Recently in Religion Category
You can't use a religous text to make predictions about a religious group's behavior, yet atheists often refer to the Christian Bible or the Muslem Quran when they describe how "real" Christians or "real" Muslems are.
A Danish scholar, Tina Maagard, who focuses on text analysis and interpretation nonetheless extends her interpretation of the texts to make predictions about existing groups of Muslems. A few years ago she concluded that because the Quran contains more hostile phrases against other people than the Bible, Muslems can therefore be considered more war-like.
For obvious reasons this conclusion was welcome among right-wing politicians who now had "proof" that Muslems have higher potential for being terrorists than anyone else.
There are just a few devils in the details. Most importantly, it is not possible to compare the "raw" scripture in the Quran with the "raw" scripture in the Bible if one wants to draw an objective conclusion. The aforementioned politicians and "Islam critics" have such a literal belief in the influence of the Quran that it beats several Muslem fundamentalists, and one must suspect that they have forgotten that religion is man-made and therefore must be studied by looking at mankind rather than its books.
Q: But the two religions view the Quran and the Bible as their respective foundations, don't they?
It is true that the religions consider these religious scriptures central for the religions. Unfortunately, this will not make you any wiser, because the Christian Bible has prompted interpretations ranging from fire-and-brimstone preachings from paranoid, Christian fundamentalists to abstract, "godless" traditions where "god" is merely seen as a symbol. You cannot determine which interpretation is the "correct" one, because that would require you to know what the Christian god meant—and in that case you believe in the Christian god, and are making a theological interpretation that is neither scientific nor objective.
You can conclude that the Christian Bible has a prominent place in the Christian religion but the interpretation of the book is so open that in practice its place in the religion is only symbolic. This is of course also true about the Quran of Islam. When Christians and Muslems refer to their books, they are interpreting their scriptures. They may be citing literal scripture when they quote their scriptures, but when and what they quote are not arbitrary. Their choices of when and what to quote are also interpretations of the scriptures.
The two books thus have a place in the religions via the interpretations of the books made by the religions. Few Christians and Muslems would admit this, however, because that would require them to accept that their interpretation is just one among many possible and equally valid, and therefore not necessarily the "truth."
Q: So what is it that creates the religion if not the religious scripture?
Sociologists currently tend towards an explanation of religion as society's worship of its ideal selfimage. Society's values, morals, attitudes, etc. are measured according to an ideal image which, like society itself, changes over time. The ideal is seen as the final goal of the society, and is expressed in a more or less symbolic form. The ideal image typically involves the absence of all non-ideal things in society such as violence, oppression, frustration, etc. The thought of this ideal leads to religions that incorporate this ideal image into their visions. Religion is this an expression of what society thinks about itself at any given time, and how society would prefer to be.
Q: So you're saying that if Muslems included more hostility in the Quran than the Christians included in the Bible, then this actually means that the Muslem cultures are more war-prone than the Christian cultures (hah, gotcha!)?
No, this only reflects the circumstances in the times when the two books were written. It is fair to conclude based on the Bible and the Quran that the first Muslems were probably more hostile than the first Christians. However, it is 1,900 years since the first authors began to write the Bible, and it is about 1,500 years since the Quran was written. Christianity as of today cannot be compared with Christianity as of back then (how many Christians today believe that they are the "true Jews," for example, and that Messiah came back as a traditional, human king while the first Christians were still alive?); Islam as of today cannot be compared with Islam as of back then; and Islam as of back then cannot be compared with Christianity as of back then, more than 400 years later.
Today, both Islam and Christianity are so different from the Islam and Christianity that were found 1,500 and 2,000 years ago that it does not make any sense to use ancient, culturally inspired scriptures as references for those cultures today.
No-one would be stupid enough to claim that Europe is still stuck in the Germanic iron age culture 1,500 years ago, and it would be equally stupid to claim that the Muslem culture had not developed during the same 1,500 years unless one would argue that the culture was exceptionally strong and one was rather ignorant on History.
Conclusion: one cannot use the contents of the Quran and the Bible to determine which one of the two religions today is, say, the most war-prone. Firstly, the relevance of the two is restricted to the interpretations of the books that the religions make (not vice versa); secondly, the "raw" content of the books must be viewed in the context of the time when the books were written.
A Danish scholar, Tina Maagard, who focuses on text analysis and interpretation nonetheless extends her interpretation of the texts to make predictions about existing groups of Muslems. A few years ago she concluded that because the Quran contains more hostile phrases against other people than the Bible, Muslems can therefore be considered more war-like.For obvious reasons this conclusion was welcome among right-wing politicians who now had "proof" that Muslems have higher potential for being terrorists than anyone else.
There are just a few devils in the details. Most importantly, it is not possible to compare the "raw" scripture in the Quran with the "raw" scripture in the Bible if one wants to draw an objective conclusion. The aforementioned politicians and "Islam critics" have such a literal belief in the influence of the Quran that it beats several Muslem fundamentalists, and one must suspect that they have forgotten that religion is man-made and therefore must be studied by looking at mankind rather than its books.
Q: But the two religions view the Quran and the Bible as their respective foundations, don't they?
It is true that the religions consider these religious scriptures central for the religions. Unfortunately, this will not make you any wiser, because the Christian Bible has prompted interpretations ranging from fire-and-brimstone preachings from paranoid, Christian fundamentalists to abstract, "godless" traditions where "god" is merely seen as a symbol. You cannot determine which interpretation is the "correct" one, because that would require you to know what the Christian god meant—and in that case you believe in the Christian god, and are making a theological interpretation that is neither scientific nor objective.
You can conclude that the Christian Bible has a prominent place in the Christian religion but the interpretation of the book is so open that in practice its place in the religion is only symbolic. This is of course also true about the Quran of Islam. When Christians and Muslems refer to their books, they are interpreting their scriptures. They may be citing literal scripture when they quote their scriptures, but when and what they quote are not arbitrary. Their choices of when and what to quote are also interpretations of the scriptures.
The two books thus have a place in the religions via the interpretations of the books made by the religions. Few Christians and Muslems would admit this, however, because that would require them to accept that their interpretation is just one among many possible and equally valid, and therefore not necessarily the "truth."
Q: So what is it that creates the religion if not the religious scripture?
Sociologists currently tend towards an explanation of religion as society's worship of its ideal selfimage. Society's values, morals, attitudes, etc. are measured according to an ideal image which, like society itself, changes over time. The ideal is seen as the final goal of the society, and is expressed in a more or less symbolic form. The ideal image typically involves the absence of all non-ideal things in society such as violence, oppression, frustration, etc. The thought of this ideal leads to religions that incorporate this ideal image into their visions. Religion is this an expression of what society thinks about itself at any given time, and how society would prefer to be.
Q: So you're saying that if Muslems included more hostility in the Quran than the Christians included in the Bible, then this actually means that the Muslem cultures are more war-prone than the Christian cultures (hah, gotcha!)?
No, this only reflects the circumstances in the times when the two books were written. It is fair to conclude based on the Bible and the Quran that the first Muslems were probably more hostile than the first Christians. However, it is 1,900 years since the first authors began to write the Bible, and it is about 1,500 years since the Quran was written. Christianity as of today cannot be compared with Christianity as of back then (how many Christians today believe that they are the "true Jews," for example, and that Messiah came back as a traditional, human king while the first Christians were still alive?); Islam as of today cannot be compared with Islam as of back then; and Islam as of back then cannot be compared with Christianity as of back then, more than 400 years later.
Today, both Islam and Christianity are so different from the Islam and Christianity that were found 1,500 and 2,000 years ago that it does not make any sense to use ancient, culturally inspired scriptures as references for those cultures today.
No-one would be stupid enough to claim that Europe is still stuck in the Germanic iron age culture 1,500 years ago, and it would be equally stupid to claim that the Muslem culture had not developed during the same 1,500 years unless one would argue that the culture was exceptionally strong and one was rather ignorant on History.
Conclusion: one cannot use the contents of the Quran and the Bible to determine which one of the two religions today is, say, the most war-prone. Firstly, the relevance of the two is restricted to the interpretations of the books that the religions make (not vice versa); secondly, the "raw" content of the books must be viewed in the context of the time when the books were written.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
If you accept the fact that there are no gods, then you will also have to face the fact that it doesn't matter what a person believes in: the only thing that matters is what this person does (or doesn't) as a result of his or her belief. All that matters are the tangible results, that is, the practical implications of the belief. What matters are actions, results, and effects; but the belief itself—well, who needs to care about that, except the believers?
Sure, there are very good reasons to investigate beliefs, which are used to justify atrocities all over the world. But it's the atrocities, not the beliefs, that are the cause of concern. If the beliefs implied no harm or good, would you bother to care?
Sure, there are very good reasons to investigate beliefs, which are used to justify atrocities all over the world. But it's the atrocities, not the beliefs, that are the cause of concern. If the beliefs implied no harm or good, would you bother to care?
Continue reading Practical Implications.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
Two years ago, Denmark became the hot topic around the world when the right-wing newspaper Jyllandsposten published twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. More recently a Swedish journalist felt the predictable wrath of offended Muslims after publishing another picture of Muhammad.
Referring to "freedom of expression," Jyllandsposten waived all responsibility for the ensuing protests when it dawned upon the editors that there was a world beyond the Danish borders where Muslims were also offended. Today, hopefully it is only the most naïve individuals that still believe that the cartoons had anything to do with freedom of expression, and nothing to do with the steep increase in xenophobia and racism that Denmark has witnessed over the last thirty years. In fact, Jyllandsposten had published the cartoons in spite of being warned of the effects next to an editorial explaining that Muslims should accept ridicule, and one of the cartoonists included a hidden comment to Jyllandsposten's motivation in his drawing: in Persian, the text on the blackboard says, "The editors at Jyllandsposten are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." Nonetheless, Jyllandsposten's editor Flemming Rose, a great fan of the intensely anti-Arab Daniel Pipes, decided to print the cartoons. It is hard to believe that Jyllandsposten was caught entirely by surprise.
