I know that most people who aren't Christian, yet who live in a "post-Christian" or "Christ haunted" culture like that of America today, have at least some familiarity with the religion and could cite any number of reasons why they are not Christians themselves. Without assuming too much, I'd like to get a sampling of real-world responses to see what factors carry most weight in peoples' minds.
Some objections I have seen or could anticipate:
1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
There could be many more. I'm just wondering what objections carry the most weight for you, personally? And please don't say, "All of the above." Thanks in advance for your time and thoughtfulness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
For me personally, I'm just too scientifically minded... I don't have the capacity for 'blind faith'.
I believe in facts, proof, and even 'plausible believability' (which I find the idea of a god not very plausible at all), and have actually been called a 'narrow-minded moron' by religeous believers for saying this very thing.
Strikes me as very hypocritical.
Also, I simply don't agree with the mindset of 'if you're not one of us, you're wrong...' of course, that mindset doesn't sum up all believers, more so extremists and fanatics that bash non-believers like myself.
I also don't agree with religious families forcing it on their children, as young kids don't have the capacity or the option of saying "no, I don't think that's right" because they've been told that religion is the only way of life.
On a side note, I can see this thread becoming a bashfest, but I'll post this against my better judgement anyway...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-VINTAGE- BUB Reanimator UBU TezzTinkerToys
-LEGACY-- RUR SpellDelver UWU Superfriends with Benefits
-MODERN- GBG B/G GoodGrief GRG R/G Go[o]dstuff
-CHROME- GGG Mean Green WUB Spirit Tribal
-PAUPER-- WBG Enchantments RUG RUG Delver
-1v1 EDH-- UB Lazav's Grindhouse BB Death by Sheoldred
If I had a dollar for every time I missed playing a Counterspell ...
I'd be missing my Mana Drain s instead.
On a side note, I can see this thread becoming a bashfest, but I'll post this against my better judgement anyway...
I certainly hope it doesn't (and my years of experience with this forum encourages me to believe that it won't). I'm just looking for an honest metric of opinion among unbelievers. Admittedly, "willing respondents to a MtGSalvation thread" is a very small and skewed sample size; but it does provide data and just a sort of feel for how the query is received.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I hope it doesn't either, as I'd like to read other opinions on it as well.
Its a subject that interests me but its seems nigh impossible to be able to conversate about it with people as most are too worried about being 'PC' to even touch on the topic.
Thanks for bringing it up tho, I never would have had the balls to start this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-VINTAGE- BUB Reanimator UBU TezzTinkerToys
-LEGACY-- RUR SpellDelver UWU Superfriends with Benefits
-MODERN- GBG B/G GoodGrief GRG R/G Go[o]dstuff
-CHROME- GGG Mean Green WUB Spirit Tribal
-PAUPER-- WBG Enchantments RUG RUG Delver
-1v1 EDH-- UB Lazav's Grindhouse BB Death by Sheoldred
If I had a dollar for every time I missed playing a Counterspell ...
I'd be missing my Mana Drain s instead.
The issue of Christianity (and religion more generally) reduces entirely to the question of why the phenomenon continues to persist in society. The first thing that is important to note is that religion is an evolving dimension of social life: eg as social relationships become more generalized and cosmopolitan--even as they also become more stratified--polytheism is rendered inadequate because it is too splintered and insular (this ties in with the "Urban Revolution", caste systems, and so on)
This observation hints at the idea of a social role occupied by religion, which in turn speaks to the (philosophical) idea of rationality--ie if religion was out and out irrational FROM A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE then it would quickly fade into irrelevance and obscurity and become less than a bit player. (NB This discussion of rationality has nothing to do with its factual validity)
One of the more/most conceptual roles religion takes on is paring down the question at hand to its most basic elements. MONOtheism offers a hint that there is exactly one point/item in dispute.
Consider the idea of God. The first question is why He couldn't be a super advanced space alien. The answer is because such a being would be knowable, at least in principle. The idea of faith precludes this because it insists God can NOT be fully known, not even in principle.
Whatever part can be known we can shuck off since it is merely a superfluous appendage.
What remains? The answer is is the claim that things exist which are unknowable in principle to humans. This is a core argument and tenet of all religions.
