Subject:
|
Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:32:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
407 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok, I've been thinking about this for a bit, and I'm not exactly where to
place it in the fray, so I'm just starting a new thread. (Also, I'll be able
to see the dots on this one in the event that people respond)
I think I've boiled down the problems I have with Christianity:
1. God's existence
2. Christ's signifigance
3. A Heaven/Hell afterlife
4. Ethical principles
The first three are rather simple nitpicks, I think. I can't really
logically argue against them, I just don't "feel" that they're right. But I
will grant that I can be wrong on those three points. The fourth is what I
really think gets me.
1. God's existence
Lar et all have beat this to death. The athiest principle is to love the
scientific method, see the http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7728
and read the article for a pretty good description. The religious principle
is different. Instead of "a claim is true if it is Falsifiable, etc", their
explanation is "a claim is true if God says it is true". Or something
similar. Actually, that's probably phrased badly. Anyway, correct me. I
didn't see an actual definition of truth from the Christian perspective. But
either way, the two methods for defining truth differ, and being
definitions, neither can be said to be more right or wrong than the other.
The only thing the scientific method has going for it is that it's success
rate has seemed much better than the religious method. It's pretty much
proven that it works, and it's the ONLY system (that I know of) that is
really objective. Hence, we can discuss it with each other, agree on certain
premises, and reach conclusions together. The religious principle doesn't
allow for that because it's fundamentally subjective. Again, that's not to
say it's invalid. But only a value judgement for the individual. If you
prefer objectivity, you'll opt for the scientific method.
And going by the scientific method, God's existence is unknown. One can
still believe in God, but one must (if going by science) concede that He may
or may not exist.
2. Christ's signifigance
Christianity by name and possibly by definition is the worship of Jesus. And
as such, it becomes based off of historical events. The problem there being
that those who aren't/weren't able to experience Jesus are/were at a
disadvantage. Some Christian sects may argue that Jesus is not NECESSARY to
salvation, but HELPFUL to it, but that doesn't really solve the problem.
Those who haven't experienced Jesus simply don't have the same help that
those who HAVE experienced him (Him?) have had. Bias based on location?
Culture? Time? That just doesn't seem fair to me. But again, going by the
subjectivist method, what's not fair to me may be quite fair. I wouldn't
know, I'm not the subject (Subject?).
3. Heaven/Hell
Here's one where I can't say much, because different sects of Christianity
all say very different things about this. There are different things I
object to in almost every definition of the afterlife. Suffice to say I
can't logically argue them, but I concede that they MAY be right, I just
don't 'feel' or think that they're correct. In fact, the opposite.
4. Ethical principles
Here's where Christianity loses the plausibility battle with me. I will
concede that any of the above MAY be true, even though I don't believe in
them specifically. However, I will NOT concede to Christianity's view of ethics.
1st of all, let me say that what I just said might make me sound like I'm
knocking the idea of being selfless, respecting others, etc, etc. I'm not.
My issue is with: A. What defines the rules for morality and B. Universal
morality.
A. Any good Christian would tell me that morality is defined by God. To say
otherwise (as far as I know) isn't Christian. I have a problem with that.
Someone brought this up earlier and I commented, but I didn't ever get a
real response. The problem for me is that if God defines morality, then my
'sense' of what is moral has no bearing on what truly is good or not. If God
wanted to, He could suddenly make being selfish, performing torture, or
stealing suddenly be virtuous. And I can't argue myself into believing that
such a change would actually re-define good. To me, ethics can't change so
instantaneously.
And of course, I have my own view of how good is defined. I think John Neal
asked for a satisfactory explanation of the source of good from an aethist
perspective. Here's mine. (BTW, I'm not necessarily aethist, but for all
intents and purposes, this could be an aethist argument)
The concept of good is a human development in response to the social
situation with which we are presented. Human society seems to do better WITH
a concept of morality than without one. Hence, as in any evolutionary
process, it develops into the society, being beneficial.
Let's take the ethic of "Thou shalt not steal". Humans love control [1]. And
in that sense, humans love predictibility. It's similar to control in some
senses. Hence, humans start to develop a sense of property. "That's my
favorite spear, I want to use it. I'm used to using it. It's mine. That
means nobody else can use it unless I say so." Voila. Property. Now Bob
comes along and takes my favorite spear. My predictible, controlled world
just went away. I don't like that.
Now, I could do a couple things. Maybe one thing I can do is to go get
another spear, and protect it more. Actually, now that I think about it, I'd
better protect ALL the things that are mine more. My cave, my animal skins,
my favorite drinking spot, etc. That's a lot of effort for me, but it'll
help to insure that nothing of mine is 'stolen' again. And maybe in the
process of safeguarding 'my' stuff, I'll have to hurt/kill other people like
Bob. And that's not just effortful, but risky, too! After all, Bob might be
bigger than me. And don't forget he DOES have my spear.
