I headed on over to the newly renovated Tech library to pick up some more to fill my cranium. I remembered that my friend Adam told me I should pick up "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertand Russell. My friend Evan, who is also an atheist had recommended it in the past, so I decided to finally quit procrastinating.
I haven't made it very far as of yet, but thus far it is certainly interesting. He seems to be quite bitter, but maybe that's just me. I think it's a terrible pity that he never got to meet Mother Teresa. If he had, he may have been able to add one more thing to the list that religion has done for the world. He mentions the calendar and Egyptians ability to chart and predict eclipses. I think religion has done a bit more for this world than he would admit.
My biggest complaint with him--so far--is his basic misunderstanding of human nature. In short, his belief in the possibility of utopia, a sort of heaven on earth. This belief is tragically misguided and not at all consistent with humans behaviours for the past several thousand years. Mr. Russell would claim that this is because we've always had religion. Until we set up an atheistic society, we may never know, although I am still quite sure that he is wrong.
If Christianity is wrong, this is at least one point is has gotten completely right. Plato's construction of a just society was a very noble concept, perhaps the noblest, but even if it was prefect, we cannot enact it. The Christian may be wrong that there is a heaven, but I've not seen a lick of evidence that there can be one on this earth.
First, to quote Mr. Russell:
"The second and more fundamental objection to the utilization of fear and hatred practised by the church is that these emotions can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. "
He then goes on to list various things that will need to be done, or rather not done.
"To save a child from hatred is a somewhat more elaborate business. Situations arousing jealousy must be very carefully avoided by means of scrupulous and exact justice as between different children. A child must feel himself the object of warm affection on the part of some at least of the adults with whom he has to do, and he must not be thwarted in his natural activities and curiosities except when danger to life or health is concerned. In particular, there must be no taboo on sex knowledge, or on conversation about matters which conventional people consider improper. If these simple precepts are observed from the start, the child will be fearless and friendly."
Ignoring the naivite which Mr. Russell brings to the issue, he is also quite guilty of hypocrisy. In order not to "arouse jealousy" and to "exact justice" is he not acting as a religious figure? How does he determine which moral code to use? How does one impose a moral standard, a religious doctrine if you will, without being relgious? And how will this result in a utopia?
As a Christian, injustice in this world is unpleasant and should be minimized if at all possible, but it is an intrinsic part of this world. I look to another world--perhaps foolishly--for a time when justice will reign. Maybe there is no other world, I certainly cannot prove my beliefs conclusively.
Mr. Russell is woefully pessimistic when it comes to religion and seemingly optimistic of the fate of mankind without religion. I shall continue reading because he has some answering to do. For an intellectually honest bright gentlemen, he surprising me for his lack of faith in a being greater than himself and his unreasonable faith in people just like himself.
Faith in God is reasonable. It may be wrong if there is no God, but it is only reasonable to believe in something bigger than oneself. Faith in man is absurd. Perhaps Mr. Russell's hatred and fear of Christians is causing him to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In short, don't blame God for His lousy followers
17 comments:
You believe that faith in God is reasonable. I believe that faith in something that I can't see, taste, smell, hear or feel, something whose only proof of existence lies in "miracles" and an old book that contains what many members of the scientific community know to be fiction, is wholly unreasonable. Faith in my fellow man I don't have much of either. But I have some. I know what mankind is capable of, because I know what I am capable of.
Why not blame God? He's not doing anything to correct His lousy followers.
Is it really faith if you can see it, touch it, hear it, smell it, and taste it. That seems like indisputable fact. It would be more logical to say you don't believe in faith. While literal interpretation often find disagreement with the scientific community, no position of the Church regarding "facts of the universe" is incompatible with known science. A simple education will show you that. And I'm glad we have people like you to be the benchmark of human capacity. Unfourtnately, or rather fortunately, we can't count on everyone to stay home, lock themselves at their computer, and blog all day.
Ah yes, the only proof for God is the Good Book and miracles.
Do you believe that your senses tell you the truth? We have no proof of that either. How do you know that those your eyes are reliable? How do you know that you aren't being controlled by some cosmic puppet master?
Obviously those are absurd things to believe, but then again, maybe it's not. I mean, if we can't prove things either way, why believe one way or another.
Life takes faith. There's no way around it. You put yours where you will. I'm sticking with my 2000 year old religion.
