An Introduction and Petition for Openmindedness:
In the next four blogs or so, I will attempt to put forth my reasons for abandoning Christianity. I previously gave – to only the few who asked – four main reasons why Christianity is not right for me, and why I believe it’s not really good for anyone. I feel that not only do I owe it to those who are curious about what may seem such a rash decision and to those who may genuinely be concerned for my “soul,” I believe greater that it is my human responsibility to openly present the information I found while contemplating Christianity (and other religions and philosophies) so that: my views may be refined and better understood by myself and others; and to openly challenge others to genuinely examine their belief structure for the sake of self-refinement. If anyone (specifically any Christian) hears my cry from the atheist wilderness in which my mind exists, it is my hope that they have the same questioning mindset that they seek within others for their sake of “winning souls for God.” If all else fails, maybe I’ll “sew a seed” of enlightenment in their mind for others to water. If you’re a Christian and you have even read even this far without closing off your mind in righteous contempt; I urge you to please continue and respond however you wish! I will do what I can to answer any questions, comments or snide remarks with an open and polite mind. Keep in mind, though, that I won’t bend over backward to pet and console your sense of faith. Now for the meat and ‘taters…
Part 1 – Christianity Stifles the Intellect and Naturally Critical Mind:There are three main reasons to back my first claim against Christianity, and I hope you examine them carefully and let me know what you think.First off, we tend to label any personal ignorance of our existence “God.” We tend to give up on pursuing further philosophical or scientific understanding, and take the easy way out by caving in to certain explanations that may not match up to either common sense or logic, but otherwise give the appearance of solving the problem. It may be consoling to believe you have all the answers, but it won’t last for those who have the intestinal fortitude to challenge it against rational thought. For instance, consider the origin of humanity. Where we may lack full scientific comprehension of how we got here and why, it is sufficient for many to just say something like “God created us.” In actuality, if one was to truly ponder the sudden arising of an almighty God within the realm of existence; he would see how that only complicates the problem that it tries to solve; it just as well makes much less sense than the ideas of the slow rise of evolution and natural selection, or more importantly, the personal decision to not settle with incomplete understanding and truly search out the answers to life’s questions for one’s own self or for the sake and progression of society as a whole. Wouldn’t it be greater of a person to confidently proclaim and be okay with herself not knowing at that moment the answers to the questions that drive her? I believe it would at least surely show maturity, security, and a healthy mind.The problem I’m trying to relate to you is when Atheism may say to religion “Hey you just made that up!”, religion almost indefatigably replies “but that doesn’t matter.” Now, imagine the danger of stifling natural curiosity in children by the introduction of “Intelligent Design” into public curriculum. Do we really want to repress human progress in scientific understanding? It appears a good faction of Christians do. It’s no wonder that most teens and adults consider philosophy or science boring. So many people are indoctrinated with a false virtue of complacency, and I can only guess the reason for it. Knowledge is power; we must not render the future of humanity powerless by externalizing all existential responsibility to an invisible arbiter. This brings me to my next point.Christianity tends to hand off our human responsibility to critically analyze right from wrong to an externalized arbiter of truth, such as a collection of ancient, hypocritical books known as the Bible. One of the first lessons in the Bible is the fall of man resulted in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of right and wrong. It is our human right and responsibility as free men and women to decide for ourselves a secular and compatible set of ethics. People do this naturally, but often default to religion to guide the process. By bending over backward thousands of years of human advancement to dig up a few points of ancient morality and by trying to integrate them into the current zeitgeist yields plenty of problems such as self-righteousness bigotry, intolerance, and otherwise inhumane, religiously inspired injustice. Just take for example the recent ruling against a gang-rape victim in Saudi Arabia, with the punishment of 200 lashings collectively considered just by three magistrates. Of course we’re talking about the influences of a different Abrahamic religion here but to say the least, it’s at least useful in demonstrating the power religion has on stifling critical thinking.
