Religion Randomness

[GreenGoo]

Page 6

Damn it. I admit I've grown tired of searching through the emojis looking for what I want and only made it to page 3, maybe 4 this time around.

[Unagi]

Yeah, I truly do not get Grifman's point here.

And I agree with BH, Holman, and GreeGoo's replies. +1 to each.


It certainly does sound as if you (Grifman) are saying he's nearing death, and as he does - he backs away from his Athiest views and starts to make room for a world view that includes an afterlife.

Is that correct?

No, not at all, not even close. I never mentioned death, never alluded to it.

The point is that all these aspects of cultural Christianity that Dawkins appreciates only exist because some people actually believe and lived out their beliefs as Christians. By his attacks on Christianity he was undermining the very beliefs that gave him what he appreciates as “cultural Christianity”. Hence the cutting off of the very branch he is sitting on.

(Honestly asking)

Do I have it (more-or-less) right here?

The chef's kiss is:

Dawkin's has been chipping away at Christianity (and all religion/theism), and now that (researched the context of that interview) lights were hung in the streets of Oxford to honor the month of Ramadan, instead of in honor of Easter (which he presumably has desired to not have been done in public space, etc) - he's wishing he hadn't harped against religion so much - because he would have rather the lights be for Easter than for the month of Ramadan.

Is that, more-or-less, right?

[Jaymann]

Sounds like Pascal's Wager:

If God does not exist, the individual incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries. However, if God does indeed exist, they stand to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.

Right. But which god is the correct one? You could just be pissing off the true god by believing in the wrong version of him, or even a non-version of him.

Plus, if god is god, do you think he's fooled by people hedging their bets? Is god's point of view that as long as people pay lip service, everything is hunkydory? True belief not required?

Pascal's wager is nonsense.

edit: To clarify, I don't doubt there are many people actively using Pascal's wager to save their immortal soul. It won't work.

Pascal lived during a heavily Christian culture era so presumably he discounted other religions, and Christianity is the religion of fire and brimstone. And when is comes to belief, what is to distinguish devout, committed, heart of heart fervent belief from going through the motions. Do we know for a fact that the Pope is not just taking the wager? Pascal's point is you lose nothing by proclaiming you believe, but risk everything by rejecting belief.

[Holman]

I've seen it pointed out that Pascal's wager is largely misunderstood: rather than claiming to be a logical argument for belief in God, it's actually embedded in a larger argument about the *impossibility* of relying on reason as a basis for belief.

In other words, we (meaning most people who have referenced the wager in the past couple of centuries) took an anecdote and got it precisely backwards.

[Jaymann]

I've seen it pointed out that Pascal's wager is largely misunderstood: rather than claiming to be a logical argument for belief in God, it's actually embedded in a larger argument about the *impossibility* of relying on reason as a basis for belief.

In other words, we (meaning most people who have referenced the wager in the past couple of centuries) took an anecdote and got it precisely backwards.

I believe you are correct. To think otherwise would lead to madness.

[Grifman]

Hah, see my edited comment above!

edit: Ok, I've read your response. My response is "so what?". There are a million other options, many of which I would say are at least subjectively better.

We're not talking about what you or anyone else wants, we're talking about what Dawkins wants.

We have math because of Sumerians. Does that mean we need to appreciate their polytheistic religion? Do we need to be thankful that Athens invented democracy?

You don't need to appreciate the ancient Sumerians to do math, nor do we need to have them around. But if you don't have Christians around, I'd argue that there would at some point be no "Christian culture" that Dawkins belatedly seems to appreciate.

Society is full of good and bad things. Some of which come from Christianity. Some don't.

Irrelevant, since we are talking about what Dawkins wants, not what "society" wants.

It's ok to criticize something despite enjoying some of the benefits that thing provides. Everyone hates the government, but...government.

Dawkins hasn't just been criticizing Christianity, he's been wanting to kill it off for years.

You're talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Dawkin's past actions and his preference for a "Christian culture".

[Grifman]

There are over 45,000 Christian denominations alone. Most of which preach hell for not following god their way. Even *if* Christianity is correct and we ignore Judaism, Islam and Hinduism (these are just the big boys, don't forget about all the rest. I hear Odin is *very* spiteful), you still only have a 1 in 45,000 chance to bet correctly.

