Is Christianity so weird that it must be true?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Chesterton was persuaded to see value in Christianity as a result of the criticisms leveled against it. On the one hand Christianity can be criticised for being too weak and concerned for the lowly, and on the other too violent and responsible for wars and injustice. On the one hand too pessimistic in it’s view of the human condition, but yet too optimistic about pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die. Too busy promoting the central importance of the family in society, yet also promoting the solitary cloistered life away from society. Too indulgent in it’s art and ceremony, yet too ascetic in the lifestyle it promotes.

To quote the man himself…

“It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with. What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?”

What do you make of this argument? Is the weirdness of Christianity at all compelling? Or does it just make it confusing? Or maybe replulsive?

2

Christianity is weird, and that does make it compelling. But this is equally true of many other human ideas, institutions, stories, etc.

I agree with Chesterton that many people abuse Christianity for contradictory reasons. But Christianity is no special victim, that’s just the human condition. Whenever people find something that gets them angry or afraid (and Christianity, like most religions, is chock-full of such things) they attack it with any weapon at hand, including emotional and inconsistent rhetoric. Politicians have the same problem, so clearly the issue is not confined to Christianity or even religion.

3

But Chesterton’s point isn’t that they just throw whatever is at hand against Christianity, it’s that they can actually find such contradictory criticisms. If I’m a liberal and don’t like George Bush, I might choose to call him a right-wing, hate-mongering, buffon. But I’d struggle to find any liberal friends who dislike him because he’s a left-wing, peace-loving, intellectual!

Chesterton apparently saw such paradoxical criticisms of Christianity that he decided that it must be a strange and interesting beast. I can’t think of any other philosophy that provokes such paradoxical criticisms, but maybe you can. At minimum one could say that anything that is criticized in such paradoxical terms must at least be a rich source, no? Most political rhetoric is pretty one dimentional in comparison.

4

The latter two… I cant see how the contradictions within Christianity can make it more compelling, just more susceptible to variety of criticism.

If weirdness is where it’s at then I guess scientology has a good case. Sounds like Chesterton is just indulging in a little romantic musing about the inconsistencies of his religion.

5

Maybe. Or possibly mormonism. But this kind of “weirdness” seems a little one-dimensional. The critics of scientology all say pretty much the same thing. The criticism of Christianity is much richer and often conflicting.

I just watched “Jesus Camp” last night. Have you seen it? It portrays evangelical Christians as brainwashing wierdos who are trying to control American politics. That may well be true, and the people on camera did seem a little weird even to me who has been an evangelical Christian for 20 years.

But it’s funny to me that you can also target the complete opposite criticism against Christianity, that it actually encourages people to disconnect from society and take no role in public life. So heavenly minded that they are no earthly use, if you know what I mean. Almost every criticism of Christianity can be turned on its head and used again! It’s very strange. I guess that’s what attracted Chesterton. I’m not sure it’s the kind of thing that would attract many other people though.

6

I think that part of the strangeness is simple demographics. Once you reacha certain critical mass, and if you lack a regulatory agency to keep things in line, how can you get anything but conflicting views and strangeness?

In Buddhism, for example, there is a strong emphasis on not killing any living being. However, there is also a strong emphasis on the impermenance of life. Some people have taken that impermenance (as well as Buddha’s insistence that we are born anew everyday) as a sign that actually death isn’t all the important after all. From that ideology, you get the sort of warrior monks that people love to see in movies.

So, it can both encourage people to be absolutely non-violent to the point of non-resistance (even when attacked!) to horribly violent to the point of creating most of the samurai ideology.

I mean, heck, if I lined up a Zen Buddhist, a Pureland Buddhist, and a Theravada Buddhist and let them have a discussion, they would have no problem reaching common ground, but at the same time I’m not sure they would agree every often (or in the case of the Pureland Buddhists, quite possibly at all).

