They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. They must rehabilitate themselves after ever little emancipation from religion by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring way what moral fanatics they are. That is their penance.
Friedrich Nietzsche
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
Correct me if I am wrong – but it seems to be that unlike people like Dawkins/Hitchy etc. Neitzche seems to accept that the morality of our (his) society did stem from Christianity.
For this reason the New Atheists are not as much a threat to society as people like Neitzche. Dawkins in particular seems to accept most of his inherited social values – he just denies that they came from where they came from – and so is unlikely to become a monster.
Gotta love Nietzsche. Most atheists spend a great deal of energy explaining that one can refuse to believe in God and yet still be “moral”. Nietzsche, on the other hand, didn’t care about morality in the slightest – almost his whole objection to Christianity was that it WAS moral.
Fred Nietzsche: The dude who had better ideas than every theologian ever! Plus most analytical moral philosophers. Bring on nihilisim please.
Richard: You first! đ
I’ve noticed that people who lose their religion in college sometimes become fanatical about being a vegetarian, a global warming activist, etc. … they’ll engage in any number of secular liberal fads and causes.
Yes indeed. I have met many Born Again Liberals
Seems to me that people need to believe in something and they need a sense of purpose. If something gets in the way of a relationship with God they just find something else.
On one of the other posts ropata pointed out Christianity does a good job of addressing the human condition, so to paraphrase — without a vision the people perish,
and —
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” Rom 1:23 & 23
everbody worships something, the question is whether or not that something is worthy of worship.
Neitzche, its ever so slightly ironic that a man who rejected Christianity and moral is more honest than most about the implications of doing so. Get rid of God and the only thing genuinely left is self.
I’m not sure about the worship part. It’s difficult to try to map worship in any meaningful sense into what the nonbeliever in God is doing in simply not believing and just living their lives in as personally satisfying a manner as possible. I certainly wouldn’t call it that at this point, especially since there’s a deeper point that does the same thing that is wanted out of the worship necessity claim, with far less connotative and emotional controversy.
There’s an intellectual ideal that gets implicitly treated as ultimate and decisive and in some sense final in all reasoning that reaches a conclusion. That’s all that’s needed to begin asking the question of how many god-like similarities can there be in an object or set of objects before the god-equivalence issue can no longer be dismissed as a mere misrepresentation of atheism.
“Morality” has become a bad word in the West, but we could probably substitute “values” or “earth stewardship”. Nowadays we show how much better we are than others by recycling more cans, driving a Prius, and keeping moral condemnations to a minimum.
” in simply not believing and just living their lives in as personally satisfying a manner as possible”,
with self as the focus of life is that not a form of idolatry and worship
I’m curious as to why it is that I should abandon my intuition of objective morality in favor of nihilism.
Sate your curiosity by reading Freddy’s books…
The point is that simply believing and living one’s life is definitely not considered worship, which is why the churchers consider unchurched believers to be spiritually inferior precisely because they do not “worship” in the sense that the churchers intend. So I don’t see why the atheist should be accused of this when the only difference between them and unchurched believers is the lack of that belief. If merely existing is worship, the term loses any significant spiritual meaning, as well as depriving the churchers of any basis for judging the unchurched as spiritual second-class citizens.
Machine philosophy,
Are the virtues of the godless much more inclusive and appealing to humanity vs. that of Christian agape? Which, in your opinion is superior or different in what respect?
I’m curious to your answer
Thanks
Jeremy, you quoted, then commented, “..they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptilesâ Rom 1:23 & 23
everbody worships something..”
Jeremy, there is an invisible moving line separating ‘the profound’ from ‘the ridiculous’.
The total lack of empathy towards your fellow human beings, which you are revealing here, is nothing short of incredible!
I CANNOT believe that you see people, who simply do not believe that there are such things as gods, through this smug, superior, self-aggrandizing, very cynical, actually childish lens.
