Beleg Cúthalion on 20/12/2011 at 10:01
The thing is that I cannot really report some sort of all-powerfull church either, be it from my own experience or what I know from history. Its history is both that of trying to have control and that of adapting to challenges. Modern states do the same thing, they try to enforce their ideas of freedom and democracy as well as protection against crime in all parts of their territory. Here we have the same challenges. One can still find people whinging about how the land goes south or something, there is no definite answer that democracy is THE solution to all governmental problems either. So from that perspective the church isn't too different from any other organizsation with the duty of guaranteeing some sort of stability.
Quote Posted by DDL
But that aside, what we're coming down to here is that you think we're incapable of self-regulating without an arbitrarily invented external reference*. Which does make me wonder if you believe in god at all, or simply think that "the idea of god is necessary". The latter would make a much more interesting field for debate, I think.
*as determined by whom, exactly? Bearing in mind the only real source of human morality is...humans, who would set the properties this external standard should have? How does one come up with a 'perfect being', and who determines the definition of perfect? Maybe we settle for less than perfect (by modern metrics, the christian "loving god" makes a hell of a lot less sense than the old testament "hilarious bastard god", since at least with the OT version the explanation for why horrible things happen is "yeah, well: god does that :erg:"), but then if we settle for less than perfect what's the point of the entire exercise? And again, who determines what properties this "less than perfect but still better than us" being has?
For regulation you need a rule, otherwise there is no reference at all. Now I wonder, especially with all the natural-science-based opposition to religion nowadays, what such a natural rule would look like, after all it would have to be based on natural laws. Eat or be eaten is one of them, to preserve a community, exploit talents of individuals (and so not condemn someone to death if he killed or raped someone else, for instance; I'll play with this example now) are other aspects. Now I believe that this rule (trying to become an ethical system) must encourage as long as possible to avoid bloodshed (killing people, no matter if as a crime or as a penalty) because you will never be able to balance crime with penalty (unless the murdered guy comes back and kills his murderer) and that'll bring you in trouble sooner or later. Plus, human life is so important and linked to the rest of the community that a severe penalty could injure this kind of web. Honestly I think I had another idea about this issue but I cannot recall it right now, sorry.
In the case of a...let's say... triple raper-murderer-whatever bad guy who does not only damage the community (which is his reference group in nature) but is of no avail either, natural rule would have no reason to spare his life. He's a danger, any attempt to simply imprison him will cost more resources, and since there is no transcendent layer, all that accounts for his existance can be used against him. Now, with my assumption, you'd need some sort of supernatural (or, as I said, untouchable) reference.... that is, if you don't simply go the kill-that-bastard-route. But if not, this reference must be established, even if you make a in-world compromise to still imprison or even kill him, but it must be distinct from your ideal. Whether or not this ideal arbitrary is difficult to answer. It can refer to some old venerated guy who set it up so that his rule is considered legal and in effect (similar to Weberian concepts of power). Or it can refer to a god giving every living being a transcendent entity, thus shifting the avail/penalty correlation. Today for this approach you wouldn't need god since our world contains lots of ethical systems or philosophies which could be declared untouchable, but how many of them are strict enough in e.g. this penalty issue I mentioned? And, as I said above, if we have a system that includes e.g. death penalties in its ideals, how will the worldy compromises look then? Just a few ideas, I'm afraid I'm not as educated as some of the Protestant students with whom I studied a few classes some years ago. They were really able to discuss such matters on a highly abstract and philosophical level.
DDL on 20/12/2011 at 11:40
Quote:
So from that perspective the church isn't too different from any other organizsation with the duty of guaranteeing some sort of stability
...yes, except for the magical sky-monster aspect. At least governments are more honest about what they're doing (generally lining their pockets, admittedly, but at least that's just plain ol' honest human greed, not human greed pretending to be doing god's work).
But anyway: a problem with your strict reductionist approach is that it removes all extraneous context, and context (especially background) is critical here. We're not "establishing a new ethical system free of the shackles of god", here: we already have ethical systems. Humans have managed to reach our current state without descending into barbarism and mass rape, followed by extinction. Sure, there may have been quite a few examples of those, but as noted, they tend to result in extinction of those involved.
Simply put, societies that are critically unbalanced simply don't stick around. Societies with unworkable ethical statutes simply don't stick around. Ethics are a selectable trait, and subject to the same selective pressures one would expect. Societies with mutually supportive ethical ideals prosper, those without falter. It's not
technically anything to do with religion: the fact that the increasing incidence of atheism hasn't been concommitantly matched with an increasing incidence of mass rape, barbarism and decent into anarchy ..sort of indicates that they're not causally related.
