In the comments on my first post, I was asked, “If you have to believe in a god, why yours?”. Its an interesting question, and I've had to mull it over some to come up with a possibly acceptable answer (well, actually, I was thinking of something else, and it occured to me that my train of thought answered that question). The claim I will start with is that I should be damned (and I mean that in its literal sense). I won't go into the details for all the Internet to see, though if you know me personally and need this statement backed up, you may ask privately. Now, what, you ask, does that have to do with God? There are two facets to the answer, which rule out, to the best of my knowledge, any god but mine (and I use god in a very loose sense here).
The first facet is that any god who is not willing and able to damn me is no god at all. This sort of god is inneffectual, powerless, a Santa Claus figure. Santa may have his naughty and nice list, but have you ever heard of someone getting coal? He fudges the list so everyone passes – or, from another perspecitve, is regularly fooled by small children. Who wants, needs, or would follow a god that gullible?
On the other hand, any god that cannot save me from damnation is also powerless, and thus no god at all. If I take a materialistic or humanistic perspective, well, I've failed in representing the good of humanity, and am likely to follow that pattern for the rest of this life, absent any external power – damnation on Earth, if you will. If I believe in reincarnatation, then in my next life I am likely to regress, instead of progress. If I believe in an eternal hell, then that should be my final destination. In short, by whatever standard I set up for god (that passes the previous test), I am damned. Any god that will do no more than this has no power over me, as that would be my natural state anyway.
So, on to my God. Christianity is founded on two principles – one is God's justice, the other is his grace. By God's justice, he can, will, and does subject people to eternal damnation. A lot of Christians don't like to talk about that, and end up with Santa Claus in the sky. Other Christians talk of nothing but, and end up with a God that just damns the already damned, doing effectively nothing. The flip side of this, though, is God's redemptive grace. In more detail (and less Christianese), we say that God himself became human (while remaining God – its one of those things that tie your head in knots), and, though he was a completely perfect human, voluntarily suffered the penalty of damnation. In this process, he brought a fundamental change to humanity – he offered people his own payment of the debt of damnation (the grace part), coupled with an exchange of his perfect human nature for our damned human nature (the redemptive part). This is not to say that all Christians (or those who claim to be such) are perfect – the nature of damnation is rather difficult to kill off – but rather that they have a workable path to perfection.
So, why my God? Because the standard that he is demands my damnation, and I could not reconcile a standard that didn't with my sense of justice. On the other hand, a god that merely damned me would really not have any power, while mine also provides payment of my debts and restoration of my being, out of his own blood.
As a personal argument it works; as a general argument it fails as it neccesitates a moral/ethical framework built around the Grace/Damnation idea. Other ethical philosophies exist and are no better or worse than the one assumed, so according to your argument, in the general case, any religion with a different god and a principal of morality different from the judeo/chistian ideal is ipso facto the wrong god which violates the principle of charity
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record I love that your display picture is of Archibald Asparagus.
@Paddy If there was a suitable general argument to show that Christianity truthfully represented reality, we'd all be Christian, and this discussion would be in the realm of speculative fiction. I do the best I can with personal arguments (I believe the original question was addressed to me, personally). Also, I'd like to hear more about your argument about violating the principle of charity (perhaps I've missed a techincal term here - I'll go on with my own interpretation of "charity" which you can correct if I err). As you point out, I am somewhat begging the question. However, there is little, if anything, you can prove on pure reason - you have to start by making some unfounded statements. However, if my conclusion on choice of god is false, the only person likely to be directly negatively affected is myself - charity doesn't come into it (I'm not into conversions by the sword - you have my thoughts on the matter, but I'm not going to force anyone to accept them). In the case where that conclusion is correct, it would be rather uncharitable of me to sit on that, and let everyone else be damned.
ReplyDelete@Christina yeah, I've been using that picture for a while - I just love the moonlight and the shiny armour and sword - its cool.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Bruce *round of thunderous applause* no more to say really, spot on.
ReplyDeleteThanks for answering. I'm glad you realize it's completely personal. You dismiss reincarnation completely offhand, but obviously some people believe it. How do these otherwise intelligent people have it so wrong? Maybe because your belief is a personal truth which is comforting for you but has no actual basis in fact.
ReplyDeleteYou also have a very different idea about what a humanistic perspective is then, you know, people who actually hold that view. Ash and I don't believe in any god as it stands, but if we were judged on Christian values other than our belief I think we'd do alright.
@Ashley - I said I was using "god" in a very loose sense, and started the argument with the statement that my natural state is damnation. If I read Ash's blog right, and interpret humanism as a belief in the goodness of humanity, well, I've ceased to believe that in my own context. For a system without an afterlife, that sounds to me like a fair definition of damnation (similar arguments hold about reincarnation - my understanding of it is very limited, but I gather most systems are based on the balance of good and evil you perform in your current life - I expect that I've tipped that scale past return on my own terms).