There are two GLARING INSURMOUNTABLE problems with such a claim:
1. merely by conceiving of a such a thing we are already anticipating its know-ability. This seems like semantics, but it isn't. There must be some basis for humans to think of something in the first place. A basis which is EXPLICITLY denied in this case.
2 (or 1a depending on your perspective). Unknowability in principle is precisely the definition of NON-EXISTENCE. It could never affect humans or the material world in any way, shape, or form. It could not manifest itself in even such a limited way as to enter human conception. It literally would not exist for humans.
This demonstrates irrefutably that religion's rationality does not extend from any philosophical debate about the material (and non-material) world. Its enduring stature must be explained by some other complex of HISTORICAL factors.
The recurring theme has always been the perception of religion as an instrument of social OPPRESSION. The idea is akin to Pandora's Box -- the evil at the very bottom which the greatest care was taken not to loose on the world was Hope. Hope buoyed the downtrodden and allowed them to suffer immeasurable hardship and calamity without capitulating or wallowing in their misery. It was the one thing those who had nothing could cling to.
On a side note, I can see this thread becoming a bashfest
Yes.
And Pandas, I think you missed the obvious one: A lot of people don't believe God exists, or at least aren't sure what they think of the idea. There's only so much that their beliefs can really mesh with any belief system that confidently asserts that God does exist.
The issue of Christianity (and religion more generally) reduces entirely to the question of why the phenomenon continues to persist in society. The first thing that is important to note is that religion is an evolving dimension of social life: eg as social relationships become more generalized and cosmopolitan--even as they also become more stratified--polytheism is rendered inadequate because it is too splintered and insular (this ties in with the "Urban Revolution", caste systems, and so on)
Here are some of mine: 3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
I'd modify this point a bit. I'm not so concerned with young-earth creationists or evolution deniers; after all, they form a subculture that can be safely disregarded while leaving Christianity largely intact, as Christians are often quick to point out. Rather, I object to the core Christian notion that there is another path to truth -- through faith -- and that such truths are immune from examination through scientific methods.
The scientific method is not just a way of discovering truth; it's also a sieve for filtering out falsehoods. When you are willing to blow a hole the size of Delaware in the bulwark against falsehood that science provides, you've got problems. In other words, it's not just that some Christians are anti-science -- it's that Christianity necessitates that one let one's scientific guard down.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
Not just the classical logical problem of evil, but the evidential problem of evil, and all of its variants. Even the most sophisticated Christian theodicy is woefully inadequate.
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
And I'd add: 10. The orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption through human sacrifice is inherently evil.
The idea that human blood must be shed to pay for sins, which is common to almost all varieties of Christianity, is wicked on its face. This alone is a basis for the outright rejection of Christianity.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
Not just the classical logical problem of evil, but the evidential problem of evil, and all of its variants. Even the most sophisticated Christian theodicy is woefully inadequate.
The thread currently right below this one in the Religion subforum is a discussion on this very topic. Since discussion in it has stilted, would you mind contributing your thoughts to it that some new life might be brought to it?
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
And I'd add: 10. The orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption through human sacrifice is inherently evil.
The idea that human blood must be shed to pay for sins, which is common to almost all varieties of Christianity, is wicked on its face. This alone is a basis for the outright rejection of Christianity.
For whatever it's worth, not every Christian believes in either point. I certainly don't, and I agree that both have serious problems.
The existence of a counter-trend (IF this even counts as such, but lets talk generally for the sake of argument) merely affirms that (concrete) History is not monolithic or one dimensional. As always the context provides the final determination. Of course, at the same time it opens up other cans of worms revolving around WHY such counter tendencies continue to exist as well and to what extent they continue to hold Historical relevance, And I keep capitalizing History because we're talking really Big Picture here (hopefully that will head off some of the more vulgarized objections)
Its also worth mentioning that I specifically had the Hindu in mind when I wrote that the recurring perception of religion has been as an instrument of oppression.
The existence of a counter-trend merely affirms that (concrete) History is not monolithic or one dimensional. As always the context provides the final determination.
I have no idea what you're saying.
