A basic question to consider is if Christian teachings prime humans for moral realism or for moral relativism. Moses comes down the mountain supposedly carrying the words “Do not kill” (Exodus 34’s Ten Commandments differ), and what does he do when he gets to the foot of the mountain? He orders the Levites to strap on swards and start killing their neighbors.
Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount is one of the most confusing morality quests one can try to understand. He actually contradicts “An eye for an eye.”
Christians may believe that moral realism exists, I will give you that. I just am at a loss as to what their basis for it is.
As an atheist myself, I do believe in a strong possibility of moral realism. In this respect I am the same as various religious types who say that the many religions are different aspects of the Divine, Truth, or Being. Sure different cultures have different insights on what is right or wrong, but there is a right direction and a wrong direction.
It isn’t religion. It’s tribalism, which is an older force in human society than religion–tribalism is basically how society began, and no religion without society.
Religion began as an expression of tribalism, but in its highest forms, rejects it–transcends it. It embraces the logic that all tribes are united under the being who created them all, and therefore we are all related, all one tribe (this is very powerfully expressed in the book Black Elk Speaks, which is an expression of Native American religious ideas).
However, each individual religion is also a tribe of sorts–as each tribe declares itself to be ‘The People’, each religion must declare itself the One True Faith, or else what is the reason for joining it, or remaining within it? A religion that doesn’t advocate passionately for itself as a distinct institution must soon be a dead religion (a good summation of what happened to European paganism, the ideas of which survive, but not the institution, which was subsumed into Christianity).
Tribalism remains a potent if confused force in modern society–potent because everybody perceives him or herself to have a tribe–confused because in the modern world, they aren’t tribes in the old sense, and most of us have more than one. And this makes us cling all the more passionately to tribalism, for fear of losing our tenuous sense of identity. Just being human isn’t enough for most people (I’m not convinced it’s enough for anyone).
There is legitimate persecution of Catholics in the present day–mainly in Northern Ireland, but there are other places. However, I think the ‘persecution’ referred to here is refusing to accept Catholicism as the One True Religion, to submit to its authority–which could be said of many practicing Catholics who refuse to follow what they consider outmoded strictures (such as no divorce, no birth control, no gay marriage, etc). Persecution means disagreeing. There is no active persecution of Catholics in the western world. But the tribal aspect of Catholicism–which is, on the whole, one of the least tribal Christian faiths, due to its global multi-ethnic nature, its universality–remains for those who feel their faith is threatened by modernity, by accepting people of other faiths as spiritual equals. How can this be, if there is only one church ordained by God?
Some personalities–of any background, including Atheist–can never be okay with this. They reject universality, they reject tolerance, they reject that they have anything to learn from others. They only want to teach, to impose their truth on all, because it is in their nature.
This didn’t begin with Christianity–you see a great deal of it in the Old Testament–the notion (seen in Daniel, which was the subject of recent discussion) that you just convert a few pagan rulers, and everyone will be Jewish (it never worked out as planned).
Christianity did a bit better with the idea, because it was less tribal than Judaism–impossible to maintain a separate Jewish identity, to be the Chosen, if everyone is Jewish–the conflict was impossible to overcome, and yet arguably no other people has contributed as much to the notion that we’re all one family deserving of mutual respect as the Jews, which one would have to say is pretty big of them–I guess you could say there was a pragmatic aspect to it as well. Minorities tend to be more tolerant, because universal tolerance is a minority’s best friend. (Hence Israelis tending to be much less tolerant than Jews in the Diaspora.)
I don’t know the answer to tribalism–I don’t know we can get rid of it. It may be too deeply embedded in the psychological matrix of our species. But we can at least be aware of it–and allow for it. And those of us who are Christian in some sense must realize that Jesus himself rejected it with every fiber of his being. If we are to follow him, we must leave tribes behind. Yes, he remained a Jew, he still saw his God as the true God, his organizing principles came from the Torah. But over and over, he denied that being Jewish was the key to salvation. The key to salvation was treating everyone you met as if they were family–as if they were your tribe. Your tribe is humanity. Or you have no tribe.
Very beautifully put, but as an atheist I must tell you that your basis for acceptance is not rooted in Jesus or ancient Judeanism. Its based on a part of our psyches that can see it is for the best. For every story of Ruth there is a story of an Ezra. For every story of Jonah there is a story of Purim.
