Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on September 06, 2017, 04:02:03 PM
-
The standard believers' line is something like "it's all part of God's plan throughout history, given a massive leap forward at the Incarnation, and which will eventually be achieved etc etc"
Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw. There had been a number of competing religions in the ancient world which it has been suggested might have become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, Mithraism being the most popular contender, since the latter seemed to be exported wherever there were Roman soldiers. So why did Christianity usurp Mithraism? I suggest it was not all to do with Constantine.
I don't want to go into my own explanations for Christianity's success in depth here, but I'd like to suggest two reasons for starters: unlike Mithraism, Christianity originally allowed women important roles to play (and even when the misogynistic Church fathers held sway, it was still less male-oriented than Mithraism).
The second reason, I suggest, was that Christianity was essentially an end-time religion, with an urgent expectation of the imminent Last Judgement (according to the words of Jesus and St Paul themselves). This sense of an imminent Apocalypse has somehow renewed itself throughout history, and continually added a bit of fiery pepper to the Christian diet, despite the efforts of the traditional Church (pace Origen and Augustine) to allegorise away such literal readings of the NT.
Any non-believers prepared to suggest reasons for Christianity's survival rather than luck?
-
Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.
Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised. Also it's both personal and universal.
-
Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw.
Yes......... when, where and how does he think the draw was held I wonder.
-
Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.
Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised. Also it's both personal and universal.
You speak as if Christianity were some undivided whole, whereas the varieties are innumerable. You could say there's something for everyone - from homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of racism to ideas of love and forgiveness. But love and forgiveness were not new to Christianity, which even in Christ's reported words have a sting in the tail: "Forgive up to seventy times seven - or else"*
Other reasons for the smorgasbord of Christianity must be sought to explain its survival. Of the millions professing to be Christian today, it's probably more a matter of rituals which have governed people's lives down the ages, without too much soul-searching about 'forgiveness'. There are priests there for births, marriages and deaths - a lot of people are content to think that somebody (usually a priest) 'knows what it's all about', and when bad things happen, no doubt everything will turn out well on the 'other side'. But the dynamism given to Christianity by apocalyptic thought - even before the Reformation - should not be underestimated.
*I have to admit that the idea that "one's sins are forgiven" is life enhancing if you are a guilt-tormented soul. But a lot of the guilt has often been caused by Christian belief in the first place.
-
I was trying to remember what C. G. Jung said about this, but he was such a prolix sod, that it's difficult to sort out basic elements. But I think he argued that Christianity presented various symbols that were appropriate at various times, particularly about individuation. Also stuff about the ideal, which humans chase after, and self-negation.
Also interesting is why it has faded in Europe.
-
Dicky, I'm afraid I am a believer but what came rapidly into my mind is an adaptation of the old argument less trotted out now by the Forum Scientism Brigade about the success of science namely that Christianity works.
What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?
Could it be that certain things are self supporting and immune from what divides stuff up. It is something with it's own inertia available to anyone with a message of forgiveness realised.
Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.
-
What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?
Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.
Spot on.
-
I was trying to remember what C. G. Jung said about this, but he was such a prolix sod, that it's difficult to sort out basic elements. But I think he argued that Christianity presented various symbols that were appropriate at various times, particularly about individuation. Also stuff about the ideal, which humans chase after, and self-negation.
Also interesting is why it has faded in Europe.
wiggi
Didn't he say that it presented a humane variant on the Myth of the Hero as well? Some American critic suggested that Mark's gospel was a kind of inversion of Homer's hero ideals. Then there's those 1000 faces....
-
wiggi
Didn't he say that it presented a humane variant on the Myth of the Hero as well? Some American critic suggested that Mark's gospel was a kind of inversion of Homer's hero ideals. Then there's those 1000 faces....
Yes, I think he did. Trouble is, it tends to be circular - X is successful because it presents the hero, and we know it's successful because we like heroes, but we no longer like Christian heroes, we want Wonder Woman!
-
I've been reading Jung for several hours today - anybody would think that it was some sort of acausal but meaningful coincidence *cough*
-
What does it 'work' at though? What's the criterion of 'working?
Unfortunately this comes about by offering 'forgiveness' for those things which it in itself deems to be wrong (and thus in need of forgiveness). As many have pointed out in the past, like every snake oil salesman it invents the 'disease' only in order to flog you the 'cure'.
Yes, hence the old joke, Christianity found a solution, and then had to spend centuries working out what the problem is.
-
I've been reading Jung for several hours today - anybody would think that it was some sort of acausal but meaningful coincidence *cough*
If your kitchen table splits down the middle, when you're reading this post, then we're all in for it. Not sure what 'it' is, though.
-
You speak as if Christianity were some undivided whole, whereas the varieties are innumerable. You could say there's something for everyone - from homophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of racism to ideas of love and forgiveness. But love and forgiveness were not new to Christianity, which even in Christ's reported words have a sting in the tail: "Forgive up to seventy times seven - or else"*
Other reasons for the smorgasbord of Christianity must be sought to explain its survival. Of the millions professing to be Christian today, it's probably more a matter of rituals which have governed people's lives down the ages, without too much soul-searching about 'forgiveness'. There are priests there for births, marriages and deaths - a lot of people are content to think that somebody (usually a priest) 'knows what it's all about', and when bad things happen, no doubt everything will turn out well on the 'other side'. But the dynamism given to Christianity by apocalyptic thought - even before the Reformation - should not be underestimated.
