![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackWhere do I stand religiously? Still atheist, about like you'd probably expect. Although more thoughts in a follow-up post.
Is there any particular religion I'm not? I think that's a question which is interesting in potentially several different ways.
I generally expect a religion to be something like "some combination of a culture, a belief system about the supernatural, and a moral framework".
Culture-wise, I'm very much english and vaguely CoE. I do Christmas, and Easter, and other english religious-instigated festivals, and I'd happily do other ones instead if I lived in a culture where that was normal, but it would feel very strange not to do ANYTHING for Xmas. I went to CoE things with school sometimes, and learned hymns and so on, and I hadn't realised how much I'd subconsciously absorbed how I expected religious services to work until I actively compared notes with people who had absorbed _different_ expectations: not just the obvious things, as the things I didn't even think to question (of course you bury people in the churchyard, right?)
And I'm also sopping up a steady trickle of Jewish culture from Rachel and Rachel's friends, and I really value having the experience of another culture, although I doubt I'd get to the point where it would displace my background as my primary religious-derived culture (unless I specifically made an effort to do so).
So in one sense, you might say my atheism is "CoE with the God taken out", although that's not really fair to CoE, nor to people who don't believe in God but come from different cultural traditions.
The other way of posing the question is, what, specifically, don't I believe? Well, basically, "anything supernatural" (where supernatural means something roughly like "outside how we expect physics to work",but you probably know what I mean better than I can describe). Which was always presented to me as a defining feature of religion. With emphasis on "and therefore you should obey this set of rules even if they seem horrible". That's what I'm atheist against, that's what I'm not. Although, my terminology may not be right, because that's the background I'm coming from, but I encounter more religious people for whom that is a small or non-existent part of their religion.
Is there any particular religion I'm not? I think that's a question which is interesting in potentially several different ways.
I generally expect a religion to be something like "some combination of a culture, a belief system about the supernatural, and a moral framework".
Culture-wise, I'm very much english and vaguely CoE. I do Christmas, and Easter, and other english religious-instigated festivals, and I'd happily do other ones instead if I lived in a culture where that was normal, but it would feel very strange not to do ANYTHING for Xmas. I went to CoE things with school sometimes, and learned hymns and so on, and I hadn't realised how much I'd subconsciously absorbed how I expected religious services to work until I actively compared notes with people who had absorbed _different_ expectations: not just the obvious things, as the things I didn't even think to question (of course you bury people in the churchyard, right?)
And I'm also sopping up a steady trickle of Jewish culture from Rachel and Rachel's friends, and I really value having the experience of another culture, although I doubt I'd get to the point where it would displace my background as my primary religious-derived culture (unless I specifically made an effort to do so).
So in one sense, you might say my atheism is "CoE with the God taken out", although that's not really fair to CoE, nor to people who don't believe in God but come from different cultural traditions.
The other way of posing the question is, what, specifically, don't I believe? Well, basically, "anything supernatural" (where supernatural means something roughly like "outside how we expect physics to work",but you probably know what I mean better than I can describe). Which was always presented to me as a defining feature of religion. With emphasis on "and therefore you should obey this set of rules even if they seem horrible". That's what I'm atheist against, that's what I'm not. Although, my terminology may not be right, because that's the background I'm coming from, but I encounter more religious people for whom that is a small or non-existent part of their religion.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-06 02:28 am (UTC)One would be: why aren't you Buddhist? I'm guessing you think it's false, or unimportant, or you don't know enough about it, or you regard it as too culturally alien, but I'd be interested to know how heavily each of those weighs and whether there are other factors.
Another: do you think CoE is more right in any objective sense than some alternative, or is your affinity to it solely one of familiarity? How conscious are you of the Protestant mindset and how it informs our national identity? (I reckon this is one of the most incisive and thought-provokiing articles the BBC has published in recent years.)
You say you're atheist against the notion of a requirement to obey rules that "seem horrible". Can you unpick that a little further? Do you mean you think it's impossible there could be a god that disagreed with your subjective morality? Or that it's impossible there could be an objectively horrible god? Or just that you don't want there to be such a god and/or wouldn't want to worship one if you somehow realised there was? Is there implicit in your stance a moral precept that people should endure an arbitrary amount of suffering rather than be coerced into an immoral act? If so, do you think you're actually that morally brave?
no subject
Date: 2014-12-06 12:04 pm (UTC)Why would I be Buddhist? I assume Buddhist here is a stand-in for "a religion compatible with atheism"? (If not, can you clarify, because the rest of this paragraph isn't going to be meaningful :) )
My Grandparents were somewhat interested in Buddhism, being atheist (when it was maybe more of a positive decision than now). For me, I don't really know enough about it, except that other people in similar situations to me have been drawn towards it. Presumably you could also ask, have I been interested in becoming an atheist jew, as some of my friends are?