Its religion taken in its partial form that is accepting, based on its circumstances. That is why Baptists, Jews, or Muslims are accepting of everyone when in the minority. They see the partial form of acceptance. When in power, though, they remember that Jesus compared the Phoenician begging for healing for her child to a dog begging for scraps off the Judean dinner table!
That religion remains powerful as ever is true. For some reason atheists do not reproduce as well as theists do (Catholics, I am looking right at ya!). That religion is impervious to reason is imbedded firmly in the… eh… faith. (There are highly intelligent and reasonable theists, they simply compartmentalize very well.)
I wonder if the Singularity will use religion on us, for us or against us.
As to Jesus and the Phoenician woman, leaving aside that we don’t know whether that happened or not, he finishes by commending her faith–and one could argue that he’s tired of having pagans come to him for magic tricks, like he’s some bloody sorcerer. She has to convince him she’s serious–and he’s delighted by the way she turns his jibe against him. It’s one of the most human stories told about him. Because she teaches him something. I believe Jesus was learning all the way through his brief ministry, which is why trying to understand him from this or that story is like catching lightning in a bottle. He would have been quite a different man by the end of those few years.
I don’t believe religion is impervious to reason–most of the greatest thinkers in human history have been theistic in some form or other–it simply resists arguments that undermine its core beliefs.
Well, that’s true of everyone, no? Religous or not. Try arguing with an atheist who wants to believe Jesus is a purely fictional character. Try arguing with a Marxist about the viability of ideas that have been more than adequately tried and more than adequately failed, at a cost that dwarfs even the most horrific religious wars.
Genuine faith is very rare. Pure reason–in human beings–does not exist. Couldn’t say about Vulcans. 😉
You are dancing around a couple of issues here.
The woman was pleading for her daughter, not asking him to water into wine to enjoy with dinner.
It is simply the religious belief itself that is impervious to reason, not religious people.
I wonder how one would measure genuine faith.
Pure reason may exist in psychopaths, I guess. They have to reason their way into emotional displays. Is a faulty logician unreasonable?
Back to anticatholic prejudice.
If you are going to hold onto any ideas at all, expect that you may find yourself on the outside looking in on other groups. Marxist living in the Right to Work states are going to be laughed at a lot. But they can still get a Meet Up group going and gather where they all feel comfortable.
FocusMyView said
You are dancing around a couple of issues here.
The woman was pleading for her daughter, not asking him to water into wine to enjoy with dinner.
It is simply the religious belief itself that is impervious to reason, not religious people.
I wonder how one would measure genuine faith.
Pure reason may exist in psychopaths, I guess. They have to reason their way into emotional displays. Is a faulty logician unreasonable?
Nobody ever asked Jesus to turn water into wine. He just did it that one time at a wedding. Mom said “do something” and you can’t say no to mom. 😉
The girl isn’t there. He doesn’t know what’s wrong with her (maybe there’s nothing wrong with her). Are you always compassionate when somebody tells you on the street that they need money to feed their children? Or do you sometimes figure it’s just a dodge to get drinking money (and a lot of the time it is)? The prejudices ran in all directions, in this diverse region. One could forgive him a touch of suspicion that she’s just another camp follower, and there’s nothing really wrong with her daughter (and if she was fine when the woman got back, then probably…..)
Now you and I don’t believe Jesus could magically heal anybody, let alone someone he’s never seen, and from a great distance. (Shall we add remote viewing to his paranormal skill set?) So that part of the story is made up. The part that feels genuine is him being brusque with her–then changing his mind–recognizing something genuine there. Maybe she’s one of the sheep. Maybe anyone you meet, of any background, has to be evaluated individually, not by group. This seems to mark the beginning of a change in his thinking–probably there were multiple incidents like this.
Let’s say in the beginning, Jesus believed that the Kingdom would be mainly or entirely Jews, because why wouldn’t he? Aren’t they The Chosen? Did John the Baptist minister to gentiles? Not that we ever hear about. He’s very much in John’s camp to begin with.
But as he wanders, and meets an increasing variety of people, drawn to his charisma and his reputation as a wonder worker, his thinking begins to change, his circle begins to expand. Most of these people he meets, whose character he approves of, won’t ever convert to Judaism. There isn’t time to convert them all, or even speak to them all. Would God send a good person to Gehenna when it was not their fault they never learned of the true religion?