*I have to admit that the idea that "one's sins are forgiven" is life enhancing if your are a guilt-tormented soul. But a lot of the guilt has often been caused by Christian belief in the first place.
We do need to be focussed otherwise Christianity becomes either ''all things nice'' or ''everything you despised.
I would agree with Wiggs who suggests that Christianity offers a package but we must focus what Christianity is. An essential free Christianity makes a mockery of any debate in other words.
I will answer you on the question of guilt being Christian. Post Christianity i.e. acquisitive materialism is far, far better at making people feel inadequate about themselves in fact commerce is based on it and there is no forgiveness for any non consumer or participant.
So secular society inflicts guilt galore. The mass which allowed themselves to be made to feel guilty in the judgment of a group of priests became the mass of people who allowed themselves to be made to feel inadequate and lacking and feckless and thick by commerce and humanism.
But Christianity is an encounter with God not man. It may induce guilt and inadequacy but, and this is where the forgiveness comes in, the inadequacy is not thence dwelt in.......whereas inadequacy is an absolutely fundamental requirement of modern secular existence.
Also no one is dragooned into religion in anything like the same way as people are dragooned into an appreciation of entrepreneurs, cash, goods, scientific experts, celebrity etc.
-
We do need to be focussed otherwise Christianity becomes either ''all things nice'' or ''everything you despised.
I would agree with Wiggs who suggests that Christianity offers a package but we must focus what Christianity is. An essential free Christianity makes a mockery of any debate in other words.
I will answer you on the question of guilt being Christian. Post Christianity i.e. acquisitive materialism is far, far better at making people feel inadequate about themselves in fact commerce is based on it and there is no forgiveness for any non consumer or participant.
So secular society inflicts guilt galore. The mass which allowed themselves to be made to feel guilty in the judgment of a group of priests became the mass of people who allowed themselves to be made to feel inadequate and lacking and feckless and thick by commerce and humanism.
But Christianity is an encounter with God not man. It may induce guilt and inadequacy but, and this is where the forgiveness comes in, the inadequacy is not thence dwelt in.......whereas inadequacy is an absolutely fundamental requirement of modern secular existence.
Also no one is dragooned into religion in anything like the same way as people are dragooned into an appreciation of entrepreneurs, cash, goods, scientific experts, celebrity etc.
You have to be joking. People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.
-
Hi Dicky,
Unlike BlueH, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that this was just the luck of the draw.
Just to be clear, that’s not what I think. Rather the point is that many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight, while competitors fall by the wayside. The QWERTY keyboard layout is an obvious example – very early Remington typewriter keyboards are laid out “ABC…” etc, but the keys kept jamming so there was a re-design to slow down typists that then became embedded even though the rationale for it has now disappeared. The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better, more true etc. The booster rockets on the space shuttle being not wider than two horses’ backsides is another example.
That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight.
Christianity seems to me to be a fairly obvious example of this same survivor bias. Some would claim that its success is a function of the truth of its claims (“God”, resurrection etc) just as they might assume they QWERTY is somehow more efficient, whereas there are in fact countless explanations for survival that wouldn’t require a word of truth in the stories.
-
Hi Dicky,
Just to be clear, that’s not what I think. Rather the point is that many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight, while competitors fall by the wayside. The QWERTY keyboard layout is an obvious example – very early Remington typewriter keyboards are laid out “ABC…” etc, but the keys kept jamming so there was a re-design to slow down typists that then became embedded even though the rationale for it has now disappeared. The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better, more true etc.
But you've already demonstrated that qwerty was superior to ABC have you not?
-
But you've already demonstrated that qwerty was superior to ABC have you not?
No QWERTY was a solution to inferior engineering of other parts of the typewriter - in other words it slowed typists down to a rate that allowed the mechanical parts to operate without jamming.
Once the other mechanisms had been improved, or as now, been replaced by completely electronic operation QWERTY became inferior, but became the standard layout, so has been retained regardless of its current inferiority to alternatives.
-
You have to be joking. People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.
Fallacy of hasty generalisation. :D
-
No QWERTY was a solution to inferior engineering of other parts of the typewriter - in other words it slowed typists down to a rate that allowed the mechanical parts to operate without jamming.
Once the other mechanisms had been improved, or as now, been replaced by completely electronic operation QWERTY became inferior, but became the standard layout, so has been retained regardless of its current inferiority to alternatives.
but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.
-
Fallacy of hasty generalisation. :D
Fallacy of hastily assuming generalisation:
Floo said:
'People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.'
She never claimed that 'all people' are dragooned, or that 'all religious people' are dragooned into religious belief. That would have been a generalisation - she claimed people, which means that some are, and all she needs to verify this is a couple of examples - she isn't extrapolating to all. There is, as far as I can see, no generalisation going on here.
-
but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.
Sigh...
Qwerty was successful precisely because it slowed typists down, and was thus inferior to other arrangements, but in the early days that stopped typewriters jamming. That is no longer a problem, but we keep the slow, inefficient qwerty arrangement because everyone's got used to it. It really is quite simple. Do try to keep up. ("its superiority", by the way - no apostrophe.)
-
Fallacy of hastily assuming generalisation:
Floo said:
'People are dragooned into religious belief, with threats on a regular basis, as I know for a fact.'
