I wouldn’t be a Christian

[Belacqua]

It occurs to me now that there are two ways we could approach the fact that there are both dumb and smart Christians.

We might argue that there is an essence to Christianity. That is, a group or an individual must have some essential quality which determines whether it or he is a true Christian. And not only is there an essence, but it is knowable to us. If this were true, we could judge whether people were true Christians or not. And we could judge whether we felt that essential quality was a good quality or not.

I suspect it's better, though, to argue that there is no essential defining quality of Christianity. There are many Christianities. And these are related to each other by family resemblance, in Wittgenstein's sense of the term. This makes it more difficult for us, because if we want to understand and evaluate each Christianity we have to know what it individually entails. So if the local churchgoers are horrible, that doesn't allow us to pass judgement on different thinkers, despite their sharing the label "Christian."

[robvalue]

All we can essentially do is see what kind of agreement we can reach on the nature of reality.

If you take a group of sceptics, you’ll probably find a very closely matched set of beliefs about how things work (factually). As soon as the group starts to include anyone else, these beliefs start to diverge.

I find that an interesting result. Take from it what you will.

[brewer]

It looks to me as if the argument is going this way:

~ The Christians near you are foolish and unkind.
~ Those Christians' thinking is not at all related to that of the Christians that I've named (Weil, Augustine, etc.). 
~ Therefore, you reject the thought of Weil, Augustine, etc. 

I certainly believe the first two. I don't see yet how the conclusion follows.

Not all christians are foolish or unkind, the majority I interact with are not. But most are unthinking when it comes to interactions with atheists.

Yes, I reject their thoughts in part, the part that they tie any thought(s) to the existence of a god, and are the a result of a god. You can tell me which thoughts you consider great and I'll tell you what I think of them.

[vulcanlogician]

It occurs to me now that there are two ways we could approach the fact that there are both dumb and smart Christians.

Leo Tolstoy is one of my favorite authors, and he is thoroughly Christian. Anyone who makes the claim "All Christians are dumb" is wrong on that account. Intelligent Christians exist today and have existed since antiquity. And throughout history, remarkably bright people (like Dante or Augustine) plumbed the depths of the Christian ethos and returned with incredible insights and moral gems. But perhaps that reflects more on those people than it does on Christianity in general.

"If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

This comes out of the Bible, a book regarded by most Christians as having authority over their own lives, and (depending on who you ask) the lives of others. Sure, very few Christians call for executing gays in modern times, but feel free to ask some of the Christians on this forum what they think of homosexuality. Most of them will tell you they think it's immoral. Bullshit. In no way is homosexuality (in itself) demonstrably immoral. But where do you think they get the idea that it is? From their religion! The problem is: they aren't the only ones. Millions and millions of people are convinced that homosexuality is somehow wrong. Why? It says so in the book. I have a problem with this. So do many others here. What do we have a problem with? Christianity. (BTW, even an Augustine fan who posts here thinks homosexuality is immoral.)

Christianity as a mode of transcendence almost doesn't deserve to be called "Christianity." At a colloquial level, if you ask someone what Christianity is, they will point to a cultural phenomenon... not anything related at all to the ideas of Augustine or William James. You ought not blame anyone for assuming the colloquial definition of something. That's unfair. (And Augustine is a bit of a sore spot for some here because (regardless of what the man actually wrote) he is used to move goalposts when Christians feel the need to do greasy apologetics. I guess a good comparison would be how Hitler ruined the swastika for everybody; formerly, it was regarded as a rather innocuous symbol. Not anymore.)

For all the good that can be found in Christianity (and I agree, there is good to be found), there is also a rottenness in it whose source can be traced back to its core tenets: the belief that people are wicked and immoral deviants that deserve eternal torment, the belief that sex between consenting adults is somehow immoral, the belief in Hell... it is by propagating beliefs such as these that Christianity creates distress. And in light of all the distress it has created, it is understandable that some people have a generally negative attitude about it:

With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal....

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19...9322-h.htm

Why not attribute Simone Weil's insights to Simone Weil, and Wittgenstein's insights to Wittgenstein? If they took influence from Christianity, fine. But they undoubtedly took inspiration from other sources, too. And (in that case) Christianity is just one item on a laundry list; only a certain myopic perspective gives Christianity more credit than it is due.

[robvalue]

Haha, giving Christianity more credit than it is due is very much a reoccurring theme.

[Belacqua]

Not all christians are foolish or unkind, the majority I interact with are not. But most are unthinking when it comes to interactions with atheists.

Yes, I reject their thoughts in part, the part that they tie any thought(s) to the existence of a god, and are the a result of a god. You can tell me which thoughts you consider great and I'll tell you what I think of them.

I'm sure that many many people use their religion as justification for bad things. I would never excuse that. And there's no need to look into the work of the better Christians, if that isn't interesting to you.

---

But perhaps that reflects more on those people than it does on Christianity in general.

