Time to play.
This time we're going to play with atheism. 'Cause atheism is fun to play with.
Atheist,Voula Papas, has written a little ditty on atheism. Papas' basic thrust is that atheism is an agent of freedom that sets a person free and restores intellectual integrity. How quaint. But instead of needling, and harpooning Papas' logic, I'm going to take a different approach and re-write the article from the other edge of the sword; from the Christian theist edge, that is. Call it an extended reductio ad absurdum, or a whimsical scrap of satire. In any case, it should serve to illustrate some semantic futility. Which is always fun in the end.
Papas is red. I'm not.
"It has been said that atheists criticise religion while having nothing to offer as an alternative. The former is true, atheists DO criticise religion, and they speak out on the faults and falseness of religion. In other words we shout: THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON!!!"
It has been said that religion criticises atheism because it offers the noun nothing as an alternative. The former is true: religion does criticise atheism and speaks out on the absurdity and groundlessness of atheism. In other words, religion shouts, "The Emperor became a MAN!"
"The point is not whether atheists criticise religion but whether religion can stand up to criticism. So far no religion could stand up to criticism, that is why religion has had to resort to blasphemy laws and the might of the state to silence and crush opposition. In some Muslim countries, anyone who criticizes religion can be charged with blasphemy and sentenced to death."
The point is not whether religion criticises atheism but whether atheism can stand at all. So far atheism has failed to even grow legs. That is why atheism has had to resort to advertising itself on busses in an attempt to inculcate the masses, by way of a religious-style frenzy, that a logic-based approach to ultimate nothings is a healthier, more politically precise way of being a decent and well-manicured citizen. In some atheist countries (e.g., North Korea, or China) even hinting at a confidence in some form of the divine will sentence you, your household, and anyone else connected with you in any suspected religious fashion to prison or death.
"What does atheism offer? One may rightly ask!"
So, what does religion offer? Good question.
"Atheism offers intellectual integrity and freedom from religion. Atheists reject religious absolutes, primitive "revelations", superstition, blind obedience and self-effacing prostrations to a tyrannical deity whose existence cannot be proven."
Religion offers wholistic solidity. That is, a 3-dimensional grasp of personhood, not just the apotheosis of the intellect. Religion also offers freedom despite atheism, but also inclusive of the sensitivities of atheists. Christian theists generally reject philosophical relativities, shoddy scientific research, materialism, and facile and diffident concessions to a system of denial that cannot establish a logical link between its denial of deity and the actual lack of a deity.
"Atheists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress. Many atheists are highly ethical people who live by the golden rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. A lot of them are involved with human rights organisations, environmental issues, animal rights and other social issues with the goal of making the world a better place."
Christian theists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress. Many theists are ethical people enjoined to the biblical injunction to "do as you would be done by." Historically, Christians were the creators of, and contributors to some of the worlds greatest, most successful human rights organisations, and social developments. And their goal? The dignity of the people, and the honour of God for the purpose of a more meaningful world.
"Ethics need not be entwined with religion and meaningful lives do not require fictitious deities. I hope that during the course of my life I would be able to make even a small contribution into a better future for all."
Religion and ethics are necessarily entwined as both serve to deepen and enrich peoples' lives as they enjoy life with God. Like some well-intentioned atheists, those of us who are religious hope to make even a small contribution to the betterment of peoples' lives around us, and ensure that the future is not without hope or substance.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Peering Into the Obvious
Perhaps it's a bit of an intellectual smugness that pushes me to laugh when I see church factions concerned about divisions within the body. It's a bit of a global contradiction to lament divisions while holding on to titles like Reformed, or Catholic, etc. Still, that's just what's happening.
"The head of the world’s largest group of Reformed churches says that the body of Christ is rendering its own peace message ineffective because of internal divisions and strife at a time when persistent threats to global peace and security make the quest for Christian unity more urgent than ever."
I think those "internal divisions and strife" have been documented from time immemorial, actually. And any time those divisions exist they are an inconvenience to the Church's message, not just now when so many things are going belly up in the world. And since when did the Church hinge its desire for unity on the global events surrounding it? Perhaps such a misapprehension of the Christocentric ontology of the Church is one of the many things causing the divisions experienced in the world today.