To me, the answer is something like, "have you considered becoming French"? France has a very good culture, which I could choose to adopt, but I don't see the need to.
Even without thinking that one religion is more true than others, there are reasons to adopt a religion/culture. If it's both a culture you like, and/or provides a moral framework you find very useful without having to think of one from scratch. I haven't yet run into anything that suggests I should embrace it above others, but I might. I like the idea of officially belonging to a culture, but I'm also scared of doing so if I seem like I'm adopting everything about it, even the bad things.
do you think CoE is more right in any objective sense than some alternative, or is your affinity to it solely one of familiarity?
Mostly, I mean it purely culturally -- not a matter of right or wrong, but that is the culture I happen to have, like I happen to be English, not because I think it's "right" to be English, but just because I happen to be.
But with both, I think there are some aspects which are more correct in some religions and cultures than others: eg. if your culture/religion says "the Earth is 6000 years old", or "you should kill people if they have a different culture to you", I think they're wrong. I think the culture I grew up with is, you know, middlish, fairly ok, but not perfect, and my personal beliefs have grown in directions I think are correct (but still got a way to go).
How conscious are you of the Protestant mindset and how it informs our national identity?
I think it does, significantly, but probably not in a straightforward way.
Do you mean you think it's impossible there could be a god that disagreed with your subjective morality?
I guess I mean, it seems obvious to me that there's no sort of God. But I particularly dislike believing in God in a way that has effects that I see as harmful. But I'm much more sanguine about people believing in God in ways that I see as largely beneficial, and am more open to the possibility that even if we agree about something that seems central (whether the "God" bit is actually a correct statement about the supernatural status of the universe), their beliefs might be largely correct and that sticking point may not be as central as it seemed.
Do you mean you think it's impossible there could be a god that disagreed with your subjective morality?
If I had reason to believe there was a specific God with specific moral beliefs that I may or may not agree with, I would indeed have some hard thinking to do. I've considered in principle what I might think even though I don't think that's going to happen. Eg. if it seems like, even if I don't understand how, God's instructions are usually practically helpful or morally helpful, I would be inclined to trust them even if I don't understand why.
If you're proposing a God who wants me to do things that seem immoral, and threatens me with literal hell if I don't, then I don't really know. Likely I would submit, but I don't know if that would be enough -- people disagree whether submitting under protest "counts", and even if I do I might still think it was better not to if I had the courage to do so. But I think almost no-one actually proposes a tyrant-God as a serious theological suggestion.
Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-06 07:10 pm (UTC)But it also talks about selflessness, about the need to extend oneself, to break down the ego boundaries between the self and humanity as a whole.
I dabbled in Zen Buddhism at university. I admire a lot of its teaching about techniques for coming to an intuitive, subconscious understanding of concepts that are hard to express in words. I was challenged by its emphasis on selflessness.
Eventually, I shelved it, consciously thinking "maybe when I'm fifty". I decided it was enough that I tread on no toes while doing what I pleased, that my only duty beyond that was to leave the world no worse than I found it.
By sheer coincidence (at least from your atheist perspective…) I chanced to read last night C.S. Lewis say:
I wasn't like that. I knew I was thinking "not just yet". One of the virtues of the take-it-or-leave-it attitude of Zen in comparison with much of Christendom was that it gave me that clarity.
Broadly, I'm interested to know how your hierarchy of wants, needs and perceived duties meshes in relation to religion. And, not necessarily equivalently, how you think it meshes. :-p
Re: Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-07 04:58 pm (UTC)Re: Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-10 11:18 pm (UTC)I asked specifically about Buddhism because it seemed to tick a lot of the right boxes for you without ticking a lot of the wrong ones.
Re: Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-12 12:07 pm (UTC)However, some conceptions of buddhism believe in a literal reincarnation. I don't believe in that, just as much as I don't believe in a creator-god. Or a pantheon. Or nature spirits. Or ghosts. Or anything else supernatural. It just so happens that creator-god is by far the most prominent belief in the supernatural in my society, so my a-theism is more evident than my a-reincarnation, my a-ghosts, etc, etc.
And Buddhism isn't the sole purview of upstanding philosophy. In areas where buddhism is the default culture, people are good and bad like people everywhere. If you google for genocide by buddhists, you get current news reports, not nothing.