ReplyDeleteOf course, all moral systems are, at least in some part, normative for all humanity (it is a defining feature of moral systems). I attempted (not quite successfully) to word this post to not step too far beyond my initial statement of "my natural state is damnation", but in actuality believe that to be everyone's natural state - however, proving that is beyond my means (I'd have to argue from some other intrinsic quality of humanity, and am not sure how I'd go about it), thus I'll stick to answering in my own context (though the quote at the end of the Joss Whedon humanist talk Ash posted sticks out to me - about religious faith being based on no evidence, but faith in humanity being counter to all evidence - its about halfway to Christianity of him)
The thing is, no matter what morals or values that we all share, no matter our beliefs, I have learned in the church that none of that matters. We are all damned, I know that the terrible, awful sins I have committed against myself and others, I deserve death and hell right now...but I also believe that my God has saved me from that, by his own death.
ReplyDeleteSo why MY God? Because no other faith has such hope and mercy...and I personally believe in that hope and mercy and love because I don't know how else I would have risen from the crumbling ashes that was and is my life without it. And because of that, I won't be damned. Maybe it is just a comfort thing, but I don't think so, I think its letting something greater than me control my life.
@Lauren Well, it could also be that your perspective about your own faith has been inherently tainted. The truth is that, had you been raised (say) Muslim, you'd probably think the same about their God rather than yours.
ReplyDeleteI like this post - like Paddy and Ashley have pointed out, it does tend to fail as a general argument for the belief in Christianity, but it wasn't really trying to.
I am slighted, though only slightly less than the fact that your blog has more comments than mine, at the reference of humanism as a damnable perspective, especially when tied with materialism. Are you sure you didn't mean existentialism, instead?
@BruceIV The principle of charity basically means giving the strongest possible interpretation to a rational argument.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think it fair to say that all moral philosophies are balanced on good and evil so much as right and wrong; The difference of which I would argue is context. Exodus 20:13 says "You Shall not kill" the inference drwan is that the act is inherently evil but if commiting the act is the only way to save yourself/others than to me comitting the act is right. The easy out here is that the exodus is the old testament.
I think you will find it amusing to note that while covering turing machines in class my mind instantly repelled the idea that there are problems that are inherently unsolvable, so strong is my "faith" in the scientific method that accepting the turing machine to be the be all to end all model of computing is out of the question; It also occured to me that this might be like having conclusive proof of the nonexistance of a/any god and trying to explain it to one of that deities worshipers.
@Ash Furrow to say that someones faith has been "Tainted" I think also violates the principal of charity. As I understand it in many (All?) chistian churches at a certain age people raised in that faith undergo a confirmation of there faith so that the children are choosing it for their own reasons not indoctrination. The argument you made is sound, and in my opinion good but tainted is a loaded word.
And seriously who builds yours and ash's comment system and why on earth is it in a separate frame? I have nothing but issues with it. Why does it suppress arrow key navigation?
@Paddy First all, I don't know why arrows don't work. Preview first, then quit the preview and it fixes it.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I said Lauren's *perspective* on her own faith has been tainted. Much like brand loyalty or sports team fanaticism, you're not objective.
Third, and pardon my bluntness, but to say that 12 year-old Ash Furrow had a choice whether or not to confirm his faith in the United Church in front of the entire congregation is offensive. Peer pressure and parental pressure plays a huge role in that. It's hard enough to come to the conclusion that you don't believe in this faith, but do you honestly expect *children* to throw off Christianity in front of hundreds of expecting people?
@ Ash I disagree that my perspective is *tainted*. I have always believed in God yes, but there as I told my girls at youth group last week, there was a long time in my life, about 3 or 4 years, that I was very angry at the church and I still went b/c of parental pressure and peer pressure, but it didnt' mean anything to me, it was a hassle. I would even go so far as to say, that while I believed in God, I hated God because I was so angry...it has only been recently that I have found what I have know in my faith, so I wouldn't say I'm tainted because none of it used to ever matter to me and I really didn't care about Christianity at one time.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I may have been more inclined to the Muslim God or the Jewish God if I had of been raised in those religions, but I wouldn't know hope and mercy and redemption, those God's don't have hope or redemption or Jesus or the Spirt...which makes them different from my God. Also, I would have been just as likely to hate that God.
I'm sorry, even if the Christian system (we'll ignore denominations even) is even objectively the most ANYTHING that doesn't make it true, or right, or mean anything at all.
ReplyDeleteI'd really like a direct answer to this too, from anyone here who considers themselve religious: do you really believe that every Muslim, Jew, Pagan (ie, anyone else who believes in a different god) etc is deluded and that you (as a Christian or otherwise) have it right?
While I wouldn't say anyone who feels differently than me is deluded, that's not right or true. And I want to add that all Muslims, Jews and Christians believe to be descended from Abraham, therefore the Muslim God and the Jewish God is the same God as my God the Father.
ReplyDeleteBut simply put: I do believe that my beliefs are *right*
tl;dr
ReplyDeleteIf you were born in India, you'd be spouting the same diatribe about Hanuman the monkey god.
See! Why can't I have comments like this on my blog!? Everyone's all like "Interesting post" - I want some insults, complaints, etc!