I couldn't let this kind of misinformation pass, though it is common in many atheist circles. I don't know how many Christian denominations there are, but you totally misunderstand what denominationalism is about. Most of the denominations differ over issues of varying importance, some major, many minor, but the vast majority recognize each other, and their members, as fellow Christians. Almost none of them regard their positions on these differences as infallible, and very very few would say that if you don't believe at they do (compared with other denominations), that you are going to hell, except for some extreme fundamentalist groups. I have Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics,and other varieties in my family and among my friends, and nobody thinks the others going to hell. So you are just totally wrong about this.

[stessier]

I don't know what type of Baptists you've met, but they sure weren't Southern Baptist.

[Holman]

I'll back Grifman here, with the caveat that some things have changed in a big way in the present Culture War.

Case one, the Old Days (say, 18th through 20th centuries):

Except in a few extreme cases, it has been usual that Christian denominations differed in style more than substance. They might have believed that their form of worship is more perfect than the church across the street, but it rarely went much farther than that.

The dividing line tended to be that some Protestant churches considered Catholics to be insufficiently Christian (something something Popery bad). But I can guarantee you that there has never been an Episcopalian who believed that Methodists were bound for Hell simply for attending the wrong church.

Case two, the present Culture War:

A huge and growing segment of American Christianity has been captured by right-wing ideology such that religion today is more political than any time since the 17th century. A lot of this right-wing religion is based in certain traditional denominations (Southern Baptists, the Church of Christ, etc), but more and more of it is based in non-traditionally-denominational Megachurches. In these, the message is less based in theological positioning than in the charismatic, emotional experience of permanent revival and "spiritual warfare." And a lot of the excitement comes from messaging that is as overtly political as it is religious.

So the biggest divide in Christianity today isn't what people believe happens during this ritual or the meaning of that parable; it's over the question of whether God requires you to vote a certain way and to hate a certain list of political/cultural enemies.

[GreenGoo]

There are over 45,000 Christian denominations alone. Most of which preach hell for not following god their way. Even *if* Christianity is correct and we ignore Judaism, Islam and Hinduism (these are just the big boys, don't forget about all the rest. I hear Odin is *very* spiteful), you still only have a 1 in 45,000 chance to bet correctly.

I couldn't let this kind of misinformation pass, though it is common in many atheist circles. I don't know how many Christian denominations there are, but you totally misunderstand what denominationalism is about. Most of the denominations differ over issues of varying importance, some major, many minor, but the vast majority recognize each other, and their members, as fellow Christians. Almost none of them regard their positions on these differences as infallible, and very very few would say that if you don't believe at they do (compared with other denominations), that you are going to hell, except for some extreme fundamentalist groups. I have Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics,and other varieties in my family and among my friends, and nobody thinks the others going to hell. So you are just totally wrong about this.

I'm not talking about what people think. I'm talking about what their religion says. It's not misinformation, it's just that people don't understand all the details of their own religions or have studied their religious texts. That said, there are more than a few religions that don't have any afterlife punishment. Unfortunately they are not popular in North America.

Both sides may not understand the other, but when it comes to religion vs secularism, which side is chock full of misinformation? There is a war going on in North America about whether words in ancient book accurately describe the world around us, or our own observations and experiments. People are making laws because they don't like the answer.

For the record, I knew this would rile you up, and I honestly have no interest in pooping on your beliefs Grif, so I'll try and wrap this up.

[GreenGoo]

You're talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Dawkin's past actions and his preference for a "Christian culture".

If you say so.

I'd argue that the benefits of Christian society have nothing at all to do with the Christian religion and are the evolution of society that may or may not have arrived at the same position today without Christianity. We'll never know. What we do know is that Christianity had to be brought kicking and screaming into the modern age against its will.

[Holman]

You're talking about a lot of things that have nothing to do with Dawkin's past actions and his preference for a "Christian culture".

If you say so.

