclaims Christianity, then what can I do but accept that?

Now, if that person acts otherwise in a way that is not in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, I might consider that person something of a poor Christian, but if he or she proclaims Christianity, then what can I do but accept that?

Certainly you may accept it, but remember my original reply to you was to not accept the the postings of a self selected subset as representatives of a whole. Any mathmatician or scientist (Christian or Athiest) would tell you the same ;-)

No, he makes no assumptions and there is no such thing as intuition. All is learned.

Then the author is not consistent. He decrys that Objectivists do not model exemplary behavior. But why should they? The "objective" rule if we are only meat can only be "do whatever you want as long as the consequences don't outweigh the pleasure or survival benefit gleaned from doing as you choose." So murder is OK as long as you have a very low probability of getting caught. Or, if like Ted Bundy, the pleasure of murder outweighs the consequences.

I was an Objectivist many, many years ago. The author is starting down the same path that eventually lead me to the Cross.

It all depends on how you assess reality. As a non-Christian, I did not believe that reality included God. But then I looked hard at the evidence for the Resurrection and it is simply overwhelming. That's what made me a Christian.

Once you accept the Resurrection as a highly probable part of reality--that is, it really happened--your belief about what is real changes; not because you have become subjective and squishy, but because that's the verdict the evidence demands.

So I don't disagree with the author's basic approach. I disagree about what is the nature of the reality we confront. Back to my original question; if the nature of reality is that we are meat, why does the author concern himself with great questions? Why does he believe there is a standard of behavior that is exemplary other than: "do what'cha want; but don't get caught?" Why does he care that Objectivists do not model good behavior?

ModelBreaker

Because both the author and Ayn Rand would have been appalled by the idea that "the nature of reality is that we are meat." It is disgusting. Did you read none of the quotes? Meat is physical, but life, consciousness, and the volitional nature, while natural, are not physical, and the nature of man is a rational/volitional conscious being, for whom life is not mere existence and for whom pleasure is only a value when it is earned.

If you did not understand even this much, you were never an Objectivist. I am not an Objectivist, by the way, but regard Ayn Rand as the greatest philosopher so far. The problem with Christianity is first and foremost, the belief that evil can or ought to be forgiven.

Hank

People like Hitchens hate God, pure and simple. It is fallen man's arrogance and pride in him that is responsible. So he wants to replace the Bible as a moral guideline with "literature"? God forbid.

Just think, what is one of America's most popular books of modern times? How about American Psycho?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/Ellis2.html

As a non-Christian, I did not believe that reality included God. But then I looked hard at the evidence for the Resurrection and it is simply overwhelming. That's what made me a Christian.

Amen.

WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD
by Cornelius Van Til

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.