Freedom of expression is only relevant to minority groups. Jyllandsposten in Denmark represents the majority which has the power, and is also a traditional and almost uncritical supporter of the right-wing government. To such a medium, freedom of expression is a moot point. The majority has the power to say what it wants, exactly because it has the power to do so. It does not need any protection or freedom to do this. Freedom of expression is a tool that protects the weak from oppression of the strong when they voice their opinions. The strong do not need this protection, and their opinions are no more covered by freedom of expression than they are covered by mob violence. (In this particular case, the newspaper received the express support of the similarly right-wing government which advocated the right to free expression while recommending that left-wing or politically centered newspapers support the government's decisions.)
Generally speaking, any picture would be covered by freedom of expression to the extent that you can ignore power-relations such as oppression or state-sanctioned vigilante justice.
Many debaters remarked that there was a certain double standard applied to the question about freedom of expression, because although we do have a more forgiving attitude towards derisive images of religious symbols in Denmark, the same newspaper has rejected comparable drawings of Jesus, various clothing has been withdrawn from stores because of a perceived blasphemy against Christianity, and the government withdrew an sex-educational CD after pressure from religious interest groups.
But there is yet another form of double standard that is less evident. Muslim demonstrations against Denmark included burnings of the Danish national flag, and the "extreme right" party, the Danish People's Party (which is no more extreme than being able to collect more than ten percent of the votes) were still advocating that freedom of expression should be defended at all cost when they proposed a legislation against burning the Danish national flag.
As a principal argument, they stated that burning a flag is material damage while a cartoon only offends people's feelings. In other words, material damage has more weight than damaged feelings.
You might be inclined to accept this argument, but only until your realize that it is an entirely different issue if it is your own feelings that are hurt. For example, when occasionally a graveyard is desecrated for some reason, the complaints always refer to the fact that although the material damages were considerable, the worst damage was that the victims' survivors felt violated.
It shows that if we are the ones that are hurt, it is our feelings that have the greatest importance compared with the material damage, so the argument that material damage is more important than feelings is not generally valid.
When burnings of the Danish national flag is compared with the Muhammad cartoons as an example of expressions that are not to be covered by freedom of expression, the argument reveals a reality where "their" feelings are considered inferior to both our tangible material and our own feelings, which in turn we consider superior to our own tangibles. It is worse to step on our feelings than it is to step on our flag, but both are much worse than stepping on others' feelings.
This view extends to patronization as well. Christians in Denmark have stated that Muslims should not be offended by the Muhammad cartoons because Christians would not be hurt by similar drawings of Jesus. If for a moment we ignore the historical facts showing that this is a blatant lie, the Christians are in fact stating that not only are Muslim feelings considered inferior to Christian feelings; Christians even reserve themselves the rights to dictate what Muslims should allow themselves to feel.
When a newspaper such as Jyllandsposten draws intentionally demeaning cartoons of Muhammad, or when Muslims burn the Danish national flag, they attack symbols, and the importance of symbols cannot be emphasized enough in this conflict. Peace negotiators know that a mutual accept of symbolic values are key to conflict resolution and, conversely, that one of the easiest ways to start a conflict is to attack the opponent's symbols.
The cartoon conflict was initiated by a Christian culture against people from a Muslim culture, who in turn reacted very strongly. The reaction did not seem directed at the drawings themselves, however, and this begs for a better explanation than religious outrage over the images of the prophet. Firstly, there are many accounts of Muslim depictions of Muhammad that did not cause uproar; secondly, many protesters had never seen the drawings and had only heard about the deliberate provocation against their culture and peoples; and thirdly, many Muslim protesters expressed their anger against the Western world rather than the drawings themselves. The drawings that originally symbolized the Danish attitude towards their Arab immigrants had now become symbols that expressed the Western world's attitude towards the Middle East both in the eyes of the West and the Middle East. Although there are religious aspects involved from both sides of the conflict, it is difficult to classify the conflict as a religious conflict when you recognize Jyllandsposten's motivation and the nature of the protests.
Perhaps the protests may have been cloaked in religious trappings because the Muhammad drawings happened to be considered blasphemous, but although the Danish People's Party's inner circle does include a number of fundamentalist Christians, their reaction against burnings of the Danish national flag can hardly be said to be clearly caused by Christian faith; this is evidence that the feelings are related to the violation of a symbol, and that the conflict is based on cultural values attributed to the symbols.
Jyllandsposten triggered a conflict that was perhaps inevitable because it is reasonable to assume that the newspaper merely reflected the general rise in Danish xenophobia and racism. However, by attacking the Muslim symbols, they showed the Danish sentiments very powerfully, and the strong support that Jyllandsposten received in the Western world shows only too clearly how the Western world views its neighbors in the Middle East. And at the same time, the drawings became a symbol to the Middle East that illustrated their frustration with the Western world.
Referring to "freedom of expression," Jyllandsposten waived all responsibility for the ensuing protests when it dawned upon the editors that there was a world beyond the Danish borders where Muslims were also offended. Today, hopefully it is only the most naïve individuals that still believe that the cartoons had anything to do with freedom of expression, and nothing to do with the steep increase in xenophobia and racism that Denmark has witnessed over the last thirty years. In fact, Jyllandsposten had published the cartoons in spite of being warned of the effects next to an editorial explaining that Muslims should accept ridicule, and one of the cartoonists included a hidden comment to Jyllandsposten's motivation in his drawing: in Persian, the text on the blackboard says, "The editors at Jyllandsposten are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." Nonetheless, Jyllandsposten's editor Flemming Rose, a great fan of the intensely anti-Arab Daniel Pipes, decided to print the cartoons. It is hard to believe that Jyllandsposten was caught entirely by surprise.Freedom of expression is only relevant to minority groups. Jyllandsposten in Denmark represents the majority which has the power, and is also a traditional and almost uncritical supporter of the right-wing government. To such a medium, freedom of expression is a moot point. The majority has the power to say what it wants, exactly because it has the power to do so. It does not need any protection or freedom to do this. Freedom of expression is a tool that protects the weak from oppression of the strong when they voice their opinions. The strong do not need this protection, and their opinions are no more covered by freedom of expression than they are covered by mob violence. (In this particular case, the newspaper received the express support of the similarly right-wing government which advocated the right to free expression while recommending that left-wing or politically centered newspapers support the government's decisions.)
Generally speaking, any picture would be covered by freedom of expression to the extent that you can ignore power-relations such as oppression or state-sanctioned vigilante justice.
Many debaters remarked that there was a certain double standard applied to the question about freedom of expression, because although we do have a more forgiving attitude towards derisive images of religious symbols in Denmark, the same newspaper has rejected comparable drawings of Jesus, various clothing has been withdrawn from stores because of a perceived blasphemy against Christianity, and the government withdrew an sex-educational CD after pressure from religious interest groups.
But there is yet another form of double standard that is less evident. Muslim demonstrations against Denmark included burnings of the Danish national flag, and the "extreme right" party, the Danish People's Party (which is no more extreme than being able to collect more than ten percent of the votes) were still advocating that freedom of expression should be defended at all cost when they proposed a legislation against burning the Danish national flag.
As a principal argument, they stated that burning a flag is material damage while a cartoon only offends people's feelings. In other words, material damage has more weight than damaged feelings.
You might be inclined to accept this argument, but only until your realize that it is an entirely different issue if it is your own feelings that are hurt. For example, when occasionally a graveyard is desecrated for some reason, the complaints always refer to the fact that although the material damages were considerable, the worst damage was that the victims' survivors felt violated.It shows that if we are the ones that are hurt, it is our feelings that have the greatest importance compared with the material damage, so the argument that material damage is more important than feelings is not generally valid.
When burnings of the Danish national flag is compared with the Muhammad cartoons as an example of expressions that are not to be covered by freedom of expression, the argument reveals a reality where "their" feelings are considered inferior to both our tangible material and our own feelings, which in turn we consider superior to our own tangibles. It is worse to step on our feelings than it is to step on our flag, but both are much worse than stepping on others' feelings.
This view extends to patronization as well. Christians in Denmark have stated that Muslims should not be offended by the Muhammad cartoons because Christians would not be hurt by similar drawings of Jesus. If for a moment we ignore the historical facts showing that this is a blatant lie, the Christians are in fact stating that not only are Muslim feelings considered inferior to Christian feelings; Christians even reserve themselves the rights to dictate what Muslims should allow themselves to feel.
When a newspaper such as Jyllandsposten draws intentionally demeaning cartoons of Muhammad, or when Muslims burn the Danish national flag, they attack symbols, and the importance of symbols cannot be emphasized enough in this conflict. Peace negotiators know that a mutual accept of symbolic values are key to conflict resolution and, conversely, that one of the easiest ways to start a conflict is to attack the opponent's symbols.
The cartoon conflict was initiated by a Christian culture against people from a Muslim culture, who in turn reacted very strongly. The reaction did not seem directed at the drawings themselves, however, and this begs for a better explanation than religious outrage over the images of the prophet. Firstly, there are many accounts of Muslim depictions of Muhammad that did not cause uproar; secondly, many protesters had never seen the drawings and had only heard about the deliberate provocation against their culture and peoples; and thirdly, many Muslim protesters expressed their anger against the Western world rather than the drawings themselves. The drawings that originally symbolized the Danish attitude towards their Arab immigrants had now become symbols that expressed the Western world's attitude towards the Middle East both in the eyes of the West and the Middle East. Although there are religious aspects involved from both sides of the conflict, it is difficult to classify the conflict as a religious conflict when you recognize Jyllandsposten's motivation and the nature of the protests.