Said Setri Nyomi, the General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (*sigh...*) :
“Does the church have a moral voice or credibility when our divisions are so visible?”
Why, yes, actually. Is there even a need to ask that question? Questions like that simply smack of a false humility that doesn't actually connect with the issue it's trying to address. It's feely rhetoric tickling the ears of the undiscerning. And frankly, I find it insulting.
M. Nyomi, have you missed the basic point in your ascendency to the General Secretary's seat that the Church's moral voice is not posited on the perfection of our efforts to appear in any certain way to the world? The Church's moral voice and credibility is not based in our paltry and petty shortcomings. It is, in fact, a voice given from the holy, triune God who lived and died for His people in the person of Christ. That's where the moral voice and credibility of the Church comes from; not our efforts at maintaining a clean slate before the world. As if the world were in a rightful, authoritative, or even purer place to criticize, anyway!
Carrying on with his impassioned (?) plea, Nyomi foibles and fumbles into more of the same soft imperceptions:
“'How can churches and church bodies foster world peace, peace among nations and peace within nations, when there is no peace among themselves, or when injustices that are so much at the heart of conflicts in the world are also found among us?' Nyomi said that the church’s ability to speak credibly and prophetically on issues of peace and justice was at stake if it failed to reconcile its differences."
Well, Nyomi, as much as you might be adverse to thinking so, life is messy. There's a whole lot of 'stuff' the Church, despite its inter-belligerent faults, can do, and is currently doing. Let's not discount effort based on failure. That's just another failure, sir, and you're spearheading that shortsightedness right now.
But more, Nyomi, one of the credible and prophetic realities of the Church is that its failings do not equal an inability to address essential realities such as peace and justice. Or to put it more anecdotally, sir, when I lose my balance, I'm not then unable to address realities such as, say, gravity. Get the point? Good.
“'If we are not united, we are breaking with the Lord of the church, and we are making it difficult for the world to believe,' he said, reminding delegates of Christ’s prayer that his followers would become one."
Yes, you're right: we can't achieve the eschatological ends of the Church previous to God's timing. And I think the disbelief of the rest of the world is based simply on that -- disbelief -- moreso than a messy Church with messy people doing stupid things now-and-then.
Anyway, I can't say I'd like to continue deconstructing Ms. Gold's articles, and Nyomi's overarching and ill-considered comments. So I won't. It's not all bad. It's mostly just political naivety mixed with sophmoric theology rooted in worldly hopes. Poor form.
"The head of the world’s largest group of Reformed churches says that the body of Christ is rendering its own peace message ineffective because of internal divisions and strife at a time when persistent threats to global peace and security make the quest for Christian unity more urgent than ever."
I think those "internal divisions and strife" have been documented from time immemorial, actually. And any time those divisions exist they are an inconvenience to the Church's message, not just now when so many things are going belly up in the world. And since when did the Church hinge its desire for unity on the global events surrounding it? Perhaps such a misapprehension of the Christocentric ontology of the Church is one of the many things causing the divisions experienced in the world today.
Said Setri Nyomi, the General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (*sigh...*) :
“Does the church have a moral voice or credibility when our divisions are so visible?”
Why, yes, actually. Is there even a need to ask that question? Questions like that simply smack of a false humility that doesn't actually connect with the issue it's trying to address. It's feely rhetoric tickling the ears of the undiscerning. And frankly, I find it insulting.
M. Nyomi, have you missed the basic point in your ascendency to the General Secretary's seat that the Church's moral voice is not posited on the perfection of our efforts to appear in any certain way to the world? The Church's moral voice and credibility is not based in our paltry and petty shortcomings. It is, in fact, a voice given from the holy, triune God who lived and died for His people in the person of Christ. That's where the moral voice and credibility of the Church comes from; not our efforts at maintaining a clean slate before the world. As if the world were in a rightful, authoritative, or even purer place to criticize, anyway!
Carrying on with his impassioned (?) plea, Nyomi foibles and fumbles into more of the same soft imperceptions:
“'How can churches and church bodies foster world peace, peace among nations and peace within nations, when there is no peace among themselves, or when injustices that are so much at the heart of conflicts in the world are also found among us?' Nyomi said that the church’s ability to speak credibly and prophetically on issues of peace and justice was at stake if it failed to reconcile its differences."