Perhaps Russell is naive in believing that religious brutality in general and Christian brutality in particular can be wiped from the face of the earth so easily. That does not mean that Christian brutality is not worth defeating; in fact, every stone cast at the monolith of Christian brutality, no matter ho small and insignificant that stone may be, is of benefit to humanity, liberty, and democracy. Perhaps we will never see a perfect world, but any stroke against Christian brutality has the ability and the possibility to show us a better world.
Despite all this, I do not believe that Christianity can be judged adequately by a twentieth century, bourgeois, British philosopher. Christianity and its concomitant brutality can only be judged by its victims. Christianity must stand before the victims of its infinite and merciless wrath. Christianity must be interrogated by these victims, must answer these victims, and must submit to there judgment. Christianity must answer to Barnett Slepian, to the victims of Eric Rudolph, to the children in the bonds of the LRA, to the countless souls broken on the wheel in inquisitions throughout Europe, to the Jews slaughtered by crusaders in Germany, Hungry, France and England, to the countless innocents slaughter by crusaders in the “Holy Land,” to the alleged witches hanging in New England or burning in Europe, to the victims of clerical fascism in Salazar’s Portugal, Dollfuss’ Austria, Pavelic’s (and the Ustashe’s) Croatia, Horthy’s Hungary, the Iron Guard movement in Romania, and the government of Vichy France, Franco’s Spain, etc. to the victims of the Teutonic Knights in Lithuania, to the residents of countless villages sacked during the Thirty Years War and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to the patients at the hospital in Ratchaburi held hostage by the “God’s Army” of Johnny and Luther Htoo. It is to these and unknowable others who have truly read the words of Christian “love” writ on the walls of their torture cells that Christianity must answer, it is these who should judge Christianity. I predict, should any such judgment take place, that the verdict will be “guilty,” but that is only a guess. But, since the human being is of such little value compared to The Lord, I doubt that the millions of millions (perhaps billions or billions of billions?) of murders which have been the bloody bequest of Christianity’s gilded estate are of little consequence to you.
That is harsh and intellectually dishonest. Yes, "Christians" have brought upon abuses and are guilty of blatant hypocricy. That is because the command of Christ is to, "be perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect." (Matthew 6:48)
It is important to remember that this is an ideal, not a standard. It is just as unreasonable to judge Christians by their "perfect" standard as it is to blame Christians for the faults of pseudo-Christians.
If we are to hold Christianity accountable for its wrongs, are we not to hold paganism and atheism guilty for its crimes?
The twenty million dead in Russia--among others--would indict atheism strongly. Should we toss atheism away because of Stalin?
If so, we are left with nothing. Gauge the beliefs of the true followers. Watching the hypocrites is an unfair and trite exercise.
The question is not whether we discard Christianity because of its crimes, or discard atheism because of Stalin’s crimes. However, it is important not to wash those crimes away by saying that the perpetrators were “pseudo-Christians.” To me, this is much the same as the socialists, your friend Loyal Achates included, who write off the crimes of Stalinist Russia by saying that Stalin was not a “real socialist.” This is the real intellectual dishonesty. What we need to do is not examine Christian or atheist or socialist crimes by referring back to the Christian or atheist or socialist “ideal” to prove that the criminals weren’t really Christians or atheists or socialists. On the contrary, we must examine the “ideal” and ask what within this “ideal” could have, and indeed did, cause these crimes. The only thing which, in my mind, deserves to be called, “pseudo-Christianity” is the Christianity which lives only in the delusions of Christians. The “real Christianity” is the Christianity which actually presents itself to the world. The “real Christianity” is the Christianity of Fascism, of the KKK, and of other forms of Christian terrorism. The “real Christianity” is the ideological blinder which allows one such as you to write off the crimes Christianity so easily (and with such intellectual venom).
The problem then is human beings. I'm being completely serious. Christianity, I feel, helps me live a better life. The reason I seem to casually dismiss past Christian crimes is because I do not know how to deal with them. It aggravates me that what I have found to be a beneficial force in my life has ruined other lives. In all honesty, I have no answers.
There is though, a bit of a difference between Socialism and Christianity. I'm not talking about the obvious differences in idealogy, but the goals of the respective philosophys. Socialism's goal is to make this world a better place. To establish a utopia if you will, or at least come as clost to utopia as one can get.
Christianity is concerned with the spiritual, at least in theory. This may not change its efficacy in your mind, but it is still important to consider. Of course, to the non-Christian, the outward effects are what is important.
I don't think I've cleared things up at all. The only standard with which to judge Christianity is not the correct one. Yet, although I can tell you that Christianity has been good for me, this is a bit of a copout.