Perhaps the protests may have been cloaked in religious trappings because the Muhammad drawings happened to be considered blasphemous, but although the Danish People's Party's inner circle does include a number of fundamentalist Christians, their reaction against burnings of the Danish national flag can hardly be said to be clearly caused by Christian faith; this is evidence that the feelings are related to the violation of a symbol, and that the conflict is based on cultural values attributed to the symbols.
Jyllandsposten triggered a conflict that was perhaps inevitable because it is reasonable to assume that the newspaper merely reflected the general rise in Danish xenophobia and racism. However, by attacking the Muslim symbols, they showed the Danish sentiments very powerfully, and the strong support that Jyllandsposten received in the Western world shows only too clearly how the Western world views its neighbors in the Middle East. And at the same time, the drawings became a symbol to the Middle East that illustrated their frustration with the Western world.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
I know that I can't prove a negative, and atheists in general feel caught by a "democratic" need to acknowledge that since you can't fully disprove the chance, however small, that there might be some god somewhere, you must acknowledge that the delusional claims about such entities may at least in principle have some merit.
I do not acknowledge that merit, except as a mental exercise that one can do for fun if one feels so inclined, however, because in spite of my disbelief in metaphysical beings, I'm not an atheist.
The non-belief of atheism is easy, and you can get a long way with that. I know that all things in this vast universe are ultimately connected, but as little as I consider how it affects the red spot on Jupiter that I mow my lawn, consistently with the aforementioned atheists I don't consider the remote chance of something even less observable influencing my thoughts either.
It is easy to not believe, yet atheists seem stuck at searching for the turning point, where God has diminished enough in life's equation, to feel comfortable stating why they move on without him. I have never had anything to discuss with superstitious people, and have never wanted to debate with them.
I am beyond that point. I am beyond atheism: not only do I not believe there is a God, I believe there is no God.
Taking this step beyond atheism has important ramifications. Believing there is no Heaven or Hell, I have no doubt, not even at the level of academic agnosticism, that I cannot be forgiven or damned. This belief requires me to be thoughtful of my actions instead. It requires me to understand that how I treat people will reflect back on me within this lifetime. Believing there is no God means believing there is no supernatural purpose of my life, and that this is the only life I have; it is up to me to make the most of it, and now is the only chance I have.
Believing that there is no God means that I cannot assume that others will view the world the way I do. I have no god to instruct me how reality is, and I must reach a consensus with human beings instead. I must learn, and I must teach.
I believe that no suffering or joy is caused by an omnipresent force that bothers to test or help me. It is caused by chance and our own actions, and the belief implies that misfortune is something that I and my fellow specimens must deal with on our own rather than relying on that force to correct. We are responsible for our own actions; no God will reward us, and no Devil will punish us. We cannot expect God to fix our mistakes, and we cannot blame the Devil for them, believing that the former will forgive us for doing it, and that the latter made us do it.
Believing there's no god places a huge set of demands on me that a mere atheist wouldn't consider. Atheists act as if they still believe in that God, stuck with the same morals and ethics, believing in the same values, acting according to the same rules as those they think they've disaffiliated themselves from, and following the same religiously motivated traditions, ceremonies, and rituals as most other Christians.
I believe that we are not creatures bound by fate or supernatural decision, but I also believe that we do not roam free. I believe there is a trinity (if one dares to use such a term) of diamond hard necessity, fleeting hazard or chance, and freedom, and each individual's life is a trajectory throughout existence bouncing off these opposing and yet balancing elements of this trinity on every move.
Diamond necessity are the unescapable laws of nature and environment that limit our movement; death is an ultimate limit, but the less obvious limits imposed upon us by our biology and psychology are also only too real to us. It is within this imprisonment of being that we may wish to become distinguishable, which is a way to seem to avoid hard necessity.
But within these limitations set in stone, fleeting hazard occurs, much like a lottery or a fatal car crash coming out of nowhere. We may hope for or dread the results, but we can never plan or prevent them, and where diamond necessity destroys all hope of change, fleeting hazard is the chaos in the ordered necessity, the nonsense in the sense, that no-one would wish to be without.
And finally, there is freedom: as lightnings of hazard tear through the shadows of solid necessity, we observe that we are not automatons of an imagined fate. We revolt against diamond necessity wishing to control the chaotic chance, wondering if we are challenging the impossible. We instinctively wish to break free from stasis, to progress, and the more content one is with stasis, the more one is inclined to view this rebellion as evil. Yet while freedom is felt instantly, the freedom that bends diamond necessity takes an eternity to unfold compared with the lifespan of a single human being.
I turn the theist safety around. Much better than thinking it safest to believe in God "just in case," I find it safer to believe there is no God. There is so much self-denial, so much atonement, so much guilt, and so much rejection of life's joys at risk that the slim chance of avoiding the right Hell among so many variants cannot possibly warrant the effort. But I also prefer the safety of treating people according to my needs, to gain for my purposes, to trust skilled authorities, to get sound advice, and I wish to live in a society where my personal safety is based on responsibilities laid in the hands of the responsible.
It is not enough to renounce the gods, the heavens, and the hells. You must face the consequences: if there is no heavens, gods, hells, and devils, what have you? It is easy to sell your soul to the Devil, because souls are cheap. There's a much higher price to pay than your soul: it is that you recognize your own values to live your life to the fullest, here and now. Take this step, or remain forever within the clutches of religion where you pay homage to the God in which you claim disbelief.
I do not acknowledge that merit, except as a mental exercise that one can do for fun if one feels so inclined, however, because in spite of my disbelief in metaphysical beings, I'm not an atheist.
The non-belief of atheism is easy, and you can get a long way with that. I know that all things in this vast universe are ultimately connected, but as little as I consider how it affects the red spot on Jupiter that I mow my lawn, consistently with the aforementioned atheists I don't consider the remote chance of something even less observable influencing my thoughts either.
It is easy to not believe, yet atheists seem stuck at searching for the turning point, where God has diminished enough in life's equation, to feel comfortable stating why they move on without him. I have never had anything to discuss with superstitious people, and have never wanted to debate with them.
I am beyond that point. I am beyond atheism: not only do I not believe there is a God, I believe there is no God.
Taking this step beyond atheism has important ramifications. Believing there is no Heaven or Hell, I have no doubt, not even at the level of academic agnosticism, that I cannot be forgiven or damned. This belief requires me to be thoughtful of my actions instead. It requires me to understand that how I treat people will reflect back on me within this lifetime. Believing there is no God means believing there is no supernatural purpose of my life, and that this is the only life I have; it is up to me to make the most of it, and now is the only chance I have.
Believing that there is no God means that I cannot assume that others will view the world the way I do. I have no god to instruct me how reality is, and I must reach a consensus with human beings instead. I must learn, and I must teach.
I believe that no suffering or joy is caused by an omnipresent force that bothers to test or help me. It is caused by chance and our own actions, and the belief implies that misfortune is something that I and my fellow specimens must deal with on our own rather than relying on that force to correct. We are responsible for our own actions; no God will reward us, and no Devil will punish us. We cannot expect God to fix our mistakes, and we cannot blame the Devil for them, believing that the former will forgive us for doing it, and that the latter made us do it.
Believing there's no god places a huge set of demands on me that a mere atheist wouldn't consider. Atheists act as if they still believe in that God, stuck with the same morals and ethics, believing in the same values, acting according to the same rules as those they think they've disaffiliated themselves from, and following the same religiously motivated traditions, ceremonies, and rituals as most other Christians.
I believe that we are not creatures bound by fate or supernatural decision, but I also believe that we do not roam free. I believe there is a trinity (if one dares to use such a term) of diamond hard necessity, fleeting hazard or chance, and freedom, and each individual's life is a trajectory throughout existence bouncing off these opposing and yet balancing elements of this trinity on every move.
Diamond necessity are the unescapable laws of nature and environment that limit our movement; death is an ultimate limit, but the less obvious limits imposed upon us by our biology and psychology are also only too real to us. It is within this imprisonment of being that we may wish to become distinguishable, which is a way to seem to avoid hard necessity.
But within these limitations set in stone, fleeting hazard occurs, much like a lottery or a fatal car crash coming out of nowhere. We may hope for or dread the results, but we can never plan or prevent them, and where diamond necessity destroys all hope of change, fleeting hazard is the chaos in the ordered necessity, the nonsense in the sense, that no-one would wish to be without.
And finally, there is freedom: as lightnings of hazard tear through the shadows of solid necessity, we observe that we are not automatons of an imagined fate. We revolt against diamond necessity wishing to control the chaotic chance, wondering if we are challenging the impossible. We instinctively wish to break free from stasis, to progress, and the more content one is with stasis, the more one is inclined to view this rebellion as evil. Yet while freedom is felt instantly, the freedom that bends diamond necessity takes an eternity to unfold compared with the lifespan of a single human being.
I turn the theist safety around. Much better than thinking it safest to believe in God "just in case," I find it safer to believe there is no God. There is so much self-denial, so much atonement, so much guilt, and so much rejection of life's joys at risk that the slim chance of avoiding the right Hell among so many variants cannot possibly warrant the effort. But I also prefer the safety of treating people according to my needs, to gain for my purposes, to trust skilled authorities, to get sound advice, and I wish to live in a society where my personal safety is based on responsibilities laid in the hands of the responsible.