Well, Nyomi, as much as you might be adverse to thinking so, life is messy. There's a whole lot of 'stuff' the Church, despite its inter-belligerent faults, can do, and is currently doing. Let's not discount effort based on failure. That's just another failure, sir, and you're spearheading that shortsightedness right now.
But more, Nyomi, one of the credible and prophetic realities of the Church is that its failings do not equal an inability to address essential realities such as peace and justice. Or to put it more anecdotally, sir, when I lose my balance, I'm not then unable to address realities such as, say, gravity. Get the point? Good.
“'If we are not united, we are breaking with the Lord of the church, and we are making it difficult for the world to believe,' he said, reminding delegates of Christ’s prayer that his followers would become one."
Yes, you're right: we can't achieve the eschatological ends of the Church previous to God's timing. And I think the disbelief of the rest of the world is based simply on that -- disbelief -- moreso than a messy Church with messy people doing stupid things now-and-then.
Anyway, I can't say I'd like to continue deconstructing Ms. Gold's articles, and Nyomi's overarching and ill-considered comments. So I won't. It's not all bad. It's mostly just political naivety mixed with sophmoric theology rooted in worldly hopes. Poor form.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The 'Good,' the 'Bad,' and the 'Useless'
From a discussion with some radical unschoolers and pertaining to principles of 'moral relativity' and 'moral pluralism' expressed in child-rearing, and why I don't have any 'good boy's or 'good job's or 'bad' behaviour in my home (and am still neither a moral relativist nor a moral pluralist), I give you this...
I wanted to share that while I don't have an aversion to the use of the words 'good' and 'bad' in regular parlance, when I began a study of nonviolent communication, I realised that I had personal baggage relating to those words. I do have a strong moral compass, though, so navigating my language and thoughts to incorporate my values and also honour the intentions of others while still having the freedom to evaluate- well, that was a task!
What I did discover about myself is that while I am innately a creative person, I was very uncreative in the way I was viewing and expressing my evaluations. It also became clear to me that this limitation was not very helpful to my children when they were trying to solve difficulties and communicate with me and others. So, I eliminated 'good' and 'bad,' and forced myself to use more accurate words to describe my evaluations. Instead of 'bad' I used 'harmful,' 'injurious,' and also completely reframed of my view of behaviour that included much more observation, validation, and exploration of potential options- behaviours to try, empathy/sympathy with intention, etc....
Through having done this, I became more selective about what adheres to/contravenes a code of morality. In my opinion, there are very few actions that can be evaluated within a moral code- at least the one I understand. Most actions are derived of preference. I think that intention must accompany any act that directly contravenes what is moral; for instance, killing a man could be either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the one killing. I have a moral impetus to defend my children, and if that necessitated killing, I would do it and fit within the precepts of what I think is moral- even though if my intention was malicious, killing would most certainly be immoral. With this sort of thinking, it becomes much easier for *me* to evaluate what others are expressing through their actions and words, and to communicate in ways that are much clearer to everyone.
I would not do away with morality as though it were simply a matter of personal value; but I am still much more selective about what-fits-where now than I was previously. That, and it has been very freeing for me to not hold others hostage to my preferences.
It is also interesting to me how personality plays so much into how this process unfolds. I am INTJ with developed feeling (I'll spare you the unfortunate circumstances that necessitated this albeit valuable trait), and strong tendency toward extraverted judgment. My natural tendency to evaluate and 'judge' the validity of everything outside myself was crippling me and my relationships. It was necessary for me to learn the appropriate application of morality vs. preference in order for me to grow and mature, and necessary for me to take a hard line with myself (via self-evaluation, beyond my extraverted judgment) to enact the essential habit reformation.
Ds1 is like me, and has needed the same training, although in a very different way since with the knowledge I have acquired, I can make the environment so much gentler than I had as a child, and within which I had to enforce my new-found values, and he learns without shame. Ds2 and ds3 seem to need none of this because it comes to them naturally and they just tend to view themselves and others with compassion and willingness to observe (rather than judge) and participate when they feel inclined; ds2 is also an amazing 'judge' of character. Ds3 will probably need the most guidance with choosing friends because he is so willing and trusting; he'd probably believe someone who told him to come and that they wouldn't hurt him.
