flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (01/18/84)
I'd like to state a point of view which differs somewhat from those of people who have been posting messages to this category. It is simply to get on with living one's life as decently and humanely as possible, and to strive toward realization of whatever talents and goals one has, without worrying about dogma and the Meaning of Life. As a scientist, I don't see that there is a shred of evidence for the divine origin of Christianity or any other organized religion, although I respect other people's faith and opinions in this, as I expect them to respect mine. The god of the old testament is just appalling, and I imagine that a good many christians today would be shocked by a good deal of the old testament if they were forced to sit down and study it. The philosophy that Jesus preached is simple and attractive, and it seems to be universal in its appeal to the sense of decency that most people have; more or less the same ideas have been expounded by other teachers in other times. Looking at the history of the Christian church objectively, it seems to me that all the theology (the scapegoat business and all that) was invented by Alexandrian neoplatonists and by Paul. Gibbon's Chapters 50 and 51 are devastating on this. It didn't take long for the church to become Big Business, offering careers to ambitous people and constructing its own justification for existence as it went along. As Shaw and others have pointed out, if Jesus had been reincarnated a few hundred years ago, he would have been immediately burned as a heretic, and he certainly would be ignored and reviled today as an impossibly romantic idealist. Jesus never claimed that there was life after death, and for my own part I would have to side with Laplace, who at the close of a long but nonreligious life, in which he had been kind and generous to other people, said to the priest who came uninvited to save his soul, 'dieu me pardonnera - c'est son metier.'
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/20/84)
[from E. A. Flinn:]
I'd like to state a point of view which differs somewhat from those
of people who have been posting messages to this category. It is
simply to get on with living one's life as decently and humanely as
possible, and to strive toward realization of whatever talents and
goals one has,
What you say here sounds very nice, but I have a hard time understanding
just what it is supposed to mean to me. I'm sure you know exactly what
it means for your life, but you have expressed your point of view in terms
that are so general that all I can do is say that it sounds good, but there
is nothing tangible in it. People have many different views about what is
decent and humane. Even if you gave a precise definition of what these
terms mean you would still have to give a good reason why I should except
your definition...or even care about being decent and humane at all. What
you have said so far will fit into just about everybody's philosophy of
life, from a subjective point of view. It fits fine with the Christian
as well as the atheist.
...without worrying about dogma and the Meaning of Life.
It is this part of your last statement that I really have trouble with.
It seems that you have chosen the word "dogma" primarily for its meaning
with respect to religion. The term may also be applied to science.
Dogma is simply the authoritative assertion of a particular doctrine
(teaching) as truth. So dogma is good if it is indeed true.
I hope you are not saying by this that Christians and other theists should
not care about doctrine. Why shouldn't we care? You also are at odds
with philosophers when you suggest that we should not be concerned with
the meaning of life (I'm not sure why you capitalized it).
You must feel that the pursuit of the truth is important in science.
But why don't you recognize the importance of pursuing truth in areas
that science cannot address? Why aren't philosophy and theology relevant?
You give us no good reason why we should not worry about the meaning
of life. Is it because you think its meaning cannot be known? Or
because it has no meaning?
I am sure that, as long as life does not become a tremendous burden,
most people will do fine without thinking about whether or not life
has any ultimate meaning. But what value does your point of view have
to those who are starving in India? What are "decent" and "humane"
supposed to mean to them? What talents and goals should they develop
and pursue? Your point of view is very acceptable to people who live
fairly comfortable lives in places where their human rights are generally
recognized an upheld. But to a sensitive person who struggles to
find truth and meaning for his own existence your suggestion to not
worry about these things seem ignorant and crude. You seem to be telling
us that it is better not to ask such questions.
As a scientist, I don't see that there is a shred of evidence for the
divine origin of Christianity or any other organized religion, although
I respect other people's faith and opinions in this, as I expect them
to respect mine. The god of the old testament is just appalling, and I
imagine that a good many christians today would be shocked by a good
deal of the old testament if they were forced to sit down and study
it.
With all due respect to your faith and opinion in this area, I hope you
realize that being a scientist does not make you an authority on whether
or not Christianity or any other religion has a divine origin. What
empirical proof would you consider to be conclusive as to the validity of
such a claim? (This is a trick question.) You are going beyond science
here, outside the bounds of the authority of your profession.