It is not enough to renounce the gods, the heavens, and the hells. You must face the consequences: if there is no heavens, gods, hells, and devils, what have you? It is easy to sell your soul to the Devil, because souls are cheap. There's a much higher price to pay than your soul: it is that you recognize your own values to live your life to the fullest, here and now. Take this step, or remain forever within the clutches of religion where you pay homage to the God in which you claim disbelief.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
This article is based on an article by Amina Olander Lap. It explains the common errors of what might be referred to as "American atheism" and
proposes a foundation for sound criticism. The text addresses the common atheist attitude towards the Christian beliefs, but the discussion applies to any religion or belief system.
Buzzword Criticism
The atheism that is found in the US is the kind of atheism that can be expected in a country where religion is widespread and deeply ingrained in the population's minds. It's the kind of atheism that considers the religious people stupid, and nonetheless takes the debates onto the religious turf where the believers have the edge. "Celebrity atheist" Richard Dawkins represents this kind of atheism.
The critical view on Christianity is one thing that virtually all atheists can agree on, but the criticism is not always well targeted.
Part of the reason that the criticism often misses the point is that many atheists copy the slogans of famous atheists and the rhetoric of old philosophers, and this can easily place the criticism out of context. People often misunderstand the original meaning behind the powerful statements.
Another problem with anti-Christian slogans is a confusion between personal opinions and what can be accepted as valid arguments based on factual evidence, valid methods, and logic.
It requires no background study or field knowledge to consider Christians stupid, but if you want to propose a generally valid criticism of specific Christian teachings or historical actions, then you must keep your facts straight and your arguments tight. Otherwise you'll soon find yourself being wrong on several accounts, rendering you the ignorant person, which probably isn't what you had in mind.
Modern Christianity without God and Bible
It is Christianity itself that gave birth to the critical view of religion, and it is Christianity that mostly eliminated the concept of a highly present and tangible God by means of philosophy and theology. God was once seen as the architect of plagues and master of miracles but is now mostly viewed as a somewhat nebulous entity with an influence that escapes definition. The Christian God has become a remote God that can no longer be seen and heard.
But in so doing, Christianity has also created a refuge for superstition which Christianity today shares with all kinds of religions and spirituality. The distinction between knowledge and faith has not only banned religion from science, it has also sealed the borders of religion from science, and its mythical inhabitants can neither be proven or destroyed by scientific evidence or philosophical arguments. The Christian God may have been weakened, but has found a safe haven in a metaphysical realm beyond the reach of science, logic, arguments, and philosophy.
Once a reference for the framework of society, religion has become one of many contributors to each individual's view of life and ethics, and its relevance is a question of personal choice. The contributions from religion are usually found as segments that require little or no involvement from the individual. The idea of "all or nothing" doesn't suit modern man; if something "feels right," then it is used. Bible study and church attendance is replaced with the daily horoscope, numerology, and magical beliefs in the power of healing and homeopathy, but no one feels any less Christian about that. This is the kind of Christianity that is found in my country.
Atheists are used to the common Christian mistake of portraying atheists as immoral, destructive, and subversive, and have often heard Christians contend that atheism would lead to the horrors of communism or Nazism, referring to their atheistic stances. (It is known that Hitler originally considered himself a Christian and later became critical of Christianity as he began to believe in a "higher being," but this certainly does not make him an atheist!) Yet it is the very same mistake atheists make when they renounce Christianity, believing or claiming that all of Christianity is like that of fundamentalist minorities, or that it is, or should be, like the Christianity of ages long past. Such an approach is ideological or religious, and makes sense only to the "initiates" of the sub-culture that defines this proprietary view.
Silly Superstition
Many claims of divine cause have been either refuted or become irrelevant by the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology. In addition, since Christians are fully aware why other gods do not exist, one would think them capable of applying the same rules to their own belief.
Hence, a Christian must be stupid to believe in the superstitious nonsense of entities that do not exist, some atheists argue. The entire religion is patently absurd in its reliance on metaphysics and miracles. Indeed, if anyone else made similarly outrageous claims, one would probably be stupid, or at least immensely gullible, to believe in them.
It is tempting to rely on the natural sciences to show better explanations than divine intervention, but since Christians themselves have debated what their god is and isn't for centuries and evidently become none the wiser in terms of belief, it will not help to thus further refine the image of their god.
The key is that the existence of the Christian god, the credibility of the miracles, and the veracity of the myths are entirely moot points as arguments against Christianity. Christians would disagree strongly on this issue, of course, but considering the nature of their other claims, one would hardly be wise to take their word for that.
One should instead take the word of the fields of science that study religions and religious people: sociology and psychology. These sciences teach us that Christianity, like any religion, encompasses a variety of feelings, morals, ethics, social structures, and paradigms. It is a frame of reference that helps organize one's perception of the world. The god is merely the "team mascot" of this frame of reference that is attributed great importance but in reality has very little to say, even if a team can be rather hysteric about its mascot.
It means that a person can be highly intelligent, as indeed some Christians are, and yet believe in mythical creatures and divine miracles, because this belief is the "executive summary" of the way they perceive the world. The belief in the divinity does not make any difference to his Weltanschauung; the belief is just an expression of his communication and systematization of his perception of the world.
For example, the concept of a Last Judgment should be recognized as an abstraction that summarizes some set of moral values and the belief that morals are intrinsic to the universe and cannot be escaped. A Christian may honestly believe that the abstraction exists, but since it is not the abstraction itself but rather the concept of moral it encompasses that is important, it makes no difference to this Christian if any number of predicted judgment days have passed unnoticed. The same Christian will be setting aside money for his children's college in spite of the impending doom that he believes in. It seems hypocritical, but it isn't: it is just his "language," and it is his morals that guide him through the day, not the anticipation of the Last Judgment.
Often the person can easily acknowledge inconsistencies between his belief and physical evidence, and yet believe in both, because religion encompasses an orthogonal set of issues to him which are in fact not contradicted by any physical evidence. A baseball team will abandon neither the mascot nor their game if you inform them that their team mascot is just a dressed-up actor, and the religious person will not leave his god behind either, because challenging the mascot has nothing to do with the game.
It follows that the many failed returns of Christ, the questions of whether God cares, or other such matters, are also irrelevant, except to a few fundamentalists.
Finally, both atheists and Christians agree that a miracle and supernatural events or beings are defined as impossible events and beings. The Christian can be fully knowledgeable in any field of science, and may happily embrace any natural explanation. To this Christian, miracles are miracles because they are not covered or governed by science and the laws of nature.
Biblical Errors
It is another common criticism of Christianity that the religion cannot be taken seriously because errors and contradictions in their Bible abound. If Christians insist on their faith in the light of glaring errors, then either it must be a result of ignorance or downright stupidity, the argument goes. But like before, stupidity is not the issue.
It is evident that the Bible includes its share of issues that are contradicted by today's science, issues that clash with modern moral, and passages that contradict each other. But, it requires a number of presumptions that one must be aware of to use this fact as reason to reject Christianity as a valid religion.
One must presume that Christians really believe that the Bible is of such holy character that it cannot be riddled with errors or omissions. If this were true, the argument would be valid. However, it is only a diminutive minority of Christians that deny the presence of errors in the Bible. Also, many of the biblical problems emphasized by American atheists are moral and ethical issues with the Old Testament laws, which according to Christian teachings were rendered obsolete by the inception of Christianity and thus do not apply to Christianity.
So, when atheists hold Christians accountable for biblical errors, not only do the atheists choose a theological approach that they share only with Christian fundamentalists, they also demonstrate lacking knowledge of the actual Christian use of the Bible.
A better approach to the Bible question is, again, to apply sociology. By recognizing Christianity as a religion, we can categorize it and analyze it using the tools for analyzing any other religion. We know that religion, and hence Christianity, needs no scientific proofs or elaborate philosophical arguments to fulfill its role as Weltanschauung for religious people. We know that, on the contrary, religion exists without these things. We know that religion deals with concepts that cannot be proven or rejected within the scientific framework. We know that it makes no sense to counter religious people with arguments that don't apply to religion.
The Bible is a very old Historical document, and it is not meaningful to discuss such a document by modern scientific and ethical standards. If nonetheless a biblical discussion is desired, then it is relevant to consider the fact that although Christians have used the same scripture for more than a millennium, the text has been interpreted widely different and used for highly different reasons throughout the ages. This means that as a critic, one can reject the statement that the Bible has a univocal message, and one can reject the statement that today's use is any more valid than those of the past.
Christians may also be challenged on the fact that they appropriate some sections of the Bible and leave others out according to personal taste; for example, the Bible's condonation of slavery is ignored today. This selective use of passages from the scriptures shows that the Christians themselves decide what is right and wrong rather than relying on their God's supposed authority on those matters: it is evidence that Christianity is only what Christians make of it. Like the wooden idols of long ago, it is the work of human hands.
The Murky Waters of Morals
Another common idiom states that knowledge is better than faith, and that religion therefore should be replaced with science.
It is certainly important to insist on knowledge within the cores of science, but the situation becomes complicated when one debates morals or discusses issues such as scientific ethics. Science can tell us much about our world, but it cannot explain how to live in it or what to think of it. Even if atheists attempt to find support in science, atheism is just as man-made as any other philosophy, religion, and ideology. Science and ideology cover distinct and mostly non-overlapping fields, and the atheist that claims that moral is derived from scientific data proves himself or herself unable to recognize which fields are covered by science and which fields are covered by ideology.