Thirdly, I despise Christianity’s tendency label people as sheep looking for moral support and guidance from a presumably long-dead invisible friend. Or is he simultaneously living in another realm of existence and actively involved in this one? Oh well, I digress. I have come to see this analogy as nothing but the problem of seeing people as tools. It is the misplaced order of essence and existence in the description of what it means to be human. If we look at a tool, we see a need that was filled through creation and application. This is the major fallacy of the argument from design. Our existence precedes our essence; in other words, it is up to us to define who we are and our function within society. Don’t let any teleological zealot convince you otherwise.
Well, that’s all I have for this week’s argument against Christianity. I’ll do what I can to prepare my second argument within 165 hours or so (It’s my plan to have it done within a week and posted by Midnight, next Monday. In the mean time, I’ve presented a few details that can be argued to a greater depth. (At the same time, I’m trying to gather and present a breadth of arguments great enough to convince even the most skeptical of my thought-crimes.) So have at it, let me know what you think, where I could be clearer, and ask me whatever you like so long as it pertains to the topic.
Cheers to healthy minds,
- Rich
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
2007-11-27 at 2151 EST
I will always be here
You argument is worth considering, but I can’t help but read between the lines of what you are saying but more importantly…”how” you are saying it. Your view Christianity as being narrow-minded and stifling, appears in itself to be narrow-minded and stifling. By describing Christianity as you did, you are guilty of the same limitations as you have placed on Christianity.
Is there a possibility that Christians can be both open minded, free-thinking, and scientific at the same time as being followers of Christ? I don’t see Christianity, or for that matter any religious belief, as being at odds with reason, scientific thought, and open-mindedness. Faith in God does not necessarily negate reason. Faith in a supreme being can be compatible with scientific thought.
It’s the fundamentalists of any religious belief that must be feared. They have negated reason with their religion. Often they do this for fear of the unknown rather than welcoming the unknown as an opportunity to discover it, explore it, and hopefully understand it.
Take a look at Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the National Human Genome Research and what he has to say about the compatibility of faith and science. Listen to him on NPR Fresh Air with Terry Gross at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913.
Please consider this view for your next week’s posting:)
2007-11-27 at 2301 EST
P.D.Collins
Relying only on facts, builds no faith. Without faith, there is no hope. Without hope, there can be no happiness.
I have faith that some of my plans and dreams will come to fruition. That I myself will be a kind blessing to others. I hope that others will love me.
I have faith that everything has a purpose. Some of this hope comes from my memories. Such as the first day on earth of all of my sons. The first time I kissed my wife. My first car…that I bought from the fruits of my own labor. My freedom, from being held against my will to other peoples ideologies. That my life can be lived. The hope that these freedoms, and the faith that these freedoms will be possible for all of man kind some day.
So I pray. To who ever they may be, that things will get better for the least of these. And so that those who weld power will see, and be held somewhat accountable, at least to learn of their atrocities. Without faith everyone would be a psychopath. For they would have no reason to care for others. How we love others will in the end affect us, and those who have come from us for many generations, until we pass this barbaric kind of life that so many believe we need to pursue. So thank God for being the goodness in men’s hearts. For being the twinkle in my wife’s eye. For being the smile on my sons face. Thank God for the food that not only keeps me alive, but tastes good too. There is more to life than facts. To me… sometimes the facts do not matter as much as what comes from the heart. For the dreams and visions of the interacting masses, who love what is good, and bear disdain for what is evil, corrupt, and selfish. Give our love to one another. Be faithful to your loved ones in your family and the ones on the street. This is where God is in my world. I stretch my arms wide to you. In time you will see that there is hope. That there is beauty in everything around you. That there is power that you need to survive to help yourself, and to help others. And this is God. Even if “he” is only a smile, a tear, or a heartache. After time you will know why things happen as they do. For now I do not wish to wonder why. I just wish to live the best life that I can. I am no where near perfect, and you know that. If you look at my past you will shake your head. All I can say is some people must sail a rough sea to learn the tools that they need to be there for others, and for themselves. I hope all can forgive me for my shortcomings. I was learning, that sometimes I was an idiot. Sometimes I was mean. This has brought upon me my own reason to have faith that from now on I can do better, to do better in spite of my illnesses and sometimes selfish ways….