Still, the "ideal" has led me to where I am. I could also point to many many Saints and holy men and women throughout the years who could say the same. Thus, the "ideal" does work, at least at times. I wish I could prove that it is a good ideal, but I do not think it would be intellectually honest to do so.
Thanks for an interesting comment. I shall think on this.
"The “real Christianity” is the Christianity which actually presents itself to the world"
Thats a pretty bold statement to make when Christianity is being presented to the world in a thousand different ways. Which one would you liek to pick as the representative? I have my choice, and as far as It's actions today, It's doing a darn good job. There is a real Christianity, it is not relative to the times. A refusal to be educated makes for a pretty thin condemnation, but a harsh one of the condemer.
Anonymous:
“Thats (sic) a pretty bold statement to make when Christianity is being presented to the world in a thousand different ways. Which one would you liek (sic) to pick as the representative? I have my choice, and as far as It's (sic) actions today, It's doing a darn good job. There is a real Christianity, it is not relative to the times. A refusal to be educated makes for a pretty thin condemnation, but a harsh one of the condemer (sic).”
This is a difficult statement to read and understand, jumping between points and topics seemingly connected only by the ineptitude with which they were stated. Nevertheless, I will not hold this against you; I am not always coherent myself. I will try to answer your comment as best I can in spite of these difficulties.
My point is not to say that there is only one “true” way by which Christianity presents itself to the world. I simply accepted for sake of argument A Wiser Man Than I’s assertion, in his earlier post that there existed a “true,” ideal Christianity against which any Christianity which actually exists in the world must be judged, and that the Christianity actually in the world, if it deviates from the “true” ideal in a way which A Wiser Man Than I disapproves of, can be simply written off as “pseudo-Christianity.”
To me, this is not an answer, it is simply a tool with which the Christian brutality of today is shielded from the criticism of the Christian brutality of past epochs. I compared this to some of my socialist friends who argue that Stalinist brutality, since it did not conform to the standards of “real” socialism—standards which have never existed in real life, but have existed only in the delusions of socialists (I used to be one of these delusional socialists). I’ll admit, you are right to say that Christianity presents itself to the world in a myriad ways. Perhaps I should amend my statement to read:
The “real Christianity” is the sum of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world.
This, however, does not alter the essential point of my original comment. My point was that the people who should judge whether Christian brutality should condemn the whole of Christianity itself are not Christians, who have a myriad of vested interests in denying the reality of the experience of the victims of that brutality. On the contrary, the people to whom Christianity must ultimately answer are its victims. For the Christian apologist to decide that Christianity, despite all its brutality, is still worth believing in is much like a socialist explaining to the survivors of the Gulag that their suffering is unimportant to the question of socialism’s future because they suffered under a “false” socialist regime. No, the victims of the Gulag and the victims of Christianity must be allowed to tell their stories, they must be allowed to interrogate socialism or Christianity respectively, and, if they see fit, they must be allowed to condemn socialism or Christianity respectively. This is because the question of Christianity is not something to be debated by erudite and ascetic scholars in seminaries or by A Wiser Man Than I or by even Bertrand Russell. The people who need education are not the victims; their education was forged in extreme heat between hammer and anvil. It is the Christian who needs to be taught by his victim because, when it comes down to it, the question of Christianity is not a spiritual one, it is a real question which plays itself out in the world. It is a question which presents itself as a terrible violence which seizes its victims and seeks to destroy him, to dismember him, piece by piece. We can have fun with these little pseudo-intellectual debates, but while we do there is a real religion at work out there, and it demands blood sacrifice.
"The “real Christianity” is the sum of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world."
If you go this route you'll either total zero, or slightly positive.
Christians receive their judgement by God as do its victims.
If you discount a philosophy/lifestyle/relgion because it has been the inspiration or has some responsibility for past atrocities, you will have nothing left. My inquiry is then, what do you suggest.
P.S. I get the whole slam my typos and trying to dedrage my opinion because of a few spelling errors a lot. I guess it helps people cope with a good argument a little better.
Anonymous:
“If you go this route you'll either total zero, or slightly positive.”
I don’t think that the sum total of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world would be zero or slightly positive. However, my whole point is that you should not be the one who decides what the sum total of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world is. I am saying that the victims, not the perpetrators, should judge. I understand that this is an arguable position. We could decide that we want the Stalinist judging what the sum total of socialism is; but I don’t think that is a good idea. Sure, you say that the sum total of the Christianities actually in the world is zero, or slightly positive; socialists argue the same thing about socialism. My point (which you still have not addressed) is that neither the Christian nor the socialist has the moral or political autonomy with which to judge the crimes of their beloved systems.
