culture club

September 16, 2008 11:22 AM

How can it be that despite the absence of any evidence for the central tenets of Christianity, despite the enormous progress of science in explaining the origins of the Earth and its inhabitants, that so many people continue to believe pre-Enlightenment ideas?

Actually, they don't.
posted by plexi (16 comments total)

[Gets out lawn chair, beer, umbrella and waits for shit storm...]
posted by tippiedog at 11:27 AM on September 16, 2008

Sounds comforting, but I think its just whistling in the dark.

To begin with, a great many Christians have a very self satisfied view of judgment, heaven, hell, etc. Namely, they've said their prayers to Jesus so they feel quite certain that they will be going to heaven.

The emphasis many Evangelical churches put on faith vs. works (that is, all faith, zero works), has built a faith that tells them that their actions simply don't matter. They believe that they can murder, rape, steal, and as long as they remember to pray to Jesus (and deny evolution) they've got a ticket into heaven.

Couple that sort of thinking with the compartmentalization everyone does on a regular basis, and it's quite easy to understand that people really do believe the religious stuff they claim to, and simultaneously don't bother even thinking through the consequences of those beliefs, much less actually bothering to adjust their behavior.

As an atheist who finds religious faith baffling in the extreme it would be quite comforting for me to think that my religionist fellows don't *really* believe what they claim to. It'd also be wrong.
posted by sotonohito at 11:29 AM on September 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

First off, it's possible to be religious without being a fundamentalist; to believe in God or Allah or Yahweh and still accept science (you can argue about the various virtues of how workable that is, I'm merely saying that people do it). Second, religion these days is as much cultural as theological, it's a part of identity as much as race or nationality in many ways.
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on September 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

How can it be that despite the absence of any evidence for the central tenets of Christianity

I suppose "Philistine" is just an Old Testament word for "Troll".

Love, humility, faith... these are bad things? Look, I'm no believer, but Christianity, stripped of all of the accumulated crap from the past two thousand years has an incredibly powerful message.

What a stupid post.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:30 AM on September 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

The word "actually" makes things true.
posted by roll truck roll at 11:32 AM on September 16, 2008

you are terrible.
posted by boo_radley at 11:32 AM on September 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I've met Jessamyn. She was nice. I imagine that Mathowie and Cortex are also good people.

Plexi, why would you do this to them?

Despite the fact that I agree with a lot of what was written in the editorial, it's still an op-ed that isn't doesn't really add much to the debate. Which is to say, I think that this post could have benefited from some serious supporting links and perhaps some alternate views.

As it stands, it's pretty much baiting a giant blow up.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:37 AM on September 16, 2008 [3 favorites]

I agree with all his points but am still left disagreeing with him in the end. Religion in politics a short circuit mechanism.

Technocratic Politician: I believe our policy should be X because [list of facts].
Voter: Yes, that sounds perfectly...
Theocratic Politician: God says our policy should be Y.
Voter: MUST. OBEY. GOD.

It doesn't matter if neither the theocrat nor the voter "really" believe in God. It is still the case that by invoking God (or other religious shibboleths¹), they manage to dodge any obligation to resort to facts or proof.

¹ Yes, I'm aware of the irony of my using that word.
posted by DU at 11:37 AM on September 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

... we bring you this urgent news bulletin

Politicians don't actually believe what they say they do! We'll have more on this breaking news, and other top stories, at eleven.

Now please continue to watch tonight's episode of "God Will Smite the Unholy Stilt Homes: The Galvestonites"...

Any journos on MeFi? Do you roll your eyes at your coworkers when they file crap like this? Or is there a designated troll for tackling low-hanging fruit?
posted by jsavimbi at 11:39 AM on September 16, 2008

WeakSauceFilter

Despite being an atheist, I can't and won't deny that being raised Catholic was a hugely positive influence, and helped to inform and introduce many of the humanist principles I subscribe to today. Does that mean religion is the one true path of morality or leading a good life?
Of course not, but that was the path my life took, and I'm a better person for it.

You must be new here, jonmc. ;D
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:39 AM on September 16, 2008

KokuRyu Not to start the Christian bashing already, but why would you assume that the bad aspects of Christianity are "accumulated crap"?

Jesus said to turn the other cheek, yes. He also told his followers to buy swords. A mixed message at best.

There's "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and then there's Paul writing that homosexuality is evil.

The point is that Christianity, like every other religion, has a holy text so incoherent that the "message" depends entirely on what you focus on. Some focus on the nice parts, others focus on the nasty parts. But to claim that the unpleasant parts are foreign to Christianity is simply incorrect.
posted by sotonohito at 11:40 AM on September 16, 2008 [2 favorites]

DU, to extend the thought, people with voluminous religious texts are free to pick out the stuff they feel should be enforceable, like banning buttsex and dildos, and skate over the stuff they see as no longer apropos, like non-biblical divorce and eating pulled pork bbq.

There was a very conservative state senator from Michigan who voiced this observation quite well earlier this decade, but for the life of me I can't find the quote. Something on the order of "Old Testament for thee but not for me".
posted by troy at 11:44 AM on September 16, 2008

I've had the same thought about staunch pro-lifers who believe that God will exert his wrath upon nations - why aren't there way more abortion clinic bombings? But there are all sorts of reasons not to follow a self-destructive path in order to perfectly adhere to one's faith, so only the truly unstable actually rise up.

This guy starts from the assumption that if you're religious you must be crazy, and if you're not acting crazy you can't be truly religious. There's all sorts of logical fallacy in there.

So, yeah, the article sucks.
posted by cimbrog at 11:44 AM on September 16, 2008

I found the other link Palin and the Kenyan Witchhunter on the Times sight much more interesting. It seems that she was annointed by the Witchfinder General and that's why she's where she is today!
posted by njohnson23 at 11:45 AM on September 16, 2008

You can believe something, and also think that you might possibly be wrong.

Or you may value something (like civic peace) more than you value something else (the lives of unborn children).

And you can believe something, and not have the motivation to act.

This is what humans -- not just Christians -- are like.
posted by ferdydurke at 11:46 AM on September 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

The point is that Christianity, like every other religion, has a holy text so incoherent that the "message" depends entirely on what you focus on. Some focus on the nice parts, others focus on the nasty parts. But to claim that the unpleasant parts are foreign to Christianity is simply incorrect.

They were all added after the death of the one who they claim to be inspired by, though. Sometimes literally to the degree of putting words into his mouth decades later.

I see your point, I really do, but to blame JC for Paul being a fuck-up really isn't fair.
posted by paisley henosis at 11:48 AM on September 16, 2008