I CANNOT believe that you are so shallow that you lack the power of self-reflection, the power to see how much you damage the credibility of all your fellow Christians by having us imagine that this glib nonsense is actually how you imagine us.
“everbody worships something”, ranks up there with , “you’re either with us or against us”, “We are the greatest country in the world”, and such, in the sheer force of it’s propaganda-jingle, band-wagon-jumping, demonizing, sneering, xenophobic stupidity!
You honestly think that that is true? I can’t believe it. I’m forced to picture you typing your comment with all the glee of a young sociopath lighting the fuse on a fire-cracker he’s just stuck up a frogs bum.
Please don’t lose your faith that God will punish you for eternity if you transgress his MORAL LAW. That seems to me to be the ONLY THING that is stopping you from being the total sociopathic monster which is hiding behind your religiousity.
Stick to stealing from people and calling it ‘business’.
@ pboy
and i was thinking you were interested in engaging rather than insulting.
“Stick to stealing from people and calling it âbusinessâ”
What does this mean? I am at a total loss.
Everbody worships something, clearly you are offended by what you see as the religious overtones of the word “worship” and i guess you like to think you dont have any religion.
Who are you living your life to please? God, well probably not, you claim to not believe. Other people? I cant tell. Self? Maybe. Or maybe you are a car, motorbike or art fanatic. It doesnt really matter, whatever has preeminence in your life, that is you idol and thats what you worship [devote your time, energy, emotion etc to].
In your case i suspect “self”, feel free to prove me wrong.
By the way in case you dont know, the essence of sin is when we say to God, “my will not thy will”.
I love Nietzsche for his honesty. Ravi puts it very well I think, when he says the difference from the atheists of old and the New Atheists is the recognition, that if you dispose of God, there there are consequences.
Traditional “soft” Christian values for one. The idea of objective truth for another.
He at least made an effort to be consistent with his atheism.
@ Machine
“when the only difference between them and unchurched believers is the lack of that belief.”
I am a little disturbed if you actually believe this. Certainly neither atheists nor Christians would accept that the only difference was over an individual academic belief. A difference of opinion concerning one fact.
” the churchers consider unchurched believers to be spiritually inferior”
I must apologise for any of my Christian brothers who may have given this impression, but if they do then both they and yourself have completely failed to understand Christ’s message and Christianity
God is not willing that any should perish…..
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…
In this is love, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us..
There is no thought of spiritual superiority in any of this, rather an equality of need on all our parts for God to act on our behalf, because we could not.
It strikes me as very odd that the idea “everyone worships something” should be regarded with such antipathy. 1) Not thirty years ago Bob Dylan was popularly singing something that is not conceptually very different: “Youâre gonna have to serve somebody.” 2) Actually, the religious impulse in Homo sapiens is well noted among anthropologists. 3) You don’t have to look far to see the religious overtones in Atheism. Witness for instance the insulting nature of pboyfloyd’s remarks, with the unbending (fundamentalist style) “I CANNOT believe…”
Richard P,
You say,
“Fred Nietzsche: The dude who had better ideas than every theologian ever! Plus most analytical moral philosophers. Bring on Nihilisim please.”
Neitzsche agreed with most theologians, in that if God does not exist (he assumed this), then there are no objective moral values, but if God does exist, then there are. What then, of Neitzsche’s ideas do you have in mind?
“Who are you living your life to please?”
This is a loaded question Jeremy. (“Have you stopped beating your wife up in the morning?”)
“God, well probably not, you claim to not believe. ”
There are no gods, Jeremy, not even one.
So I’m insulting YOU when I point out the glib cynicism of your previous comment?
You say you don’t understand my last sentence, Jeremy. By your response I can tell you didn’t understand ANY of it.
Seems I can point out to you all day that repeating a slogan like that, with or without a Biblical quote about idol worshippers, deserves a response like that and you should KNOW THIS, I was pointing out that you should KNOW THIS.