So I'm not sure how much "buddhism as religion compatible with atheism" is actually a fair idea, and how much it's been re-invented by western atheists and enlightenment seekers, and I'm wary of taking and interpreting someone's culture without really understanding it.
Like, it's definitely a possible approach, but I would basically be learning about buddhism from scratch, with no reason to think I actually agreed when I found out more about it...
Re: Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-12 07:26 pm (UTC)To pick one example, in Africa the emphasis is far more on spiritualistic practices, and people are much more afraid of demonic possession, a phenomenon scarcely given credence in the Europe and North America. To pick another, infant mortality in the UK was 14% in 1900 and below 0.5% now, which puts a very different complexion on conversations about whether to baptise people at birth or wait until they're old enough to make up their own minds.
It's all still Christianity, though. Similarly, by my understanding Oriental Buddhists don't regard Western forms as somehow invalid.
Though, as I noted to
Re: Buddhism
Date: 2014-12-12 08:34 pm (UTC)Since you bring it up, I've not studied Christian variations specifically, but I've some idea of how cultural beliefs can vary (even across Europe) -- but it's something that makes it hard for me to take anything talking about "Christian theology" seriously, when it seems like the things people would like to think are the "official answers" vary widely...?
merely to understand better why you're not interested.
I do think that's a relevant question. But it's not, there's something specific preventing me, it's "are the reasons to investigate further sufficiently pressing", and so far, I've heard generally positive things, that it's the sort of thing I might get a lot of benefit from, but so are a lot of other things I'd like to investigate one day, I don't have a clear idea that this one is more so than all the others. I get the feeling you're assuming that if I don't have a religion, I'm missing something, but I'm not sure that's true.
God and morality
Date: 2014-12-06 07:29 pm (UTC)Which are you more scared of? Doing a harm that you ought not, or omitting to do a good that you ought?
Throughout life, we're presented with a series of choices: to participate, or dissent. It can be a difficult choice, often very finely poised and requiring great wisdom. A given activity, affiliation, membership or whatever will usually have both upsides and downsides that are apparent.
So there are complementary errors. The first is to participate in, or continue to participate in, something bad for the sake of companionship, community, a quiet life, acceptability, laziness or whatever. The second is to disset from something good for the sake of individuality, free-thinking, integrity, self-centeredness, etc.
I realise I've spent a lot of my life being "highly individualistic", repeatedly priding myself on dissenting from this, that and the other, treading on a great many toes in the process, seldom recognising the opposite error, almost never considering I might be perpetrating it, absolutely never thinking that the individuality I valued, esteemed and even cathected so strongly might actually be selfishness.
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-07 05:11 pm (UTC)I think this is a good question, but I'm not sure of the connection to the quote of me?
I think your last paragraph is a really good description, and I'm pleased you've been realising this. I think I have been prone to the same fault a bit but that my biggest weaknesses are elsewhere.
You seem to be implying something like, "are the truths of religion evident to me, but I'm just rejecting them to be contrary. Is that right? I'm not sure that's what's going on. I think there are some messages I get from some religious approaches, and also elsewhere (eg. rationalism), that I am scared I can't live up to, but should try to do better at, like "don't worry that you can't be Jesus, try to do SOME reasonable amount more in being generous, both personally and through charities". And some messages I get from some religious approaches I'm pretty sure I don't want, eg. "never go to the doctor, just pray instead".
But I'm not sure I've got a complete picture of what you're asking here, do you want to ask more?
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-11 12:01 am (UTC)You said "I particularly dislike believing in God in a way that has effects that I see as harmful". That suggested to me that you were averse to faith that has harmful effects, even if it also has beneficial ones?
I know my faith has had harmful effects. But if viewed overall in a utilitarian fashion… actually, I have to discount the benefits for my immortal soul or we end up with Pascal's Wager. Simply in terms of how I live my daily life, the net utility is considerable.
Yes, obviously, never going to the doctor is silly. (cf the modern parable of the drowning man) Are you actually saying "I'm scared of becoming religious because if I do I'll stop going to the doctor", though? I'd assume not.
I don't think you're rejecting religious messages out of contrariness. Rejecting them because you're "scared you can't live up to" them is much more what I assumed, even before you used the phrase yourself.
do you want to ask more?
I'll ask this: why is that scary? What's scary about it?
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-12 11:28 am (UTC)The same reasons everyone puts things off! I'm scared to act on my political opinions because I'm not certain I'm right. I'm scared to look for a better job (with indirect benefits on my life) because I might end up with a worse job. I'm scared to be more generous because it might never be enough, and I might drain myself dry trying and failing to live up to an impossible ideal. I'm scared to even think about some of the things I should do, because I'm scared to contemplate how BIG the set of things is, that I should do but haven't lived up to.