“Christians receive their judgement (sic) by God as do its (sic) victims.”
Great! By this is not what I was talking about. I am not saying that Christians need to be judged; I am saying that Christianity itself needs to be judged, Christianity, like socialism, has developed complex systems by which people, institutions, and even nations are judged, by neither Christianity nor socialism has developed a reasonable system for judging itself. Instead, both have developed strategies for evading the judgment of their victims. My point is that both of these strategies operate in much the same way and are equally reprehensible. I think I have explained my problems with these strategies enough, but if you’d like, I can explain them again sometime.
“If you discount a philosophy/lifestyle/relgion (sic) because it has been the inspiration or has some responsibility for past atrocities, you will have nothing left. My inquiry is then, what do you suggest.”
There are several interesting features about this comment. Most noticeable is how you talk about how a “philosophy/lifestyle/relgion (sic)” can be “the inspiration” or responsible for “past atrocities.” Firstly, some of the atrocities I’m talking about are in the past, some are happening as we speak, and some (I’m sure) are in the future. It is a major fallacy to imagine that these atrocities are somehow all segregated and quarantined in the past, and that the “new” contemporary way of practicing Christianity (or any other totalitarian system) is harmless. Secondly, you talk about inspiration and responsibility, but you leave out the most important word, the word which is hardest for the “true believer” to say: cause. The doctrines of socialism and of Christianity did their part (however large or small) to cause every atrocity which has been committed in their name in some way or another. It is an evasion to view these atrocities as deviations from the pertinent texts of socialism or of Christianity. We must instead look at what in the doctrines of socialism and of Christianity allowed for or prefigures the atrocities in question.
You also use the word “discount,” which I would not use. The point is not to discount a philosophy or religion, the point is to judge it, to examine and interrogate it, and to decide how we would like to proceed. Perhaps we do have to discount everything we judge, but I think it is silly to assume this before the judgment has taken place. Even if we were sure, beyond any doubt, that we would have to discard everything we judge, that would not be a sufficient reason to withhold judgment where judgment is due.
“If you go this route you'll either total zero, or slightly positive.”
I don’t think that the sum total of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world would be zero or slightly positive. However, my whole point is that you should not be the one who decides what the sum total of the different Christianities which actually present themselves to the world is.
I retract my position. I still maintain that it would be positive or zero. But do the actions of an evangelical indict the Church, and do the actions of the Church indict Lutherns? They must be veiwed separately.
"I am saying that the victims, not the perpetrators, should judge. I understand that this is an arguable position."
There is no argument, it's downright impossible.
"My point (which you still have not addressed) is that neither the Christian nor the socialist has the moral or political autonomy with which to judge the crimes of their beloved systems."
Socialism is a system, Christianity is not. It is a spiritual direction. When I said that God judges Christians, I was accepting the position that humans are not capable of performing supreme judgement. As much as you would like to judge Christianity as a whole it cannot be done. one of the ideas of Christianity is that you are an individual and responsible for your own actions. Not of others, nor they of yours.
"Firstly, some of the atrocities I’m talking about are in the past, some are happening as we speak"
Can you provide an example of an atrocity that is being sanctioned by the Church today? (the particular Christianity to which I belong)
"Secondly, you talk about inspiration and responsibility, but you leave out the most important word, the word which is hardest for the “true believer” to say: cause."
I think if something is responsible for something else, it is the cause. All my studies of science and logic have shown that. The difference between inspiration and resopnsibility is that which you are trying to point out, and I agree.
"The point is not to discount a philosophy or religion, the point is to judge it, to examine and interrogate it, and to decide how we would like to proceed." Perhaps we do have to discount everything we judge, but I think it is silly to assume this before the judgment has taken place. Even if we were sure, beyond any doubt, that we would have to discard everything we judge, that would not be a sufficient reason to withhold judgment where judgment is due."
Suppose is it possible to judge it, you obviously have an idea of what you'd like to do, please share. Why are you so bent on an impossibility? Just for fun, google "John Paul" "apology" "Church" "7", it'll be interesting. Would you have the vicitims of Islam judge it? What "system" would pass its victim's judgement? You've yet to offer a solution. Pointing out the faults in others is no way to progress if solutions are not explored or even desired. The Church has done more good for longer than any other religion, country, or organization. The amount of hospitals, missions, schools, and charitable acitivities far out number those of other groups.