Your original comment is like acid rain burning away the veneer of ‘philosophical grounding’ that Matt is claiming and exposing somthing quite ugly.
Thought that might be something you’d like to know. Never mind then Jeremy, you go on thinking that you’re head and shoulders above us poor idol worshippers.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
@ pboy
“Seems I can point out to you all day that repeating a slogan like that, with or without a Biblical quote about idol worshippers,”
There you go not understanding, it wasnt a quote about idol worshippers, its a NT quote about the nature of man and what happens when man turns away from God.
Do you think i would be more persausive if i used your assertive technique, i will try.
There is a God, pboy, and He loves you no matter that you reject Him. Your denial cannot change this. You will find no peace or rest as long as you run from Him.
Did that help, i hope so.
I wonder at your anger, it is so incandescent. Who do you serve, God or self and why are you so offended at the question?
This post started with a comment by Nietzsche, it seems to me to be particularly apt.
Lastly, acknowledging my own inadequacy and need of God is hardly a statement oy any kind of superiority. Knowing God loves and cares for me definitely helps me sleep at night, any tendency to thoughts of superiority just reminds me of why i need God.
“Not thirty years ago Bob Dylan was popularly singing something that is not conceptually very different: âYouâre gonna have to serve somebody.â
Haven’t reached that Dylan song yet. Still working on, “Who put the ram in the rama-dama-ding-dong?”
How profound is THAT? I CAN imagine who YOU think put that ram there though.
“Actually, the religious impulse in Homo sapiens is well noted among anthropologists.”
Hmm. Maybe they listen to Dylan, or maybe they’re just being kind, politically correct, that sort of thing.
“the insulting nature of pboyfloydâs remarks, with the unbending (fundamentalist style) âI CANNOT believeâŚâ”
Nice turning tables. Nice tu quoque there! I love it when a fellow Christian(of Jeremy’s) reacts by ganging up, circling the wagons, claiming my being insulted by Jeremy’s comment as ‘insulting’.
My ‘CANNOT believe’, is changing, I’m sure you’ll be able to handle a few capitalized words without too much trauma. Guess I CAN believe it now, since there’s two of you.
Still, I don’t see any choice here, since you guys seem to NEED there to be a God with a carrot and a stick to humanize you.
Funny though. being human, it seems to come naturally to me. Guess I might have expected some of you guys to actually believe that you have no other reason to empathize with your fellow human beings if there are no gods.
You’re half way there with your libertarianism, your thinly disguised social darwinism.
No doubt you see that as a ‘plus’.
“âAlthough they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptilesâ Rom 1:23 & 23”
No, Jeremy, here’s the quote and it’s ALL about idol worshippers and your last, “you-don’t-understand” comment there is a diversion. You’re reading something into those verses something that isn’t there.
You are adding ‘everyone has to worship something’ as if that is just a given.
It’s just not. It’s a xenophobic worldview allowing you to demonize non-religious people as well as people not of YOUR religion.
You don’t like it when the Muslims do it to you, so you should know not to indulge in that yourself.
“There is a God, pboy, and He loves you no matter that you reject Him.’
There are no gods for me to deny.
“I wonder at your anger, it is so incandescent.”
You’re reading ‘anger’ into what I’m saying. I’m not angry at you at all. I AM amazed at how little thought you must be putting into your commentary here. I think you are doing Christians and other non-zealot/jihad theists a great disservice using this kind of damaging rhetoric.
“Who do you serve, God or self and why are you so offended at the question?””
Once again, this is a loaded question.(Do you still beat your wife up in the morning?)
I’m pointing out that YOU ought to be offended by your original glib propaganda.
Machine Philosophy,
Rom 1:18-23 says that those who reject God [this would include atheists] suppress the truth about God even though it is clearly seen. By refusing to acknowledge God as God and give thanks to him, these people are given over to moronic thinking, darkened hearts and idolatrous practices.