If anything, he’s tougher on his fellow Jews, as you well know. They have no excuse. They have God’s word, and the wisdom of the prophets, and yet many are confirmed goats. Most of the worst things he says in the gospels are to his own people. (there are more comments like this in the subsequent gospels, and they sound less and less genuine).
Whatever really happened, this story serves a purpose in demonstrating that Jesus was open to gentiles, while still remaining a Jew. That’s the real point. He still prefers his own, but he’s forced to admit, the goyim aren’t all crazy. And some of The Chosen are not as Chosen as they like to think.
I believe the famous quote from that story is more or less real. But the exact circumstances that led to it would have been hopelessly muddied by the time anything got written down. The gospels don’t even agree whether the woman was Syro-Phoenician or Canaanite. (Did Matthew have something against Syro-Phoenicians too?)
It’s a story that was written down at a time when there was still a good-sized percentage of Christians who were Jewish converts, but increasingly outnumbered by pagan converts. I think it speaks to that conflict. But it most of all says that Jesus, while having the prejudices of his tribe (and was there ever a tribe without prejudices?), also had a great openness to others–and that he appreciated anyone with a gift for self-expression.
If we’re going to assume he was fully human, don’t we also have to cut him some slack? The best people still have bad moments. I have many. I will not judge him for that. Because I don’t need to believe he was God. And because I’ve said things I regret. And thought worse.
FocusMyView said
Back to anticatholic prejudice.
If you are going to hold onto any ideas at all, expect that you may find yourself on the outside looking in on other groups. Marxist living in the Right to Work states are going to be laughed at a lot. But they can still get a Meet Up group going and gather where they all feel comfortable.
Most union members aren’t Marxists, and speaking as a union man myself (who is very anti-Marxist, because c’mon, we know it doesn’t work as anything other than a form of historical/economic analysis, move on already), I roll my eyes at the ‘right to work’ thing. Really? So if I’m out of a job in your state, you’ll make sure I get a living wage? Do tell.
But yes, there’s a point there–there’s a certain personality type you can find in every group that is all gung-ho about prejudice–against their group only. There’s white men complaining about prejudice against white men. Everybody’s a victim, and people who complain about all the PC are themselves PC as all hell (a term that actually originated with the Nazis, migrated over to Marxism, and now it just means “don’t hurt anyone’s feelings.”)
This is especially offensive with Christians, however–because the whole idea of being a Christian is you worry more about other people. And Catholics are taught the Prayer of St. Francis. “May I never seen to be consoled so much as to console, to be understood as to understand.” Lip service much?
If it’s about being an ethnic minority who happen to be Catholic, that’s one thing–and it can still be quite real. But that’s not at all what this thread is about. It’s about prejudice against religious dogma that only some Catholics believe in. Not against people. Which is what a real Catholic truly cares about.
I’m not sure what this is a response to. I understand why Jews looking for a Messiah would care about whether he was from Judah, but why do we? I’m damned sure the Syro-Phoenician woman didn’t care, nor would she if she was Canaanite.
The problem with insider groups is all the outsiders–and as a Galilean, Jesus was one. That may be part of why he showed greater openness to other groups. Knowing full well that as a Galilean Jew, he was not going to be accepted as God’s messenger by the religious authorities. It might also explain why in the beginning he’d be wary of being seen ministering outside his group, given that religious Jews tended to avoid interaction with non-Jews, and there was already one strike against him, being from Galilee (I’ve read that a good percentage of Jews there were of relatively recent vintage).
It all gets easier when you look past the popular image of him, and just see him as a man, raised Jewish, influenced by John’s Apocalyptic beliefs, convinced he has a mission to fulfill, not always sure what exactly he’s supposed to do, making it up as he goes along–and as the son of a Galilean workman, he knew what it was to be poor, despised, outside the mainstream of his own society.
So in spite of the exclusive cultist nature of his beliefs, he begins to identify with all outsiders–including women, who have always been a most unlikely outsider group, being around half the human race, but who looks for logic in human affairs? Not Jesus. He’s looking for kindred souls.