It is also worth noting that the atheists that are the most aggressive proponents of scientific superiority over the stupid spiritualists are often people that react ideologically rather than scholarly. One often finds atheists that on one hand consider themselves superior to those that believe in the Bible, but on the other side have a faith in science that is equally characterized by blind faith in authority, cultural background, and habit. They may be more right than the religious people, but their understanding and insight is not necessarily any greater. These atheists were just plain lucky to have more enlightened teachers.
A proper approach to moral questions must be the denial of objective truths that are independent of human beings, and one must deny religious statements as authoritative, that is, as statements that one should necessarily conform to. This does not imply that religious people are disqualified in social debates or as masters of their own lives, unless one wishes to (and is able to!) deny them their right of personal choice and personal opinion.
Modern Criticism
The above discards much of the present criticism of Christianity as obsolete, as it refers to a form of Christianity that does not exist. Today's Christianity is such a rubbery and vague concept that it is difficult to construct a modern and fitting criticism of the religion itself.
That does not mean that criticism per se has become obsolete. It only means that criticism must adapt as Christianity changes. Our most important task is not to denounce Christianity for what it was, or what it is among a few fundamentalists, but to remind people of what Christianity is not.
It is not relevant to discuss the veracity of the myths, the authenticity of the gospels, or the existence of God. Christianity must instead be challenged on its effect on society. If you were discussing Santa Claus, you would know it has no impact to conclude that Santa Claus cannot visit each home in the world within hours, and that the only issue worth debating and studying is what the myth of Santa Claus means to, says about, or impacts our culture. This is also the case for the Christian beliefs.
We must prevent Christians from claiming that Christianity and Western culture are synonymous. Christianity has played an important role in our History, but Christianity is neither the only nor an undebatedly positive or constructive contributor to our culture. Christianity itself has been influenced and changed many times since its conception as a Jewish sect. Greek philosophy, Roman schools, humanism, science, philosophy, and art have made significant contributions that have shaped both culture and Christianity itself, more often in spite of Christianity than because of it.
We must also remind Christians that although they may preach peace and love, the belief has not prevented Christian nations from declaring wars or performing massacres, not even to victims that were Christians, too. History has ample evidence that Christianity is no guarantee that individuals or states behave sensibly or humanely, and that a meek and humble Christian is a rare sight.
Atheists have no need to declare a war on God. The Christians themselves defanged their God long ago. But more than ever, we need watchdogs to keep a watchful eye on Christianity to prevent it from appropriating undeserved credit, and that requires a level of criticism that is founded on skill and knowledge rather than personal feelings.
Buzzword Criticism
The atheism that is found in the US is the kind of atheism that can be expected in a country where religion is widespread and deeply ingrained in the population's minds. It's the kind of atheism that considers the religious people stupid, and nonetheless takes the debates onto the religious turf where the believers have the edge. "Celebrity atheist" Richard Dawkins represents this kind of atheism.
The critical view on Christianity is one thing that virtually all atheists can agree on, but the criticism is not always well targeted.Part of the reason that the criticism often misses the point is that many atheists copy the slogans of famous atheists and the rhetoric of old philosophers, and this can easily place the criticism out of context. People often misunderstand the original meaning behind the powerful statements.
Another problem with anti-Christian slogans is a confusion between personal opinions and what can be accepted as valid arguments based on factual evidence, valid methods, and logic.
It requires no background study or field knowledge to consider Christians stupid, but if you want to propose a generally valid criticism of specific Christian teachings or historical actions, then you must keep your facts straight and your arguments tight. Otherwise you'll soon find yourself being wrong on several accounts, rendering you the ignorant person, which probably isn't what you had in mind.
Modern Christianity without God and Bible
It is Christianity itself that gave birth to the critical view of religion, and it is Christianity that mostly eliminated the concept of a highly present and tangible God by means of philosophy and theology. God was once seen as the architect of plagues and master of miracles but is now mostly viewed as a somewhat nebulous entity with an influence that escapes definition. The Christian God has become a remote God that can no longer be seen and heard.
But in so doing, Christianity has also created a refuge for superstition which Christianity today shares with all kinds of religions and spirituality. The distinction between knowledge and faith has not only banned religion from science, it has also sealed the borders of religion from science, and its mythical inhabitants can neither be proven or destroyed by scientific evidence or philosophical arguments. The Christian God may have been weakened, but has found a safe haven in a metaphysical realm beyond the reach of science, logic, arguments, and philosophy.
Once a reference for the framework of society, religion has become one of many contributors to each individual's view of life and ethics, and its relevance is a question of personal choice. The contributions from religion are usually found as segments that require little or no involvement from the individual. The idea of "all or nothing" doesn't suit modern man; if something "feels right," then it is used. Bible study and church attendance is replaced with the daily horoscope, numerology, and magical beliefs in the power of healing and homeopathy, but no one feels any less Christian about that. This is the kind of Christianity that is found in my country.
Atheists are used to the common Christian mistake of portraying atheists as immoral, destructive, and subversive, and have often heard Christians contend that atheism would lead to the horrors of communism or Nazism, referring to their atheistic stances. (It is known that Hitler originally considered himself a Christian and later became critical of Christianity as he began to believe in a "higher being," but this certainly does not make him an atheist!) Yet it is the very same mistake atheists make when they renounce Christianity, believing or claiming that all of Christianity is like that of fundamentalist minorities, or that it is, or should be, like the Christianity of ages long past. Such an approach is ideological or religious, and makes sense only to the "initiates" of the sub-culture that defines this proprietary view.
Silly Superstition
Many claims of divine cause have been either refuted or become irrelevant by the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology. In addition, since Christians are fully aware why other gods do not exist, one would think them capable of applying the same rules to their own belief.
Hence, a Christian must be stupid to believe in the superstitious nonsense of entities that do not exist, some atheists argue. The entire religion is patently absurd in its reliance on metaphysics and miracles. Indeed, if anyone else made similarly outrageous claims, one would probably be stupid, or at least immensely gullible, to believe in them.
It is tempting to rely on the natural sciences to show better explanations than divine intervention, but since Christians themselves have debated what their god is and isn't for centuries and evidently become none the wiser in terms of belief, it will not help to thus further refine the image of their god.
The key is that the existence of the Christian god, the credibility of the miracles, and the veracity of the myths are entirely moot points as arguments against Christianity. Christians would disagree strongly on this issue, of course, but considering the nature of their other claims, one would hardly be wise to take their word for that.
One should instead take the word of the fields of science that study religions and religious people: sociology and psychology. These sciences teach us that Christianity, like any religion, encompasses a variety of feelings, morals, ethics, social structures, and paradigms. It is a frame of reference that helps organize one's perception of the world. The god is merely the "team mascot" of this frame of reference that is attributed great importance but in reality has very little to say, even if a team can be rather hysteric about its mascot.
It means that a person can be highly intelligent, as indeed some Christians are, and yet believe in mythical creatures and divine miracles, because this belief is the "executive summary" of the way they perceive the world. The belief in the divinity does not make any difference to his Weltanschauung; the belief is just an expression of his communication and systematization of his perception of the world.
For example, the concept of a Last Judgment should be recognized as an abstraction that summarizes some set of moral values and the belief that morals are intrinsic to the universe and cannot be escaped. A Christian may honestly believe that the abstraction exists, but since it is not the abstraction itself but rather the concept of moral it encompasses that is important, it makes no difference to this Christian if any number of predicted judgment days have passed unnoticed. The same Christian will be setting aside money for his children's college in spite of the impending doom that he believes in. It seems hypocritical, but it isn't: it is just his "language," and it is his morals that guide him through the day, not the anticipation of the Last Judgment.
Often the person can easily acknowledge inconsistencies between his belief and physical evidence, and yet believe in both, because religion encompasses an orthogonal set of issues to him which are in fact not contradicted by any physical evidence. A baseball team will abandon neither the mascot nor their game if you inform them that their team mascot is just a dressed-up actor, and the religious person will not leave his god behind either, because challenging the mascot has nothing to do with the game.
It follows that the many failed returns of Christ, the questions of whether God cares, or other such matters, are also irrelevant, except to a few fundamentalists.
Finally, both atheists and Christians agree that a miracle and supernatural events or beings are defined as impossible events and beings. The Christian can be fully knowledgeable in any field of science, and may happily embrace any natural explanation. To this Christian, miracles are miracles because they are not covered or governed by science and the laws of nature.
Biblical Errors
It is another common criticism of Christianity that the religion cannot be taken seriously because errors and contradictions in their Bible abound. If Christians insist on their faith in the light of glaring errors, then either it must be a result of ignorance or downright stupidity, the argument goes. But like before, stupidity is not the issue.
It is evident that the Bible includes its share of issues that are contradicted by today's science, issues that clash with modern moral, and passages that contradict each other. But, it requires a number of presumptions that one must be aware of to use this fact as reason to reject Christianity as a valid religion.
One must presume that Christians really believe that the Bible is of such holy character that it cannot be riddled with errors or omissions. If this were true, the argument would be valid. However, it is only a diminutive minority of Christians that deny the presence of errors in the Bible. Also, many of the biblical problems emphasized by American atheists are moral and ethical issues with the Old Testament laws, which according to Christian teachings were rendered obsolete by the inception of Christianity and thus do not apply to Christianity.
So, when atheists hold Christians accountable for biblical errors, not only do the atheists choose a theological approach that they share only with Christian fundamentalists, they also demonstrate lacking knowledge of the actual Christian use of the Bible.
A better approach to the Bible question is, again, to apply sociology. By recognizing Christianity as a religion, we can categorize it and analyze it using the tools for analyzing any other religion. We know that religion, and hence Christianity, needs no scientific proofs or elaborate philosophical arguments to fulfill its role as Weltanschauung for religious people. We know that, on the contrary, religion exists without these things. We know that religion deals with concepts that cannot be proven or rejected within the scientific framework. We know that it makes no sense to counter religious people with arguments that don't apply to religion.