There is a true Christianity and the choice of an individual to deviate from that is the fault of the individual, not the Faith. I challenge you to find one example of an atrocity committed while acting in accordance with the true virtues, principles, and ideas of the Church. Shall we judge a race by the actions of its members for the "advancement" of it (read: KKK, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam)? A Country (Germany, Japan, U.S.)? Or do you indict those who committed it, and prehaps review their logic and make sure others don't follow it? People can use cleverness to have anything justify their actions, but that's just cleverness.
You challenge me to think, I like that. Be careful with the (sic).
Anonymous:
It is interesting that you say, “You challenge me to think, I like that.” The whole problem with my comments so far, I think, is that I have not challenged you to think, because it is quite clear that you are not yet thinking. I have been trying, it is true, to challenge you to think, but unfortunately I have failed. I am not going to try to challenge you to think any long, at least not regarding this issue. However, your last comment poses several interesting questions, thoughtless questions it is true, but interesting nonetheless. I would like to address some of them, as an exercise while we wind up this whole line of conversation or, should I say, attempted conversation.
To my mind, the interesting questions posed by your last comment are, in the order in which they appeared:
1. Is Christianity a system or a “spiritual direction?”
2. What is the nature of judgment?
3. Is there a difference between cause and responsibility?
4. Why am I so bent on impossibility?
5. What system would past its victim’s judgment?
6. Can we judge a race or a state by the actions of its members or must we simply “indict those who committed it, and prehaps (sic) review their logic and make sure others don't follow it?”
For the sake of clarity I think it is best to take these questions in this order: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and finally, my favorite, 4. Here we go:
2. Is Christianity a system or a “spiritual direction?”
You seem to be suggesting, early in you comment, that Christianity is fundamentally different from socialism because socialism is a system and Christianity is a “spiritual direction.” I will readily admit that I have no clue what you mean by “spiritual direction;” however, I know what a system is, so I will try to answer from that angle.
In my mind a system, in the sense which I feel we are talking about it now has several characteristics which set it apart from a non-system. They are, I think:
A system, in the eyes of its devotees, explains the past and can predict, to some extend or another however imperfect, the future. Thus, modern physics is a system because it explains the past (the big bang theory for instance) and can predict in some fashion the future (for example, physics can be used to predict the movement of bodies in space.) Neither the account of the past nor the prediction for the future must be perfect or unchanging, it must just exist.
A system is also discursive in the sense that any action, thought, judgment, etc. can be referred back to certain fundamental assumptions, concepts, texts and/or individuals. Take, for example, a system like Marxism. Anything that a Marxist does, thinks, or judges can be referred back to, and evaluated based upon, assumptions (the dialectical conception of progress or the materialist conception of history,) concepts (class struggle or commodity fetishism,) texts (the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.) and/or individuals (the actual persons of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.)
Thus, the system can prescribe methods of right action which cannot be question or challenged unless the subject of that prescription steps outside that system. This “stepping out” can be either a stepping into a different system or, more promisingly, a stepping out into the murky, gray, intellectual, slush that is able, for a moment or two, to escape all systemization.
Now, I am not saying that a system must be all these things, this is just an on the spot abstraction I have used to help myself understand what a system is. Nonetheless, Christianity fits reasonably well into this abstracted concept of the system. I don’t think that this means that Christianity is not a “spiritual direction,” because, in reality, it can be both. Saying that Christianity is a “spiritual direction” is saying something essential; saying it is a system is not essential at all. Saying it is a system tells us nothing about the thing in itself, only about the way it is organized. So, I am sure, not all Christianity is systematic (certainly no Christianity was systematic until the 4th century,) but most of it has been organized into a relatively strict system, and if there were Christianity which existed or exists which is not a system, which was not systematic; it would probably not be recognized by most Christians as a religion; it would likely be classified by most as, in the words of the gentleman who writes this blog, an “amorphous philosophy.” But perhaps I am wrong. In any case, I am going to continue to treat Christianity as a system. You seem to suggest that Christianity is a system yourself later in the post when you discuss how there is a “true Christianity” against which the actions of individual Christians can be evaluated.
3. What is the nature of judgment?
Every evasion of judgment which you have offered has been offered within the context of the Christian system. To demonstrate this, perhaps I should quote you:
“When I said that God judges Christians, I was accepting the position that humans are not capable of performing supreme judgement (sic). As much as you would like to judge Christianity as a whole it cannot be done. one (sic)of the ideas of Christianity is that you are an individual and responsible for your own actions. Not of others, nor they of yours.”