FocusMyView said
“We like to say we shouldn’t discriminate based on religious views and I agree with that for the most part. But religion is not like gender or race. We choose our religion and it effects our beliefs/actions. So IMO it is not automatically and entirely irrational to make distinctions about people based on their religion.”
Are you suggesting its ok to discriminate against non-Catholics then? Yet you wonder why a person might discriminate against Catholics.
In-group/out-group discrimination is the default human setting. Some of us “think” our way out of this in nanoseconds, expressing ourselves as fairly as possible. Others seem to rationalize the default settings rather than try to overcome them.
“Discriminate” is a loaded term. It implies there is a wrongful distinction being made. Of course if someone knows I am a Catholic they may properly think I may have a different view of Second Maccabees than a Protestant, Jew or Muslim. If they thought I held a certain view about Second Maccabees based on my skin color or gender then we would tend to think that was irrational.
I of course agree we should fight in group biases and try to think rationally.
But it is not just biased irrationality to understand that people of different religions have different beliefs and those beliefs may effect their actions. We can all name religious cults that if someone said they belonged to one of them we would have second thoughts about them. And if someone says they belong to no religion then we shouldn’t assume they agree with the general moral codes of Christians, Jews or Muslims. So we would have less information about their moral views.
In real life, what percentage of the population, upon learning someone is a Catholic, immediately thinks “This person has a different view of Second Maccabees!”–one tenth of one percent? Too high an estimate?
Exactly how bible literate do you think most people are nowadays? I’ve been coming here for years now, I’ve read quite a bit, I went to mass every Sunday for the first few decades of my life–I have no idea what view I’m supposed to have on any Maccabees. I could Google, I suppose. I’m not much inclined to bother.
Now in the olden days, there was talk of idol worship, Jesuits being treasonous foreign infiltrators, nunneries being harems for the priests, and the Pope being antichrist (I’m sure that’s still out there somewhere, possibly on the Shankill Rd. in Belfast), and there was a lot of talk about the immigrants who happened to be Catholic–Irish, Italian, Polish, etc–being lazy dirty drunken criminals and rapists, and you know, that doesn’t change so much as it shifts over to new arrivals (not all of them Catholic, since it isn’t really about religion), and eternal shame upon every descendant of poor Catholic immigrants who pours that filth on people from south of the border now. I may not know my Maccabees, but I know my history. How about you?
In all history, or recently? If the latter, here’s one example.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Me and all my coworkers were ordered to take an online workplace harassment seminar. And one example (stated to be from an actual lawsuit), a woman working at a laboratory who wore a crucifix was subjected to derisive language and behavior. She sued for harassment and won. However, it wasn’t specifically stated she was Catholic. I don’t know as it makes any difference. It would be harassment no matter what symbol she wore. It would also be wrong, even if there were no laws forbidding it. It would be equally wrong if somebody was harassed for wearing one of those Darwin Fish things, but I have no information about whether that ever happens.
Just about any identifiable minority is in danger of being subjected to discrimination (and worse). That isn’t the issue. The issue is what the person who started this thread means, and I think it’s more about people disagreeing with religious dogma than with the rights of Catholics not being respected. Nobody has a right to not be disagreed with.
FocusMyView said
A basic question to consider is if Christian teachings prime humans for moral realism or for moral relativism. Moses comes down the mountain supposedly carrying the words “Do not kill” (Exodus 34’s Ten Commandments differ), and what does he do when he gets to the foot of the mountain? He orders the Levites to strap on swards and start killing their neighbors.
Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount is one of the most confusing morality quests one can try to understand. He actually contradicts “An eye for an eye.”
Christians may believe that moral realism exists, I will give you that. I just am at a loss as to what their basis for it is.
As an atheist myself, I do believe in a strong possibility of moral realism. In this respect I am the same as various religious types who say that the many religions are different aspects of the Divine, Truth, or Being. Sure different cultures have different insights on what is right or wrong, but there is a right direction and a wrong direction.
The data suggests that Christians are more likely to believe in moral realism than atheists. There are good philosophical reasons for this as common sense understandings of morality are often difficult to defend on an naturalist worldview.
I’m not sure the commandment thou shall not murder was ever meant to prevent self defense or any other sort of defense.
Im not sure Jesus contradicts an eye for an eye as much as he takes it’s message further. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth demonstrates the doctrine of retribution. Retribution means the penalty should fit the crime and not go further. Vengeance was the more ancient method which would lead to punishments that would exceed the crime. Retribution is where we get important ideas including the view that we shouldn’t punish the innocent.