The interesting thing is that I don't think that I'll use the words 'good' and 'bad' to help ds3 with this since they are so vague as to not really be of use except in casual (or philosophical, lol) conversation. Certainly the concepts of what is ultimately 'good' and what is ultimately not must be clearly delineated, though, and maybe my vocabulary will end up being more graphic, and potentially more concerning than the use of such vague terms as 'good and 'bad' might be to some. Maybe I miss out on the 'short-hand' effect of those words and expose myself, or lose some, but in any case, in my commitment to change my communicative habit, I also committed to attempting to build-in understanding between people through creative vocabulary where not doing so would have rendered the point of communication useless, imo.
So Suneal, ask me how I am today, lol!
I wanted to share that while I don't have an aversion to the use of the words 'good' and 'bad' in regular parlance, when I began a study of nonviolent communication, I realised that I had personal baggage relating to those words. I do have a strong moral compass, though, so navigating my language and thoughts to incorporate my values and also honour the intentions of others while still having the freedom to evaluate- well, that was a task!
What I did discover about myself is that while I am innately a creative person, I was very uncreative in the way I was viewing and expressing my evaluations. It also became clear to me that this limitation was not very helpful to my children when they were trying to solve difficulties and communicate with me and others. So, I eliminated 'good' and 'bad,' and forced myself to use more accurate words to describe my evaluations. Instead of 'bad' I used 'harmful,' 'injurious,' and also completely reframed of my view of behaviour that included much more observation, validation, and exploration of potential options- behaviours to try, empathy/sympathy with intention, etc....
Through having done this, I became more selective about what adheres to/contravenes a code of morality. In my opinion, there are very few actions that can be evaluated within a moral code- at least the one I understand. Most actions are derived of preference. I think that intention must accompany any act that directly contravenes what is moral; for instance, killing a man could be either moral or immoral depending on the intention of the one killing. I have a moral impetus to defend my children, and if that necessitated killing, I would do it and fit within the precepts of what I think is moral- even though if my intention was malicious, killing would most certainly be immoral. With this sort of thinking, it becomes much easier for *me* to evaluate what others are expressing through their actions and words, and to communicate in ways that are much clearer to everyone.
I would not do away with morality as though it were simply a matter of personal value; but I am still much more selective about what-fits-where now than I was previously. That, and it has been very freeing for me to not hold others hostage to my preferences.
It is also interesting to me how personality plays so much into how this process unfolds. I am INTJ with developed feeling (I'll spare you the unfortunate circumstances that necessitated this albeit valuable trait), and strong tendency toward extraverted judgment. My natural tendency to evaluate and 'judge' the validity of everything outside myself was crippling me and my relationships. It was necessary for me to learn the appropriate application of morality vs. preference in order for me to grow and mature, and necessary for me to take a hard line with myself (via self-evaluation, beyond my extraverted judgment) to enact the essential habit reformation.
Ds1 is like me, and has needed the same training, although in a very different way since with the knowledge I have acquired, I can make the environment so much gentler than I had as a child, and within which I had to enforce my new-found values, and he learns without shame. Ds2 and ds3 seem to need none of this because it comes to them naturally and they just tend to view themselves and others with compassion and willingness to observe (rather than judge) and participate when they feel inclined; ds2 is also an amazing 'judge' of character. Ds3 will probably need the most guidance with choosing friends because he is so willing and trusting; he'd probably believe someone who told him to come and that they wouldn't hurt him.
The interesting thing is that I don't think that I'll use the words 'good' and 'bad' to help ds3 with this since they are so vague as to not really be of use except in casual (or philosophical, lol) conversation. Certainly the concepts of what is ultimately 'good' and what is ultimately not must be clearly delineated, though, and maybe my vocabulary will end up being more graphic, and potentially more concerning than the use of such vague terms as 'good and 'bad' might be to some. Maybe I miss out on the 'short-hand' effect of those words and expose myself, or lose some, but in any case, in my commitment to change my communicative habit, I also committed to attempting to build-in understanding between people through creative vocabulary where not doing so would have rendered the point of communication useless, imo.