Peace to your heart,
and peace to your mind…I pray.
PaPa
2007-12-01 at 0213 EST
digitalshaman
In response to my Dad:
I’d like to say thanks for the prayers, but it has been my experience and understanding that they do nothing. I suppose it’s the thought that counts, and I know you mean well for me, so thanks. But I’m not going to try to convince you of anything or criticize your comment here, because I don’t believe it will do anything either.
I do like, however, that you mention the beauty in small things. Though I personally have experienced it to have much more to do with a mindset than “religion” or “faith,” I’m quite familiar with taking time to appreciate the little things in life that are beautiful or give me either meaning or at least the motivation to continue and pursue what matters to me in spite of my values and understanding being so different from what I’ve experienced in others.
Thanks,
– me.
2007-12-01 at 1250 EST
digitalshaman
I will first respond to “I will always be here” and then to the next…
I am first presented with an accusation of being narrow-minded and stifling of the intellect:
> Your view [on] Christianity as being narrow-minded and stifling,
> appears in itself to be narrow-minded and stifling. By describing
> Christianity as you did, you are guilty of the same limitations as
> you have placed on Christianity.
I would like to know exactly how I am being narrow-minded and stifling of the intellect by embracing ideas such as free-thought, and openminded criticism backed by arbiters such as logic and science in substitute for ancient texts and a religion that tells you what to believe. I am a continually learning and ever-growing human with inherent fault (such as any individual or natural system) and certainly not perfect, but I don’t suppose I can let this accusation go outstanding without asking for evidence.
> Is there a possibility that Christians can be both open minded,
> free-thinking, and scientific at the same time as being followers
> of Christ?
Certainly , anyone can come to a compromise between a healthy mindset and one of grandeur and delusion.
> I don’t see Christianity, or for that matter any religious
> belief, as being at odds with reason, scientific thought, and
> open-mindedness. Faith in God does not necessarily negate
> reason. Faith in a supreme being can be compatible with scientific
> thought.
Well, I certainly suppose it depends on what parts of Christianity you look at. People do their best to make it as ambiguous as possible while defending it, and as specific as possible while endorsing it. For example, I could look at its canonical text as being at odds with reason at any of it’s points (widely supported or not). It’s at that point that a Christian would generally say something like “you’re taking it too literally.” While on the other hand, if said Christian is trying to convince someone to become a follower and believer, they must do so by following strict religious guidelines of a forced free-choice into believing exactly what the pastor, priest, or Bible says about Jesus being a part of a Triune God, born of immaculate conception (and possibly having only having 23 chromosomes), performing miracles that defy against natural scientific laws, performing self-righteous suicide only to be followed by self-resurrection from a postmortem state lasting somewhere around 72 hours.
Going from the vague “Gap Theory” of a more deistic stance into ANY kind of theology requires a continuous leap from “reason, scientific thought, and open-mindedness” of faith in the absurd. Yes, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and the like are able to simultaneously have faith and perform calculations their field of science quite well (assuming they keep their religion as part of their personal opinion and out of the way of their scientific claims), but that doesn’t necessitate an idea that both science and religion of any and all forms can coexist as compatible ways to define existence.
> It’s the fundamentalists of any religious belief that must be feared.
> They have negated reason with their religion. Often they do this for
> fear of the unknown rather than welcoming the unknown as an
> opportunity to discover it, explore it, and hopefully understand it.
This is very true, and religious fanaticism of any kind usually lead to problems. This is where the religious rejection of reason becomes obvious, and any ideology taken too far might have the propensity to compare.
