An Atheist's Defence of Christianity

The Autonomist ^ | 10/25/06 | Reginald Firehammer

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

LOL. As if "literature" preceded the word of God. What a doofus.

Hitchen's sappy logic is on a par with those who say that "art" is the loftiest of values.

As Joan Baez once corrected Gloria Steinem, "Art doesn't feed the hungry or prevent people from being murdered in their sleep."

And literature is only words in a pleasing order. Scripture is the breath of God.

[Valpal1]

The problem with Christianity is first and foremost, the belief that evil can or ought to be forgiven.

Pretty sure that is not a tenet of Christianity or Christian scripture.

Evil is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing like dark is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God. In the presence of God, evil is not forgiven, it simply cannot exist.

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi Valpal1,

Afraid the Bible disagrees with you. From the very first book the notion of evil (or sin) being forgiven is fundamental.

Genesis 50:17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him.

Hank

[CountryBumpkin]

Thanks for the very interesting ping! Excellent topic. I just reserved "Our culture, what's left of it : the mandarins and the masses" by Theodore Dalrymple and "The case for Christ : a journalist's personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus" by Lee Strobel at my local library. I look forward to reading both.

[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.

Hank. I thought we had an interesting, not disgusting, exchange going there. I apologize for offending.

Yes, I did read the quotes. The notion that consciousness and volition can be separated from the our physical bodies is quixotic if the universe is physical and uncreated by a Creator. In that case, "consciousness" and "volition" must be properties of the our physical beings.

If the universe just happened, our world, our volition, our consciousness, our societies, our drives, and our desires are all just happenstance byproducts of natural selection and physics applied to molecules that happen to exist in a universe that has our particular value of, say, Planck's constant. Molecules that assemble themselves into animals have a property that we call consciousness and some of them have a property that we call volition. To assume otherwise (in a Godless universe) would be a sneaky form of mysticism by positing consciousness and volition to derive from a source different from our physical reality.

In such a universe, if you want to think lofty thoughts, develop theories of volition, develop grand codes of ethics, and build epistomologies based on A=A, that's fine. Some people want to do that that kind of thing. But there's no particular reason to do that rooted in reality. Each person has their own set of drives and preferences. If your preference is ethics, then ethics is fine. If it is serial murder, then that is fine. There is no logical reason to adopt one or the other except the balance between your preferences and your analysis of the projected consequences of the two alternatives.

Even survival is a subjective driver for ethics. Severely depressed folks put a profoundly different value on survival than do I.

And that's why I used the 'meat' language. In a Godless universe, there is no particular reason for doing other than succumbing to the meat's desires and drives (whether lofty or base) except probable consequences balanced against the probable pleasure from fulfilling your desires (whether those desires are lofty or base--this, of course, assumes that it is possible to assign labels like "lofty" or "base" in a Godless universe; I submit you cannot). Consciousness and volition, being mere byproducts of physics and evolution, ought to be directed in whatever way each individual sees fit to maximize their internal, subjective pleasure index.

I was much younger when I read every word Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden wrote that I could put my hands on. I didn't even know what "deconstructionism" was then. But after trying hard to satisfy myself that Rand's epistemology was supportable, I finally determined that it was not logically derivable from the reality it posits, a Godless universe. Ultimately, the deconstructionists are more logically consistent with a Godless universe than are Objectivists.

The problem with Christianity is first and foremost, the belief that evil can or ought to be forgiven.

You are a much stronger man than I. Every day, I accumulate a big pile of stuff for which I need forgiveness. And in my past, there was a big pile of stuff that was pretty bad--maybe even evil. I don't carry that around today because I get to lay that stuff at the foot of the Cross.

But it doesn't matter what you and I want in that regard. The reality of the universe, IMHO, is a created universe with a personal God. He gets to make the rules and one of them is that terrible sinners who come to the Cross get forgiven and that apparently good people who do not are not. I would prefer different rules. But it's not my call.

[Valpal1]

Note that it twice says to forgive a "trespass" and also "sin". It calls what they did evil or as having caused calamity, it doesn't say to forgive evilness.

From Strongs Hebrew Bible the word translated as evil is from 'ra`a`' (7489); bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.).

Trespass is from 'pasha`' (6586); a revolt (national, moral or religious):--rebellion, sin, transgression, trespass.

and sin is chatta'ah khat-taw-aw' or chattacth {khat-tawth'}; from 'chata'' (2398); an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:--punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering).

Probably seems like picky semantics to you, but sin and evil are not synonymous. What God forgives is the internal will or volition of Man. God forgives sin but not the consequences (evil) of it, thus the world suffers.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the ping!

[grey_whiskers]

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

Spot on.

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.

As Jesus said in John 13:35--

"A new command I give you. Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another."

You just demonstrated the contrapositive. :-)

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.

Everyone has a right to discuss Christianity.

But there are differences between Christianity and Islam.

Jesus did not adjure his followers to kill, rape, bend, fold, staple, and mutilate; and the doctrinal attitude towards Judaism (say, Romans 11) is quite different from the saw quoted from about "Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, do thou come and kill him."

Christians should unite, despite their differences, it seems to me.

Hail and well met. Romans 14 is a good starting point.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

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.

Substitute "abandonded" or "cast aside" for outgrew, I'll agree. Whether the orientation is the cause of all Western progress, -- you didn't define the term "progress". Just for now, I'll point out that the fruit is somewhat overripe--hence spectacles like DU, Jerry Springer, gender feminism, and the like.