So Suneal, ask me how I am today, lol!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Mucho Mullah for Mister Dollar
Kenneth Copeland, leader of Christian über-capitalists everywhere, has spawned a generation of prosperity preachers. Among them, Creflo Dollar, a boistrous preacher that vaunts such heresies as
"Man is equal to God in every respect. Or, in the words of Copeland, 'You don't have a God in you! You are one!'"
Or, for Gnostics everywhere, Creflo opines,
"Jesus was not the son of God, he was a man empowered by God to be just like God, and everyone who knows this can do the same thing."
And just to reinforce the salacious savvy of Creflo's dollar avarice,
"Any Christian who believes in poverty is outside God's will."
Wow! Hot damn, those are zingers, aren't they?! Mmm-hmm. Always nice to know that God really isn't who He said He is, and that we can step-up and not only have God in us, but be God, too. And then, we can demand of ourselves that we will not accept a divine Christ, but instead, will just go after the same empowerment that Christ had and become 'just like God' (oddly, that sounds quite a lot like the original temptation, doesn't it?). At the same time, we can just add a little venemous contradiction into the mix and be outside our own wills (remember, we're God, according to Copeland and his ilk) because we might just believe in poverty.
Oh, God! the stupidity... Hey, did I just lament to myself when I wrote that?
"Man is equal to God in every respect. Or, in the words of Copeland, 'You don't have a God in you! You are one!'"
Or, for Gnostics everywhere, Creflo opines,
"Jesus was not the son of God, he was a man empowered by God to be just like God, and everyone who knows this can do the same thing."
And just to reinforce the salacious savvy of Creflo's dollar avarice,
"Any Christian who believes in poverty is outside God's will."
Wow! Hot damn, those are zingers, aren't they?! Mmm-hmm. Always nice to know that God really isn't who He said He is, and that we can step-up and not only have God in us, but be God, too. And then, we can demand of ourselves that we will not accept a divine Christ, but instead, will just go after the same empowerment that Christ had and become 'just like God' (oddly, that sounds quite a lot like the original temptation, doesn't it?). At the same time, we can just add a little venemous contradiction into the mix and be outside our own wills (remember, we're God, according to Copeland and his ilk) because we might just believe in poverty.
Oh, God! the stupidity... Hey, did I just lament to myself when I wrote that?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Am I A Moral Relativist?
I'm not sure that asking if a person is a moral relativist is really a relevant question, honestly. Unless a person is a sociopath, how is being relativist really going to make a lick of difference in the way you live? I'm willing to bet most people want the same basic needs met: food, water, shelter, and the means to make those things happen. So, since morals address actual needs and how they're met, relativism mostly applies to projected situations: what would you do if?
Exceptions might include a philosophical commitment to a certain ideal; e.g., deontology vs. utilitarianism. Or perhaps adopting a religion like Christianity, or Judaism. Even then, however, the moral systems incumbant on most of the world's philosophies and religions come down to meeting the same basic needs and how one does that; and most of them also suggest in one way or another that it is an absolute ought to consider the welfare of the people and places around you.
So, while a person may consider themselves a moral relativist, the term only aides in describing that a person may have a different philosophical commitment about how to meet essential needs (a strategy). In all practicality, however, refusing to meet those needs, regardless of philosophical/religious/a-religious commitments simply makes a person immoral, and not a relativist. Hence what is absolute is that it is incumbant on all of us to be moral; what is relative is how we go about doing that.
Exceptions might include a philosophical commitment to a certain ideal; e.g., deontology vs. utilitarianism. Or perhaps adopting a religion like Christianity, or Judaism. Even then, however, the moral systems incumbant on most of the world's philosophies and religions come down to meeting the same basic needs and how one does that; and most of them also suggest in one way or another that it is an absolute ought to consider the welfare of the people and places around you.
So, while a person may consider themselves a moral relativist, the term only aides in describing that a person may have a different philosophical commitment about how to meet essential needs (a strategy). In all practicality, however, refusing to meet those needs, regardless of philosophical/religious/a-religious commitments simply makes a person immoral, and not a relativist. Hence what is absolute is that it is incumbant on all of us to be moral; what is relative is how we go about doing that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)