She never claimed that 'all people' are dragooned, or that 'all religious people' are dragooned into religious belief. That would have been a generalisation - she claimed people, which means that some are, and all she needs to verify this is a couple of examples - she isn't extrapolating to all. There is, as far as I can see, no generalisation going on here.
Yes, well, I wasn't being altogether serious, as the laughing smiley indicated. See the "Some new logical fallacies" thread.
-
Liar Boy,
Sigh...
Qwerty was successful precisely because it slowed typists down, and was thus inferior to other arrangements, but in the early days that stopped typewriters jamming. That is no longer a problem, but we keep the slow, inefficient qwerty arrangement because everyone's got used to it. It really is quite simple. Do try to keep up. ("its superiority", by the way - no apostrophe.)
Now try reading what I actually said: "...many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight"; "...even though the rationale for it has now disappeared"; "The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better..."; "That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight."
It's a common mistake - looking at survivors and retro-fitting with hindsight explanations for their successes that actually have nothing to do with the real reasons.
To put it another way, the only person who needs to "keep up" here is you.
-
Liar Boy,
but BHS suggests that Qwerty's success is based on it's superiority over ABC. In other words superiority cannot be airbrushed out of the Qwerty story.
Oh dear.
See above.
-
Liar Boy,
Now try reading what I actually said: "...many phenomena survive for reasons other than their apparent superiority when viewed with hindsight"; "...even though the rationale for it has now disappeared"; "The mistake though would be to assume that QWERTY won out because it’s now somehow better..."; "That is, rather than luck of the draw there are good reasons for survival only they’re often not the reasons people paste on with hindsight."
It's a common mistake - looking at survivors and retro-fitting with hindsight explanations for their successes that actually have nothing to do with the real reasons.
To put it another way, the only person who needs to "keep up" here is you.
I was replying to Vlad, not you.
-
Sigh...
Qwerty was successful precisely because it slowed typists down, and was thus inferior to other arrangements, but in the early days that stopped typewriters jamming. That is no longer a problem, but we keep the slow, inefficient qwerty arrangement because everyone's got used to it. It really is quite simple. Do try to keep up. ("its superiority", by the way - no apostrophe.)
It wasn't 'superior', it was an appropriate solution to an inherent problem elsewhere in the technology.
But even if you were to consider it 'superior', it's superiority was transient as the mechanical technology was rapidly improved and ultimately replaced by electrical technology. So it has not been 'superior' (in other words permitting most rapid typing) for the past 50 years or more - however as it is the 'standard' it is retained.
-
Liar Boy,
I was replying to Vlad, not you.
You are Vlad, and your mistakes is still your mistake regardless of who it was addressed to.
-
Any more insults and lies from you, and I'll be reporting you to the mods.
-
It wasn't 'superior', it was an appropriate solution to an inherent problem elsewhere in the technology.
But even if you were to consider it 'superior', it's superiority was transient as the mechanical technology was rapidly improved and ultimately replaced by electrical technology. So it has not been 'superior' (in other words permitting most rapid typing) for the past 50 years or more - however as it is the 'standard' it is retained.
That's what I said, ffs!
-
Liar Boy,
Any more insults and lies from you, and I'll be reporting you to the mods.
What insults, and are you suggesting that you're yet not another of Vlad's reinventions?
-
Moderator:
Can I step in here to prevent this exchange escalating.
BHS - 'J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock' is not Vlad.
So, can we all amble back towards the general direction of the topic.
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
-
Gordon,
Can I step in here to prevent this exchange escalation.
BHS - 'J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock' is not Vlad.
So, can be all amble back towards the general direction of the topic.
Thank you.
Than I apologise. My reasons for thinking that he was were that the style is the same, the misrepresentation is the same, and the most recent joiner (quite a while ago) is "Lynn".
-
JPG,
That's what I said, ffs!
But what you said completely missed the point - namely the retro-fitting of an explanation often has nothing to do with the real ones. "QWERTY is the best layout because the most commonly used letters are reached easily" for example. Similarly, "Christianity survived because its stories are true" is to ignore the many possible reasons for survival that have nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of its claims.
-
Ah, So There's the Real Liar Boy Back Again,
But I have given no account of the success of QWERTY only restated why it was qwerty rather than ABC which as you so was superior in that it didn't jam up the keyboards.
What you actually said was: "But you've already demonstrated that qwerty was superior to ABC have you not?", which was utterly irrelevant to the point – namely that what was causally "superior" is often very different from the reasons people think to be causally superior after the event.
Your mistake in other words was the "But".
-
That's what I said, ffs!
Calm down - I never said you didn't I was broadly agreeing with your post specifically repudiating Vlad's claim that superiority is part of the QWERTY story.
I don't think superior was ever the case as you can't really detach the keyboard from the rest of the machine.
-
Calm down - I never said you didn't I was broadly agreeing with your post specifically repudiating Vlad's claim that superiority is part of the QWERTY story.
I don't think superior was ever the case as you can't really detach the keyboard from the rest of the machine.
I've given up reminding people that Qwerty was superior to ABC in that it didn't jam up keyboards....a fact i'd only learnt from Hillside because this thread has become....not so much an ''angels on a pin head'' argument but a ''How many letters can you get on a daisy wheel'' HA HA HA HA HA HA......Now that's got to get on a forum best bits section.