But I think most people have things like that all the time! Religious or not. No-one lives up to their perfect ideals all the time. Whether I'm better than average or worse than average, I have been improving and striving to improve further.
I don't think you're rejecting religious messages out of contrariness.
OK. If you're advocating "I should do more of the things I agree I should do, but haven't been living up to", then I agree with that, whether you call it God or not. Yay for agreement.
But in this line of questioning we keep seeming to have come back to the idea of God telling me to do things I DON'T agree with (which I am willing to consider on a case-by-case basis, but not just automatically adopt). I had the impression you were pushing for something more like that?
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-12 07:45 pm (UTC)Congratulations — your first paragraph is articulating things that, before I was Christian, I felt as a gnawing worry deep inside without being able to articulate or acknowledge.
So I'm not sure most people do have things like that all the time. At any rate, not to that extent, not consciously like you do. My own experience is that for many years I was relatively contented with my life, not aware of anything obviously awry, then went through a couple of years of searching and disquiet. Now, I acknowledge and embarace doubts like you describe, without being scared of them. (Well, not much, and not often.)
I needed God's grace to see those deep flaws in myself. But at the same time God's love and forgiveness support me through that process. I'm very grateful it happened, is happening, like that for me; I can see how it would have been scary to see them without!
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-12 08:20 pm (UTC)I'm not sure most people do have things like that all the time.
I didn't necessarily mean they were conscious of them, but that most people have things they intend to do one day, but never get round to, often because there's something they're scared of but don't realise.
Like, from my point of view, recognising those sorts of things and facing and putting to rest those fears is a worthwhile sort of (non-supernatual) spiritual growth people come to in various ways: by introspection, by therapy, by pep talks from their parents, by mentoring from a religious or cultural leader, by self-help books, by a sense of God. I'm aware you would disagree -- presumably you would say that God is uniquely qualified to help us and the other things that help are imperfect reflections of that?
But I'm worried you don't realise how people can have different problems to you, that you assume most people have the same problems you had, but just need help to realise it, and that only the same path that helped you can help them. And I'm not sure that's true...
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-12 09:37 pm (UTC)Nope — I'd say God is uniquely qualified to help us and the other things are manifestations of His grace and love, whether people acknowledge that or not.
I mean, you talk of "(non-supernatual) spiritual growth", but I'm not clear what that means. For non-supernatural spiritual growth, don't you have to have a non-supernatural spirit? What's one of those? To put it another way, can one of Google's data centres exhibit spiritual growth?
Maybe a useful approximation is that God is to spirit as Universe is to brain. We ought to be grateful that by His grace we are blessed with spiritual growth, but then again we ought to be grateful we were created at all, so…
I know full well that in some cases I have different problems from other people, whereas in other cases I have the same problems but don't acknowledge this. It's often really difficult to tell those cases apart.
I don't (well, try not to) assume other people have the same problems as me. But I do assume everyone has that difficulty.
Re: God and morality
Date: 2014-12-12 11:42 pm (UTC)Maybe spiritual growth isn't the right word. I'm not even sure "supernatural" is. I think, there's nothing supernatural, no soul, no spirit, that exists in any way other than "the way neurons and hormones and physical brain bits are connected together". But that knowing the brain obeys the laws of physics doesn't tell you everything you need to know about it, the implications of the way it's connected are really complicated even though ultimately deterministic (or conceivably random, if you admit quantum).
So by "spiritual growth" I meant the sort of thing I describe above of realising where I was being held back from things by being scared; of general moral health and self-awareness. But purely as a "improve the mind in conscious and subconscious ways", not as "spirit" as a separate supernatural substance. I'm not sure if that's more or less similar to the ways people would describe it if they believe in a soul additional to a mind...
I don't (well, try not to) assume other people have the same problems as me. But I do assume everyone has that difficulty.
OK, then we may be on the same page after all. Several times it seemed you were trying to talk round to a mistake you were scared I was making, which is always possible, but I didn't think I was! :) But maybe you actually weren't doing that deliberately.
The leap of faith
Date: 2014-12-12 08:26 pm (UTC)Mmm. Or, looking back to the final paragraph of the posting itself, you said that you perceived a defining feature of religion to be the emphasis on "and therefore you should obey this set of rules even if they seem horrible".
I expect you're familiar with the tale of Abraham and Isaac, but I wonder what you make of it.
I assume that "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." is a pretty stark example of an instruction from God which seems horrible? It seems horrible to me.
It turns out — spoilers — that it was a test. Once Abraham had demonstrated his willingness to comply he found he didn't have to after all.