The interplay between publically enforced mores, private convictions, and religious pluralism -- particularly in representative societies, as opposed to monarchical ones -- is a fascinating topic. But a bit too involved, even for a FReeper thread.

Cheers! Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The problem with Christianity is first and foremost, the belief that evil can or ought to be forgiven.

Interesting take, that. I've heard lots of complaints that a loving God wouldn't send people to Hell, either.

So, a nice paradox...

The odd thing is that people attack Christians for having differing opinions, but it is seldom noted that attacks upon Christianity often come from mutually contradictory directions.

When will people have the sense of humor or irony to realize that maybe their own intiution of what "ought" to be, might be what is incorrect? :-) (No, no personal attack--just responding to a dilemma with a counter-dilemma).

Cheers!

[GSlob]

Progress of the Western Civ is its surpassing other civilizations in all aspects of human existence - from public hygiene and health [where the Chinese held the lead prior to Renaissance - check Murray's "Human accomplishment"] to sci/ tech and military. And it happened when, and because of, the energies previously wasted on otherworldly pursuits were redirected into this world. In miniature you could see the same process with Ashkenasi Jews: when they were secularized and allowed to move from stetls and ghettoes - the progress was phenomenal, and phenomenally rapid, too.

[grey_whiskers]

Interesting idea; but to my mind oversimplified. I think you are attempting what the physicists and mathematicians call "separation of variables" when in fact many of the factors you mention are *coupled*.

A lot of the progress was the result of increased trade, together with increased technology, together with changes in forms and categories of thought in the Western World which (so to speak) were "simmering" during the Middle Ages. What you call the liberation from extraworldly efforts I see as the result of bringing a numer of necessary ingredients together in the right time, place, and proportion to create the sociological equivalent of gunpowder. And BOOM! the whole thing simply 'exploded' (har!)

Cheers!

[Bellflower]

Ping for later. Took a quick browse but plan to read it carefully later.

[vimto]

I had to look that guy up on google.

I am not he.

Only the Shadow Knows!

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi Valpal1,

Yes, it is picky semantics, because in everyday language, "sin" means to "do evil." In your language I would say, no sin should ever be forgiven, and reality never forgives it. Every wrong act or thought has a bad consequence, generally commensurate with the severity of the wrong--and ought to.

One of the difficulties I see with the concept of forgiveness, is, since most wrong is perpetrated against someone else, the only one who has a right to forgive it in the first place is the victim. For someone else to "forgive" it is presumptuous, whether God or man.

Regi

[Hank Kerchief]

Hi grey_whiskers,

First, I would never take what you said as a personal attack, and if you knew me, you'd know I wouldn't care if it were--I'm very thick-skinned. It is almost impossible to offend me, although I usually have very little trouble offending others.

However, I don't see any paradox in what you say, unless you think truth is just a matter of opinion. There is reality, and truth is what describes it. That many people can be mistaken about it is obvious, but it's not a matter of opinion and reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

By the way, if you ever find a contradiction in anything I say, let me know immediately. I do not tolerate contradictions.

Thanks for the comments.

Hank

[grey_whiskers]

However, I don't see any paradox in what you say, unless you think truth is just a matter of opinion. There is reality, and truth is what describes it. That many people can be mistaken about it is obvious, but it's not a matter of opinion and reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

The paradox (which you seemed to leave out of your reply) was that some folks attack Christianity because "a loving God would not send people to Hell for their sins".

Your beef seems to be that "evil should not be forgiven."

At first blush, those two sentiments seem to be in contradiction to one another. Granted, you appear to hold the one, and not the other. But I was commenting on the mindset (described elsewhere by Chesterton) that "it began to look like no stick was too small to attack Christianity with."

There may be some confusion of terms here, as evidenced earlier on the thread: "evil" vs. "sin", eternal punishment vs. severe but shorter punishment vs. forgiveness, etc.

If you want to discuss further, feel free--but don't think I'm trying to *pressure* you into it...

Cheers!

[Tench_Coxe]

""From a report on a television discussion in Denver, Colorado, I gather that one member of this movement has made its goal and meaning a little clearer. 'God,' he said, 'is a process of creative social intercourse.'

"This, I submit, is obscene. I, who am an atheist, am shocked by so brazen an attempt to rob religion of whatever dignity and philosophical intention it might once have possessed. I am shocked by so cynically enormous a degree of contempt for the intelligence and the sensibility of people, specifically of those intended to be taken in by the switch.

"Now, if men give up all abstract speculation and turn to the immediate conditions of their existence—to the realm of politics—what values or moral inspiration will they find?""

"The highly influential 19th century American theologian and evangelist, Charles Finney expressed the common Christian view, "God has given us minds and expects us to use them.""

These two items underscore the entire article.
There is no passage in the Bible which states, "set aside your reason, for only that way may you enter the kingdom". God did not create automatons.

Where the article does lead is that while not admitting it, those who would tear down man's aspiration to something better, and man's inherent dignity, have, in essence, abandoned reason. While it might be argued that those epitomized in the character of Ellsworth Toohey are using reason while destroying it in others, I would argue that those like Toohey are excercising a form of reason at a very base level--which, in the end, has very little differentiation from the sort of reasoning a bear or raccoon uses to snatch food out of a covered garbage can.

Good article.

[FreeKeys]

ping

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

bump to read later