Religion may provide a framework within which to mount your ethical set, but the ethical set itself is determined by just..natural selection. Humans with the mindset that tends to societal harmony tend to be more successful than those with mindsets that tend to kiddy murder or whatever. Sure, you still get outliers, but that's how random variation works.
What depresses me about your question is the implicit assumption that a "triple raper-murderer-whatever bad guy" is truly inevitable no matter whether you're running a tight, god-fearing society or a totally atheistic one. While I appreciate that this is a step up from the usual "without god we'd all be triple rapist murderer whatevers" argument, the thought that the major purpose of religion is simply to provide a "framework for punishment" doesn't exactly..sell the concept.
As far as I can tell, you then go on to admit that god is irrelevant nowadays (I agree) but that really we should have more religious fire and brimstone coz damnit those rapey-murderers aren't getting punished enough at the moment? That seems a little...old testament.
Bear in mind that really, the whole concept of "punishment" is a conceit. It's a totally arbitrary concept. What it SHOULD be emulating, is a 'deterrent': the idea is not (and never should be) to
punish transgressors as
revenge for their crimes. The idea should be to deter people from committing those crimes
in the first place.
As far as I can tell, we've pretty much moved on from religion altogether in this discussion, and now it's just me and my idealistic liberal attitudes vs your more hawkish conservative attitudes. You assume murderers are inevitable and want to kill them as punishment, I'd prefer to investigate how to prevent them becoming murderers in the first place. God is now just a pointless addendum to the discussion (which is perhaps fitting).
Also, I have totally fagged up the Hitch death thread with largely aimless religion-bashing. Sorry everyone. :erg:
Kolya on 20/12/2011 at 14:37
Quote Posted by DDL
Ethics are a selectable trait, and subject to the same selective pressures one would expect. Societies with mutually supportive ethical ideals prosper, those without falter.
Very good point that bears repeating. Because this is so often overlooked by all types of people who draw human society as a competitive race to the top (objectivism, pure bred capitalism, dictatorship, social darwinism, racism, paternalism). All of which are forms of egoism.
Any permanently successful societal concept will have to acknowledge egoism as a natural drive on the individual level and channel it into cooperation and sharing on a societal level. Because these are the basics of human society.
Communism failed because it neglected the motivations of the individual and in fact tried to eradicate the individual. Capitalism is currently failing as a way to organise the global society of states, because it isn't a social concept at all. It's we against you, egoism on states level.
So it turns out that solidarity is more than the tenderness of the peoples. In a global economy and society it is crucial for the well being of all of us.
Beleg Cúthalion on 20/12/2011 at 19:56
@DDL: I don't know where I made the primary mistake, but – to put it simply – my point was not to advocate punishment (which, as you said, might be called conceit or something else not entirely tangible) but rather that an ethical system should try to avoid it, at least in its ideals. I think that makes my position far from conservative, even if it touches a matter-of-taste-point I fear, namely if arguing from a worldy point of view (which is what I'm trying to do) and without a transcendent layer, punishment could be enforced without hesitation unless it touches the survival of the surrounding community. I think it shouldn't, but if there is no god, as it were, it isn't wrong in a way that would affect us.
I didn't say god or the concept of it was irrelevant. I said that an instance or reference like it/him might be necessary to establish a system that tries to overcome these natural laws based on self-sufficiency/egoism/whatever.
Quote Posted by DDL
What depresses me about your question is the implicit assumption that a "triple raper-murderer-whatever bad guy" is truly inevitable no matter whether you're running a tight, god-fearing society or a totally atheistic one.
Wasn't it you who quoted the With-or-without-religion-there-are-good-and-bad-persons thing? :p Now that is depressing. My example of (non-) punishment for unforgivable deeds/sins is a sort of afterplay implying a foreplay: In the case of crime it acts as a reference of judgement but beforehand the knowledge of this reference should discourage said crime. In this case it doesn't matter if the reference is touchable or untouchable, since our severe crime would be against natural rules as well. The distinction between crime and punishment, however, blurs this.
Quote Posted by DDL
the fact that the increasing incidence of atheism hasn't been concommitantly matched with an increasing incidence of mass rape, barbarism and decent into anarchy ..sort of indicates that they're not causally related.
