Not enough theism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Many declare here how religiosity is increasing. This alarms them as they see the news of ISIS and other terrorist organizations beheading people in the name of Allah. Of course, fundamentalist Islam is only the most recent offender and if we look back a few centuries we still can smell the flesh of “atheists” burned by the Catholic Inquisition. Atheism is seen as a more benign alternative. Reason as the solution to all earthly problems.
But I take a different road.
Don’t get me wrong, I support reason and despise religious fundamentalism and it’s excess, but becasuse of it excess and not because of its religiosity. If anything, I argue to atheists and theists that we don’t have true religiosity and that we need more of it.
Let me use a recent example to explain what I mean. On Facebook someone posted a link to an article (elguardianrd.com/?p=798) about how the Haitian immigration into the Dominican Republic is destroying that country. It was a valid argument, one that one can agree with based on reason alone. But it was posted, as a link, and lauded by a “Christian” who then spoke about how we need Jesus!
Rather than love the article is about self-interest, rather than inclusion it spoke of exclusion, rather than embracing it spoke of separating. The NT kept flashing before my eyes; the story of a man who is forgiven a debt and yet he does not forgive another debt he has against another; the rich man who asks what he has to do to be saved and Jesus tells him to sell all that he owns and give it to the poor, and then follow Him; the reminder that they are no longer of this world (Paul); that what you do, or won’t do, for the needy and the hungry you also do, or won’t do, for Jesus; and finally how Jesus points out that many will say “Lord, Lord” who don’t know him.

I believe that an atheist can make that argument for the building of a fence and the repatriation of illegal immigrants to the deplorable conditions they face in Haiti. I think that reason alone, without love or compassion, without belief in God, can advocate the political stance for the sake of the Nation, regardless of the human toll. But is the world going to be better? Migration, the article states, has become a “weapon”, yet, I say, the Christian should never forget, that when human beings are labelled as “weapons” he should show compassion, and place themselves in the shoes of these “weapons”. In the eyes of these “weapons” they will find the eyes of Jesus; in their hunger, the hunger of Jesus; in their wounds the sacred wounds of Christ. If they cannot see this then it is of no use to say “Lord, Lord” when they do not know Who that is.
Until the world’s religious people live up to the hardness of their beliefs (even Islam to a degree), the social agenda that unites them to strangers under a single God (in the case of these two religions) the world will not be a better place. An atheist world, I believe, will also not be the best possible world, because if there is no God, and all is permitted, then actions shall be guided by self-interest and the principle that might makes right everytime. That is when people become “weapons” or percentages.
Many will disagree with me for many reasons, be it the environmentalists, the socialists and others who have retained religious traits and feelings that disguise the throne of their old gods. I question their committment to the purest atheism. I am not building a charicature of atheism, I am saying that I would argue that the principles of atheism lead away from the natural dispositions of kindness most possess.
But I go too far. I have said what I wanted to say.

2

If you see a strong libertarian bent in atheism, it’s because they pride themselves on rationalism and evidence, and the evidence shows that leftist policies tend to make people broke and dead. A resurgence of theism might save the progressive movement for a little while, but only if the theism was itself grounded in anti-rationality…and then you can’t really predict what direction it’s going to drift.
I don’t see the evidence that religosity is what gets you to the economic attitudes you seem to want. It seems like the previous generations of secularism did that.

3

I don’t have a particular policy in mind. I’m saying that perhaps secularism doesn’t have the language to convey what is needed. Secularism is as admirable as humanism, but what I am saying is that it is second best.
Perhaps only second best is possibile in this world.
To me at least it seems that concern for others is actually better displayed by secularists than by Christians, as far as the example above. Isn’t that a shame?

4

omar

That’s a diversion. Fundamentalism itself isn’t a problem. Jainists f.e. practice non-violence towards all living beings, and the more fundamentalist they are, the less violent and less dangerous they will be. So no, fundamentalism isn’t the problem, the problem is what is fundamentalized (extremized), the problem (or rather, the symptom of another major problem) are most religions themselves and the religious way of thinking.

There is no such thing as a consistent moral system that can be derived from the bible, only cherry-picking. There are literally so many contradictions that it’s only a question of what you’re willing to ignore (or unaware of), and what you will emphasize.

Isn’t it ironic how Christ usually sounds like a mild, liberal, humanity-loving, non-violent leftist and yet the people who support him are usually rightist, interventionist, gun-toting conservatives who don’t actually follow most of the things he said?
Aside from that, what you wrote is typical fanatical religious babble, a supposed all knowing, all loving God figure telling us exactly what to do in a soft, gentle voice, appealing to the emotions, the primitive in the masses. It’s not an argument.