So the paradox is that there is, indeed, an emphasis on obedience to God even if He says to do something which seems horrible, while at the same time one has to be very wary of doing something which seems horrible in the belief that God wills it.
The story of Abraham and Isaac is by modern standards a crude encapsulation of that paradox. Certainly, one can't make God a promise to do whatever He says with fingers crossed, with a "but only on the understanding that you're not going to ask me to do anything horrible" qualification. Trying to pull the wool over the eyes of an omniscient being is the epitome of foolishness; it simply won't work.
People talk of the "fear of God" and, for the most part, it refers more to respect and submission than actually being frightened. But the actual commitment really is a bit frightening.
Re: The leap of faith
Date: 2014-12-12 09:21 pm (UTC)Looking back at that paragraph, I think I might not have expressed it as accurately as I could have.
The primary answer to what I didn't believe is "anything supernatural". And my background meant that I tend to view that in a way that has me self-identify as an atheist, but if my background was different, I might have come to a similar opinion in a different way. Eg. if I was Jewish, I might have revolted against the religion and identified as atheist if I belonged to a community which I had really bad experiences with; or I might have embraced the religion while rejecting the supernatural, if I really enjoyed the culture and community. And either way, my theological opinion on God might be the same, but one way I might say "atheist" and the other "jewish, who happens to not believe in god". Or other cultures which don't believe in god but don't expect that to be a central aspect of people's identity.
Likewise, I grew up with a background idea of religions that do say "and therefore you should obey this set of rules even if they seem horrible". And I still think that's a problem many religious communities and denominations are prone to -- but I'm aware that there are others who aren't, who might actually be much more similar to my beliefs than I used to realise, even if they're described in a different way.
So I was sort of hedging with tenses -- my background was in rejecting those beliefs, but that only partially represents my current opinions.
Abraham and Isaac, but I wonder what you make of it.
I could talk for hours about it, and about the differences in the way the story is told between the different abrahamic religions :)
For the purposes of this conversation, the interpretation I would offer is that if I trusted someone enough, based on their previous superlative morals and good sense, and that I'd often followed their advice and it turned out well even when I wasn't sure why, and they told me there was a really really really good reason to kill a child but they couldn't tell me why... I would at least consider that they might be right. In the real world, I would have to weigh up "there really is a good reason they can't tell me" or "they've suddenly developed intense delusions", and both are really unlikely, but I'd have to decide which is MORE likely on the spot. There are indications of both.
My most charitable interpretation of the abraham story is like that: we're supposed to assume that Abraham had sufficient reason to trust God it was for the best somehow. I think that's a Christian-ish interpretation, but I think many Christians/Jews/Muslims might disagree.
Other ideas might be like you mentioned in another comment, that maybe at the time, a child was seen as much more disposable... But I don't really like that better. I can actually consider, how much is it an artifact of our culture that we think killing people is bad? But I don't really want to drop that moral axiom! :)
From that interpretation, I'd say, the story sort of makes sense, but it implicitly relies on already having grown to trust God, not just blindly doing things because you're told to.
Another perspective might be much less moralistic -- that it's not a matter of good or bad, but that the God of that story needed followers who were dedicated to him, and the followers needed the patronage of God, so a bargain was struck... That makes sense as a story, but doesn't really seem to hold God up as a source of morality, compassion, justice, etc as Christian theology normally suggests?
So the paradox is that
I guess, I'm not really seeing it as a paradox. If I have some reason to think that actually, God knows better than me, even if it looks bad to me, then it makes sense to do what He says.
If you DON'T have a good reason to think that God knows better, then DO you thnk you should obey? Why SHOULD you obey? What reason is there for obeying? My argument would be, "well, if there isn't a good reason, you shouldn't".
You could potentially look at historical examples. I think you'd find lots of people doing things that seemed potentially morally correct but potentially unwise for religious reasons when other people weren't brave enough. That's a good indication it might be a good time to follow what you think is what's God's telling you. But there's lots of examples of people doing things that seemed horrific because they thought God told them to -- and we mostly think they WERE horrific. Are there examples where someone did something that seemed horrific but was actually right, because God told them to? Maybe some, but it doesn't seem common to me...
To me, the Abraham story is an aspect of conformity. Stories saying "obey" are really good as forcing communities to stay together. Which is sometimes necessary for survival in adverse conditions. But has serious downsides, like being dogmatic and hurting people who don't fit. Lots of communities have been quite tenacious by being quite devoted to blind obedience -- but it seems generally harmful to me...
But the actual commitment really is a bit frightening.