First, not to forget, I agree with us being surrounded by established ethical systems... but that was what I wrote earlier, don't know why it didn't come through. The atheist thing buggers me though, especially since I believe Dawkins made the same statement. Is there really a representative atheist community to prove that this is true? AFAIK every community in the world lived through religiously-based ethical systems in its history, even if they spent e.g. the last eighty years in atheistically-minted communism. With good luck an in-depth study might come up with proof for largely non-religious laws or rules in a certain area, but generally speaking I doubt that any person on earth could claim to employ an ethical system based on natural law or some hypothetical non-religious philosophy that collides with natural law or what could be made of them. Since atheism is even more a phenomenon of societies that lived through notable religious influence and/or philosophical tradition, left aside codified law, it is nothing special that it doesn't come hand in hand with rape and barbarism.
About hijacking the thread, well, after all we're discussing religious issues without going at each others' throats...for now. :ebil:
CCCToad on 21/12/2011 at 00:39
Quote:
This I do want to address. What exactly do you mean by this? Is this your personal experience when dealing with Christians? There might be some Christians who think they can offload their responsibilities to Jesus, but I don't know where you get the Protestant thing from. In Protestant theology as well as in Catholic, you can ask God for guidance and help, but ultimately you're responsible for your own actions. Curious to find out what you mean by this.
You are correct in saying that in Protestant
theology this is the case, but the actual fact of the matter is that a lot of the "Jack Chik" style evangelicals believe quite fervently that the only thing which determines salvation is whether you've made a prayer to accept Christ as your savior.
Yes, one prayer will excuse a lifetime of misdeeds afterwards.
Quote:
Seeing as the Christian belief has some 2000 years of re-interpretations to draw from, he's bound to find something that supports his case. Whether that's some agreeable feel-good-faith or a murderous vision. In that regard the Christian faith is really very diverse. And I understand why any single Christian will feel unfairly dealt with, when you don't acknowledge his own personal version of Christian faith.
However this diversity only exists on a small scale. Ask them what party they vote for, how they spend their money and who they adore and you'll see how all these various people give power to the same stupid ideology, that on a whole is reprehensible and dangerous.
A stereotypical generalization that's simply incorrect. The majority of Catholics vote Democrat.
CCCToad on 21/12/2011 at 00:57
Read your original, and its not exactly correct either. You have to actually see the clergy and receive the rite of confession, then complete your penance before you're in the clear. Get run over by a bus in the interim and you're still screwed.
edit: a full description is beyond the scope of the thread, but even then you don't get off scott free due to the Catholic idea of purgatory.
Kolya on 21/12/2011 at 01:27
I'm sure you know that the way the Catholic church dealt with exactly these things was the main reason for Luther's 95 theses and the protestant reformation. And while going deeper into this is indeed beyond the scope of this thread, let's just say that there are still significant differences in the way the Catholic and Evangelical churches deal with personal guilt and absolution.
demagogue on 21/12/2011 at 02:14
We should at least get some basic categories & pedigree straight.
The heart of Luther's break with medieval Catholicism was the doctrine of sola fide ("faith alone"). You're saved by "faith alone", as opposed by any "works" you do, including theological works. Naturally he loved Paul and was rather dismissive of James. Depending on how you interpret it, it's not the prayer itself that does the work, but the faith already there out of which that prayer comes.
Calvin interpreted that through the doctrine of double predestination, which means God already foreordained who would be saved and who would be damned (which is why it's "double"); because if nothing you can "do" can save you, then it's entirely by God's grace, something external and imposed on you. For Luther though, you still have ultimate responsibly and he wrote a great tract on it called "On Christian Freedom", which by the way is one forerunner to the existentialist direction Christianity took under Kierkegaard, in how he dealt with reconciling freedom and sola fide, forerunning Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" paradox -- it comes literally out of nowhere, in the ecstatic moment of conversion itself ("Luther: Here I stand. I can do no other.") Nietzsche of course famously repackaged Calvinist into his existentialism under the concept of amor fati ("love your fate"); free will doesn't exist but is imposed on you; you become your fate; and you should love it. Become who you are! Of course then Nietzsche flips the value hierarchy (Christianity: born into original sin/naturalism (evil) => ecstatic conversion into renunciation (good); Nietzsche: born into renunciation(bad) => ecstatic conversion into naturalism (good)). Walter Kaufmann IIRC said that Nietzsche was ultimately more a religious thinker than a philosopher, and I think that's right.
Anyway, only now do you get the famous argument by Weber (in Capitalism & the Protestant Ethic) that starts with the more Calvinist hardline predestination (your fate is imposed from outside) secularized into a business ethic & lifestyle, the idea being that there's a feedback effect where a 18th Century Protestant isn't 100% sure if he's been "selected" or not (the Catholic just performs the sacraments & doesn't have to think further); so the Protestant ironically works twice as hard to make sure he's in the "in" group.
