In response to Rachel Niddrie's post "How is 'He' Any Different?" (April 5, 2012):
The Roman Catholic conception of God is not the only one, or even the only common one, in Christianity. Different sects have very different ideas of what exactly God is. Furthermore, it is likely, given the literary traditions in the time of its writing, that the Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally. Many of the stories within it are metaphors, the goal of which is to communicate a certain message about how to live. Of course, many Christians (particularly, as the above post suggests, Roman Catholics) interpret the Bible literally anyway, in spite of the frequent and obvious contradictions found within it.
Additionally, even when some (apparently literal) description of God seems to contain an impossibility or a paradox, one can justify it with the argument that, as God is infinitely greater than we are, these seeming impossibilities are in fact not so. Of course, this may seem like a rather weak excuse, and it certainly does not allow one to prove God's existence. It does prevent others from disproving it, however.
This may not be enough to convince many people of God's existence, and that is fine. An atheistic viewpoint is certainly not irrational, as long as the atheist does not claim to be able to prove God's non-existence. Neither are theistic viewpoints irrational, as long as the theist does not claim to be able to prove God's existence. In short, if one feels that it is necessary to have empirical evidence before one will believe in God's existence, then one is an atheist. If one is willing to go on faith, then one is a theist. If one does not wish to believe either way, then one is an agnostic.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Q&A 8, Second Answer
The basic form of my question is: Is the Bible a literal account of past events, or is it a manual for ethical behaviour presented in metaphorical form?
I think, quite decisively, that it is the latter. Stories within the Bible contradict one another; if the Bible's writers meant it to act as a literal account, they created it rather badly. However, if the reader takes each individual story as a piece of metaphorically stated advice, the narrative as a whole works out much better.
Of course, some of this advice is now radically outdated. The advice regarding disobedient children found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ("If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son...Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him...And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die") obviously would not be remotely suitable for the modern age. As such, contemporary Christians would need to reinterpret certain verses, in order to adapt the Bible to fit a contemporary setting.
I think, quite decisively, that it is the latter. Stories within the Bible contradict one another; if the Bible's writers meant it to act as a literal account, they created it rather badly. However, if the reader takes each individual story as a piece of metaphorically stated advice, the narrative as a whole works out much better.
Of course, some of this advice is now radically outdated. The advice regarding disobedient children found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 ("If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son...Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him...And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die") obviously would not be remotely suitable for the modern age. As such, contemporary Christians would need to reinterpret certain verses, in order to adapt the Bible to fit a contemporary setting.
Q&A 8, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: When faith and reason contradict one another, which course should a Christian take?
I think that it depends on the individual Christian. One could consider oneself a Christian even if the only times one relied on faith were the times when either faith and reason led to the same conclusion, or when they did not do so but did not directly contradict one another either. One could also consider oneself a Christian if one placed rather higher priority on faith; thus, in cases wherein faith and reason contradicted one another, one would follow the course supported by faith. I do not think that this latter system would pose a moral problem as long as one only applied it to oneself. Thus, one cannot use one's faith-driven logic to cause harm to others; neither can one prevent someone else from acting on their faith (as long as it does not harm you or a third party), even if it contradicts one's own faith.
I think that it depends on the individual Christian. One could consider oneself a Christian even if the only times one relied on faith were the times when either faith and reason led to the same conclusion, or when they did not do so but did not directly contradict one another either. One could also consider oneself a Christian if one placed rather higher priority on faith; thus, in cases wherein faith and reason contradicted one another, one would follow the course supported by faith. I do not think that this latter system would pose a moral problem as long as one only applied it to oneself. Thus, one cannot use one's faith-driven logic to cause harm to others; neither can one prevent someone else from acting on their faith (as long as it does not harm you or a third party), even if it contradicts one's own faith.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Patriotism and Celebration
In general, I think that patriotism is at best unnecessary and at worst entirely immoral. How, then, did such a bad idea become so popular? There are many reasons, but in American culture one of the most appealing may be the frequent institutionalised celebration of patriotism. The Fourth of July, for example, is an occasion which appeals to many people. It provides an opportunity to unite and celebrate a shared cause. It is also fun for children, due to all the excitement and proliferation of high spirits. Merry parades, music, and pleasant food are all strong motivations for most people. While this sort of tradition obviously did not spark the idea of patriotism, I think it likely provides a lot of fuel for the idea to continue, and to be as popular as it is.
Response: Evolutionary Emotions
In response to Kurtiss Keefner's post "Love of Country or Love of the People?" (April 1, 2012):
I agree that many people do not recognise, at least in any depth, that those in other countries are real people, with emotions very similar or identical to their own. The reason for this may be evolutionary. Being attached emotionally to those close to one (historically, these people are often genetically related to one) and then basing one's actions off that attachment, without incorporating abstract ethics, was indeed usually the best way to ensure both one's own safety and the continuation of one's own genetic line. As such, caring only for those one knows personally, or those whom society tells one to care about, may be a default stance, so to speak, of many people. Recognising the personhood of those in other countries usually requires a commitment to at least a small amount of rational thought and consideration - something which many people fail to make time for in their everyday lives. Even after intellectually recognising that those in other countries are also people, it may take a continued commitment to rational consideration to ensure that one takes this recognition into account when making decisions or statements. The only time, it seems, when many people emotionally believe in the personhood of those in other countries is immediately after watching emotionally-charged television footage of happenings in other countries.
I agree that many people do not recognise, at least in any depth, that those in other countries are real people, with emotions very similar or identical to their own. The reason for this may be evolutionary. Being attached emotionally to those close to one (historically, these people are often genetically related to one) and then basing one's actions off that attachment, without incorporating abstract ethics, was indeed usually the best way to ensure both one's own safety and the continuation of one's own genetic line. As such, caring only for those one knows personally, or those whom society tells one to care about, may be a default stance, so to speak, of many people. Recognising the personhood of those in other countries usually requires a commitment to at least a small amount of rational thought and consideration - something which many people fail to make time for in their everyday lives. Even after intellectually recognising that those in other countries are also people, it may take a continued commitment to rational consideration to ensure that one takes this recognition into account when making decisions or statements. The only time, it seems, when many people emotionally believe in the personhood of those in other countries is immediately after watching emotionally-charged television footage of happenings in other countries.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)