This is not that different from what you have been arguing all along. You are saying, first, that you accept the assumptions of Christianity which (and here’s the genius of the system) will not, by its very nature, let you pass judgment upon it. If a system were created which could judge itself, I imagine that it would not last very long. It seems to me that the whole idea of systemization is to enforce some method of “right” acting upon people which, once enacted, will be relatively stable and unchanging. In practice this means a system must prevent people from thinking and judging because thinking and judging will cause them to act in a way which is not defined as “right” within the system. Because enough wrong acting is a threat to the power with which the system is imbued. Thus, very shortly after any system comes into existence, it beings acting for its own sake, and so will lose any inhibitions it might have had towards brutality.
However, I feel that there is another problem between us, which prevents us from communication effectively on the topic of judgment. I believe that this word, judgment, is much different for you than it is for me. For you, that word is dripping with religio-political significance. This is why, when I take about judgment in my comment, you answer me by talking about “supreme judgment.” When I talk about judgment, I am not talking about something so daunting, so powerful, so permanent, or so serious. When I talk about judgment, I am talking about all the decisions which mediate between thinking and action. So, for example, I think about whether to go out and water my flowers. I take into account the last time I watered them, how much rain we’ve been having, etc. then, after thinking, I make a judgment: yes, I am going to go water the flowers. Then, I act; I water my flowers. This is much more mundane than the judgment that I am suggesting in relation to Christianity, but it still follows that general form. Thus, not all judgments are supreme, and thus, I feel that human beings are empowered to make them, and even if they were not empowered to make them, they still would make them.
You also say, about judgment “you are an individual and responsible for your own actions. Not of others, nor they of yours.” I think I mentioned this in my last post, but I will mention this again, just in case. I am not talking about judging individuals based on the actions of Christianity, nor Christianity based on the actions of individuals, nor individuals based on the actions of others, nor others based on the actions of individuals. I am saying that Christianity—its ideals, its ideologies, its assumptions, its concepts, its texts, and its heroes—based on the reality of the brutality committed by its followers and/or in the name of one of its many sects, churches, congregations, etc. The altogether separate issue is: who is able to judge it? I answer this as well: those who are able to judge it are those who are not within its system, and those who are least in its system are its victims.
4. Is there a difference between cause and responsibility?
On this topic you say, “I think if something is responsible for something else, it is the cause. All my studies of science and logic have shown that.”
I would be interested to see these “studies of science and logic;” however, I do not agree with your premise that responsibility assumes causality. For example, we can agree that a father is responsible for the health and welfare of his young child. If that child gets the flu, then, the father is responsible. However, this does not mean that the father caused the flu (in reality, the flu is caused by an RNA virus of the orthomyxoviridae family,) nor can we say that the father can be the cause of the child recovering, although that may or may not be the case. Causality is a fact which can be proved or disproved; responsibility is, in my mind at least, a judgment. I say this because responsibility for something can only be determined after a process of thinking and also suggests a course of action which causality alone does not.
5. What system would past its victim’s judgment?
The question is not so simple is this. I have made it clear that I think judgment mediates between thinking and acting. Thus, the point is not to pass or fail judgment, but for judgment to suggest a course of action to be followed or discarded as illegitimate. This is not so much my system (for it does not explain the past ,or predict the future; it is not discursive; and it does not pronounce an action right or wrong, it only allows action to be taken, it does not comment upon the morality of said action) but it is as close to a system as I can get. It is really more of a broad analytic framework. I cannot predict what action this judgment will lead to, but I suspect that we have nothing to fear from it; however that is based on absolutely nothing.
6. Can we judge a race or a state by the actions of its members or must we simply “indict those who committed it, and prehaps (sic) review their logic and make sure others don't follow it?”
No, of course not. A race is not a system, nor is a country. Thus, we cannot judge a race or a country the way we judge a system, as you have said the actions of one should not reflect poorly on the actions of the whole nor should the actions of the whole reflect poorly on the one. However, we can judge the very idea of race itself as well as the very idea of a country. Personally I do not care for the idea of race, nor do I care for the idea of a country. I judge that we should quit thinking of ourselves as members of a race or citizens of a country. So, then I do not judge any race, but the idea of race itself, no nation, but the system of nationalism itself.
4. Why am I so bent on impossibility?
I don’t know, perhaps because possibility sucks.