-
Liar Boy,
I've given up reminding people that Qwerty was superior to ABC in that it didn't jam up keyboards....a fact i'd only learnt from Hillside because this thread has become....not so much an ''angels on a pin head'' argument but a ''How many letters can you get on a daisy wheel'' HA HA HA HA HA HA......Now that's got to get on a forum best bits section.
In what way do you think QWERTY being superior to ABC only inasmuch as it better reduced the jamming of mechanical keys has any relevance at all to the point actually being made, namely that attributing a different causal explanation after the event is a mistake?
-
Liar Boy,
In what way do you think QWERTY being superior to ABC only inasmuch as it better reduced the jamming of mechanical keys has any relevance at all to the point actually being made, namely that attributing a different causal explanation after the event is a mistake?
It is arguable that it captured the niche due to a temporary superiority and has been deemed fit enough by history for that niche. Your argument seems to be that that it's persistence is due to some kind of human incompetence.
-
It is arguable that it captured the niche due to a temporary superiority and has been deemed fit enough by history for that niche. Your argument seems to be that that it's persistence is due to some kind of human incompetence.
But you cannot detach the keyboard from the rest of the typewriter.
One without the other is completely pointless. So a particular design of a typewriter with a sub-optimal mechanical system coupled with a sub-optimal keyboard proved together to be the best overall design for a relatively short period of time. Subsequently there was progressive optimisation of the non key-board components, both first mechanically and then electronically to make them more optimal, and therefore consistent with optimisation of the keyboard. However optimisation of the keyboard failed to progress, likely because this is the bit with the human/machine interface and therefore familiarity and consistency became a factor.
-
That QWERTY was needed to prevent mechanical problems might not be the case as noted in this article;
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the-legend-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/?no-ist
Of course, leaving mechanics aside, familiarity is crucial - I'd imagine most of us are competent on a keyboard and can type fairly fluently: anyone fancy relearning on a different keyboard layout?
-
That QWERTY was needed to prevent mechanical problems might not be the case as noted in this article;
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-the-legend-of-the-qwerty-keyboard-49863249/?no-ist
Of course, leaving mechanics aside, familiarity is crucial - I'd imagine most of us are competent on a keyboard and can type fairly fluently: anyone fancy relearning on a different keyboard layout?
Definitely not.
-
A simple alphabetical-order keyboard wouldn't take too much re-learning.
-
JPG,
A simple alphabetical-order keyboard wouldn't take too much re-learning.
Relevance?
The point was that survivor bias entails attributing after the event a wrong cause for the success of the winners while ignoring the causes of the failures of the losers.
Are you sure you're not Vlad?
-
JPG,
Relevance?
The point was that survivor bias entails attributing after the event a wrong cause for the success of the winners while ignoring the causes of the failures of the losers.
Are you sure you're not Vlad?
Hi blue
J Peasemold Gruntfuttock is almost certainly SteveH, since it's a moniker he has used before (along with Rambling Syd Rumpo) on other forums years ago, such as St Thads. The two rustic aliases first appeared as characters on old radio comedy shows such as Round the Horne and Beyond Our Ken.
-
Hi blue
J Peasemold Gruntfuttock is almost certainly SteveH, since it's a moniker he has used before (along with Rambling Syd Rumpo) on other forums years ago, such as St Thads. The two rustic aliases first appeared as characters on old radio comedy shows such as Round the Horne and Beyond Our Ken.
Definitely Steve H
-
Hi Dicky,
Hi blue
J Peasemold Gruntfuttock is almost certainly SteveH, since it's a moniker he has used before (along with Rambling Syd Rumpo) on other forums years ago, such as St Thads. The two rustic aliases first appeared as characters on old radio comedy shows such as Round the Horne and Beyond Our Ken.
Thanks for this - I knew the references, but hadn't twigged that it was SteveH hiding behind them. Like Vlad though, he fixates on the object of the analogy - typewriters in this case - rather than on the force of the argument the analogy makes. Doubtless if I were to tell either of them that something was like looking for a needle in a haystack many posts would follow about the quality of steel used in the manufacture of the needle, whether it was a darning, sewing or some other type, what colour it was etc too.
The literal and the unironic minds have in my experience much in common.
-
The point was that survivor bias entails attributing after the event a wrong cause for the success of the winners while ignoring the causes of the failures of the losers.
Can we stick with that then with respect to the survival of Christianity rather than discussing typewriters? With regard to the cause for the failure of one loser - Mithraism - I suggested that one reason it failed is simply that it lacked the female element that Christianity provided. It was men only.
I'm interested in any ideas people may care to retro-fit onto Christianity, provided they don't deal with truth claims about divine inspiration (but believers are welcome to grind their axes). That was implied in my first post. Even Vlad suggested two ideas which do not have to be interpreted in a 'spiritual' sense (if you feel you are forgiven, it doesn't matter if there is no big daddy there doing the forgiving. Psychological explanations work just as well) All suggestions may be well be wide of the mark, but give it a go. Anyone want to expand of wiggi's views about Jung?
Sorry I misrepresented you earlier, blue.
-
something was like looking for a needle in a haystack
Well, this whole thread may be just that, but it just may have legs given a chance.
-
A simple alphabetical-order keyboard wouldn't take too much re-learning.