All that flies out the window by the mid 20th Century though and into post-modern Christianity, because postmodernism is imminently flexible: God is a reasonable guy, and so must be the logic of reality. The cornerstone is a collection of reinforcing concepts all through the 20th Century: American pragmatism (What works is what's true; i.e., what makes you happy & feel connected with God=the truth of your "relationship"=salvation, since in the end Judgment Day is whatever God judges, and just like judges on Earth, he has to be reasonable to be "right" and "fair" and, ultimately, legitimate in His authority); 20th Cent existentialism & "authenticity" (salvation is just trying to be the best Christian you can be, i.e., WWJD; there's nothing deeper); realism/structuralism and "good faith" (what's "right" is embedded in the reasonable norms of the context; God has to notice the context in which things were done) which fed into postmodernism (basically threw out even the "global context" doing real work, all you have left is the moment you act itself, "locally", what's "reasonable" and "feels right" there). Basically: God realizes if you're trying your best to "be a good Christian" or whatever, that's basically what he's looking for, and you're still saved with 100% certainty (they still kept that part of the hardline sola fide doctrine, though it was worked out in a much different environment); so that's where you get the strong self-assurance of modern American evangelicals I think.
Here's a possibly controversial punchline you might take away from that though: I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that most contemporary postmodern Christians are probably closer, religiously, to contemporary atheists, which share that basic postmodern schema (the real "religion" of our age), than to the Christians in Luther's age, but especially pre-Luther (or at least it's a closer race than you might think). Or, if you like, that contemporary atheists are closer, religiously, to contemporary Christians than they are to the atheists in the century after Luther. Although contemporary atheists don't use the word "God", what plays the role of Ultimate Truth in their lives follows much more closely the fabric of reality being taught in contemporary churches ("you gotta be reasonable & true to X in good faith") than the "cog & pully realism" of the 17th Century atheists/materialists like Hobbes and even into 19th Cent. Feuerbach, (glossing: "you are directed by a blind will to power"), and definitely not the classist/racist variants ("we need to destroy the other classes & races before they destroy us! This is our manifest destiny built into reality's cogs & pullys.").
I guess if I have a punchline here, it's for people, religious or atheist or whatever -- if they want to think about anything in religion, or culture for that matter -- to always look under the surface of things to see what's really doing the work, what's the real "religious view" in a culture, putting aside the labels people use to reify them into a "thing". Although different labels are still important, sometimes there can be shared views beyond the labels too, like postmodernism, pragmatism, realism, etc. This is one reason why it's worth reading religious writing even if you don't believe their surface religion, but they can still be speaking to things you care about in other words, or introducing concepts that went on to "join the other side"... All the classic theologians are wonderful to read IMO for dealing with big issues. What's the relationship of freedom and responsibility? Is our will our own or imposed on us? Can we ever connect to truth & something that grounds the rightness of our actions in our experience? And what is that connection like? E.g., a lot of contemporary Christians might not be scientific about their religious views, but they are definitely verificationist & realist in the same bent; you have to ground everything in the Bible as a primary source, ultimately back to something they believe God actually inspired & put into the world at a definite moment in time you have to locate. Most have rejected intuitionist approaches, like 19th Cent Romanticism (i.e., you have to decipher it from the mystical hidden depths of your consciousness or nature by yourself; there's no "publicly accessible grounding", like the text), and for basically the same reasons most secular people have rejected it.
Etc. You get the idea. I'm not going to over-sell it. I'm just pointing to things to look out for.
Edit: I don't know that this is beyond the scope of the thread. Hitchens was a provoker to get people debating, and that's what we're doing. It's a kind of tribute in itself. It's just, like someone said above somewhere, if we were really going to give him justice, we should debate on all sorts of issues he rabbleroused, not just religion. Since that might be hard to do credibly, then it might be better not to go on with a lopsided debate after all, and just limit this to stuff Hitchens represented directly without flying off. I respect that too.
Kolya on 21/12/2011 at 02:58
If you define postmodern Christians as atheists who just happen to have a buddy named Jesus among their friends, then of course any stab at this "religion" will bounce off.
That would make Hitchens a troll who was actually attacking medieval Christians then, just to have a strawman. Or he was just taking it all a bit too serious. (Note this was written before your last edit.)
Not sure I completely agree with this take. I think he tried to nail them down to these theological basics, because they are still the underlying principles of postmodern Christianity, no matter how removed and choosy individual lifestyles may be. Differently put, even if in postmodern times religion is just one influence among others on Christians, it's still not a good one.