Here's what you wrote:
eg as social relationships become more generalized and cosmopolitan--even as they also become more stratified--polytheism is rendered inadequate because it is too splintered and insular
Granted, I have no idea what you mean by "social relationships becoming more generalized and cosmopolitan," as that's pretty vague, but as demonstrated by both Hindu and Chinese polytheism, it does not seem to be the case.
I think the major reason so many people are monotheistic is obvious: both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, and both have aggressive campaigns of monotheism; particularly Christianity, which became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and all of Western civilization to come, and was distributed as the influence of European culture spread.
I have no idea what any of that means, but as demonstrated by both Hindu and Chinese polytheism, it does not seem to be the case
Consider the extraordinarily sorry state that China and India found themselves in over the second half of the last millenium. A sorry state of affairs that continues to haunt billions of people today -- well over 1/3 of the world's population. European intellectuals of the last century wrote things such as "India has no history". Were they wrong? What advance came from there? What forward impetus? How did China go from the precipice of discovering the Americas 600 years ago to the beleaguered wreck that Europeans found centuries later?
Obviously none of this is directly attributable to polytheism -- but it does point us to societies that have been inextricably bound to/by a stagnant, regressive past and all of the accompanying traditions, mores, trappings etc
I think the major reason so many people are monotheistic is obvious: both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, and both have aggressive campaigns of monotheism; particularly Christianity, which became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and all of Western civilization to come, and was distributed as the influence of European culture spread.
That is what we call bassackwards. WHY did it become the dominant religion? Further, if you believe what you write--what you write confirms my initial point-- then your counterexample was intended as what? Contrarianism for its own sake?
I just think that given the situation we're all in now, God's abilities and traits have been greatly exaggerated. I personally think he stopped caring after a certain point which is fair to me. I also tend to not like the Christian people not because some of them are crazy (that does contribute though) but because most of them don't think rationally when it comes to God and Jesus which is disconcerting for me.
European intellectuals of the last century wrote things such as "India has no history". Were they wrong?
... Yes, of course they were. India definitely existed before the last century.
What advance came from there? What forward impetus? How did China go from the precipice of discovering the Americas 600 years ago to the beleaguered wreck that Europeans found centuries later?
Well, for starters, Europeans happened. You really should actually do some research on Chinese history.
Obviously none of this is directly attributable to polytheism
None of this is even remotely relevant to the question of polytheism.
-- but it does point us to societies that have been inextricably bound to/by a stagnant, regressive past and all of the accompanying traditions, mores, trappings etc
Except for the part where none of that is actually true. Hell, Chinese polytheism is of particular note because it's continuing to exist in a society that is a world superpower, and whose state-mandated ideology is Communism.
Christianity doesn't do it for me for so many reasons. One big reason is that there aren't any new teachings. If a religion were genuine then it seems like the deity wouldn't just stop sending down messages. The lack of recent revelations and universally recognized prophets leads me to conclude that the god of the Christians doesn't exist. Pretty much every religion suffers from this though so I'm not trying to single Christianity out.
Another big reason I'm not being a Christian is that it hasn't added much in the way of social good. I know people are going to say that churches are some of the biggest charities and were often patrons of science but that's glossing over the truth. The truth is that churches needed to be charitable given how much tithing hurt poor believers and how much the wars they fought on behalf of their own greed cost everyone in human coin. The church might have funded a lot of scientific research but the cost was that none of it could contradict the Bible or church doctrine. Later on Christianity was used as a way to justify slavery so Europeans could rest easy at night and so that slaves would be pacified and accept their enslavement as the will of God.
Lastly, I think Christianity has made people more ignorant. When I hear news reports of people refusing lifesaving medical treatment because they're waiting for the direct intervention of God or of parents not vaccinating because they feel prayer is a better shield against measles I cringe. If you know something will save your life but choose to turn your back on it why would your deity save you? What if that chemo was God's way of curing your cancer? Then there's the matter of creationism. It's just plain wrong and yet there is a generation of children being raised to accept it as fact. I'm honestly afraid for the day these kids come into the leadership of the US because the very basis of their education is faulty.
... Yes, of course they were. India definitely existed before the last century.