From what I know of Islam, it seems more unified. But, at the same time, I do not know much about how it is practiced in Indonesia. I’d wager that Indonesian Islam looks very different from that which is practiced in Saudi.

7

Thnaks for explaining that. That’s the kind of wierdness I’m talking about. I guess it does exist outside Christianity.

8

Hi Ned. You said; On the one hand Christianity can be criticised for being too weak and concerned for the lowly,…

Christianity’s strength is its concern for the lowly - which is every person within mankind, all are lowly. No person(s) has status preeminence because GOD is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

You said; "…on the other too violent and responsible for wars and injustice…

Christianity is not violent, even though a number of ancient papist European’s masquerading as Christians took on an identity of false christendom; and these ones are associated with a number of ancient war efforts. But it was the militaristic struggle for power and domination (nascent mercantalism) that was the root cause of medieval wars. Evangelism played little, secondary or no role whatseover. passion

9

I think a lot of it has to do with the human condition. In another thread, you mentioned that everyone maintains a certain level of hypocracy within them. This is a very true point, and one which I think can be used to illuminate why these differences occur: when a philosophy deals with the human condition, it will be co-opted by the human condition.

Naturally, any system of living will grow and change with the people who practice it, so as the system affects the practitioners, so too do the practitioners affect the system. This phenomenon explains why philosophical traditions undergo such wild paradigm shifts when they are placed in an alien situation. And that includes the alien situation brought about by the passage of time.

Indeed, Philip J. Ivanhoe (a prominent New Confucian scholar) said: “before we begin to read a text like the Analects we would do well to ask ourselves, Which Analects and Whose Confucius are we trying to understand?” and I think this statement holds true for any religious/philosophical tradition worth its salt. Whose Jesus, which Bible? Whose Buddha, which sutras?

If a philosophy endures, it changes. How has it changed and in response to what are worthwhile questions. I am willing to wager that Jesus didn’t think of the philosophy he espoused as being self-contradictory, nor do I think that any other major philosophical founder thought of themselves as lacking internal coherence.

10

Bush is only one man, though. Christianity is a religion with many doctrines, some apparently contradicting each other, and many of them contradicted by official Church practice over the centuries; moreover, it takes a great many highly divergent forms. I would not personally criticize Christianity as being “too weak and concerned for the lowly,” as I consider that one of its redeeming features, at least potentially; however, as concern for the lowly is supported in Scripture and is part of official doctrine of many churches, including both schismatic branches of the Imperial Church and many mainline Protestant churches, someone more inclined to social Darwinism might validly criticize that. At the same time, the actual history of Christendom shows a violent nature in Christians as in all people, and at times certain Christian doctrines have encouraged that. This is evidence merely of the religion’s complexity. It really indicates nothing about the truth or falsehood of its doctrines.

I haven’t seen that movie about evangelicals, but having grown up around them, I believe only some – a minority – fit the description you gave.

11

“And how does God’s existence emerge from the proof? Does it follow straightway, without any breach of continuity? Or do we have an analogy to the behavior of the little Cartesian dolls? As soon as I let go of the doll it stands on its head. As soon as I let it go, I must therefore let it go. So also with the proof. As long as I keep my hold on the proof, i.e., continue to demonstrate, the existence does not come out, if for no other reason that that I am engaged in proving it; but when I let the proof go, the existence is there. But this act of letting go is surely also something; it is indeed a contribution of mine. Must not this also be taken into account, this little moment, brief as it may be, it need not be long, for it is a leap.”

  • Kierkegaard (Philosophical Fragments)
12

I think the history of Christianity provoking violence is a mixed one. While I agree that Christian theology itself doesn’t promote violence many convinced and committed Christians have been violent or supported violence. Forget the crusades, what about the support for the Iraqi war by modern evangelical Christians. What do you make of that?