But would someone buy it as it wouldn't be familiar. And why would you bother learning to use a new format rather than keep with the old and familiar, noting that most of us are poor typists so we aren't likely to realise the benefits of a new keyboard which ultimately allows a good typist to type a bit faster than a QWERTY one.
-
Can we stick with that then with respect to the survival of Christianity rather than discussing typewriters? With regard to the cause for the failure of one loser - Mithraism - I suggested that one reason it failed is simply that it lacked the female element that Christianity provided. It was men only.
I'm interested in any ideas people may care to retro-fit onto Christianity, provided they don't deal with truth claims about divine inspiration (but believers are welcome to grind their axes). That was implied in my first post. Even Vlad suggested two ideas which do not have to be interpreted in a 'spiritual' sense (if you feel you are forgiven, it doesn't matter if there is no big daddy there doing the forgiving. Psychological explanations work just as well) All suggestions may be well be wide of the mark, but give it a go. Anyone want to expand of wiggi's views about Jung?
Sorry I misrepresented you earlier, blue.
Can I just try and tease out definitions here. What do you mean by Christianity?
-
Of course, leaving mechanics aside, familiarity is crucial - I'd imagine most of us are competent on a keyboard and can type fairly fluently: anyone fancy relearning on a different keyboard layout?
That's right - and actually is relevant to religion too. Culturally the 'familiarity' with Christianity in the UK has been very important to its survival. People continue to cling to the familiarity of Christianity even if they aren't in any way active (and indeed probably don't believe most of its key theistic tenets). But we are reaching a bit of a tipping point I think. For someone of my age (51) most of us would have been brought up with substantial Christian 'mood music' all around - it was familiar. But I think that is no longer the case as we move on to the next generation (my kids generation). Christianity is far less familiar to them - they are a generation further detached and therefore much less likely to nod to Christianity even in a nominal manner. Hence the sizeable majority of under 24s self defining as non religious (71% define as non religion, with tiny proportions saying they are Anglican - 3% or Catholic - 5%).
-
Can we stick with that then with respect to the survival of Christianity rather than discussing typewriters? With regard to the cause for the failure of one loser - Mithraism - I suggested that one reason it failed is simply that it lacked the female element that Christianity provided. It was men only.
I'm interested in any ideas people may care to retro-fit onto Christianity, provided they don't deal with truth claims about divine inspiration (but believers are welcome to grind their axes). That was implied in my first post. Even Vlad suggested two ideas which do not have to be interpreted in a 'spiritual' sense (if you feel you are forgiven, it doesn't matter if there is no big daddy there doing the forgiving. Psychological explanations work just as well) All suggestions may be well be wide of the mark, but give it a go. Anyone want to expand of wiggi's views about Jung?
Sorry I misrepresented you earlier, blue.
I think Jung waxed lyrical about the role of Virgin Mary in Christianity as a kind of semi-divine female figure, although curiously, the Proddies got rid of her mainly. There is also stuff about Self/ego in Jungian literature, rather obscure stuff, but Jesus sort of straddles both areas, going up the Father (Self), and down to the servant (ego). I don't really know if this actually impacts on believers. I think one of the Pope's titles is 'Servant of the servants'. It's a nice idea.
-
DU,
Can we stick with that then with respect to the survival of Christianity rather than discussing typewriters? With regard to the cause for the failure of one loser - Mithraism - I suggested that one reason it failed is simply that it lacked the female element that Christianity provided. It was men only.
A perfectly credible thesis, though the misogyny that persists in much Christian practice (and for that matter in the other Abrahamic faiths) to this day is hardly particularly welcoming (let alone exemplary) in that regard. As is the way of theses things there may though have been many and complex and interacting reasons for its failure too, just as there would have been for the successes.
I'm interested in any ideas people may care to retro-fit onto Christianity, provided they don't deal with truth claims about divine inspiration (but believers are welcome to grind their axes). That was implied in my first post. Even Vlad suggested two ideas which do not have to be interpreted in a 'spiritual' sense (if you feel you are forgiven, it doesn't matter if there is no big daddy there doing the forgiving. Psychological explanations work just as well) All suggestions may be well be wide of the mark, but give it a go. Anyone want to expand of wiggi's views about Jung?
Well, it’s a bit obvious but a large dose of Stockholm syndrome seems a likely candidate to me. The rigid intolerance and savage retribution of a displeased God that would also let you into his safer waters if only you genuflect and “worship” him seems pretty textbook to me. It's all a bit infantilising for my taste.
Sorry I misrepresented you earlier, blue.
Not a problem and no apology needed.
-
A perfectly credible thesis, though the misogyny that persists in much Christian practice (and for that matter in the other Abrahamic faiths) to this day is hardly particularly welcoming
In the earliest days, there was less misogyny. The last chapter in Paul's letter to the Romans attests to the fact that women played an important part in the early church. He even names one woman as an apostle.
My opinion as to why Christianity was more successful than other pagan religions is that it was aggressively evangelistic and intolerant of the alternatives. Only Christianity in first century Europe commanded its followers to go out and convert others. Only Christianity and Judaism commanded people not to tolerate other gods (at least, as far as we know).