You say that “simply [not] believing and living oneâs life [in as personally satisfying a manner as possible] is definitely not considered worship.” Maybe that is case. But this is not Christian perspective of the predicament the atheist is in. This is the atheist’s (incorrect) perspective.
You also say, “…which is why the churchers consider unchurched believers to be spiritually inferior precisely because they do not âworshipâ in the sense that the churchers intend.” The churchers, if they think that unchurched-peoples or non-believers are spiritually inferior, would be wrong to think so. Christian doctrine (especially that of the Imago Dei) gives ample grounds for affirming that all people, whether believers or non-believers, are equal with respect to their dignity as humans (spiritual/physical beings) and worth or importance to God. The only superiority that Christian believers have over non-believers is in the worldview they accept as true, and in the fact that it is better to live in accord with the truth than it is a half-truth or lie.
Well excuse me for not cutting and pasteing the whole chapter rather than just two verses.
It would be kind of nice if you actually addressed the questions rather than going on about and old SHA NA NA song.
Who or what is the focus of your life?
By the way i didnt say “everybody has to worship something” you are mixing your quotes, i said ” everybody worships something”. Its a simple observationally based fact. Everyone has something that they give the primary place to in their lives, the question remains , what is it and is it worthy of that place. I t may be sex, drugs, rock n roll, career, money, sport what ever, but it does exist, calling me xenophobic wont change this.
The quote from Romans is all about what happens when we dont give God that preeminent place in our lives, we give something else that place instead.
By the way the Muslims would agree on this, concerning the nature of man, even though we disagree on who God is.
“Who or what is the focus of your life?”
This is a loaded question. I don’t see my life in terms of having a focus.
“By the way the Muslims would agree on this..”
Of course they would. And they would agree that the fine-tuning argument and argument from design point right at Allah, um, God, no Allah, NO! GOD!, shut up, it’s ALLAH!, kill the heathens!
Jeremy, you say, “It would be kind of nice if you actually addressed the questions rather than going on about and old SHA NA NA song.”
Maybe if you stuck to responding to my comments answering YOUR comments and not answering for Stuart, that might be ‘kind of nice’ too.
Powerful answer pboy.
Don’t get me wrong Jeremy. I certainly don’t mind you quoting me and responding to that.
We’re not exactly under Robert’s Rules here.
Still, it doesn’t seem fair to me that you’re going to quote the Bible and and claim a context which is not inherent in the quote.
You might as well say, “In the Beginning..” There, that ought to explain it to you, imagining that me reading the Bible over and over would somehow help me discover some truths.
Didn’t do the Sanhedrin much good, if the later stories are accurate, right?
@pboy
i think the context is fully inherent in the first half of the quote which is why i used it rather than including more of the surrounding text
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God”
its clear what Paul is getting at , men making claims about their own wisdom become fools when they exchange [ deny, rebuff ] God and instead value made things.
Further reading of the immediate context will make this clearer, Paul expands on what happens we we worship the creature rather than the Creator, in particular the moral decline that accompanies this type of choice.
“In the beginning” a good understanding of the fallen nature of man, the fact that we have this unavoidable tendency to do wrong which none of us seem to be able to overcome in our own strenght, may in fact be very helpful to you. It may help you see how God sees us and why He needs to act on our behalf, rather than leaving us to carry the can.
It’s been my experience that any moralistic characterization of nonbelievers is counterproductive, and tends to truncate discussion. I think everyone suppresses truths of some kind and to some degree, and somewhere the bible seems to say that not looking at God’s word regularly and overindulging causes the *believer* to forget God completely. “Who is God?” I believe is the actual quote characterizing the believer’s state in such situations. Solomon also said that the righteous *weigh* their own answers. Thomas was shown the empirical evidence in spite of his irrationality about testimonial evidence. I was given the benefit of the doubt. I give the atheist the benefit of the doubt, but not for that reason alone.
“âAlthough they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal Godâ”
See, now you’re just splitting this sentence in half. THIS is ‘taking it out of context’.