Every time you respond, you make multiple implicit assertions and I have neither the time nor the inclination to unpack them. This reply is a noticeable exception however, because you are simply being petulant. As you allude to and acknowledge in the same post, European history completely shaped the modern world They knew essentially dick about India except how to go about exploiting it. If their claim was right, how would things have turned out differently?
You appear to think it is a cultural issue, when it is not. You cite Europeans as an oppressive force on China. Well, no duh. Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever? Similarly, how did a completely inconsequential sect with extremely restrictive religious beliefs go on to become the breeding ground for a universal religion that waged those aggressive campaigns of monotheism you mentioned?
You keep wanting to state thing while offering no explanation whatever for why any of those things might be true. Or even how it could plausibly be true.
The thread currently right below this one in the Religion subforum is a discussion on this very topic. Since discussion in it has stilted, would you mind contributing your thoughts to it that some new life might be brought to it?
That thread is less about the problem of evil and more about the logical consistency of God's omni- properties, at least as I see it. If you want to know what I think about theodicy, here are some historical threads where I've talked about it:
In fact, you were on the other side in both of these threads, so you presumably already know the basic outline of what I think about modern theodicy.
For whatever it's worth, not every Christian believes in either point. I certainly don't, and I agree that both have serious problems.
Right, I know the positions aren't universally held, and I understand the danger of overly lumping people together. Let me put it this way: such a large number of practitioners and denominations do believe these things that addressing them is mandatory in order to engage with Christianity in general, even though there are exceptions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Every time you respond, you make multiple implicit assertions and I have neither the time nor the inclination to unpack them.
I used the correct definition of the word "history." You asked if the assertion "India has no history" was wrong. The answer is of course it was wrong. Was there an India prior to the last century? Were there events that occurred in India prior to the last century? Then India obviously has a history. That's what the word history means.
You appear to think it is a cultural issue, when it is not. You cite Europeans as an oppressive force on China. Well, no duh. Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
Maybe you should do some basic research on Chinese history and European history. In particular, the difference between China in the 13th century and China after the founding of the Republic of China in 1912. (Hint: Look at the time difference.)
Similarly, how did a completely inconsequential sect with extremely restrictive religious beliefs go on to become the breeding ground for a universal religion that waged those aggressive campaigns of monotheism you mentioned?
You appear to think it is a cultural issue, when it is not. You cite Europeans as an oppressive force on China. Well, no duh. Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
In no particular order of importance since I don't know which is more important.
-The near infinite resources of the Americas.
-The Black Death.
-The Renaissance.
-The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the ascension of the Ottoman Empire as the de facto power of the "East".
Similarly, how did a completely inconsequential sect with extremely restrictive religious beliefs go on to become the breeding ground for a universal religion that waged those aggressive campaigns of monotheism you mentioned?
Christianity asserts there are a certain handful of things that exist, and have certain properties , and because of these things, <prescriptions>. (It also asserts that they don't have properties, because that would be naturalism.)
I don't believe those things exist. For some, it's a skepticism brought on by the unreachability, unrecognizability of what the existence claim purports. For others, it's disbelief in certain entities ontologically implied by them (e.g. the soul).
The moralizing is all well and good, but believing in the bigger picture is blocked by that simple inconsistency. It is only secondary that:
Specific Christians have anti-intellectual attitudes and behaviours
Christian doctrine does not align with my concept of sexual liberty
The Book denies the qualities of Man (in favour of e.g. the Holy Spirit doctrine), and does not all the time describe a substitute for what e.g. Pride does positively in life
I really really have to read between the lines to get anything out of the source material. I can get pretty far if I'm allowed to interpret the experience of God as altered states of consciousness brought on in the dawn of Man by his growing familiarity with consciousness and morality. Actually affirming God is something that's Not Us, and, in the case of the New Testament, that Jesus is a big deal, just can't fit with the rest of my knowledge.
(The automatic list formatting is broken too. Really, Curse?)
Always nice to hear from you Pandas. Always a moment of unease when it seems like you're stuck all the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
In no particular order of importance since I don't know which is more important.
-The near infinite resources of the Americas.
-The Black Death.
-The Renaissance.
-The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the ascension of the Ottoman Empire as the de facto power of the "East".