-
Hi blue
J Peasemold Gruntfuttock is almost certainly SteveH, since it's a moniker he has used before (along with Rambling Syd Rumpo) on other forums years ago, such as St Thads. The two rustic aliases first appeared as characters on old radio comedy shows such as Round the Horne and Beyond Our Ken.
Yes, I am Steve H. My signature is the giveaway - I haven't changed it.
-
Yes, I am Steve H. My signature is the giveaway - I haven't changed it.
You must be so proud of that signature of yours! ::)
-
Re the OP..
Christianity was Socialism at its finest back in the early days. The members helped each other when in need, including supporting widows. The religious aspect appealed to downtrodden people who saw no hope for a good life. The early Christians also provided education to everyone and started universities.
Constantine made Christianity an official religion of the Roman Empire out of political necessity. As the Christian religion grew and its power coalesced in Rome the Catholic Church became one of the most powerful military and political institutions in the world.... and it still is.
-
Something I find interesting about Christianity, which is unique amongst the big 5 religions, and probably rare more generally, is where Christianity gained a foothold.
Check out this rather excellent little video:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/map-shows-how-religion-spread-around-the-world-2015-6?r=US&IR=T
Every other religion spread from the place where it was founded, and largely where the key figure lived and taught. But not Christianity - it failed to gain a significant foothold in Palestine, so the teachings of Jesus were not compelling enough for his contemporaries (both in time and geographical terms).
I think in most cases if a religion fails to take hold in the place of its inception it is dead in the water. So the interesting question here is why Christianity got a second bite at the cherry to cement itself, which happened later and in places a significant distance from the place of its inception. So in most cases the key 'early adopters' of a religion are the population local to the place of its inception, who probably had heard the key figure teach etc. With Christianity the key early adopters are not like that at all, rather they were people living a significant distance away, who would never had heard Jesus themselves, but might have heard about him second, third or fourth hand.
-
Something I find interesting about Christianity, which is unique amongst the big 5 religions, and probably rare more generally, is where Christianity gained a foothold.
Check out this rather excellent little video:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/map-shows-how-religion-spread-around-the-world-2015-6?r=US&IR=T
Every other religion spread from the place where it was founded, and largely where the key figure lived and taught. But not Christianity - it failed to gain a significant foothold in Palestine, so the teachings of Jesus were not compelling enough for his contemporaries (both in time and geographical terms).
I think in most cases if a religion fails to take hold in the place of its inception it is dead in the water. So the interesting question here is why Christianity got a second bite at the cherry to cement itself, which happened later and in places a significant distance from the place of its inception. So in most cases the key 'early adopters' of a religion are the population local to the place of its inception, who probably had heard the key figure teach etc. With Christianity the key early adopters are not like that at all, rather they were people living a significant distance away, who would never had heard Jesus themselves, but might have heard about him second, third or fourth hand.
Perhaps confirmation of a profound truth. There are in fact no earthly reasons why Christianity should have survived. But perhaps there are sound heavenly reasons. :)
Even more so there are probably no earthly reasons why Judaism should have survived. Or why after being forced to leave their ancestral homeland on three occasions, the political State of Israel again exists and many Jewish people are again living there. The only reason I can think of is that God said it would happen and therefore it did. 8)
-
Perhaps confirmation of a profound truth. There are in fact no earthly reasons why Christianity should have survived. But perhaps there are sound heavenly reasons. :)
Even more so there are probably no earthly reasons why Judaism should have survived. Or why after being forced to leave their ancestral homeland on three occasions, the political State of Israel again exists and many Jewish people are again living there. The only reason I can think of is that God said it would happen and therefore it did. 8)
Rubbish. The modern state of Israel is institutionally racist, and is in that respect as bad as South Africa in the worst days of aparthed. It is the antithesis of the ethics of both Judaism and Christianity.
-
The other reason is that Israel has used force of arms, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing. How God works in mysterious ways!
-
The other reason is that Israel has used force of arms, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing. How God works in mysterious ways!
Sorry I thought you were on about Islam for a sec then ?!?!!? ;) ;) :o
-
Perhaps confirmation of a profound truth.
In which case why wouldn't it have gained a significant foothold in Palestine amongst the very people who actually heard that 'profound truth' from the horse's mouth so to speak.
-
The other reason is that Israel has used force of arms, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing. How God works in mysterious ways!
The events of the last 70 years is of no relevance to the point I am making although it is perhaps a subject for future debate. But I seem to recollect that for nearly 2000 years, from the time they were last forced out of the land, they were in no position to do any of those things. In fact they were dispersed among many nations, during which time they themselves were the target of much persecution, attempts at genocide and ethnic cleansing. How did they not only survive this time but managed to retain their identity, culture and religion without being absorbed into these nations, despite being a small minority. Are in any other examples in history of anything similar over such an extended period? The Saxons don't seem to gave done too well.
-
Even more so there are probably no earthly reasons why Judaism should have survived. Or why after being forced to leave their ancestral homeland on three occasions, the political State of Israel again exists and many Jewish people are again living there. The only reason I can think of is that God said it would happen and therefore it did.
The reasons why the international community allowed the state of Israel to come into being after WW2 is intensely political and inextricably linked to the holocaust. The huge suffering of Jews at the hands of the Nazis undoubtedly played a key part in the international community allowing a group of people effectively to annex someone else's land. Had there been no holocaust I cannot see how this would have been allowed.