What was it that the writer is claiming that those who claim to be wise and becoming fools exchanged the glory of the immortal God FOR?
Idol worship.
Now you can try to ‘generalize’ that into loving money or sex or whatnot, but that is NOT what it’s saying at all.
You just imagine that you can interpret it that way, because you have been TOLD that you can, because it suits you right now to do this.
If you were living in the Ancient Near East at the time this was written and people WERE worshipping idols, then you’d sing a different song, wouldn’t you?
You, just asserting that, ‘everyone worships something’ is just your way of cornering atheists, who, by definition, don’t worship anything.
After all, they’re not just aChristianists, or aIslamists(like you).
You just WANTING to paint atheists as ‘worshipping something’ no doubt because they ‘hate God’, is you simply demonizing atheists, and the objection I had was, that you are painting Christians as ‘demonizers of anything they don’t like’.
And as we have gone over, of course Muslims don’t have a problem demonizing people not of THEIR faith either. Surely that doesn’t make it right for you to do it?.
Correction: I don’t think Corinth in the 50’s AD qualifies as the Ancient Near East.
Nietzsche’s comment would only apply to new-minted atheists who have left the Christian faith for pseudo intellectual reasons.
However I am not sure if Nietzsche imagined such a result as the denizens of Jersey Shore. đ
@pboy
“You, just asserting that, âeveryone worships somethingâ is just your way of cornering atheists, who, by definition, donât worship anything.:
actually by definition atheists [without gods] dont believe in God, this says nothing about what they worship except that its not God.
You must be a truly unusual person, according to your own words you have no focus and nothing is important in your life. This would normally describe a dead person, yet the evidence of you responding suggests some form of life.
Apparently you claim to be a more competent exegete of scripture than i am even though you dont believe, a postion i dont accept at all.
Pauls comments in Romans are about what happens when man turns away from God, man worships false gods, he gives some examples ie man made idols [ and yes we still have man made idols today, they just arent statues anymore but things like cars, houses, money]. That these verses are primarily about denying God [and secondarily about idol worship as the wrong choice men make] is abundantly clear from the first part of the quote and from the surrounding text. Worshipping the created rather than the Creator is always wrong and we are warned concerning the consequences. If you can make a case otherwise please do so, you will have to make a very convincing case because it would be in the face of all orthodox understanding of this passage.
I thank you for your concern that i maybe mischaracterising Christians as “demonizers of atheists” [ interesting use of a spiritual concept coming from a non believer] but let me assure you this is not the case. First of all i am not interested in characterising atheists as demons from hell, what a strange idea, and secondly everyone gives something primacy in their lives not just atheists. This is such an easily observed fact i am at a loss concerning your denial. How is being aware of the human condition lacking empathy or xenophobic? Recognising human failings doesnt mean i hate people, neither does it mean i claim to be better or different, just aware.
Awareness of our faults is an important first step in dealing with them.
Ropata,
I don’t think that Nietzsche’s comment only applies to “newly-minted” atheists who have given up on the Christian God. I think he has the whole of society in view – such that if society expunges itself of the God that has given it a Christian legacy, it also has dispose of that legacy, which includes “soft” values. Both the society and the atheist of any stripe thus have to become “moral fanatics” when they are forced to create their own “hard” values.
Well, Jeremy, I’m always glad to help someone who might be struggling with the English language a bit.
Demonizing : to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc.: “to demonize a political opponent”
This is a good word for you to learn, in that way you might find yourself doing it and think twice.
Now as far as your quote is concerned, there ARE such objects which people do worship. One’s national flag. No matter which religion one might espouse, here in Canada, one is encouraged to adore our flag, our country, the Queen.
It likely wouldn’t surprise you to learn that I don’t, and that I view the Americans as a bunch of flag-worshippers who are indoctrinated every morning, reciting a little prayer while holding their hand over their heart while adoring their stars and stripes.