13

Even so, I think Chesterton is right in pointing out that Christianity in particular draws very paradoxical criticisms. Indeed paradox is found all through Christian thology itself, the trinity, the dying savior, lose your life in order to find it, etc… In some ways I think this element of complexity and apparent contradiction puts many people off. I’m just a little amused that Chesterton was drawn by aspects of this paradox. But maybe that’s something close to the heart of most spirituality, finding stuff that you have a hard time understanding logically.

14

What’s so bad about violence, anyways?

15

detrop, it appears that Kierkegaard is distinguishing between the advancement of a sound argument (say for God’s existence) and the acceptance of that argument’s conclusion (the “leap”). I agree with him but I do not think there is anything special about this distinction in the case of God.

To say “this appears sound, to the best of my knowledge” is quite different from “I now know this and can base my actions off of its truth” because there is always the inner skeptic who says the best of our knowledge may still be faulty and insufficient to act upon. This inner skeptic’s distinction can be found in science, politics, personal relationships, any arena where we must make a connection between knowledge and practice.

Therefore, Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” should not be regarded any differently than the leaps of faith we make in everyday life. God should not be held to a special standard.

16

Deus vult! Deus vult!
atheistempire.com/writings/deusvult.html
Not that I believe this reflects on Christians in general, just those who use God as a tool to support unjust wars.

I would also note that the late great John Paul II denounced the Iraq War as unjust.

17

The problem with violence is authority. Does one have the authority to commit it or not.

Almost any outwardly imposed inhibition of self-will could be catagorized as a form of violence. Yet we have authoritarian structures in place to restrain self-will by force (or violence). The police and court system remove possessions, money, freedom, and sometimes the very life of those who break certain laws. But they have the authority to do so, so we don’t usually complain.

The real problem then is violence without authority. And how or whether we can define a valid authority that could commit violence is the issue. God can clearly be violent in the Old and New Testament, but he also has the authority to do so. Whether his subjects have the authority to commit any violence, I’m less sure about.

18

I do not agree. The problem with violence is the suffering it generates. Violence by those invested with the authority to engage in it remains, at best, a necessary evil. The only justification for it is that it is necessary (arguably, in some cases at least) to forestall greater violence.

Should this argument in support of official violence be accepted, the justified violence remains, if viewed in isolation, an evil, but it is not a NET evil in that it results in a greater good than it causes. It is this, and not the mere existence of authority, that justifies violent acts committed by authority.

We’ve gone 'round on this before, but I’ve thought of a new way of expressing my thoughts on the subject that may be clearer than what I’ve said before.

Either God is a person or He/She/It is not – in which case God is more like a force of nature.

Violent acts of God are “bad” in the sense of causing suffering, as we might say that the devastation caused by a hurricane or an earthquake is “bad.” However, we generally do not call a hurricane “evil,” because moral distinctions have no application to a force of nature. Moral distinctions apply only to acts of persons, who can (we assume) freely choose what to do, and so may be held accountable.

If we say that God is not accountable for His/Her/Its actions, and that it is not appropriate to call anything God does “evil,” then ipso facto we are saying that God is not a person but a force of nature. In that case, divine violence, like that of a hurricane, remains “bad,” but cannot be “evil.”

If however we say that God is a person, then it is appropriate to judge His/Her/Its actions as we would those of any other authority. In that case, we might still say that divine violence is not “evil,” but only on the basis that it works to a net good, and if that were ever not so, then the divine violence WOULD become “evil.”

19

I think it is also in terms of the motivation of the authority.

The government has the authority the arrest me. Heck, it even has the authority to physically punish me. This is all well and good until its motivation changes and a bunch of men dressed in black break into my house late at night and carry me off to a secret prison on trumped up charges because I’ve advocated policies that the government in power disagrees with.

That would be a very different motivation than, say, arresting me because I was dealing crack on the corner and when I resist arrest and start to run away, so an officer tackles me to the ground and restrains me.

20

I agree, but would place this in the catagory of violence without authority since our structure of authority would need to be corrupt in some way for this to happen.