Those are contributing factors but fail to address the crux of the matter. Hence, why did Europe reach the Americas first. Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first. You can't look exclusively at external factors; you have to tell me what the hell happened to Chinese society that it essentially started strangling itself..for 400+ years.
Further, what prompted the Renaissance in Europe? What was its actual significance given that something quite similar had been going on in the Arab World hundreds of years earlier (and more or less came to naught)? Once again, what were the internal factors there?
Similarly, how did a completely inconsequential sect with extremely restrictive religious beliefs go on to become the breeding ground for a universal religion that waged those aggressive campaigns of monotheism you mentioned?
Constantine?
Christianity was already an acknowledged force so your answer is somewhere between facetious and red herring. Not to mention that you are focusing on its moment of ascension (so to speak) when the question is how we arrived at that point to begin with.
I used the correct definition of the word "history." You asked if the assertion "India has no history" was wrong. The answer is of course it was wrong. Was there an India prior to the last century? Were there events that occurred in India prior to the last century? Then India obviously has a history. That's what the word history means.
Would you do me the kindness of never replying to any of my posts ever again?
Those are contributing factors but fail to address the crux of the matter. Hence, why did Europe reach the Americas first? Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first.
Is that the crux of the matter? First you're asking why Europe in the time of imperialism was able to defeat China. Now you're talking about Europe in the 1400s? The crux of the matter seems to change every single post you make.
You can't look exclusively at external factors; you have to tell me what the hell happened to Chinese society that it essentially started strangling itself..for 400+ years.
The isolationist policies of the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Which were not for religious reasons and have nothing to do with polytheism.
Further, what prompted the Renaissance in Europe? What was its actual significance given that something quite similar had been going on in the Arab World hundreds of years earlier (and more or less came to naught)?
Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first.
This isn't true. Look at a map - the Pacific Ocean is significantly wider from China to America than the Atlantic is from Portugal to America, by over 2,000 miles. When China was looking for an ocean to explore, they chose the Indian Ocean, for obvious reasons. China certainly had a leg up in some areas, but it's ridiculous to suggest that "every single indicator" favored them.
Those are contributing factors but fail to address the crux of the matter.
Can you remind me what the "crux of the matter" is, again?
You asked this question-Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
I answered it. Now you're saying something completely unrelated to the question I answered.
Hence, why did Europe reach the Americas first. Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first.
No. No. No. No. No.
The Pacific Ocean is significantly larger than the Atlantic.
You can't look exclusively at external factors; you have to tell me what the hell happened to Chinese society that it essentially started strangling itself..for 400+ years.
Let me know if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the isolationist policies of the Chinese dynasties and the general state of non-change that existed in the East Asian countries has to do with their religion?
You ask a bunch of questions that historians spend their entire life studying. Are you claiming that you have the definitive answer to them, or are you asking people to give you a simple answer to a number of immensely complex questions?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some objections I have seen or could anticipate:
1. Christians have done and continue to do great evil (Crusades, Inquisition, gay bashing, etc.)
2. Christians in general don't behave any better than their irreligious counterparts, so what's the point?
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
4. Even Christians who accept evolution are violating Occam's Razor by proposing God, Satan, angels, etc.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
6. Religious fundamentalism always leads to disharmony and violence; and religious belief in any capacity validates fundamentalism.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
9. Christianity makes as many untestable claims as any other religion; why should it be right and they not be?
There could be many more. I'm just wondering what objections carry the most weight for you, personally? And please don't say, "All of the above." Thanks in advance for your time and thoughtfulness.
I believe in facts, proof, and even 'plausible believability' (which I find the idea of a god not very plausible at all), and have actually been called a 'narrow-minded moron' by religeous believers for saying this very thing.
Strikes me as very hypocritical.
Also, I simply don't agree with the mindset of 'if you're not one of us, you're wrong...' of course, that mindset doesn't sum up all believers, more so extremists and fanatics that bash non-believers like myself.
I also don't agree with religious families forcing it on their children, as young kids don't have the capacity or the option of saying "no, I don't think that's right" because they've been told that religion is the only way of life.
On a side note, I can see this thread becoming a bashfest, but I'll post this against my better judgement anyway...