The Bible is a very old Historical document, and it is not meaningful to discuss such a document by modern scientific and ethical standards. If nonetheless a biblical discussion is desired, then it is relevant to consider the fact that although Christians have used the same scripture for more than a millennium, the text has been interpreted widely different and used for highly different reasons throughout the ages. This means that as a critic, one can reject the statement that the Bible has a univocal message, and one can reject the statement that today's use is any more valid than those of the past.
Christians may also be challenged on the fact that they appropriate some sections of the Bible and leave others out according to personal taste; for example, the Bible's condonation of slavery is ignored today. This selective use of passages from the scriptures shows that the Christians themselves decide what is right and wrong rather than relying on their God's supposed authority on those matters: it is evidence that Christianity is only what Christians make of it. Like the wooden idols of long ago, it is the work of human hands.
The Murky Waters of Morals
Another common idiom states that knowledge is better than faith, and that religion therefore should be replaced with science.
It is certainly important to insist on knowledge within the cores of science, but the situation becomes complicated when one debates morals or discusses issues such as scientific ethics. Science can tell us much about our world, but it cannot explain how to live in it or what to think of it. Even if atheists attempt to find support in science, atheism is just as man-made as any other philosophy, religion, and ideology. Science and ideology cover distinct and mostly non-overlapping fields, and the atheist that claims that moral is derived from scientific data proves himself or herself unable to recognize which fields are covered by science and which fields are covered by ideology.
It is also worth noting that the atheists that are the most aggressive proponents of scientific superiority over the stupid spiritualists are often people that react ideologically rather than scholarly. One often finds atheists that on one hand consider themselves superior to those that believe in the Bible, but on the other side have a faith in science that is equally characterized by blind faith in authority, cultural background, and habit. They may be more right than the religious people, but their understanding and insight is not necessarily any greater. These atheists were just plain lucky to have more enlightened teachers.
A proper approach to moral questions must be the denial of objective truths that are independent of human beings, and one must deny religious statements as authoritative, that is, as statements that one should necessarily conform to. This does not imply that religious people are disqualified in social debates or as masters of their own lives, unless one wishes to (and is able to!) deny them their right of personal choice and personal opinion.
Modern Criticism
The above discards much of the present criticism of Christianity as obsolete, as it refers to a form of Christianity that does not exist. Today's Christianity is such a rubbery and vague concept that it is difficult to construct a modern and fitting criticism of the religion itself.
That does not mean that criticism per se has become obsolete. It only means that criticism must adapt as Christianity changes. Our most important task is not to denounce Christianity for what it was, or what it is among a few fundamentalists, but to remind people of what Christianity is not.
It is not relevant to discuss the veracity of the myths, the authenticity of the gospels, or the existence of God. Christianity must instead be challenged on its effect on society. If you were discussing Santa Claus, you would know it has no impact to conclude that Santa Claus cannot visit each home in the world within hours, and that the only issue worth debating and studying is what the myth of Santa Claus means to, says about, or impacts our culture. This is also the case for the Christian beliefs.
We must prevent Christians from claiming that Christianity and Western culture are synonymous. Christianity has played an important role in our History, but Christianity is neither the only nor an undebatedly positive or constructive contributor to our culture. Christianity itself has been influenced and changed many times since its conception as a Jewish sect. Greek philosophy, Roman schools, humanism, science, philosophy, and art have made significant contributions that have shaped both culture and Christianity itself, more often in spite of Christianity than because of it.
We must also remind Christians that although they may preach peace and love, the belief has not prevented Christian nations from declaring wars or performing massacres, not even to victims that were Christians, too. History has ample evidence that Christianity is no guarantee that individuals or states behave sensibly or humanely, and that a meek and humble Christian is a rare sight.
Atheists have no need to declare a war on God. The Christians themselves defanged their God long ago. But more than ever, we need watchdogs to keep a watchful eye on Christianity to prevent it from appropriating undeserved credit, and that requires a level of criticism that is founded on skill and knowledge rather than personal feelings.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
Art historians can tell us why some pictures have a strong emotional impact on us. In a free booklet (available in PDF format if you can read Danish) issued by the Faculty of Humanities at Aarhus University, Denmark, focusing on the topic "war," art historian Lars Kiel Bertelsen takes a closer look at the powerful and famous pictures taken after the World Trade Center attack and compares them with religious and nationalist pictures, which have a striking resemblance.There are comparatively few pictures available showing situations of horror, fear, and defeat from the World Trade Center attack used in the media coverage of the event. But there are numerous pictures of tired, heroic rescuers or survivors that escaped before the buildings collapsed.
One of the most famous pictures is that of the fire fighters carrying the dead body of the fire department's priest, Father Symon Judge. This picture is compared with the painting of Jesus being taken down from his cross to be resurrected from the dead. The picture receives the same symbolic value, presenting the dead priest as a Christ or a saint. It is quite remarkable in this regard that the priest's name was "Judge."
Similarly, the picture of rescuers raising the American flag in the ruins of the Twin Towers is a striking parallel to the famous picture from Iwo Jima during the Second World War where American soldiers erected the flag on the top of the island to symbolize victory.It is unclear whether the images were carefully selected by a skilled propaganda team, or whether they just had a strong emotional appeal to the American people who felt that the pictures communicated national history. Lars Kiel Bertelsen is convinced that in any event the pictures were consciously used to justify the Bush administration's "war on terror."
Regardless of intent, the choice of pictures expresses a cultural background—or a desired cultural background—that one wishes to communicate to others or reinforce in oneself.
In the case of the World Trade Center attack, the pictures communicate the Christian resurrection and victory which has been a recurring theme in the American rhetoric in the war against "the axis of evil." According to Lars Kiel Bertelsen:
“
”
The pictures have been displayed again and again. And there is no doubt they have had an effect. The US is expected to be resurrected as some kind of Jesus to pass judgment onto the guilty. And so far this resurrection myth has been used to justify two wars.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
Imagine that you know someone that believes in Santa Claus. We probably all do: little children often believe in Santa Claus. But imagine that this person you know is an adult person that honestly believes in Santa.
Now, I don't want you to think this person is stupid. I want you to imagine that this adult believer in Santa Claus is an intelligent person who is skilled at his job. He may even have attended university and graduated with high honors. He's easy-going and generally a nice person. Sure, he's not perfect, but on the overall you can't really point your finger at him. He's like most, except he believes that Santa Claus lives somewhere on the North Pole with his reindeer and little helpers, delivering your presents at Christmas, and he believes that he must behave nicely because Santa wants him to be a nice person.
It is easy to recognize that his good deeds are linked to his belief, because although he doesn't brag about them, he encourages others to note. It may be the little badge on his shirt stating that he donated to some charity, or the occasional mention that he is a board member at the local chapter of Santa-believers, who do good for the community.
In fact, I'd like you to think there's nothing wrong with this person. I think you'll agree with me... except for that Santa part, right?
Well, he's skilled and smart all right, and generally a trustworthy and nice person, and apparently his Santa belief makes him do good things, even if it seems a little quaint.
Yet, somehow you'd be a little hesitant to believing his judgment skills, wouldn't you? That is, after your initial surprise of learning that he believes in such superstitious drivel has worn off.
Perhaps you might secretly wonder if he's genuinely such a nice person, or whether the only thing preventing him from being nasty is his belief that Santa wants him to do good. After all, he would hardly believe that humans would do evil without a belief in Santa if he didn't think that he himself would do evil without this belief. You might also feel slightly offended because it means he views you as an evil person because of your disbelief. You would rightfully suspect him of not liking or trusting you, and you would rightfully suspect him of lying whenever he claimed otherwise.
He also maintains that morals and ethics are based on the belief in Santa, so in politics, negotiations, and human relations you'll find him rejecting the values and opinions of other human beings and ignoring human rights because he contributes more importance to opinions that are consistent with those that he believes are given by Santa than opinions differing from his belief voiced by mere humans. He is particularly skeptic against cultures that don't celebrate Christmas. The implication of his assertion that Santa's opinions matter more than human opinions is that human rights can be overruled by the belief in a supernatural, non-human entity.
All of a sudden, this person may not seem so nice. You should perhaps begin to seriously worry what might happen if your acquaintance doesn't get his presents for Christmas.
You realize that his nice behavior is motivated by an egoistic desire for the gift of Santa, that is, his actions are based on the assumption that Santa will give him presents for Christmas if he's behaved well. All of his good deeds are based on this egoistic desire. He believes that Santa will also give presents to anyone else that behaves well according to Santa's wishes. In fact, those people that have been struck by misfortune probably had it coming somehow, since they don't acknowledge the gifts that Santa will provide if they believe in him and behave according to his demands. If they need help, your acquaintance would rather have them profess their belief in Santa than take action or provide tangible help. He genuinely believes that a letter to Santa Claus is better than real help, and he will be happy to show his "helpfulness" by writing such a letter.
Santa is capable of performing miracles, such as bringing your son back safe from Iraq of Afghanistan for Christmas, or in other ways making sure you're reunited with your loved ones. It is the belief in Santa, not personal involvement, that makes the change, according to your acquaintance. Getting your son back safe from the battle field is a matter of belief rather than social responsibility, because your acquaintance wants belief and shuns the thought of responsibility to the responsible. Show your belief in Santa, if you wish to be granted a miracle, and deny the profane methods of the non-believers. That is also how he would prefer that you be treated at the hospital, because he considers this medicine thing to be disgracefully distrustful of Santa's abilities.
You had better hope there are not too many of his kind.