Well, anyone who ever wrote a sentence is an individual working out of a tradition. I wouldn't want to attribute sentences we like to the individual and sentences we don't like to the tradition. 

Millions and millions of people are convinced that homosexuality is somehow wrong. Why? It says so in the book.

I don't agree with them. And the Thomists and others who base this on Natural Law theory, instead of commandments, I also disagree with. Fortunately, things change, and many modern Christians have no problem with it. 

Christianity as a mode of transcendence almost doesn't deserve to be called "Christianity."

This seems very strange to me. Does the whole history of mystical experience in Christian Europe somehow get discounted now? I'm feeling a little bit of a No True Scotsman thing going on. 

At a colloquial level, if you ask someone what Christianity is, they will point to a cultural phenomenon... not anything related at all to the ideas of Augustine or William James. You ought not blame anyone for assuming the colloquial definition of something. That's unfair. (And Augustine is a bit of a sore spot for some here because (regardless of what the man actually wrote) he is used to move goalposts when Christians feel the need to do greasy apologetics.

If modern American Christians have some version of the religion which is unaware of the great thinkers of their church, they are being foolish. I wish they would study more. But I don't see how that stops me from getting the wisdom from the people that they have rejected. 

And Augustine is not responsible for anybody's greasy apologetics. 

For all the good that can be found in Christianity (and I agree, there is good to be found), there is also a rottenness in it whose source can be traced back to its core tenets: the belief that people are wicked and immoral deviants that deserve eternal torment, the belief that sex between consenting adults is somehow immoral, the belief in Hell... it is by propagating beliefs such as these that Christianity creates distress. And in light of all the distress it has created, it is understandable that some people have a generally negative attitude about it:

Yes, the things you name cause distress. Some Christians (e.g. those in the tradition best exemplified by William Blake) would disagree that they are core tenets. Again, there are different types. 

Then there is the possibility that we should be distressed about certain things. Harsh self-criticism goes against the spirit of our own times, but is probably justified. One of the good things about the very strange writing of people like Simone Weil is that their values are so completely at odds with those of our own society. The degree to which we are soaked into bourgeois liberal society, and its core tenets, is sometimes hard to discern. The values people find acceptable on this forum, for example, tend to fall within a very narrow range. Disagreements may amount to "the narcissism of small differences." Even if we can't accept Weil's extremes, it puts into relief our own (largely unexamined) assumptions and makes clear that very different modes would be possible. 

With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal....

Well, Nietzsche's reasons for condemning Christianity are almost entirely different from those of wyzas or robvalue. I'm not sure that we want to follow Nietzsche on this if it means accepting his values instead. But that's another topic. 

Why not attribute Simone Weil's insights to Simone Weil, and Wittgenstein's insights to Wittgenstein? If they took influence from Christianity, fine. But they undoubtedly took inspiration from other sources, too. And (in that case) Christianity is just one item on a laundry list; only a certain myopic perspective gives Christianity more credit than it is due.

[/quote]

Because Weil's insights would be impossible without the Christian tradition she was a part of. And she did take inspiration from other sources -- she was vastly knowledgable about the Upanishads, for example, and the Greeks -- but in the last 2000 years Christian thought has worked with and through these influences. (More the Greeks than the Upanishads, obviously.)

[vulcanlogician]

Well, anyone who ever wrote a sentence is an individual working out of a tradition. I wouldn't want to attribute sentences we like to the individual and sentences we don't like to the tradition. 

Your mentioning of Weil's taking influence from the Upanishads got me thinking. That makes all the difference. Understood as a single dimension of thinking along with different intellectual or philosophical traditions, Christianity loses much of its vulgar character. With Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas (the three 'A's) it was the Greeks. Wittgenstein and Weil had the whole of ancient and modern philosophy. I doubt very few on this forum have a problem with Christianity as a "dimension in one's thinking." They have a problem with that one dimension presupposing all other dimensions --they have a problem with Christianity, the religion. Not Christianity, the mode of thought.

The problem with Augustine is that he came along too late to be put into the canon. Also, you have Paul (who did make it into the cannon) trivializing the Greeks. As much as enlightened minds can open the Bible and see reflected in it their own enlightened moral notions, so too can a barbaric, anti-intellectual mind find justification for its hostility/suspicion toward scientific/Greek style truth.

Christianity as a mode of transcendence almost doesn't deserve to be called "Christianity."

This seems very strange to me. Does the whole history of mystical experience in Christian Europe somehow get discounted now? I'm feeling a little bit of a No True Scotsman thing going on. 

Fair enough. Though I did throw the qualifier "almost" in there. (I seldom throw qualifiers around lightly.)

If modern American Christians have some version of the religion which is unaware of the great thinkers of their church, they are being foolish. I wish they would study more. But I don't see how that stops me from getting the wisdom from the people that they have rejected. 