Islam fundamentalists are trying to live up to the hardness of their beliefs and it doesn’t seem to be making the world a better place. In fact, it appears that the countries that ignore religion altogether do the best overall in terms of living standards, education, technological development, infrastructure, crime and most other standards of development.
So no thanks to religious people living up to the hardness of their beliefs, last thing humanity needs is a theocracy and a faith-based epistemology.

We don’t get to choose if there is a God or not. And God doesn’t appear to give 2 shits about anything in the world even if you assume he exists - Innocent people still die of diseases and earthquakes, women and children are still raped, people still die in wars etc. He permitted Joseph Fritzl to rape and molest his children for 20 years. What is that important practical difference between God existing and not existing, what is it that you think he didn’t permit, that he prevented from happening?

You can’t just wish reality away. Humans are guided primarily by self-interest, and you’ll find that if one side is more powerful than the other, it doesn’t really matter who’s right and who’s wrong. It didn’t matter that Hitler’s theory about the Aryan race and the Jews being inferior was wrong, he still managed to do what he did because he had the power. You can only act within the limits of law, if you cross those limits, even if you’re right the police/military can shut you up and kill you. Now, might makes right doesn’t literally mean that if you have an argument you can beat up the other person and it makes you right, it means that the legal concept of rights is based on power, and that you are as free/unrestricted/have as many rights as you are powerful.

People can be used as weapons and ARE used as weapons. You don’t get to just wish reality away because you dislike it, nor do I. It is how it is, you can either work on changing it or not, denying the truth because its harsh only leads to delusions, which don’t result in solutions but further problems and detachment from reality.

Also, there is nothing contradictory about atheism and kindness, or self-interest and kindness.

5 
       Eh.  When I see a person in the safety of one country telling the government of another country that they should allow a flood of destitute immigrants across their border from a third country, "Concern for others" is not the first term that comes to mind.  Politics is a lot more complex than 'the policy that is humanitarian' and 'the policy that is not'.   
But yeah, it is as you said- the stuff you'd call 'concern for others' is classically better displayed by secularists than by Christians, with a few (mostly Catholic) exceptions.  So I don't know why you think more theism would get you what you want.
6

One little problem.
The more people there are, the more destitute and unhappy and angry and frightened and jealous people there are. That means, more problems, more pressures, less food, less water, less room and more violent clashes.
More religion - every kind - makes more people. They’re all opposed to birth control, because they all want to out-number all the other sects. Population control through violence is messy, costly, far too slow and temporary.
Besides, any religion’s tenets can be used to persuade people to behave well (slow and that takes prosperity and peace) or incite people to behave badly (quick, cheap and easy - and you don’t have to feed or house suicide squads for very long.)

7 
 That hasn't been the case yet.  So far the world's population increase has been accompanied by unprecendent access to resources, wealth, and so on.  There's basically no global shortage of anything, and our increasing energy demands are being met, even exceded. Things are even relatively peaceful right now.
8

I believe that good Christians, committed to the message of compassion for others would care less about protecting the native workforce from competition and more about giving hope to the desperate and dying, not because it makes economic sense but because it makes sense in Heaven.

9

All of these are valid points which place no hope in divine intervention.
Such rationale would have prevented the miracle of the bread and fish multiplication.
It is said that it was probably not a miracle because fish and bread kept appearing but because people kept sharing and refusing to take the entire last piece.
Maybe we need that still today.
In any case, greater faith in God might allow for greater compassion and less maintenance of reasonable self-interest.

10

Atheism has no principles, but one. In the most purest sense it is simply a lack of theism, and as such has no content beyond that though. So yes you are caricaturing Atheism. (note spelling). As an atheist I shun being grouped with other atheists, I resent the idea that I ‘follow’ atheism. For atheism to be seen as another religion, would be to miss the whole point.
I do not want to belong. I agree with people on a case by case basis. I do not see it as a failing to not agree with fellow atheists; that is a problem for religion. Religion is about robbing people of choice; it’s about joining in, and foregoing personal reason. That is poison.

You are saying there is not enough poison in the world.

11

Lev you just responded to what you considered a charicature of atheism with what I see as a charicature of theism.

12

I hate to say it, but God has some baggage and might be an irredeemable concept. And biblical stories / teachings, unfortunately, are too subtle and have been too grossly interpreted & proselytized to even be referred to without violent reaction in certain circles.

There is a concept that I tend to believe in though, or a version of it, called common grace, where secular concepts could be crafted that contain at least some of the potency of biblical teachings but without all of the religious hindrances…

I feel this is the way forward to, as you put it, the best option for the world: the crafting of secular concepts / ideologies more and more pronounced with grace.