-LEGACY-- RUR SpellDelver UWU Superfriends with Benefits
-MODERN- GBG B/G GoodGrief GRG R/G Go[o]dstuff
-CHROME- GGG Mean Green WUB Spirit Tribal
-PAUPER-- WBG Enchantments RUG RUG Delver
-1v1 EDH-- UB Lazav's Grindhouse BB Death by Sheoldred
If I had a dollar for every time I missed playing a Counterspell ...
I'd be missing my Mana Drain s instead.
I certainly hope it doesn't (and my years of experience with this forum encourages me to believe that it won't). I'm just looking for an honest metric of opinion among unbelievers. Admittedly, "willing respondents to a MtGSalvation thread" is a very small and skewed sample size; but it does provide data and just a sort of feel for how the query is received.
Its a subject that interests me but its seems nigh impossible to be able to conversate about it with people as most are too worried about being 'PC' to even touch on the topic.
Thanks for bringing it up tho, I never would have had the balls to start this thread.
-LEGACY-- RUR SpellDelver UWU Superfriends with Benefits
-MODERN- GBG B/G GoodGrief GRG R/G Go[o]dstuff
-CHROME- GGG Mean Green WUB Spirit Tribal
-PAUPER-- WBG Enchantments RUG RUG Delver
-1v1 EDH-- UB Lazav's Grindhouse BB Death by Sheoldred
If I had a dollar for every time I missed playing a Counterspell ...
I'd be missing my Mana Drain s instead.
This observation hints at the idea of a social role occupied by religion, which in turn speaks to the (philosophical) idea of rationality--ie if religion was out and out irrational FROM A SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE then it would quickly fade into irrelevance and obscurity and become less than a bit player. (NB This discussion of rationality has nothing to do with its factual validity)
One of the more/most conceptual roles religion takes on is paring down the question at hand to its most basic elements. MONOtheism offers a hint that there is exactly one point/item in dispute.
Consider the idea of God. The first question is why He couldn't be a super advanced space alien. The answer is because such a being would be knowable, at least in principle. The idea of faith precludes this because it insists God can NOT be fully known, not even in principle.
Whatever part can be known we can shuck off since it is merely a superfluous appendage.
What remains? The answer is is the claim that things exist which are unknowable in principle to humans. This is a core argument and tenet of all religions.
There are two GLARING INSURMOUNTABLE problems with such a claim:
1. merely by conceiving of a such a thing we are already anticipating its know-ability. This seems like semantics, but it isn't. There must be some basis for humans to think of something in the first place. A basis which is EXPLICITLY denied in this case.
2 (or 1a depending on your perspective). Unknowability in principle is precisely the definition of NON-EXISTENCE. It could never affect humans or the material world in any way, shape, or form. It could not manifest itself in even such a limited way as to enter human conception. It literally would not exist for humans.
This demonstrates irrefutably that religion's rationality does not extend from any philosophical debate about the material (and non-material) world. Its enduring stature must be explained by some other complex of HISTORICAL factors.
The recurring theme has always been the perception of religion as an instrument of social OPPRESSION. The idea is akin to Pandora's Box -- the evil at the very bottom which the greatest care was taken not to loose on the world was Hope. Hope buoyed the downtrodden and allowed them to suffer immeasurable hardship and calamity without capitulating or wallowing in their misery. It was the one thing those who had nothing could cling to.
And Pandas, I think you missed the obvious one: A lot of people don't believe God exists, or at least aren't sure what they think of the idea. There's only so much that their beliefs can really mesh with any belief system that confidently asserts that God does exist.
Hindu.
3. Christians are anti-scientific and contribute to social mistrust of science (i.e. Creationists).
I'd modify this point a bit. I'm not so concerned with young-earth creationists or evolution deniers; after all, they form a subculture that can be safely disregarded while leaving Christianity largely intact, as Christians are often quick to point out. Rather, I object to the core Christian notion that there is another path to truth -- through faith -- and that such truths are immune from examination through scientific methods.
The scientific method is not just a way of discovering truth; it's also a sieve for filtering out falsehoods. When you are willing to blow a hole the size of Delaware in the bulwark against falsehood that science provides, you've got problems. In other words, it's not just that some Christians are anti-science -- it's that Christianity necessitates that one let one's scientific guard down.