So god were responsible for the 'good stuff' (formation of Israel) he/she/it cannot detach him/her/it self from the bad stuff (murder of millions) which was a necessary component to allow the state of Israel to be formed.
For the record, of course, I don't believe that god was involved in either for the simple reason that I don't believe that god exists.
-
The reasons why the international community allowed the state of Israel to come into being after WW2 is intensely political and inextricably linked to the holocaust. The huge suffering of Jews at the hands of the Nazis undoubtedly played a key part in the international community allowing a group of people effectively to annex someone else's land. Had there been no holocaust I cannot see how this would have been allowed.
So god were responsible for the 'good stuff' (formation of Israel) he/she/it cannot detach him/her/it self from the bad stuff (murder of millions) which was a necessary component to allow the state of Israel to be formed.
For the record, of course, I don't believe that god was involved in either for the simple reason that I don't believe that god exists.
Well recognition of the right of the Jewish people to an independent homeland in the Middle East does, of course, go back well before the holocaust to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (think that was the date). Very much a consequence of a certain bright Jewish chemist named Weitzman having developed a new route to the synthesis of acetone, essential for the production of smokeless gunpowder.
-
Perhaps confirmation of a profound truth. There are in fact no earthly reasons why Christianity should have survived. But perhaps there are sound heavenly reasons. :)
Even more so there are probably no earthly reasons why Judaism should have survived. Or why after being forced to leave their ancestral homeland on three occasions, the political State of Israel again exists and many Jewish people are again living there. The only reason I can think of is that God said it would happen and therefore it did. 8)
If that was the case it doesn't say anything god about the sky fairy! The State of Israel should never have been created without a similar state for the Palestinians, who had as much right to the land as the Jews.
-
Well recognition of the right of the Jewish people to an independent homeland in the Middle East does, of course, go back well before the holocaust to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (think that was the date). Very much a consequence of a certain bright Jewish chemist named Weitzman having developed a new route to the synthesis of acetone, essential for the production of smokeless gunpowder.
True, but parochial. While the Balfour declaration had support in the UK at the time there was very little support from the broader international community.
And support in the UK was pretty short-lived too - by 1922 it was dead in the water even in the UK.
-
In which case why wouldn't it have gained a significant foothold in Palestine amongst the very people who actually heard that 'profound truth' from the horse's mouth so to speak.
True it did not gain a significant foothold there but nevertheless there were quite a large number of converts. Three thousand on Day One of Church history was not a bad start and we are told their numbers were being added to on a daily basis including quite a few of the priests. But early on, once the sage advice of a certain Gamaliel started to be ignored severe persecution followed, spearheaded by a certain Saul of Tarsus. Many of the new believers fled to other parts of the Roman Empire with its general tolerant policy towards religion. It was only some 60 years after Calvary that serious Empire wide persecution was first seen during the reign of Domitian. Nero's persecution in the late 60's was terrible but seems have largely been confined to the close proximity of Rome.
Thus a number of the NT Letters, including that of James', which was probably written by the year 50, were addressed to those in the Dispersion. So persecution and consequent dispersion helped keep the growing number of converts in the founding land to a small proportion of the population.
Of course, many Christians, heeding the prophetic warnings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, also fled ahead of the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70, thus adding to the growing number of exiles, while the longer term consequences of that event and others like Masada, led to a general dispersion of large numbers of people of ethnic Jewish origin, including those of the faith.
In summary there was only a short period of 40 years (now there is an interesting Biblical number) to spread the faith in its homeland before the wheels came off. But this was achieved with a good deal of success, while dispersion, precipitated by persecution, proved an effective catalyst in spreading and planting the faith through the world of the time. In particular the large number of exiles were an important factor in spreading the faith into Asia (Turkey) and Europe.
Will try an respond to your final post (on the Balfour Declaration) tomorrow if I can find the time in what is going to be a busy day. But it is getting late down south so for the moment I will wish you a good night.
-
Constantine made Christianity an official religion of the Roman Empire
No he didn't. Christianity did not become the official religion of the Roman Empire until a couple of decades later.
-
I think that many interesting and worthwhile points have been made on this thread.
My own feelings are that Christianity was first and foremost a proselytising exclusive religion from its earliest days, and it used the carrot and stick approach to swell its numbers. As a proselytising religion it didn't really have much competition, and most pagan religions weren't particularly exclusive. Indeed it is interesting that the percentage estimated increase in Christians in the first three centuries was about 40% per decade according to the American sociologist Rodney Stark, who incidentally also compared this with an equivalent increase in Mormonism during the 19th and 20th Centuries.(Stark 'The Rise of Christianity')
If God had a hand in spreading Christianity then perhaps He also had a hand in the spread of Mormonism. :)
On the same basis He also seems to have had a hand in the explosive increase of non religionists during the 20th C, :)
The number of nonreligionists… throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900… to 918 million in AD 2000… From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, [atheism and agnosticism] are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians.
World Christian Encyclopedia
That's a growth rate of circa 76%
God truly works in mysterious ways. ;D
-
I think that many interesting and worthwhile points have been made on this thread.