ReplyDeleteLOL Ash your envy is adorable.....also Christianity is more controversial than humanism :)
ReplyDeleteI suspect that confirmation of faith is different for every denomination, A friend of mine (Anglican) has told me that his confirmation happened around the age of 15 and was a private affair between him and his priest in order to avoid the kind of pressure your describing. While it's fair to say that religious dogma indoctrinates the child thus making there frame of reference biased (not tainted) there is a time when we are able to make rational decisions and choose our belief system for ourselves. The data on which any given individual bases their decision will be different but it remains a rational choice.
ReplyDeleteNo, Paddy. Don't be obtuse: the audience of the confirmation has no influence on it. It cannot be a choice if one is not aware of that choice.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect everyone (anyone) to at 15 doubt the priest, someone they have effectively known their whole lives and who is regarded with nothing but respect by every adult in the congregation? Do you expect a revelation of sorts to come to them and a spark of inspiration to arrive: "Perhaps they are wrong"? No, you don't.
If someone is born into a cult, and is raised there by cult parents, do you blame them at 15 for not leaving? No, you don't. I'm not comparing Christianity to a cult (right now), I'm just drawing a parallel.
I didn't even make this choice; I came to a conclusion because I had likewise no concept that these people were wrong. Worse than that, they believe they're right. They're not lying to you, they honestly believe in this religion, and you expect children to doubt these people?
@ Ash
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that with confirmations there is a lot of pressure I would say. That's why I'm glad that I grew up in a church that didnt' have confirmation...everything is a choice you make whenever you want to. You choose when you get baptized, when you become a member of the church, if you ever do, etc. etc. It shouldnt' be something that is forced b/c "oh, you're 15, time to become confirmed...Jesus and we expect it" b/c that's horseshit.
I feel like becoming a member of the church is a decision best made as an adult, past the age of 18.
I disagree that they are unaware of the choice, otherwise the confirmation would be unneccesary.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am not arguing that people always choose for themselves free of the indoctrination that they have been raised with, merely that the choice is there and that it is likely that some people, if not many, choose that the arguments and evidence presented to them in support of a particular faith are insufficient to confirm that faith and so do not confirm it but go out and search for more evidence on which to base their conclusions beit in favour of the faith or otherwise.
To argue that it doesn't happen due to the source under which the person recieves the information is an ad hominem circumstancial argument. While it is certaintly true that what you say does happen, the argument is not sufficient to say that it always happens.
And to call me obtuse is ad hominem abusive argument.
And in the neutral, without conentation, meaning of cult, any formal belief system qualifies beit christianity, atheism, humanism, hinudism, etc. so your terminology would be correct though I suspect the disclaimer is appreciated ;)
I didn't call you obtuse, I said you were acting obtuse. You have readily admitted debating to push buttons, which I rarely mind, but this topic hit a little too close to home for me to remain completely emotionally detached.
ReplyDeleteNo church in their right mind would ever suggest a young member go out and explore alternative religions before confirming; that is not the purpose of a confirmation. I am not a theologian, so I cannot speak to it's direct purpose, but it is not to offer a choice. I would hazard to say its purpose is to reinforce a sense of camaraderie amongst congregation members so that you are less likely to leave (something I have blogged about before).
I went home for the weekend and checked out of my life for a bit (vacation is a wonderful thing), but as the conversation still seems to be going here (which is wicked awesome), I'll jump back in.
ReplyDeleteAshley's question of "do you think that 1) you're right, and 2) everyone else is deluded" interests me. As I said earlier, it is a defining feature of moral systems that they prescribe behaviour for all people (I couldn't sell my Ethics textbook, and can dig up that argument if you like). If there was an overwhelmingly convincing argument for one system or another, we'd all follow that one, being at least generally reasonable people. I thus take the fact that people hold different beliefs to be evidence that there is no "rational" system, and thus no "delusional" systems to counter it. That said, there exist mutually contradictory systems (even those based on tolerance of other systems fall down when confronted with intolerant systems - they either contradict themselves by holding a system opposite to themselves valid, or break their only rule, tolerance, by failing to tolerate exclusive systems).
In short, yes, I'd stake my life on the fact that I have it right (at least largely so - the idea that I am an infallible arbiter of truth is a tempting fallacy - I screw up the details more times than I'd like, but I do believe that I have at least the outlines of truth correctly). This, by extension, renders contradictory positions false. However, to refute me on this point is itself a moral judgement, which I expect you lack sufficient evidence to prove more correct than mine. It comes down to driving motivations, once all the rational arguments are taken off the top, effectively, what you want to believe - one of Ash's, if I understand correctly, is a great optimism about science and humanity - one of mine is a deep-seated sense of duty - both of these are (I would think) generally considered good things, but what driving factors are accorded primacy is a significant shaper of people and beliefs.
As to the discussion of confirmation, its quite interesting, but I believe somewhat of a moot point. I've heard statistics that 3 out of 4 first year college/university students leave the faith of their parents by the end of the year - at the stage in life when they are given independent choice, and a wide selection of viewpoints, many people choose alternately to their background. As a member of the 1 in 4, I can say that, for myself, given the opportunity to choose, I needed to own my faith - to find better reasons than "because that's what I've always done" to decide to stay with it.
(sorry about the novel - just so many interesting threads to follow, and I can type as long as I want)