5. Miracles don't happen. There's no evidence.
7. The classic problem of evil (an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is allegedly not compatible with the existence of evil).
Not just the classical logical problem of evil, but the evidential problem of evil, and all of its variants. Even the most sophisticated Christian theodicy is woefully inadequate.
8. The doctrine of hell is abominable.
And I'd add:
10. The orthodox Christian doctrine of redemption through human sacrifice is inherently evil.
The idea that human blood must be shed to pay for sins, which is common to almost all varieties of Christianity, is wicked on its face. This alone is a basis for the outright rejection of Christianity.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
For whatever it's worth, not every Christian believes in either point. I certainly don't, and I agree that both have serious problems.
The existence of a counter-trend (IF this even counts as such, but lets talk generally for the sake of argument) merely affirms that (concrete) History is not monolithic or one dimensional. As always the context provides the final determination. Of course, at the same time it opens up other cans of worms revolving around WHY such counter tendencies continue to exist as well and to what extent they continue to hold Historical relevance, And I keep capitalizing History because we're talking really Big Picture here (hopefully that will head off some of the more vulgarized objections)
Its also worth mentioning that I specifically had the Hindu in mind when I wrote that the recurring perception of religion has been as an instrument of oppression.
Here's what you wrote:
Granted, I have no idea what you mean by "social relationships becoming more generalized and cosmopolitan," as that's pretty vague, but as demonstrated by both Hindu and Chinese polytheism, it does not seem to be the case.
I think the major reason so many people are monotheistic is obvious: both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, and both have aggressive campaigns of monotheism; particularly Christianity, which became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and all of Western civilization to come, and was distributed as the influence of European culture spread.
Consider the extraordinarily sorry state that China and India found themselves in over the second half of the last millenium. A sorry state of affairs that continues to haunt billions of people today -- well over 1/3 of the world's population. European intellectuals of the last century wrote things such as "India has no history". Were they wrong? What advance came from there? What forward impetus? How did China go from the precipice of discovering the Americas 600 years ago to the beleaguered wreck that Europeans found centuries later?
Obviously none of this is directly attributable to polytheism -- but it does point us to societies that have been inextricably bound to/by a stagnant, regressive past and all of the accompanying traditions, mores, trappings etc
That is what we call bassackwards. WHY did it become the dominant religion? Further, if you believe what you write--what you write confirms my initial point-- then your counterexample was intended as what? Contrarianism for its own sake?
Well, for starters, Europeans happened. You really should actually do some research on Chinese history.
None of this is even remotely relevant to the question of polytheism.
Except for the part where none of that is actually true. Hell, Chinese polytheism is of particular note because it's continuing to exist in a society that is a world superpower, and whose state-mandated ideology is Communism.
Another big reason I'm not being a Christian is that it hasn't added much in the way of social good. I know people are going to say that churches are some of the biggest charities and were often patrons of science but that's glossing over the truth. The truth is that churches needed to be charitable given how much tithing hurt poor believers and how much the wars they fought on behalf of their own greed cost everyone in human coin. The church might have funded a lot of scientific research but the cost was that none of it could contradict the Bible or church doctrine. Later on Christianity was used as a way to justify slavery so Europeans could rest easy at night and so that slaves would be pacified and accept their enslavement as the will of God.
Lastly, I think Christianity has made people more ignorant. When I hear news reports of people refusing lifesaving medical treatment because they're waiting for the direct intervention of God or of parents not vaccinating because they feel prayer is a better shield against measles I cringe. If you know something will save your life but choose to turn your back on it why would your deity save you? What if that chemo was God's way of curing your cancer? Then there's the matter of creationism. It's just plain wrong and yet there is a generation of children being raised to accept it as fact. I'm honestly afraid for the day these kids come into the leadership of the US because the very basis of their education is faulty.
Every time you respond, you make multiple implicit assertions and I have neither the time nor the inclination to unpack them. This reply is a noticeable exception however, because you are simply being petulant. As you allude to and acknowledge in the same post, European history completely shaped the modern world They knew essentially dick about India except how to go about exploiting it. If their claim was right, how would things have turned out differently?