Now I’d wager that neither you nor I feel that Americans are any better than us, no worse than us, on average, but this indoctrination certainly gives them the feeling that they are superior to us.
Now someone mentioned that human beings have a tendency towards, or are inclined to, religion/worshipping ‘something’, but I think I must be missing that gene.
From another point-of-view, I think that you feel that your Bible is authoritative, or at least that it covers everyone.
The central idea, that they put Jesus to death to save us, as a sacrifice, a la John 3:16 doesn’t make sense to me.
And, of course, the idea that I’m either with God or against HIM, contains in it the idea that there is a God to be ‘with or against’, doesn’t it?
So this ‘worshipping’ thing is just stating this from a slightly different perspective. Just because believers feel that they must worship ‘something'(and we all know what that is), it doesn’t follow that EVERYONE ‘must worship something’.
@pboy
“Demonizing : to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc.: âto demonize a political opponentâ”
and just how do you think this word came to have this meaning? Sometimes a quick look in the dictionary and a little knowledge just doesnt go quite far enough.
So what Jeremy?
The epistemology that Matt is fond of clubbing science or naturalism with has a greek root:- knowledge.
The word science has a Latin root:- knowledge
the ending ology has a Greek root:- knowledge.
So if we’re going to imagine all words ‘back to the roots’.. the epistomology of science becomes:-
The knowledge of the knowledge of knowledge.
you are absolutely right, so whats your point?
whats wrong with knowing how we know what we know? seems like a reasonable line of enquiry
Well, Jeremy, it’s just playing with words. Epistemology is not a settled thing like debaters like Matt would have us believe.
@pboy
sorry but i’m missing the point again. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of the validity methods and scope of knowledge. I cant say i’ve ever had the impression that Matt believes this is in some way settled. He does seem to demand that assertions be justified and he is pretty damn quick to point out logic failures and inconsistent application of arguments. Both he and Glenn are real quick to point out when someone is making a point but fail to apply the same logic/argument to themselves. The old “whats good for the goose is good for the gander” point.
This has nothing to do with your idea that everyone worships something.
Nevertheless, you say, “Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of the validity methods and scope of knowledge.”
How do you know that everyone worships something? What method do you use to deduce this? If it is simply that quote from your Bible, then it is simply an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.(ergo invalid)
I think that our comments on these two posts have a common theme here, in that they both seem to be dealing with the art or science of persuasion.
I believe you think that ‘everyone worships something’ is a very persuasive argument, much like your argument that Old Testament happenings being taken out of context by us is also persuasive.
The trouble with these arguments is that simply because they are persuasive to you doesn’t mean that they are persuasive to anyone who doesn’t hold your worldview.
If the ‘baby’ in your ‘bathwater’ is that you feel comfortable with the wicked world that you are going to have an eternal life, that’s fine with me, but if the ‘baby’ simply boils down to you feeling you have a right to try to force me to accept, or live out your worldview through politics etc., then that’s not such a good thing, is it?
Examine your motives Jeremy. Especially when arguing from authority that ‘everyone worships something’ and using this slogan to demonize others.
@pboy
‘How do you know that everyone worships something? What method do you use to deduce this? If it is simply that quote from your Bible, then it is simply an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.(ergo invalid)”
It is not a quote from the bible. I have already made it plain that this is a simple observation of human behaviour made by myself and countless others, concerning the way everyone gives something primacy in their lives. For example surely even you have noticed the “Keeping up with the Jones” behaviour so common among people, or the idea that modern western economies are predicated on human materialism and greed. Go and watch a few TV adverts. Its all idolatry [excessive devotion to things] How about sports fanaticism, go to an ice hockey game and then tell me the difference between the adoration and worship fans have for their favourite teams and players and the behaviour in a strongly charismatic/pentecostal church.
Just go and spend some time watching people.
I would point out that you joined this particular discussion because you objected to something i wrote. I am not trying to force you into my world view [ there is no way i can], neither am i trying to demonize you or anyone else. If you feel demonized then you should ask yourself why, not attribute motives to me.