Kind of takes a note from Paul. In order to convert, he knew he had to “put on the clothes” of those he was converting, and speak to them in the way that they spoke…

13 
 I'm sure you do.  At heart we don't disagree- at least not about what your thread really concerns.  What's an atheist, morally?  It's somebody who believes Daddy is evil because he had to put the dog to sleep, and they never got over it.  In other words, they tend to favor simple, emotive answers.  Whether this is the libertarian answer of "If we all leave each other alone, everything will sort itself out" or the progressive answer of "Everybody has a duty to make sure nobody else is hurting", it's going to stop on a superficial level.   That sort of moral thinking, where everything is simple and obvious, isn't good for much and we could do with less of it.  So yes, there isn't enough theism influencing moral policy.


Theism just isn't going to give you what you want though, at least not Christian theism.   If you boil the Christian message down to a platitude, then it [i]would seem as though[/i] you're correct- Christians should give everything to everybody who needs something and let God deal with the consequences.  But you can't escape that this has *never* been the case.  Over and over, without exception that I can think of, Christian societies have believed that people get by through their own hard work, that tithing 10% is sufficient and everything beyond that is a personal choice for charity, that charity is primarily a local affair, and that our primary responsibility to people other other nations is to teach them right from wrong so they can get their own affairs in order. Sooner or later you reach a point where you have to accept that either every Christian nation did Christianity wrong, or else your own interpretation of the Christian message is missing something.
14

Hello Uccisore

Hence the title of the tread. Not enough theism. Not enough, in the history so far as we know it. Is it even possible? Maybe not. If nothing else my “rant” was more or less against opposing theism, as a moral “poison” as someone called it above, when in fact we have never seen the kind of compassion Jesus demanded. The poison, the problem, is in the history rather than in the principles set by Jesus of compassion, not only when it is convenient, but to the point that it is inconvenient. Christians that call refugees “weapons”, in my opinion, are the reason why we have no evidence of Christian hard principles in action in history.

Look, if I was interpreting the above through a Lutheran interpretation then maybe I would understand the easiness of a Christian observing misery while sipping on gin and juice, because they would accept the suffering of others as mandated by God. On theological grounds I disagree with that interpretation. It is entirely possible that it is my interpretation that is at fault and that indeed Christian history, which as you point out lacks compassion, is the exemplar of what Christianity ought to be rather than merely what it is, but it just doesn’t seem to me like that is the case. We all have seen those wristbands that ask: “WWJD?”. Now I ask you, in the case of the Haitian immigration and efforts by others to stop it, WWJD? What would Jesus say? What do Christians imagine Him as doing or saying?

15

No I challenged your caricature of atheism. [NB note spelling of caricature]

I said nothing whatsoever about theism. I mentioned religion. But that is not the same as theism, as you will agree.

Consider. There would be no “atheism” if there were no theism. Atheism is a response to theism, but in it’s purest form, where theism was reduced to only a posit theoretical position atheism would only be an amused “that’s a daft suggestion”.

You can choose to believe in what you like. So why not pretend to yourself that God is everything you want it (or him or her) to be and just believe in that?

Alternatively you can only hold to be true that which can shown to be true. This would, of course mean rejecting god. But at least you would have some peace and self respect.

16

Please do answer this question, but do it by referring to the atheist holy scriptures which contain moral commandments all atheists must read and abide by… oh wait… we don’t have any. Which completely invalidates the rest of what you said. I have the opposite experience - theists seek easy answers (scripture, 10 commandments, ‘tell me what to do’ type of thinking), atheists have to put actual thought into their ethics.

17

And if atheists break their own moral code, there is nobody to apologise to but the victim of their wrong; no divine lamb to buy off their sins.

18 
  He'd probably tell you to give your money to Haiti, pack up your shit, and go down there and DO something if it means so much to you, since you asked.  And plenty of people do, and as it turns out, these people tend to be motivated by religion far more often than they are motivated by anything else.   There's ways to have a compassionate people without engaging in suicidal statecraft that will doom them all.  

 If you were compassionate, you'd leave your door unlocked so that strangers who need things could come in, go through your fridge, shit in your closet, and take what they want.  No?  Do you have a personal justification for why you get to have things when other people don't have things?  Why would a state be any different?
19

I much rather do onto others as as I would like others to do onto me. I work, but I was afforded the opportunity to work. Immigration isn’t a weapon when people come over prepared to work. I rather see a Mexican who asks me if he can clean my car than an American who sleeps on a bench next to a cup.
Of course WWJD? is meant as an ideal, a standard. Doesn’t mean that we must always do like Jesus but that He is the standard and Christians actions judged by this either move towards the ideal or away from the standard.

20

Because you can imagine a Mexican who wants to work hard and an American that does not says zero about immigration a whole, and I don’t know when we started talking about the U.S. anyway. If your argument is that allowing all these supposedly decent, hardworking people into the the country (and by ‘the country,’ I of course mean the Dominican Republic) would be good for the economy, that’s pretty different than the argument you made immediately before where you said essentially damn the economic consequences we should do it because compassion compells us. Honestly I find that sort of dichotomy a lot among folks on your side of immigration issues.