Yeah... I guess where I am is, if there was something which I thought was PROBABLY good, but I wasn't sure and wasn't fully in control over, would I pledge obedience? Maybe, but it would definitely be scary. But currently, I'm not even sure what pledging obedience to God would mean, and I don't see any reason I should, and I ESPECIALLY don't see any reason I would pledge to obey even if it seemed immoral. Why would that be a good idea? I don't know if it will come up, but in general, planning to NOT do immoral things seems better...?
Re: The leap of faith
Date: 2014-12-12 10:31 pm (UTC)If so, God's actual commandment to Abraham was different in nuance: it was to be the means of Isaac's death.
Now, some people take from that a message of "there's no point arguing with an onmipotent deity", which I feel misses the point slightly. At one level, one could argue with an omnipotent deity on principle. At another, however, if one believes that God made us able to argue with Him, it's worth considering why He did that. And, indeed, why He let us have a sense of right and wrong.
wasn't fully in control over
Yeah, that. I managed to get as far as believing in God without stumbling, but giving up control to God was much more difficult. Work in progress, even.
Re: The leap of faith
Date: 2014-12-12 11:35 pm (UTC)Interesting question, but I'm not sure how to answer. The historical Abraham? I doubt the story happened as described at all. According to the people who originally told that story? I assumed they didn't have a modern concept of God as infinitely omnipotent. According to a Christian understanding? I guess so, but I don't know how you reconcile most of the old testament stories with a God as omnipotent as commonly considered by Christian theology, to me they don't really fit.
Regardless, I think most stories like this implicitly admit that even if God could change the world however He wanted, he usually doesn't so we should act as if our actions have consequences.
one could argue with an omnipotent deity on principle
Indeed, there are lots of examples in the old testament :)
if one believes that God made us able to argue with Him, it's worth considering why He did that. And, indeed, why He let us have a sense of right and wrong.
Yeah. That's about my position, without believing that there was a God who made us. My morality isn't perfect, but it's the best guide I've got at the moment (including, sometimes the right thing to do being deferring to someone else's judgement, if there's a good reason to).
giving up control to God was much more difficult. Work in progress, even.
I imagine it's normal that it's an ongoing ambition, not a prerequisite. And hopefully that it's good for you.
Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-06 08:52 pm (UTC)Indeed not. But lots of people propose Gods which seem perfectly reasonable to themselves yet tyrannical to others.
(Or, to re-phrase in the way I prefer, lots of people who acknowledge God propose that He has some attribute which seems perfectly reasonable to themselves yet tyrannical to others. I'm not sure there's much semantic difference between talking about one God with two alternative putative natures or two gods with different natures, but in practical terms the former seems to keep people more honest and less confrontational.)
I feel a key issue here is pride. Someone who takes pride in their certainty about something cannot learn or teach. They are impervious to reason, and so lacking in empathy they can't convince others, either. If they're wrong, they can't be corrected, but even if they're right they can't gain supporters for their view, nor still have a constructive and instructive conversation with someone like-minded.
If someone says "I think it's proper to kill anybody who has an outie." to us it's fairly obvious that they have a problem.
If, however, someone says "I'm certain it's proper to kill anybody who has an outie, and I'll defend that stance to my dying breath." they also have pride as a second and more severe problem.
If someone says "I think it's proper to feed hungry orphans." — good.
But, more challengingly, what if someone says "I'm certain it's proper to feed hungry orphans, and I'll defend that stance to my dying breath."? I'd say they too also in a certain amount of trouble because, though on this one occasion they may be right, they're still taking the prideful attitude that they have nothing to learn about why they're right, the extent of their rightness, the broader applicability of their rightness. Oh, and they're getting into the habit of thinking that way about their views, which will go badly for them if they're ever wrong.
Those are stark and extreme examples; it's possible to be prideful in more subtle ways. Those might be superficially less harmful, but they're also less obvious and perilously easy to deny.
That much, I think can be justified on entirely pragmatic and secular grounds?
Now suppose God and Hell exist in some vaguely orthodox manner. It becomes possible to be prideful in one's dealings with God.
If one says "I'm certain it's proper to kill anybody who has an outie and I'd sooner go to Hell than admit otherwise.", it's pretty clear that tends to be self-fulfilling.
But even if one says "I'm certain it's proper to feed hungry orphans and I'd sooner go to Hell than admit otherwise.", it's hard to imagine God being pleased with someone so sure they have nothing to learn from Him.
Now, further, suppose that pride in all its forms is a really big problem, one that God is especially troubled by. (According to the account in Genesis, it plays a major rôle in original sin.) If God hears someone begin "I'd sooner go to Hell than…", is it tyrannical to stop them right there and correct that before so much as listening to the rest of the sentence?