Another thing I could do is go steal someone else's spear. Maybe even Bob's
spear. That also requires a lot of effort. Especially if I have to go kill
Bob for it or something. And again, that's risky. Bob still might kill me if
I try and take my spear back.
But what if Bob didn't steal my spear to begin with? Wouldn't that be nicer?
What if Bob, before he took my spear, thought to himself "Gee, I'd make this
guy miserable if I took his spear. If it were *MY* spear, *I* would be sad
if it were taken from *ME*. Maybe I'd better not steal it."
And maybe Bob didn't think this because Bob doesn't know about property yet
(after all, I just came up with the idea a few minutes ago). But maybe *I*
now will learn what Bob 'should' have already known. And maybe I won't take
what I think of as other people's possessions. And the more and more things
that get stolen from me, the more often I learn this lesson. And chances
are, other people do the same thing. Cuz let's face it, the idea of property
isn't something ingenius or anything. And as this happens, our little group
develops a sense that stealing has bad results. And even later, that
stealing itself is wrong. Now, having learned it so much, if we see someone
steal something (even if it's not ours), we'll think of that person as doing
bad. And we'll refuse to like him, etc., until he 'learns' at which point he
can come back into our society.
When that happens, we get (in this example) a society that doesn't steal (ok
that's a little utopian, but you get the picture). And the people within it
probably enjoy their life more so than they did before now that their
property isn't taken. They don't have to defend themselves against theft,
and they don't have to spend their time worrying about it.
Hence, morality is a social code. "I won't do X to you, you won't do X to
me." And again, there's predictibility in there, which we like. We don't
spend time worrying about people breaking the code, because we come to
expect that code in others. And if someone violates the code we set out, we
don't like it. Both for the harm they've caused (or may have caused), and
for the fissure in predictibility they've made.
But back to the argument at hand. I'm sure there's a good Christian response
to that. Even some that allow what I've just said, by saying that it is God
that directs us to develop that sense of social code/morality, and that as
people go on, they will all develop their individual senses of morality
striving towards the same goal-- the ultimate ethic to which God is guiding
us, and as shown by example in Jesus.
But that gets us to point B. universal ethics.
B. I'll start being Neiztche-esque. What's good for the fox is not
necessarily good for the chicken he's about to eat. Good is subjective. In
that case it's obvious. In humans, it's not so obvious.
The point in the above (A) has a few central issues:
- People want things
- People develop a sense of what they want from experience
- People develop a sense of society (didn't touch on this one above)
- People develop a sense of morality from their sense of what they want and
a sense of society
In order for the "ultimate ethic" theory to be right, it's ok if people's
experiences or their senses of society differ. After all, they're all headed
to the same place by God-- so the experiences that lead them there need not
be the same, right?
The problem, though, is the more fundamental. People want DIFFERENT things.
They may learn a SENSE of what they want based on experience, but they still
FUNDAMENTALLY want different things. And even then, people that want SIMILAR
things want them to different degrees. To some people, X is more important
than Y, and to others, Y is more important than X, and to others, they're
both equally important.
Personally, I think there are two reasons that so many people believe in the
idea of a univeral ethic.
1. We WANT to believe it. If everyone's morality is the same, more
predictibility, etc. We WANT other people to believe what we believe. It's
easier.
2. It seems to make sense on the surface, because so many people's
moralities are SIMILAR. Almost EVERYONE believes stealing is wrong, murder
is wrong, respecting others is good, etc. So on the surface, it looks like
other people who have different moralities just haven't quite "gotten" it yet.
But I think morality differs from person to person. And before you even ask,
yes, I am more than willing to accept the extreme of this theory. If Bob
TRULY thinks it's GOOD (not just 'not bad') to kill me, he's justified to do
so. Doesn't mean I won't try to stop him, but it does mean I can put a moral
label on him, except if I'm sure to specify that it's MY moral label, and
not some 'universal' label such that EVERYONE should think he's evil or
anything.
Anyway. Those are my personal issues with Christianity. And with many
religions, I suppose, seeing as how most believe in a universal morality and
the unknowable (aka God, the afterlife, etc.).
DaveE
[1] Derived from "Humans have desires", "Humans try to achieve desires". And
taking it further, "Humans *only* act insofar as they percieve that their
actions will benefit themselves." Note- 'benefit' is not restricted to mean
carnal benefit.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| David: I hate to be so simplistic. But you've certainly written a great deal... and that deserves a response. However, a point by point response is probably inappropriate, not to mention exhausting, and would require more time than I certainly have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) That's good - many just blindly proceed along the path to destruction. Christ Himself said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