We have wandered far from the original questions. You don't make clear the type of judgment. Do you mean to suggest that if it were possible we should just ask the victims what to do about Christianity? That's absurd. You toss around Christianity as if it were something malleable. If you study it, it is people changing and bending the concepts that leads them to the actions you so deplore. I cannot further the argument because you fail to realize that as a Christian, specifically a Catholic, there are certain non-negotiable premises. You can study that on your own, but I'm sure you know some of them (the biggie being the whole Incarnation). My rhetoric will have no effect on you, and yours will be as impotent on me if you don't recognize the position of a Christian. You have yet to offer a solution system. You throw (sic) around as if you are an authority, yet your posts are just as riddled with typos as mine, including counting errors. A father is not responsible for a child getting the flu, the virus is, and as it would happen, the virus is also the cause. A race is not a system, but the KKK, Black Panters, and Nation of Islam are. Same with the governments of the nations. One sided history will lead you to the conclusions you have. You don't need slants from both sides, you need the truth, and I suggest you look for it. You have not answered any of my charges. You are stuck on the idea of judgment as a decision and refuse to realize the reality of human nature. You've exerted a great deal of energy towards an easily defeatable stance. I will extert no more.
One last point Madman. You claim that:
"The altogether separate issue is: who is able to judge it? I answer this as well: those who are able to judge it are those who are not within its system, and those who are least in its system are its victims."
This is an absurd statement. The victims are part of the system, they are victims of it. Furthermore, according to your definition, no system is just at all. For victims will necessarily judge a system as reprehensible. I know of no victim who thought his or her system of abuse was acceptable.
Shall we ask the victims of humanity what they think of the human system? If so, we will be forced to toss out humanity all together. This may seem the sensible thing to do--at least according to your defintion--yet it is wholly impractical.
We must proceed to find the system which is most just, since all that inlvolve humans are unfortunately wrapped up in injustice. Applying this standard, despite all her wrongs, Christianity seems vindicated to me, a simple Christian, who is admittedly then, within the system.
High and Dry:
“You suggest that physics is a system and use the Big Bang to back it up. Is knowing how the gears will move an object a prediction of the future? Physics can tell the position a planet should have, but not if it will exist to be there. What/Who would you say is the "cause" of the Big Bang and what/who would you say is "responsible" for it? Physics can't help you there. You should invest in a physics course and a proof-reader. Thanks for the biology lesson.”
It seems to me that you are repeating my very point here. You say rightly that physics is limited in its ability to determine cause and responsibility. What I was trying to say about the nature of systems is exactly that: what a system can determine is limited by the nature of the system itself. Physics, like any other system, has a few stock concepts which are thought to possess agency (gravitation, electro-magnetism, strong and weak forces, etc.) If these stock concepts fail you have nowhere to turn, or, as you rightly say, “Physics can't help you there.” My whole point is Christianity itself is not thought of as having negative agency within the Christian system. Thus, to think about the negative agency of Christianity is impossible for someone ensconced in the Christian system; this is at least part of the reason that I have had such difficulty talking about it with these Christians. Of course, I don’t really no anything about physics, or anytime else for that matter, so I could be wrong.
I would say, just as a side note, that “knowing how the gears will move an object” is a prediction of the future. It is an uninteresting and banal prediction, but it is a prediction nonetheless.
p.s. What kind of madman would I be if I proofread?
I am new to this blog but these are my comments point by point.
Starting with the original posting by Wiser Man Than I...
"How does he determine which moral code to use? How does one impose a moral standard, a religious doctrine if you will, without being religious? "
***I think morals are a subset of religion; that is you can be moral without being religious. For generally to be religious is to be moral, but there are exceptions.
-------------------------------
Broken thimble…
"You believe that faith in God is reasonable. I believe that faith in something [...] is wholly unreasonable. Faith in my fellow man I don't have much of either. But I have some. I know what mankind is capable of, because I know what I am capable of.
Why not blame God? He's not doing anything to correct His lousy followers."
***If no faith in something bigger like god, and little faith in mankind, then what do you believe in, what keeps you going when life gets tough? What do you turn to? Material things, they will only bring temporary satisfaction.
***Mankind is capable of great things and tremendous destruction, and the only difference between the two is how we are guided. I fear that material things will only guide us to destruction.
***God has given us all free will; if God were to correct gods lousy followers would be to break that covenant with mankind.
-------------------------------
Anonymous said...
"...no position of the Church regarding "facts of the universe" is incompatible with known science."
***Usually true but only in hind sight. If the church we are talking about is the Catholic Church they didn’t pardon Galileo until sometime in the 90's, many hundred of years after the idea. And look at the destruction that was caused by the churches follies of that time, how many people were killed or maimed in the Inquisition? This goes back to my comment about the difference between our potentials is our guidance, and historically speaking church’s have guided us all too well into harms way.