I'd argue that the benefits of Christian society have nothing at all to do with the Christian religion and are the evolution of society that may or may not have arrived at the same position today without Christianity. We'll never know. What we do know is that Christianity had to be brought kicking and screaming into the modern age against its will.

American anti-slavery abolitionism was in large part a Christian movement. The Civil Rights movement depended on churches as a source of leadership and organizing. Even European socialism (the northern kind, not the Bolsheviks) had some foundation in Christian organizations and Christian Democratic political parties.

Imagining an essential opposition between Christianity and "the Modern Age" is a cartoon. Who was a better inspiration for modern values: Henry Ford or Dorothy Day?

[GreenGoo]

If Christianity did provide some positives this conversation wouldn't even be happening. You could argue that social cohesion is a direct result of homogeneous religion. That said, there were a lot more steps between Christ's birth and the modern age than the abolishment of slavery. We could make a list of pros and cons, but I can't imagine you're interested in that.

Anyway, great! All it cost you was your immortal soul.

[stessier]

The dividing line tended to be that some (not all) Protestant-derived churches considered Catholics to be insufficiently Christian (something something Popery bad). But I can guarantee you that there has never been an Episcopalian who believed that Methodists were bound for Hell simply by virtue of attending the wrong church.

I agree with this. I was raised Catholic and Episcopalians and Methodists are pretty chill. Lutherans are pretty close too. After that, it diverges pretty rapidly.

I went to Catholic high school where we learned about World religions and my big takeaway was that everyone is heretics to someone's religion, but it's rude to call them that in most circumstances.

[GreenGoo]

I went to Catholic high school where we learned about World religions and my big takeaway was that everyone is heretics to someone's religion, but it's rude to call them that in most circumstances.

Right. Exactly. There's a big difference between brotherhood and just being polite about their heretical nature.

I guess the obvious question is "Where do heretics go after they die?"

A question I would consider asking my religious leader is "Why should I be part of this denomination and not another one if the end result (going to heaven) is the same?"

I'm sure there are reasons beyond saving your soul (since all Christians equally have their souls saved, presumably) but are they enough to justify one denomination over another? Do you go to the same church as your parents? Why? Thorough analysis of the benefits and theological theory and you agree with it?

How do people chose a religion? How do they know they are making the right choice? Seems like a pretty important decision to leave to chance.

edit: Ok, I'm a bit too far down the rabbit hole. There's zero chance I'm going to make anyone question their religion, and I've been through enough of these conversations (or witnessed them) to know that barring new evidence, my mind is pretty hard set against organized religion.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. I do apologize for being critical of your (anyone here) belief system. That was never my intent to direct this at anyone specifically.

[Kraken]

"Catholics are idolators" said the church I was raised in. They were only one step above Jews.

[Blackhawk]

Even *if* Christianity is correct and we ignore Judaism, Islam and Hinduism (these are just the big boys, don't forget about all the rest. I hear Odin is *very* spiteful)

As a former Asatruarman I can confirm this, wholeheartedly. If you're hedging your bets with potential deities being real, Odin is one that you don't want to fuck with. (Continuing as if he were real) Those who worship that particular pantheon and have some actual study to back up their practice will tell you that you include Odin in your rites, but you don't dedicate yourself to him unless you're well aware of what you're getting into. He's a dangerous god to follow, sort of like jumping into a tornado to dry off.

Fifteen years (!) as an atheist, and I still remember the warnings I received from a godhi about Odin.

[Blackhawk]

edit: Ok, I'm a bit too far down the rabbit hole. There's zero chance I'm going to make anyone question their religion, and I've been through enough of these conversations (or witnessed them) to know that barring new evidence, my mind is pretty hard set against organized religion.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. I do apologize for being critical of your (anyone here) belief system. That was never my intent to direct this at anyone specifically.

Even though you're not speaking to me, you might be surprised what kind of questions can cause someone to question, and later turn away from their religion. It was largely non-directed comments like this one (and largely comments right here on OO, often on completely different topics) that helped me to realize that I didn't really believe what I believed I believed. Disbelief was the unbelievable result.

[LordMortis]

He has one day every week. Isn't that enough?

[Jaymann]

If God of War taught us nothing else, it is to fear Odin.

[Isgrimnur]