Christ takes that further and says we should love our neighbor so much we should agree to some injustice on their behalf as God does for us.
godspell said
In real life, what percentage of the population, upon learning someone is a Catholic, immediately thinks “This person has a different view of Second Maccabees!”–one tenth of one percent? Too high an estimate?Exactly how bible literate do you think most people are nowadays? I’ve been coming here for years now, I’ve read quite a bit, I went to mass every Sunday for the first few decades of my life–I have no idea what view I’m supposed to have on any Maccabees. I could Google, I suppose. I’m not much inclined to bother.
Now in the olden days, there was talk of idol worship, Jesuits being treasonous foreign infiltrators, nunneries being harems for the priests, and the Pope being antichrist (I’m sure that’s still out there somewhere, possibly on the Shankill Rd. in Belfast), and there was a lot of talk about the immigrants who happened to be Catholic–Irish, Italian, Polish, etc–being lazy dirty drunken criminals and rapists, and you know, that doesn’t change so much as it shifts over to new arrivals (not all of them Catholic, since it isn’t really about religion), and eternal shame upon every descendant of poor Catholic immigrants who pours that filth on people from south of the border now. I may not know my Maccabees, but I know my history. How about you?
My point was not to say many people would make that connection but rather that such a distinction would have more of a rational basis than if it were based on skin color or gender.
There’s anti-Catholic prejudice based on gender? New one on me. So they only dislike the male Catholics? Probably because they want to date Catholic girls. (Because who doesn’t.) 😉
I don’t see any rational basis for disliking someone on the basis of having a different understanding of scripture. I don”t think Jesus would either. He made that very clear when he told the story of the Good Samaritan. Your neighbor–meaning your brother, your sister–is whoever helps you, and whoever you can help. And no one who thinks or behaves otherwise is his follower in anything other than name.
Samaritans probably were disliked by Jews for religious reasons–because they followed an earlier form of the religion that gave rise to Judaism, and had become seen as a separate ethnicity, even though they were also Semites (there really never is a rational basis for any prejudice, unless you are a deer viewing a wolf, or something like that). Religion was a tribal matter, literally. It often still is (read the article on Northern Ireland I posted). But it shouldn’t be, and doesn’t have to be.
I think we agree on this, but I’m still wondering–as are others–what Damian King meant by anti-Catholic prejudice, when he started this thread. Catholics are of every race, every possible skin color, every possible gender and gender identity, many diverse politics, and I doubt there’s a nationality of any appreciable size that doesn’t have at least a few. I certainly think there is hostility towards the Church as an institution–sometimes for good reason, often not–but any powerful institution has enemies. And sins to atone for.
In the atheist book club I was part of on MeetUp, we met twice a month. Once was for the book of the month. Once was for genral discussion and support as atheists in the bible belt. Professionals were scared their bosses or clients would find out they were atheists. There income basically depended on fitting in.
Of course, if your professional circle enjoys golf and you hate it, you also have to fit in. Your income may depend on it.
It always sucks being in the minority. No matter which minority it is, and minorities are always regional in nature. And if there were no religion, that would be just as true. As Bart said, the problem is people, and we don’t have a solution yet. (Jesus’ solution of God getting rid of the bad people proved impractical.)
So which books did you discuss?
…what Damian King meant by anti-Catholic prejudice…
Not to be cynical or snarky but with a substantial portion of the US states’ Attorneys General suing the Church because of their coverup of the child abuse scandal, and examples such as this ** you do not have permission to see this link **, it’s not hard to hazard a guess. Who plays the so-called “victim card” better than Christians?
Personally I am “anti-Catholic” only to the degree that I am “anti-Christian”, and I am “anti-Christian” only because I think their truth claims are false. And I take it on faith (pardon the awful pun) that it is a bad thing to encourage people to believe falsehoods.
But Catholics aren’t going to listen to the likes of me. Any real change will have to be driven from the bottom up and come from the laity. If people truly love the Church as they say they will have to use the power of the purse to force changes. The problem is I keep running into Catholics who think that all the Church’s problems are caused by a few “bad apples” or fixed long ago. And Pope Francis has such a nice smile…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)