With respect to “context” in debate. It is always relevant, irrespective of what is being debated. If you leave out context then your facts are at best incomplete and at worst effectively wrong [doesnt matter if you are discussing OT, NT, biology, crime, economics whatever] and then arguments you make or conclusions you draw are invalid.
Now if you dont like my observation that “everyone worships something” [ hardly a new or original observation and an observation rather than an argument ], then feel free to give reasons [as opposed to personal attack] about why you disagree with the observation. You might like to comment on your own observations of human nature
and how they support what you think.
You may well be right about sports fans Jeremy, I don’t follow any sports.
I observe(taking your advice here) that people are willing to learn to devote part of their lives to bond together socially, voluntarilly deluding themselves that they are ‘part of a team’, part of something ‘greater than themselves’, like their local hockey, football, baseball or whatnot team.
Sure, religion is like that, isn’t it?(Go team Christ! LOL)
I think you’re mixing consumerism up with materialism to suit yourself a bit there when you’re on about commercials.
Commercials are the ugly children of corporations, other ‘headless monsters’ with the specific agenda of making their ‘legal person’ grow, aren’t they?
Still, I cannot imagine that you, Jeremy are anti-corporation, the bastions of free-market capitalism?
Surely you cannot be against corporations qua ‘Satan’ and for them qua ‘fundamental pillar of your worldview’, at the exact same time, yes?
Or are you a socialist?
Pboyfloyd
âI believe you think that âeveryone worships somethingâ is a very persuasive argument, much like your argument that Old Testament happenings being taken out of context by us is also persuasive.
The trouble with these arguments is that simply because they are persuasive to you doesnât mean that they are persuasive to anyone who doesnât hold your worldview.â
Touche
Yes, Jeremy generalizes that because most people have religious impulses all people have religious impulses.
We could argue that most people have eyesight but some donât.
The religious impulse which Jeremy implies you should have (possibly in error) is however well noted in anthropology as reported by another commentator on Jan 26, 2011 at 9:22 am
âActually, the religious impulse in Homo sapiens is well noted among anthropologists.â
An argument which you dismissed at Jan 26, 2011 at 10:08 am
âHmm. Maybe they listen to Dylan, or maybe theyâre just being kind, politically correct, that sort of thing.â
The human tendency to worship is not an artefact of Jeremyâs worldview or some bible text, but a reported phenomenon within the field of anthropology.
The moral landscape of our society now goes something like this… (no it doesn’t make any sense)
GOOD
1. Self gratification
2. “Truth” is unknowable
3. People are judged according to looks, age, wealth
4. Radical Islam, Black Power gangsters, incarcerated criminals are cool rebels against the system
BAD
1. Stopping the party, interfering with my fun
2. Religion/”Truth” = Hypocrisy = the “worst” sin
3. Judgment of others behaviour or morals
4. Hard work, paying tax, going to Church
5. Critical thinking/Science (UFOs and astrology FTW!)
Stuart, if society feels the need to “dispose of Christian values”, you’ve asserted something different from Nietzsche. Here’s his comment again:
They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality.
Wrong, few atheists would consciously do this. Only the philosophically inclined (eg. new minted atheists) would even care about the huge moral legacy Christ imparted to society. However I agree that there’s zero “clinging to Christian morality” going on, quite the opposite.
They must rehabilitate themselves after every little emancipation from religion by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring way what moral fanatics they are. That is their penance.
Agreed, as part of discarding religion, a ‘superior’ (atheist) moral scheme must be claimed and anything else must be vilified
cj_nza.
Sure I dismissed that. Which anthropologists say this? When did they say it? What is their evidence for this?
At least Jeremy has a quote from a source he thinks is authoritative preceding his slogan.
Of course there’s nothing settled there either since we can, and do, interpret that several ways, when it suits us, yes?