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-07 05:27 pm (UTC)But being too full of doubt can be as big a problem as being too full of certainty. If I've already decided which things I'm fairly certain are immoral, and which things I'm not certain of and need more thought, and someone threatens me with physical violence unless I do something that I think is immoral, and I consider it thoroughly and still can't see any reason it's not immoral, how long am I supposed to go on neglecting all the other things I think are actually important, to consider that I might be wrong about this one?
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-11 12:54 am (UTC)The first is that this isn't (so far as I'm aware) directly Biblical. I'm speaking more of advice other Christians have given me, and my experience of the consequences and side-effects of trying to live according to God's will. Emergent Biblicism, if you like.
The second is that I'm trying hard to offer advice here without seeming judgemental, but I know I suck at that. If you think I'm way off kilter, or you think what I say is correct but inapplicable, please forgive me and then ignore me. And yes, I know there's a large dollop of hypocrisy here for me…
What do you need to have firm views about? Ultimately, the task in hand. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Does it help being sure about abortion if you meet a smoker?
Therefore, the glib answer to "how long am I supposed to go on neglecting all the other things I think are actually important, to consider that I might be wrong about this one?" would be "for so long as it's the problem in front of you".
So: what if God told me to do something I thought was immoral? I guess I'd have a problem. But the fact I'd have a problem in such a hypothetical circumstance does not mean I have that problem now.
This has been a major challenge for me in relation to bisexuality. I have to recognise that I am not currently falling in love with a man, so there's no problem. For many months, I challenged various ministers about doctrine on sexuality, and prayed earnestly and repeatedly to God about it. The ministers were cross with me and God maintained a very deliberate silence. Putting the issue on the back burner has been far more fruitful.
So I'm less certain than I used to be that homosexual relationships are every bit as valid as heterosexual ones. I'm less certain of a lot of things. I have more doubt than I ever thought possible. And yet I am able to act with far greater clarity.
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 11:04 am (UTC)Remember, from my point of view, "people I know, like and respect say it worked well for them" is a much HIGHER endorsement than "being biblical" :)
what if God told me to do something I thought was immoral? I guess I'd have a problem. But the fact I'd have a problem in such a hypothetical circumstance does not mean I have that problem now.
Well, I think that's perfectly ok! I've faced that question on a smaller scale eg. there are people I respect a lot, and because they're so often right about difficult questions, if I disagree with them, I will assume I'm likely missing something. And if it ever comes up, I am ready to admit that I think they're flat-out wrong about something, but it's hard to think about that in advance.
But that's based on your (presumed) experience that what God tells you is usually right?
I said, "I wouldn't like to follow a religion which included God telling me to do things I think are immoral". By which I mean especially blatant examples like "refusing to see a doctor". You said, that's silly, and I agree, except that some actual real people actually believe that and I don't want to belittle that (even though I think it's a really bad thing when it happens). And then you asked, what would I do if God asked me to do something immoral?
I didn't just start talking about that out of the blue, I answered because it seemed you were asking me that direct hypothetical question. Now I wonder -- is it the case that you assumed that God would never ask me to do anything ACTUALLY immoral (like the not seeing a doctor thing), and that was so obvious that you didn't need to say it? Because now I can see that might have been what you meant, but that's NOT obvious to me.
If you're assuming that God will only tell me to do things that seem immoral because they're actually good, but I'm just wrong about them, then it makes sense to say, I should pay more attention if a message apparently from God. But I seriously don't think that's the case. The right amount of attention to pay to new ideas isn't "infinitely much" and I don't think you can dodge that by saying "live in the moment" even if that's often useful advice -- and given that, there must be ways to be too open to being wrong and ways to be not open enough to realising you're wrong. And I'm fairly sure where my flaws are -- I don't think my flaws are "that looks horrifically immoral to me, but I missed that it's actually a good idea" which is what I'm imagining here -- I think my flaws are more likely to be "here's a large thing I'd not considered enough" and "here's something I think is a good thing in principle, but I need to stop being scared it's beyond my reach and act on it right now"...
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 08:59 pm (UTC)You seem to be talking there about people you know personally. But what about authors you have come to know, like and respect?
As you know, I currently stop a long, long way short of saying the Bible is in any sense a perfect book. On the other hand, I am gradually growing to know, like and respect the authors somewhat more. Which makes me more eager to pay attention to what they say worked well for them.