You appear to think it is a cultural issue, when it is not. You cite Europeans as an oppressive force on China. Well, no duh. Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever? Similarly, how did a completely inconsequential sect with extremely restrictive religious beliefs go on to become the breeding ground for a universal religion that waged those aggressive campaigns of monotheism you mentioned?
You keep wanting to state thing while offering no explanation whatever for why any of those things might be true. Or even how it could plausibly be true.
That thread is less about the problem of evil and more about the logical consistency of God's omni- properties, at least as I see it. If you want to know what I think about theodicy, here are some historical threads where I've talked about it:
Logical inconsistency between the Judeo-Christian God and the existence of evil
Is Mark Rosewater's Assessment of Zeus Right? (doesn't start out as a PoE thread but eventually becomes one.)
In fact, you were on the other side in both of these threads, so you presumably already know the basic outline of what I think about modern theodicy.
Right, I know the positions aren't universally held, and I understand the danger of overly lumping people together. Let me put it this way: such a large number of practitioners and denominations do believe these things that addressing them is mandatory in order to engage with Christianity in general, even though there are exceptions.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Maybe you should do some basic research on Chinese history and European history. In particular, the difference between China in the 13th century and China after the founding of the Republic of China in 1912. (Hint: Look at the time difference.)
Look it up.
In no particular order of importance since I don't know which is more important.
-The near infinite resources of the Americas.
-The Black Death.
-The Renaissance.
-The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire and the ascension of the Ottoman Empire as the de facto power of the "East".
Constantine?
I don't believe those things exist. For some, it's a skepticism brought on by the unreachability, unrecognizability of what the existence claim purports. For others, it's disbelief in certain entities ontologically implied by them (e.g. the soul).
The moralizing is all well and good, but believing in the bigger picture is blocked by that simple inconsistency. It is only secondary that:
I really really have to read between the lines to get anything out of the source material. I can get pretty far if I'm allowed to interpret the experience of God as altered states of consciousness brought on in the dawn of Man by his growing familiarity with consciousness and morality. Actually affirming God is something that's Not Us, and, in the case of the New Testament, that Jesus is a big deal, just can't fit with the rest of my knowledge.
(The automatic list formatting is broken too. Really, Curse?)
Always nice to hear from you Pandas. Always a moment of unease when it seems like you're stuck all the time.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Those are contributing factors but fail to address the crux of the matter. Hence, why did Europe reach the Americas first. Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first. You can't look exclusively at external factors; you have to tell me what the hell happened to Chinese society that it essentially started strangling itself..for 400+ years.
Further, what prompted the Renaissance in Europe? What was its actual significance given that something quite similar had been going on in the Arab World hundreds of years earlier (and more or less came to naught)? Once again, what were the internal factors there?
Christianity was already an acknowledged force so your answer is somewhere between facetious and red herring. Not to mention that you are focusing on its moment of ascension (so to speak) when the question is how we arrived at that point to begin with.
Would you do me the kindness of never replying to any of my posts ever again?
The isolationist policies of the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Which were not for religious reasons and have nothing to do with polytheism.
... The Arab World happened. Specifically, the Arab World made parts of the world that were not The Arab World theirs.
Constantine didn't matter to Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome?
Not if you continue to post historically inaccurate stuff on a public debate forum that I frequent, no.
This isn't true. Look at a map - the Pacific Ocean is significantly wider from China to America than the Atlantic is from Portugal to America, by over 2,000 miles. When China was looking for an ocean to explore, they chose the Indian Ocean, for obvious reasons. China certainly had a leg up in some areas, but it's ridiculous to suggest that "every single indicator" favored them.
Can you remind me what the "crux of the matter" is, again?
You asked this question-Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
I answered it. Now you're saying something completely unrelated to the question I answered.
No. No. No. No. No.
The Pacific Ocean is significantly larger than the Atlantic.
Let me know if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the isolationist policies of the Chinese dynasties and the general state of non-change that existed in the East Asian countries has to do with their religion?
You ask a bunch of questions that historians spend their entire life studying. Are you claiming that you have the definitive answer to them, or are you asking people to give you a simple answer to a number of immensely complex questions?