This attitude of his is either a corollary of his belief or symbolized by his belief, but it is in no way caused by, or indicative of, some fundamentalist stance towards Santa. The attitude is the same no matter if he keeps his belief half-heartedly to himself or flaunts it openly. It is that he believes in a supernatural authority that reveals his social irresponsibility and perception of other human beings, not the intensity of his belief.
The belief in Santa that seems a little eccentric at first has major implications that affect the person's life and the person's interaction with other human beings. It indicates how badly this person thinks of other human beings, and how poorly this person treats other people.
Now imagine that you believe in the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, or some third metaphysical being. Maybe now you know what I think of you. I don't mind your specific belief, because belief systems come a dime a dozen. I mind you, the way you are, what you think of me and others, and the way you treat other people, which are revealed by the fact that you believe. You might strike me as skilled and smart, and generally a trustyworthy and nice person... except for that thing about your belief and its implications.
Now, I don't want you to think this person is stupid. I want you to imagine that this adult believer in Santa Claus is an intelligent person who is skilled at his job. He may even have attended university and graduated with high honors. He's easy-going and generally a nice person. Sure, he's not perfect, but on the overall you can't really point your finger at him. He's like most, except he believes that Santa Claus lives somewhere on the North Pole with his reindeer and little helpers, delivering your presents at Christmas, and he believes that he must behave nicely because Santa wants him to be a nice person.
It is easy to recognize that his good deeds are linked to his belief, because although he doesn't brag about them, he encourages others to note. It may be the little badge on his shirt stating that he donated to some charity, or the occasional mention that he is a board member at the local chapter of Santa-believers, who do good for the community.
In fact, I'd like you to think there's nothing wrong with this person. I think you'll agree with me... except for that Santa part, right?Well, he's skilled and smart all right, and generally a trustworthy and nice person, and apparently his Santa belief makes him do good things, even if it seems a little quaint.
Yet, somehow you'd be a little hesitant to believing his judgment skills, wouldn't you? That is, after your initial surprise of learning that he believes in such superstitious drivel has worn off.
Perhaps you might secretly wonder if he's genuinely such a nice person, or whether the only thing preventing him from being nasty is his belief that Santa wants him to do good. After all, he would hardly believe that humans would do evil without a belief in Santa if he didn't think that he himself would do evil without this belief. You might also feel slightly offended because it means he views you as an evil person because of your disbelief. You would rightfully suspect him of not liking or trusting you, and you would rightfully suspect him of lying whenever he claimed otherwise.
He also maintains that morals and ethics are based on the belief in Santa, so in politics, negotiations, and human relations you'll find him rejecting the values and opinions of other human beings and ignoring human rights because he contributes more importance to opinions that are consistent with those that he believes are given by Santa than opinions differing from his belief voiced by mere humans. He is particularly skeptic against cultures that don't celebrate Christmas. The implication of his assertion that Santa's opinions matter more than human opinions is that human rights can be overruled by the belief in a supernatural, non-human entity.
All of a sudden, this person may not seem so nice. You should perhaps begin to seriously worry what might happen if your acquaintance doesn't get his presents for Christmas.
You realize that his nice behavior is motivated by an egoistic desire for the gift of Santa, that is, his actions are based on the assumption that Santa will give him presents for Christmas if he's behaved well. All of his good deeds are based on this egoistic desire. He believes that Santa will also give presents to anyone else that behaves well according to Santa's wishes. In fact, those people that have been struck by misfortune probably had it coming somehow, since they don't acknowledge the gifts that Santa will provide if they believe in him and behave according to his demands. If they need help, your acquaintance would rather have them profess their belief in Santa than take action or provide tangible help. He genuinely believes that a letter to Santa Claus is better than real help, and he will be happy to show his "helpfulness" by writing such a letter.
Santa is capable of performing miracles, such as bringing your son back safe from Iraq of Afghanistan for Christmas, or in other ways making sure you're reunited with your loved ones. It is the belief in Santa, not personal involvement, that makes the change, according to your acquaintance. Getting your son back safe from the battle field is a matter of belief rather than social responsibility, because your acquaintance wants belief and shuns the thought of responsibility to the responsible. Show your belief in Santa, if you wish to be granted a miracle, and deny the profane methods of the non-believers. That is also how he would prefer that you be treated at the hospital, because he considers this medicine thing to be disgracefully distrustful of Santa's abilities.
You had better hope there are not too many of his kind.
This attitude of his is either a corollary of his belief or symbolized by his belief, but it is in no way caused by, or indicative of, some fundamentalist stance towards Santa. The attitude is the same no matter if he keeps his belief half-heartedly to himself or flaunts it openly. It is that he believes in a supernatural authority that reveals his social irresponsibility and perception of other human beings, not the intensity of his belief.
The belief in Santa that seems a little eccentric at first has major implications that affect the person's life and the person's interaction with other human beings. It indicates how badly this person thinks of other human beings, and how poorly this person treats other people.
Now imagine that you believe in the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, or some third metaphysical being. Maybe now you know what I think of you. I don't mind your specific belief, because belief systems come a dime a dozen. I mind you, the way you are, what you think of me and others, and the way you treat other people, which are revealed by the fact that you believe. You might strike me as skilled and smart, and generally a trustyworthy and nice person... except for that thing about your belief and its implications.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
I can follow some religious fundamentalists that claim that atheists have no morals. But only with some interpretation, and only some of the way.
Most movements, including Christianity, define themselves according to "positive" and "negative" comparisons. A positive definition is when the movement makes statements about who its followers are, what they believe in, and what their opinions are. A negative definition is when the movement makes statements about what it isn't; for example, Christians will readily state in which areas their religion differs from Islam, and the various Christian groups will gladly explain how they differ from other Christian groups. A positive definition is the religion's "what we are" statement, and a negative definition is the religion's "what we are not" statement. Both are valid descriptions helping define the movement, and both are moral statements of what one believes in and what one doesn't believe in.
Atheism is only negatively defined. It rejects the notion of gods but there is no explanation of what atheism is instead. Atheism only implies a non-belief in gods. Moral questions are not covered by atheism. As a "movement," atheism has no shared interests to gather around--just like one doesn't create an organization with the goal of not collecting stamps. Atheism can easily state itself in negative terms (i.e., it is the disbelief in gods), but cannot state itself in positive terms, that is, atheism cannot answer the question of what atheism offers.
In short, atheism has nothing to offer, and the corollary is that since atheism doesn't have moral statements to offer, then it isn't atheism that contributes to any atheist's morals. Morals have to come from somewhere, and according to the definition of atheism, morals can't come from atheism. Both from a religious view and an atheistic view one can sensibly argue that if atheism rejects the concept of gods, then atheism also rejects the notion of god-given morals.
In the hypothetical situation where atheism was all alone, atheism would in fact lack morals, and probably no society could exist without these non-spoken rules of behavior. One can therefore argue that the various religions accusations that atheist have no morals are in fact true.
The mistake in such an argument is of course that although atheism may not offer particular ethical or moral views, atheism isn't shielded from society, and while atheism rejects the existence of gods, atheism doesn't reject ethics or morals. Atheism can easily include Christian morals or other kinds of morals, even if these morals happen to be founded in a world-view that involves the belief in gods. Modern atheism began to appear while belief in gods was widespread (and that's how things still are), and in a sense adopted the morals that were already found in these societies. It means that although atheists don't believe in gods, in practice they behave as if they did.
Atheists thus find themselves in a difficult position, because if they are to draw the consequences of the non-existence of gods, at least they must come up with a good explanation of why the existing morals can be accepted. It is a rather poor argument to state that existing morals should be accepted because their justification is the belief of many people in a particular god.
In practice, atheists choose one of two options when confronted with this question. One option is a rather shallow notion that one just follows a "naturally appearing" moral--where unfortunately one misses the devil in the detail that the moral that feels most natural happens to be the moral that one was raised to believe in by one's predominantly Christian parents. The other option is to consider morals as created by human hands, that is, to rely on, e.g., secular humanism or adopt ideas from, say, objectivism (although the morals of objectivism are highly reminicent of the ethics identified as protestant work ethics by Max Weber more than a century ago).
Atheists are faced with a hard decision: either they adopt the morals and ethics of the religious people they grew up among, or they must face the consequence of a world with no Heaven og glory bright and no Hell where sinners roast: it is a world with no supernatural purpose with life; it is a world where you have only one life which you're responsible for making the most of yourself; it is a world where no authority but humans themselves make the rules. As an atheist, you choose between the hypocricy of claiming atheism yet living according to religious beliefs, or you walk the talk by playing what the religious people have long considered the Devil's game.
Religion has something to offer, and not all of if is intangible. Religion provides a sense of belonging, the feeling of purpose in one's life, and in many cases a social network. Religion has an advantage that will keep would-be atheists from non-belief until atheists can offer an alternative to the emotional, physical, and mental gratification that religions have to offer.
Most movements, including Christianity, define themselves according to "positive" and "negative" comparisons. A positive definition is when the movement makes statements about who its followers are, what they believe in, and what their opinions are. A negative definition is when the movement makes statements about what it isn't; for example, Christians will readily state in which areas their religion differs from Islam, and the various Christian groups will gladly explain how they differ from other Christian groups. A positive definition is the religion's "what we are" statement, and a negative definition is the religion's "what we are not" statement. Both are valid descriptions helping define the movement, and both are moral statements of what one believes in and what one doesn't believe in.
Atheism is only negatively defined. It rejects the notion of gods but there is no explanation of what atheism is instead. Atheism only implies a non-belief in gods. Moral questions are not covered by atheism. As a "movement," atheism has no shared interests to gather around--just like one doesn't create an organization with the goal of not collecting stamps. Atheism can easily state itself in negative terms (i.e., it is the disbelief in gods), but cannot state itself in positive terms, that is, atheism cannot answer the question of what atheism offers.