As a case in point, I'd invite you — if you've got a moment — to read Romans 1:18-32. I'd read that, and found it very hard to like Paul as its author. But then
Suddenly, I started liking Paul a lot more. And paying more attention to what he said on other matters.
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 09:34 pm (UTC)There happen to be more of the former than the latter, but I'm not sure why.
I am definitely interested in articles like that, that put biblical authors in context and pull out the reasons we SHOULD listen to them.
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 11:20 am (UTC)I recognise that postponing that was hopefully a good thing for you at the time, but I do want to add things that you probably already know, but I want to emphasise, for when you may think about it again.
I realise I'm not actually a reliable hotline to what God wants! :) But you can be humble in recognising when someone else, a non-Christian, has something valuable to say. And you can be confident in your own sense of God, in knowing when what you already think IS right and you SHOULDN'T second-guess yourself.
The church hierarchy isn't always right! I assume you know this in theory (for one thing, there's multiple churches!) And I think for you, like me, it's really hard to accept there's something important you think that people in positions of authority are wrong about, without confronting them directly about it. But that WILL inevitably come up -- it's BOUND to come up about some things, and even though it's hard you can say "I think I'm right about this even if I'm not absolutely sure, but changing people's mind isn't my immediate crusade".
But I think being gay is ok, being bi is ok, being poly is ok, not just "everyone sins and we forgive them" but actually ok, not a bad thing in any way. And I'm pretty sure if Jesus saw modern society he would agree without qualification, without hedging. There's lots of things I don't think I live up to, that I can imagine I MIGHT be called to account for, but if Jesus ever asks "so, did you trust in love and compassion and doing what your heart tells you is right, or did you hurt a lot of people by following a bunch of laws that made no sense because someone told you that's what God wanted, but you knew in your heart was wrong", I can't be sure, but I'll take my chances with the first option, not the second!
And also, I think it's fine to say that you can't address this issue right now. But also, I think it's wrong to say it doesn't matter until it affects you personally. If you think those things are sins, that will bubble up in the ways you treat other people, I think that really matters.
FWIW, I'm not saying you should do anything about this now. Likely the right thing is, just go on as you are, but bear in mind, this might be something you think is right but can't change people's minds on right now. But I don't think staying in your current church means you must accept this.
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 09:10 pm (UTC)And, for example, I know I regret the rare dalliances I had with casual sex in my youth. And, to turn around the traditional argument that one shouldn't have sex outside of marriage, I'm sorry I didn't work harder to stay in a relationship with people I'd had sex with. So I've certainly shifted my attitudes somewhat. Maybe they'll shift further; maybe not.
One thing I'm clear on, though — I should be much more careful about what I do than judgemental of what others do.
Re: Tyrant gods
Date: 2014-12-12 09:29 pm (UTC)I'm scared by even that much shift in position. But hearted by the last paragraph of this comment *shrug*
I know I regret the rare dalliances I had with casual sex in my youth.
*shrug* I know this is something people often enter into ill-considerdly and it goes very badly. But I know for other people, it's completely fine. My opinions may well shift too. I'm very open to giving and receiving advice about things that might usually be harmful. But resistant to blanket condemnations...
I should be much more careful about what I do than judgemental of what others do.
Yes! That comment should be engraved for everyone!
That's really right, for lots of reasons: partly that we can't control other people even if we're right; partly that we can guide them but only imperfectly, due to imperfect knowledge of them; partly that sometimes we're wrong; partly we might both be partially right about different things.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-08 12:47 pm (UTC)I happen to know at a few removes a person who converted to Buddhism and became a Buddhist Nun. It's... not as simple as a lot of people seem to think it is? Like, sure, you can sit at home meditating upon the writings of the Buddha, and then maybe you can say "I am a Buddhist" but you miss out on a lot of the social/cultural/tradition things that make for positive community experiences. Buddhism has many sub-divisions, within different cultures, but most (all?) of them are very different to British culture, it's a huge upheaval in your life.
I think I'd have to have a huge strength of belief that it was absolutely the Right Thing To Do to entirely change my culture than merely a vague feeling that Buddhism is mostly nice.
no subject
Date: 2014-12-11 01:11 am (UTC)On the other hand, while it is difficult for people to practice their faith in an environment which culturally separates them from it, and from fellowship with other practitioners, that doesn't have to be the case. To quote the Cambridge Buddhist Centre, "Sangharakshita emphasises the Buddha’s core teachings and the need to integrate them with modern western culture."
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating that Jack become a Buddhist, just wondering why he does not, given his stated objections to religion. It's a rhetorical device to find out more about his reasoning.)
no subject
Date: 2014-12-07 04:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-12-07 05:29 pm (UTC)