***However on the other hand churches have guided us into a splintered unity of groups, but groups nonetheless; that has allowed us to achieve much more then any one individual could have achieved. So with as bad as some of the things that have come out of religion I think much more good has come out of it.
-------------------------------
A Wiser Man Than I said...
"Ah yes, the only proof for God is the Good Book and miracles. "
Don’t know who said it but something like this was once said, "A significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
***Miracles are like magic, so in due time I think we will find a scientific explanation for miracles.
-------------------------------
the madman said...
"On the contrary, we must examine the “ideal” and ask what within this “ideal” could have, and indeed did, cause these crimes."
***All actions are perfectly rationalized and justified in the minds of all who have acted, be it Stalin, Hitler or church leaders. Their actions might be atrocious but they are right in what they did, at least to them. These people act with what they know and what they desire, and sometimes they twist religion so that it justifies what they want to do. This is not an excuse for their actions.
***To know those motivations and be able to step in and correct rationalizations that would lead to atrocity is the solution.
-------------------------------
the madman said...
"...Christianity which actually exists in the world must be judged"
***Who are we to judge? You think you are wiser or smarter then those that made those decisions, and indeed you might be but you did not live under the same circumstances that they did; if you had you would have been them and made the same choices that they did.
***To judge is not our right nor should it, to know that the past was less then ideal and strive to prevent the same bad things from happening in the future is what we should do.
***Judgment is only reserved for your own actions and only yours.
-------------------------------
Anonymous said...
"What "system" would pass its victim's judgement? You've yet to offer a solution."
***One solution would be to challenge what you believe in, ask the questions that they wont answer, and find answers.
***You are a slave to your beliefs, to believe in one thing is to be a slave to one master; and power in one is easily corrupted.
***Christianity reads the bible, what ever version that it may be, but those bibles are distinctly similar in content. But there were upwards of 30 gospels when Christianity first started, it was then canonized into 4 gospels because there are 4 points to the compass and that’s a natural number.
Many of these original many have been recovered and can be found online take a look and enlighten yourself: a good source - http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
***Partial truth is the greatest of lies.
::::
..."There is a true Christianity and the choice of an individual to deviate from that is the fault of the individual, not the Faith."
***If the church does nothing to correct the wayward members is that not the same as endorsement? After all, "All that is needed for the triumph of evil so for good men to do nothing."
-------------------------------
the madman said...
"The whole problem with my comments so far, I think, is that I have not challenged you to think, because it is quite clear that you are not yet thinking."
***Remember: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it," ARITSTOTLE.
***Observation: Just because you don’t see Anonymous changing what is said means not that thought has not happened. And frankly as a new-comer to this blog I have seen progress.
***Also when the discussion moves from critical review of ideas and positions to criticism of people all progress is lost. Stay focused on ideas not people and their actions.
MOVING ON:
***You talk about Christianity as a system; my thoughts: Systems are a subset of ideals, faith generates a system of worship which we call religion.
STILL FURTHER:
Madman you move into a very interesting area now and I like it:
"...the whole idea of systemization is to enforce some method of “right” acting upon people ..."
***This is done in an effort to control people, and ultimately gain power for a select few who lead.
"...means a system must prevent people from thinking and judging ... act in a way which is not defined as “right”..."
***In the past yes, because the systems were to primitive (and corrupted) to allow for members to be critical of the system and still allow the system to persist. I think we are entering an age when a stable yet self critical system could persist, not that one has developed.
"...Thus, very shortly after any system comes into existence, it beings acting for its own sake,..."
***Any complex system will 'act' for self survival, neither baring complex behavior nor directed behavior. Thus to have a self critical persistent system one must be initiated with the proper protocols that elicit the desired behavior.
THEN:
***My position on judgment: I can analyze someone else’s behavior and actions, and disagree with them; to condemn them is to judge, and I can only do that for myself, not others.
FURTHERMORE:
"Christianity ... who is able to judge it? I answer this as well: those who are able to judge it are those who are not within its system..."
***Somewhat true, I think of myself as Christian, and I disagree with some rhetoric and positions that the church holds, so I am critical of the system I belong to, but I also hold positions that the church does not. However ask other Christians if I am Christian and they would say no; as I have already been called a heretic.
MOVING ON:
"…difference between cause and responsibility…"
***Causality is a subset of responsibility; that is you can be responsible for something and not cause it. But to cause something is to be responsible for it.
There can be multiple causes and responsibilities assigned for an event.
***As for your example of father and ill son: the flu caused the sickness and was responsible; AND the father was responsible for the sickness but didn’t cause it, as the father did not ensure the health and protection of the son.
Post a Comment