> Take a look at Francis Collins, geneticist and director of the National
> Human Genome Research and what he has to say about the
> compatibility of faith and science. Listen to him on NPR Fresh Air with
> Terry Gross at
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9207913.
>
> Please consider this view for your next week’s posting:)
Well, I’ll respond now, voicing as much as I can about all of this while still maintaining this all as a “comment” or “response” for the sake of clarity of my view and not having to wait till next week’s posting – as I already have next week’s planned.
I finished listening to that linked NPR – Fresh Air broadcast with Francis Collins yesterday, and took a few notes on it. What struck me first was that he is not the more common compatible-with-science agnostic or Einsteinian type, but a self-declared Evangelical Christian. This almost immediately had me wondering why you didn’t reply with a recommendation for someone who’s not such an easy target.
I don’t have an exact script of what he said in that interview handy to me at this moment, but I do have Time’s article – God vs. Science – where they brought in both Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins to be interviewed. In that article, they have transcript of Francis Collins’ view on the compatibility of science and faith (or more specifically, Darwinian Evolution by mode of Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design or Creationism). Here is what I found to be an excellent excerpt of each of their official stances:
I’ll have to agree with Richard Dawkins, when calling Francis Collins’ view on the compatibility of science and (particularly Evangelical) Christian faith a “tremendous cop-out.” And I’m not sure if you realize how loaded a statement such as this is. But here are the ideas that shape my belief regarding what Francis Collins says:
By use of Occam’s Razor, we can do away with the idea of a Creator God with the substitution of the slow and eventual process of Natural Selection.
Everything and everyone here came about by the creative destruction (or change) of something else. You, I, and everything around us are dependently originating. Why construct an idea of a divine being that is outside of all of this with no proof? By defining God, and creating whatever creed we choose, we are limiting him to this Law of Dependent Origination while simultaneously creating a necessity for God to be outside it.
Dependent Origination also implies an infinite regress of causality. Why terminate it with a Personified, Anthropomorphic First Cause? Isn’t that a little homocentric? While the “Big Bang” idea seems also a little eccentric to me, it makes more objective sense than what I’ve grown up to call “God.”
We are not tools. A teleological explanation for human life may be a fun idea to play with, but once someone understands what such an idea must entail, he or she would realize the condescension and authoritarianism that are properties of such a worldview that necessitates a divine creator. For Francis Collins to say that God had “full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation” he must be referring to omniscience… which, by logic, cancels out not only God’s own omnipotence, but more importantly our free will, by stating that our essence precedes our existence. Once again, I am not a tool, and though I may be wrong, I’m pretty damn sure that my existence preceded my essence. (see 1.)
By using the over-used cop-out of “God is big” or “bigger than science,” or “outside of space and time” to me is nothing other than wordplay and the art of bullshitting. Once Science uncovers a gap of our current understanding, Religion is left to either play along or stunt our intellectual growth by means of rejecting and fighting scientific theory and replacing it with its own delusion and using childhood indoctrination. The fight for the introduction for “Intelligent Design” into student curriculum is only a perfect example of this push against reality for substitution of its own through brainwashing.
Well, that’s about all I have to say about your comment. I could go on, and I could refine my argument further, but I figure there’s no use as I’ve already spent over an hour doing just that against a comment that was probably left in fifteen minutes after perhaps five minutes of reading. But I suppose that’s the point of it – to use this space to better refine my own understanding.
So thanks for the constructive criticism, as I’ll use it just as that – constructively. I suppose by the look of the statistics, there really aren’t many people (if anyone) who comes here for Socratic reasons but perhaps myself. I suppose I just have to posit more arguments, more well-defined… then there’s the whole barrier of those who care already know, while those who don’t care don’t want to care. With less than a second of self-criticism I can perfectly understand that, and probably shouldn’t let any affect result from it… and just keep chugging along at what I do.
Thanks,
– me.