You seem to be asking us to put faith in your perspective as a scientist
and accept your view that there is no "evidence" for the divine origin
of any religion. Again, what is to constitute "evidence" in considering
this metaphysical question? It's all right for you to say that you
"don't see", but what about what I *do* see? Am I supposed to view reality
through your eyes and not trust my own? You certainly have the right
to respect for your opinion but you cannot expect others to see your
point of view as being objective based on what you have said here, or
on the fact that you are a scientist. Sometimes there is a difference
between one who is being objective and one who is just exercising faith
in his own objectivity. I've heard it said that scientists are among
the easiest people for magicians to fool (the hardest is another magician)
because they have so much faith in their own objectivity. (I believe I
read that in Broad and Wade's book "Betrayers of the Truth"). My first
reaction to someone who says he is objective it that he probably isn't.
But perhaps the thing that bothers me most about this paragraph is your
assumption that those (you single out Christians) who worship the God
of the Old Testament are ignorant of the Old Testament itself--that we
would be "shocked" if we were "forced" to really study it. You ignore
the many Jews and Christians who have (quite willingly, I might add)
devoted much of their lives to the study of Scripture with a growing
love and devotion for the God they serve. Do you think they might see
something you don't? Or are they to be ruled out as being blind and
subjective "axe grinders" who only believe what they believe because
they want to? Are atheists above being charged with this?
Personally, I think some of the fruits of science are appalling. But
I wouldn't use this as an argument to throw science out the window.
The philosophy that Jesus preached is simple and attractive, and it
seems to be universal in its appeal to the sense of decency that most
people have; more or less the same ideas have been expounded by other
teachers in other times.
Jesus also made claims of divinity. If he is a liar or some kind of
lunatic, why should we be attracted to his philosophy? It's true that
others have said the same things as Jesus, but what does that prove?
Truth is truth--no matter who says it. For example, I don't think
many Christians would claim that the only things that are really true
are those things that are taught in the Bible. It is enough to believe
that the Bible contains no lies.
Looking at the history of the Christian
church *objectively*, *it seems to me* that all the theology (the scapegoat
business and all that) was invented by Alexandrian neoplatonists and by
Paul. Gibbon's Chapters 50 and 51 are devastating on this. It didn't
take long for the church to become Big Business, offering careers to
ambitous people and constructing its own justification for existence as
it went along. [emphasis mine -- pmd]
Here again you set up your own view of Church history as an objective
one. (see my emphasis above). History books contain objective sounding
language, but how objective can they really be? I'm not sure what you mean
to include in "all the theology" that was supposedly invented.
Your last sentence is *ad hominem*, with respect to your argument against
Christianity having a divine origin. There have been times when the
Church had to justify many of its actions, and beliefs; but not its existence.
The church catholic exists because Christians exist. The functional
structures it has formed in history are another matter. The biblical
view of the church is simply the body of Christ, which is made of of
those that believe. Church structure is largely adaptable to the cultural
needs of the people.
As Shaw and others have pointed out, if Jesus had been
reincarnated a few hundred years ago, he would have been immediately
burned as a heretic, and he certainly would be ignored and reviled
today as an impossibly romantic idealist.
It's funny how people know these things. I'm inclined to agree with
you. But is this an argument against Jesus, the Church, Christianity
or what? I don't see how the hypothetic "if Jesus had been reincarnated.."
has anything to do with the validity of Christian belief *per se*.
What does it prove? Do you forget that Jesus was crucified as a
blasphemer in his own day? Popularity is no good indicator of the
authenticity of one's teaching. Maybe I'm missing the point you
are attempting to make here.
One of the things that always bothers me with many critiques of theistic
belief is the assumption that the non-theistic point of view is inherently
superior or more objective than the theistic one. It's fine to source
Shaw and Gibbon. One can always find some to support a particular view.
But why is their point of view any better than that of Packer, Tenney,
White, or Archer? Is Jeremy Jackson's book "No Other Foundation:
The Church through Twenty Centuries" any less objective than those of
Shaw and Gibbon? (I don't expect you to be familiar with this book.
It is fairly new and is just an overview of Church history, drawn
from many other sources, but Jackson is a professor of history).
I'm not saying that Shaw and Gibbon are atheists. I don't know whether
they are or not. The point I am trying to make is that an objective
viewpoint is better found in considering differing sources, not just the
ones that support a particular point of view.
Jesus never claimed that
there was life after death,...
This makes me wonder how much of the Gospels you have been forced to
study. What was it that Jesus promised the thief dying on the cross
next to him?
...and for my own part I would have to side
with Laplace, who at the close of a long but nonreligious life, in which
he had been kind and generous to other people, said to the priest who came
uninvited to save his soul, 'dieu me pardonnera - c'est son metier.'
And what to you think of the "Pensees" of Pascal? To each his own.
Paul Dubuc