In short, atheism has nothing to offer, and the corollary is that since atheism doesn't have moral statements to offer, then it isn't atheism that contributes to any atheist's morals. Morals have to come from somewhere, and according to the definition of atheism, morals can't come from atheism. Both from a religious view and an atheistic view one can sensibly argue that if atheism rejects the concept of gods, then atheism also rejects the notion of god-given morals.In the hypothetical situation where atheism was all alone, atheism would in fact lack morals, and probably no society could exist without these non-spoken rules of behavior. One can therefore argue that the various religions accusations that atheist have no morals are in fact true.
The mistake in such an argument is of course that although atheism may not offer particular ethical or moral views, atheism isn't shielded from society, and while atheism rejects the existence of gods, atheism doesn't reject ethics or morals. Atheism can easily include Christian morals or other kinds of morals, even if these morals happen to be founded in a world-view that involves the belief in gods. Modern atheism began to appear while belief in gods was widespread (and that's how things still are), and in a sense adopted the morals that were already found in these societies. It means that although atheists don't believe in gods, in practice they behave as if they did.
Atheists thus find themselves in a difficult position, because if they are to draw the consequences of the non-existence of gods, at least they must come up with a good explanation of why the existing morals can be accepted. It is a rather poor argument to state that existing morals should be accepted because their justification is the belief of many people in a particular god.
In practice, atheists choose one of two options when confronted with this question. One option is a rather shallow notion that one just follows a "naturally appearing" moral--where unfortunately one misses the devil in the detail that the moral that feels most natural happens to be the moral that one was raised to believe in by one's predominantly Christian parents. The other option is to consider morals as created by human hands, that is, to rely on, e.g., secular humanism or adopt ideas from, say, objectivism (although the morals of objectivism are highly reminicent of the ethics identified as protestant work ethics by Max Weber more than a century ago).
Atheists are faced with a hard decision: either they adopt the morals and ethics of the religious people they grew up among, or they must face the consequence of a world with no Heaven og glory bright and no Hell where sinners roast: it is a world with no supernatural purpose with life; it is a world where you have only one life which you're responsible for making the most of yourself; it is a world where no authority but humans themselves make the rules. As an atheist, you choose between the hypocricy of claiming atheism yet living according to religious beliefs, or you walk the talk by playing what the religious people have long considered the Devil's game.
Religion has something to offer, and not all of if is intangible. Religion provides a sense of belonging, the feeling of purpose in one's life, and in many cases a social network. Religion has an advantage that will keep would-be atheists from non-belief until atheists can offer an alternative to the emotional, physical, and mental gratification that religions have to offer.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
Ask any Christian about democracy today, and chances are he or she will tell you that democracy is part of the Christian tradition and that without Christianity there would be no democracy.
They are free to claim anything they want, of course, but one has to be unusually uneducated or religious (which happen to correlate well) to make such a claim.
No Christian country was democratic until a few centuries ago. Before that time, most of them were kingdoms where the church and the royal court had a well-functioning relationship, except in financial matters. After all, the king held his position by the grace of God.
Any insurgencies attempting to introduce semi-democratic kingdoms were quickly crushed as heretic. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, made his position perfectly clear in my country, which is today considered one of the best democracies in the world: when the peasant insurgents rose against absolute monarchy, Luther recommended that they be "slain as rabid dogs" for daring to oppose the god-given power of the king.
It is only within recent History that the Church has spoken for the people, and we need not go far back until the Church was opposed to the power of the people. Under the French Revolution, it was the priests and the royal people that lost their heads--the people was fully aware of its enemies.
One might argue that these examples aren't up to date, of course, so how about democracy in its original context? Well, that was in Greece: at that time, a non-Christian, polytheistic society, long before anyone had thought of Jesus.
Granted, that is long ago albeit quite authentic in terms of democracy, so perhaps a few visits to current or very recent Christian states where democracy thus must be guaranteed (were the Christian claims of democratic tradition true) are appropriate.
We can find interesting experiments in an African country where an army general insists on using the Ten Commandments as law, and where child soldiers are mutilated under a terrible dictatorship. In Chile, Pinochet was a sworn Christian, and near the cradle of democracy we have found Slobodan Milosevich, who was the son of a Christian priest and Christian himself. Perhaps these people had fallen by the wayside according to Christian self-righteousness, but how about a peaceful state such as the Vatican then? No, it certainly doesn't adhere to principles of democracy either.
But then perhaps at least the opposite is true: if we find democracy somewhere, then certainly that would imply the existence of a Christian state? Again, the answer is no. Turkey is a democratic state but Muslem. Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan are democratic states but buddhist. Israel is a democracy, but they're Jewish.
In short, Christianity is neither sufficient for democracy, nor necessary. It is a mixture of religion and politics when people equate Christianity and democracy or claim that democracy requires Christianity.
We can easily recognize the combination of religion and politics in the Middle East, but claiming to rule a country according to the will of Allah is no better nor worse than to equate democracy with Christianity. As long as democracy is equated with a specific religion, the peoples of the Middle East are going to view democracy not only as a change of politics, which is difficult enough, but also as a change of religion. Equating Christianity with democracy, Christians turn the conflict of a change of government into a religious conflict as well.
Christians of the West may consider that a dual victory, of course, but to an atheist democracy is incompatible with any authoritative religion. Democracy means that the mandate is given to the people. If one believes that metaphysical entities can overrule laws made by human hands, and that the rules set by these metaphysical entities are known by a theocratic elite that has convinced the people that they derive their authority from a higher being, then one rejects the core democratic principle of government by the people.
Replacing Islam with Christianity will be just as contradictory to democratic principles. It does not matter who you place above human beings, but whether you invoke such an authority at all.
They are free to claim anything they want, of course, but one has to be unusually uneducated or religious (which happen to correlate well) to make such a claim.
No Christian country was democratic until a few centuries ago. Before that time, most of them were kingdoms where the church and the royal court had a well-functioning relationship, except in financial matters. After all, the king held his position by the grace of God.
Any insurgencies attempting to introduce semi-democratic kingdoms were quickly crushed as heretic. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, made his position perfectly clear in my country, which is today considered one of the best democracies in the world: when the peasant insurgents rose against absolute monarchy, Luther recommended that they be "slain as rabid dogs" for daring to oppose the god-given power of the king.
It is only within recent History that the Church has spoken for the people, and we need not go far back until the Church was opposed to the power of the people. Under the French Revolution, it was the priests and the royal people that lost their heads--the people was fully aware of its enemies.
One might argue that these examples aren't up to date, of course, so how about democracy in its original context? Well, that was in Greece: at that time, a non-Christian, polytheistic society, long before anyone had thought of Jesus.
Granted, that is long ago albeit quite authentic in terms of democracy, so perhaps a few visits to current or very recent Christian states where democracy thus must be guaranteed (were the Christian claims of democratic tradition true) are appropriate.
We can find interesting experiments in an African country where an army general insists on using the Ten Commandments as law, and where child soldiers are mutilated under a terrible dictatorship. In Chile, Pinochet was a sworn Christian, and near the cradle of democracy we have found Slobodan Milosevich, who was the son of a Christian priest and Christian himself. Perhaps these people had fallen by the wayside according to Christian self-righteousness, but how about a peaceful state such as the Vatican then? No, it certainly doesn't adhere to principles of democracy either.But then perhaps at least the opposite is true: if we find democracy somewhere, then certainly that would imply the existence of a Christian state? Again, the answer is no. Turkey is a democratic state but Muslem. Thailand, Taiwan, and Japan are democratic states but buddhist. Israel is a democracy, but they're Jewish.
In short, Christianity is neither sufficient for democracy, nor necessary. It is a mixture of religion and politics when people equate Christianity and democracy or claim that democracy requires Christianity.
We can easily recognize the combination of religion and politics in the Middle East, but claiming to rule a country according to the will of Allah is no better nor worse than to equate democracy with Christianity. As long as democracy is equated with a specific religion, the peoples of the Middle East are going to view democracy not only as a change of politics, which is difficult enough, but also as a change of religion. Equating Christianity with democracy, Christians turn the conflict of a change of government into a religious conflict as well.
Christians of the West may consider that a dual victory, of course, but to an atheist democracy is incompatible with any authoritative religion. Democracy means that the mandate is given to the people. If one believes that metaphysical entities can overrule laws made by human hands, and that the rules set by these metaphysical entities are known by a theocratic elite that has convinced the people that they derive their authority from a higher being, then one rejects the core democratic principle of government by the people.
Replacing Islam with Christianity will be just as contradictory to democratic principles. It does not matter who you place above human beings, but whether you invoke such an authority at all.
If you liked this post, share it with others:
Changing LINKS GeekySpeaky: Submit Your Site! Blog Directory
Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Rating plugin for Movable Type.
Recent Comments
India Web Design on First major release of Sociotags: This will
jagdbedarf on OPML Template for Movable Type 4.1: Quite usef
jagdbedarf on Terrorist Tycoon: Funny he a
Mitral Valve Prolapse on Easy Blogroll in Movable Type 4: Great litt
Mitral Valve Prolapse on How I Got a Google PR5 in 90 Days: Great arti
Holiday Extras Car Parking on A Tribute to the Devil: I totally
healthcarebpo on How I Got a Google PR5 in 90 Days: Wonder if
strategy games on Movable Type Plugin: Joomsayer: Looks pret
polisadem38 on Movable Type Plugin: Sociotags: MT 4.3 ins