The biggest barrier that could be forged between you and Augustine's wisdom would be you choosing to become a fundamentalist Christian. That's the sad truth. (Although I suppose becoming a fundie Muslim or something like that might do the trick, too. But maybe less so.)

Yes, the things you name cause distress. Some Christians (e.g. those in the tradition best exemplified by William Blake) would disagree that they are core tenets. Again, there are different types. 

If you begin to slap the label "Christian" on almost anything that resembles or takes inspiration from Christian thought, the term loses all meaning.

Example: "Anyone who looks out for the needy and downtrodden is a Christian."

Yeah. Then that means there are a ton of Hindu, Muslim, and atheist Christians out there. When I say "core tenets" I refer to things that can be located in the Bible and identified as such. If you think atheists are bad about this, go post on a Christian forum about what the core tenets of Christianity are. I think you'll find that we are more flexible than they. Moreover, we are getting myopic again. Perhaps Blake could be seen more as a rebellion against Christianity (albeit one that uses Christian symbology) than as an exemplar of Christian attitudes.

Then there is the possibility that we should be distressed about certain things. Harsh self-criticism goes against the spirit of our own times, but is probably justified. One of the good things about the very strange writing of people like Simone Weil is that their values are so completely at odds with those of our own society. The degree to which we are soaked into bourgeois liberal society, and its core tenets, is sometimes hard to discern.

We absolutely should be distressed about certain things (at least when speaking of moral concerns). But one must be careful when imposing harsh criticism upon oneself. I, for one, won't be criticizing myself too harshly based on the edicts of the ancient Israelites or the many opinions of Paul. Neither will I be listening to the confused rantings of modern evangelicals.

If Weil has presented a compelling mode of self-criticism, again, I would attribute that to Christian thought being but one dimension of her ideas. Take out all the other dimensions, and you are left with Paul's opinions. So we must regard her Christian influence in the context of her other influences. I should also mention that I'm unfamiliar with Weil's work; I'm just going off of what you are saying.

Rob and Wyzas are criticizing the institution and cultural phenomenon that IS Christianity. If you find their criticisms to be mischaracterizations, then you'll have to go further and say that most people who claim to be Christians are mischaracterizing their own religion. And if you do that, then Rob and Wyzas aren't criticizing Christianity to begin with, they are criticizing a mischaracterization of it. And if that is true, there is no need to bring in Weil or Augustine to make your point.

The values people find acceptable on this forum, for example, tend to fall within a very narrow range. Disagreements may amount to "the narcissism of small differences." Even if we can't accept Weil's extremes, it puts into relief our own (largely unexamined) assumptions and makes clear that very different modes would be possible. 

I'd say "welcome to the internet" but "welcome to humanity" seems more apt. When people gather under any flag (atheism, Christianity, or otherwise) you're going to have an overlap of values. I'm not excusing it. But it is unrealistic to expect anything else outside of a philosophy classroom (or other rigorously intellectual settings). Welcome to Plato's cave. The more people agree on something, the more distorted you will find their common perspective to be. Two people might agree "that scientific inquiry is the best tool to discern our evolutionary history." Ten people might agree that "scientific consensus is to be trusted concerning evolution." One hundred people might agree that "Science is right about evolution!" By the time a thousand people agree on it, all you are left with is: "Science good. Other things bad."

As far as humanity/the internet goes, however, this is one of the best joints around. If you are a transient flea like I once was, I recommend sticking around on this particular dog's backside. Sure, it ain't perfect. But I have yet to find a better place.

Well, Nietzsche's reasons for condemning Christianity are almost entirely different from those of wyzas or robvalue. I'm not sure that we want to follow Nietzsche on this if it means accepting his values instead. But that's another topic. 

Oh boy is it ever! I was invoking Nietzsche to make a point about how Christianity often creates distress in order to subsequently cure it. So I see no need to take his whole philosophy into account just to relay a single point he made.

But (as far as I'm concerned) Nietzsche has a lot of poignant things to say about philosophy and values in general. I tend to regard his criticisms as more valuable than his own positive assertions, but that's just me. I tend to see him as the James Randi of philosophy. He's good at calling out bullshit by showing you exactly how that bullshit was passed off as the truth.

[vulcanlogician]

Double post

[The Grand Nudger]

A smart christians smartness can be directly correlated with their distance from fundamental faith..which is just a fancy way of saying that the less a christian believes, the smarter they tend to be. Just as the less a christian believes, the more decent of a human being they tend to be.

It's almost as if there's something very, very wrong with christer beliefs.

: shrug :

[Whateverist]

A smart christians smartness can be directly correlated with their distance from fundamental faith..which is just a fancy way of saying that the less a christian believes, the smarter they tend to be.  Just as the less a christian believes, the more decent of a human being they tend to be.

It's almost as if there's something very, very wrong with christer beliefs.

: shrug :

Yep.  If there is any use in it at all, it's in the feelz and the actions which follow.