I’m trying to picture an anthropologist saying, “Everyone worships something!”, in some peer reviewed journal, and anyone taking him seriously!
Evidence, go to a hockey game. Seriously? Evidence, look at T.V. commercials. Seriously?
If it is true that many people tend to worship what they believe to be a higher power, a god, seems to me that that says nothing about the existence of any higher power or god, or the relative merits of any particular higher power or god.
Is Jeremy saying that we might as well worship Yahweh since we worship our hockey teams anyways? I don’t think that’s his point at all.
We might look at the pyramids and such built in the Old and New World as the power behind the idea of gods, the power to galvanize entire civilizations to a purpose and see this as a great thing.
Let’s not forget that I, along with all atheists, Muslims AND Christians think that those pyramid builders were,( what’s the word i’m looking for here?), is it ‘wrong’?
@pboy
“Commercials are the ugly children of corporations, other âheadless monstersâ with the specific agenda of making their âlegal personâ grow, arenât they?”
Possibly you are right here too, but again out of context. A commercial needs to appeal in some way to its target demographic. Effective commercials recognise human behaviour/wants/needs/emotions/character and play on such. It has been a long time since advertisements were just “information concerning availability”.
@ pboy
“Sure I dismissed that. Which anthropologists say this? When did they say it? What is their evidence for this?”
That would teach me for taking the time for responding to your unreferences rantings.
I missed the rule that pboyfloyd may assert everyone else needs to prove.
Come on guys.. Jeremy, you brought up ‘engaging’ in the conversation.
Surely cherry-picking a sentence out of my comment and bashing that isn’t ‘engaging in the converation’?
Why not boil what I say down a little MORE slanted, as in,
“pboyfloyd, at at 3:35 pm, you said, “..I..”, SEE, it’s all about you, you narcissistic atheists, isn’t it?”
cj_nza wrote:
The religious impulse … is however well noted in anthropology
@pboyfloyd:
I suggest you check out Wikipedia articles “Archaeology of religion and ritual” and “Anthropology of religion”.
Of greater relevance to this post is the sociology of irreligion. Stark’s paper Atheism, faith, and the social scientific study of religion (and subsequent book Acts of Faith) outlines the phenomenon..
Well, I put it to you guys that having a ‘religious impluse’, ‘standing in awe of our own imaginings’ is a long way from there being a God which we are replacing by ‘imaginings’.
I think we could all of us, both sides read ropata’s quote there and say, “I rest my case.”
You guys are right, I often read the stuff I write and think, “That’s brilliant!”, only to be brought back down to Earth by some equally brilliant opposing followup comment.
Still, I don’t think for a second that that quote can be boiled down to say, in anyone’s wildest dreams, that ‘everyone worships something’.
This is similar to the hyperbole thing where some commenters were swift to point out how we all use hyperbole all the time, but when I pointed out that the parts they wanted to keep might be hyperbole too, it turned out that I wasn’t allowed to compare modern hyperbole to ANE hyperbole at all now. Only THEY were allowed to compare modern hyperbole to ANE when it seemed to be backing their point.
Yes, I agree that people have a propensity to imagining a higher power or gods, but this isn’t saying, ‘everyone worships something’ at all.
Maybe if i win a multi-million dollar lottery I’ll change my mind! Who knows how daft that would make me though. I’m seriously of the opinion that I’d have a stroke and die if I suddenly and unexpectedly became a multi-millionaire though, then I’d get to see first hand who is right here.(or not).
The lottery allusion is apt, are you referring to the anthropic principle as evidence for a Designer?
đ
Retomemos la cruzada de Nietzsche que luchĂł por un cristianismo sin judaĂsmo, promoviendo los valores absolutos de la trascendencia humana y la sociedad perfecta que Cristo predicĂł, a fin de alcanzar la supra humanidad http://www.scribd.com/doc/48104400/Nietzsche-y-La-Lucha-Contra-El-Judeo-Cristianismo-Por-El-Cristianismo