demagogue on 21/12/2011 at 04:06
Some of the same things you're mentioning I didn't try to make a claim on, and I was just offering suggestive things to think about. I wasn't talking at all about the normative stuff, whether religion is a "good" or "bad" influence (or whether the part that was "bad" came more from religion, or medieval feudalism or Hegelian Romanticism in the cloak of Christianity). I hadn't gotten that far yet.
I wouldn't define postmodern Christians as atheists. The method I was trying to use in that post I think was trying to get away from definitions and the words people use altogether for a moment, and just look at what's "actually going on", in their minds, in the world (or: there are no "Christians" and "atheists" at first; there are conscious homo sapiens trying to put words to their experience & concepts). And *then* go back and see what their words might mean, then build back up to what's really at debate (as opposed to what people "say" is at debate). It's not a straightforward thing to do and you should always be careful trying it, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise to go through.
As for "underlying principles of postmodern Christianity" (which differ radically from principles of modern atheism), yes, I wasn't trying to deny that they exist & are different. I think my last post was just trying to throw in a footnote to at least pay attention, just because a principle "says X", you still have to look at how the person actually acts in the real world.
Like you can imagine a Christian and an atheist get a job offer in a distant city and have to debate if it's worth it to move away from home or turn down other options, and they both get a fuzzy feeling in their tummy consistent with the endowment bias in cognitive science, and the Christian says "God is telling me the right decision is to take it; it's his will." and the atheist says "My gut says the right decision is to take it; it must be right". And we could say the same basic thing is going on in both cases. The same feeling is doing the same job of making the same decision in the same way. They're both coming up with a post hoc justification for basically a cognitive bias in their limbic system. And it's not "objectively" the "right" decision at all just based on a pre-programmed tummy feeling (if they did some cost/benefit analysis, it might be it's worse in terms of payoff). So in this case you might say all the high-minded talk about grand differences in world view ("I let God direct my life.", "I direct my own life.", neither of which is true in this case) amounts to so much smoke & mirrors fogging up the same basic religious outlook: You both let your affective system direct your life, then after the fact you pin a worldview to it to justify it.
But in many other cases, of course, the principles would play a more active role, and you'd see the difference. Sometimes people do make a decision based right off the principle, "cold" so to speak (though some people debate that and think all decisions are "hot" and all justifications are covers). Like how they vote on a proposal to ban gay marriage. In addition to the emotional effects, the Christian might have his attention drawn to very clear text like marriage is for man and woman only, maybe he even feels sympathy for the gay couples, but he feels some kind of obligation to support it because the "text is so clear", and they "want to support the text" because that's the right thing to do. But of course all of this too taps into deeper affective machinery and social learning, such a dense web of stuff you'd want to tease apart.
As for how all that intersects with Hitchen's arguments, maybe none of this really changes anything he's arguing about, if he's trying to be careful to locate things based just on principles where they make a difference. Then my point would be more about, it's just not very interesting to me. I'd rather pay attention to how everybody, religious & atheist, make decisions in the real world... They use the same brain/experience & grow up in the same culture, some parts come from religion, some from the culture, and in fact there isn't always a clear line between religion & culture anyway, even for things that look like there's a clear line, if you dig deep enough it's tapping into cross-cutting stuff. I wouldn't say ignore differences. I think my basic point is, don't forget about the cross-cutting stuff while putting so much attention on the differences, and be mindful that cross-cutting stuff may be lurking all over the place.
Thirith on 21/12/2011 at 10:02
Quote Posted by demagogue
But in many other cases, of course, the principles would play a more active role, and you'd see the difference. Sometimes people do make a decision based right off the principle, "cold" so to speak (though some people debate that and think all decisions are "hot" and all justifications are covers). Like how they vote on a proposal to ban gay marriage. In addition to the emotional effects, the Christian might have his attention drawn to very clear text like marriage is for man and woman only, maybe he even feels sympathy for the gay couples, but he feels some kind of obligation to support it because the "text is so clear", and they "want to support the text" because that's the right thing to do. But of course all of this too taps into deeper affective machinery and social learning, such a dense web of stuff you'd want to tease apart.
I don't want to get too much into this conversation, but I have one comment on this: I've known a number of people who would identify themselves as Christians, in the sense that they purport to follow Christ, yet they reject both the OT craziness of Leviticus (even conservative Christians do - they just cherry pick the bits they reject) and the reactionary doctrine of Paul. As far as I'm concerned, some of the argument, from both sides, pulls a "No true Scotsman" (unless you believe X, you're not a bona fide Christian!) - but it doesn't take much to make an argument that Paul steered Christianity in a direction that is simply not in keeping with the Christ of the Gospels. If it had been important to the bearded dude that Christians deplore homosexuality, I expect he would've got around to mentioning it at some point...
jay pettitt on 21/12/2011 at 11:45
Quote Posted by Beleg
So from that perspective the church isn't too different from any other organizsation with the duty of guaranteeing some sort of stability.
Unagreed. Accountable and transparent organizations that are responsive to rationality, such as democratic ones, are qualitatively very different from the Church.
Kolya on 21/12/2011 at 12:17
That's a good point about the post hoc justifications. In the example you gave I'd say that the atheist will at least know that it's just his guts and he really should do a cost analysis. Otherwise he's acting irrationally and he will know that his guts aren't really a culturally accepted justification (among other rationally thinking atheists) to take a job offering or not.
However there are other areas, like personal sympathy, where that gut feeling is partly accepted. And when it escalates it is given another name and purposely mystified to be love.
Personal love really is the closest thing that atheists will come to having something like a religion, with all the disappointments you'd expect from projecting a plethora of transcendental thoughts and wishes on a single real person and all the benefits you'd expect from having a god or goddess you can talk and have sex with.
The way sexual relationships have evolved from lifelong breeding arrangements made by parents on a rational(!) basis in medieval Christian times into generally shorter lived romances in postmodern times, reflects that move of the transcendental demand, that is apparently inherent to humans, away from an abstract sky guy into the personal realm.
Of course not every atheist deifies their partner and has therefore only fleeting relationships, but that's a learning process the postmodern atheist teenager will have to go through. As we all know, I guess.
CCCToad on 21/12/2011 at 15:10
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Unagreed. Accountable and transparent organizations that are responsive to rationality, such as democratic ones, are qualitatively very different from the Church.
Saying that an organization is "responsive to rationality" simply because its democratic seems like a bit of a stretch.
Forever420 on 21/12/2011 at 15:46
this day of news is sad indeed.
Farewell oh great king of philosphers.
june gloom on 21/12/2011 at 18:18
SON OF A BITCH I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE FOREVER
Beleg Cúthalion on 21/12/2011 at 21:16
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Saying that an organization is "responsive to rationality" simply because its democratic seems like a bit of a stretch.
Plus, I didn't even refer to democratic systems or systems as a whole, I was talking "from [that] perspective" that it tries to enforce what it considers its own ideals or rights and duties. Lately especially some "democratic" states showed that they tried to enforce their democratic and liberal rights even outside their own territory. :p
Kolya on 21/12/2011 at 23:34
That's right. Just hit them with an oblique reference to the Iraq war. Shuts them up every time.
Beleg Cúthalion on 22/12/2011 at 10:55
Sorry, I felt hit with a magical sky monster reference. :p The point remains valid, though, just in case you haven't noticed.