My own feelings are that Christianity was first and foremost a proselytising exclusive religion from its earliest days, and it used the carrot and stick approach to swell its numbers. As a proselytising religion it didn't really have much competition, and most pagan religions weren't particularly exclusive. Indeed it is interesting that the percentage estimated increase in Christians in the first three centuries was about 40% per decade according to the American sociologist Rodney Stark, who incidentally also compared this with an equivalent increase in Mormonism during the 19th and 20th Centuries.(Stark 'The Rise of Christianity')
If God had a hand in spreading Christianity then perhaps He also had a hand in the spread of Mormonism. :)
On the same basis He also seems to have had a hand in the explosive increase of non religionists during the 20th C, :)
World Christian Encyclopedia
That's a growth rate of circa 76%
God truly works in mysterious ways. ;D
That we are knocking on the door of argumentum ad populum here aside, perhaps we should have a thread on the success of non religion.
May I offer 4 rEasons in no particular order.
1: Theism but not expressed in membership or attendance.
2: what Peter Hitchens referred to as The rage against God
3: Neotenisation of European and NorthAmerican populations
4: apatheism
In any case trumpeted claims of the End of Religion have not come to pass.
-
The events of the last 70 years is of no relevance to the point I am making although it is perhaps a subject for future debate. But I seem to recollect that for nearly 2000 years, from the time they were last forced out of the land, they were in no position to do any of those things. In fact they were dispersed among many nations, during which time they themselves were the target of much persecution, attempts at genocide and ethnic cleansing. How did they not only survive this time but managed to retain their identity, culture and religion without being absorbed into these nations, despite being a small minority. Are in any other examples in history of anything similar over such an extended period? The Saxons don't seem to gave done too well.
Roma.
-
That we are knocking on the door of argumentum ad populum here aside, perhaps we should have a thread on the success of non religion.
May I offer 4 rEasons in no particular order.
1: Theism but not expressed in membership or attendance.
2: what Peter Hitchens referred to as The rage against God
3: Neotenisation of European and NorthAmerican populations
4: apatheism
In any case trumpeted claims of the End of Religion have not come to pass.
One of the reasons sometimes given for the survival and growth of Christianity is that it somehow, because of its success, points towards the existence of the Christian God. So, to show how nonsensical an argument that would be, I referred to the extraordinary growth of the LDS church, and the even more extra ordinary growth of irreligion in the last 100 or so years. They don't exactly fit well with such a presumption do they?
As far as the growth of irreligion is concerned, whilst it may well be explained by any number of things, it is not evidence for the existence/non existence of any god at all. That was the point that I was making, Vlad. The survival and popularity of a belief/non belief is not evidence of the existence/non existence of any god.
As far as your own reasons are concerned:
1)I don't really understand this. The success of non religion isn't dependent on theists not being members or not attending their various churches unless you are suggesting that might be a sign that they are losing their faith perhaps.
2)Undoubtedly this is true in some cases, more often perhaps though against how humans often express their attitudes towards this God.
3)I think you'll find that neotenization is strongly regarded as a characteristic of human evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, says we have been "retaining to adulthood the originally juvenile features of our ancestors". Nothing particularly new about that then, and the same characteristics are basically the same in all human races.
4)Here I think you have a strong point. I suggest that increasingly(especially in Europe, for instance) people find the idea of God rather surplus to requirements, when they think about him at all. Indeed, I think I would probably count myself amongst that number, as the idea of God has no emotional impact on me at all. I am interested however in how others are affected by their beliefs and how they justify them to themselves and others.
-
Can I just try and tease out definitions here. What do you mean by Christianity?
I think you should try and tell us what you mean by it, Vlad.
I'm happy to let anyone who chooses to call themselves a Christian and who try to follow the way of Christ as they understand it, as being part of 'Christianity'. If you want to tie it down to a list of specifics such as "Belief that God is a Trinity", "belief that Jesus was God Incarnate", "belief that he'll come again to wind up history", basing this loosely around the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Church and a few other choice Protestant groups, then I'd have to say that even in those there are a lot of grey areas and woolly edges.
-
Only Christianity and Judaism commanded people not to tolerate other gods (at least, as far as we know).
I think the Book of Micah seems more tolerant of other gods - even though there's an implication that the Jewish god is the best one.
-
I think Jung waxed lyrical about the role of Virgin Mary in Christianity as a kind of semi-divine female figure, although curiously, the Proddies got rid of her mainly.
Indeed he did. And I've always found it quite astonishing that he got so excited* when the "Assumption of the Virgin" became infallible dogma in the Catholic Church in 1950 (one of the two - or three? - "infallible" statements made by popes throughout Church history) I'd always taken issue with the idea of a pope being 'infallible' on anything, even though it boiled down to a few statements about the Virgin, since these struck me as being assertions that had no basis in the NT at all, and were pretty meaningless anyway.
I can see now why Jung thought the latter statement being important, because it was at least an acknowledgement of the importance of the "feminine" (as virtually part of the godhead) - even though this 'feminine' seemed pretty well stripped of a few important aspects of human female experience (she was supposed to be a virgin after all).
*One could have known for a long time that there was a deep longing in the masses for an intercessor and mediatrix who would at last take her place alongside the Holy Trinity and be received as the ‘Queen of heaven and Bride at the heavenly court.’ For more than a thousand years it has been taken for granted that the Mother of God dwelt there. I consider it to be the most important religious event since the Reformation.
” (Jung: Answer to Job
-
I think the Book of Micah seems more tolerant of other gods - even though there's an implication that the Jewish god is the best one.
I find it hard that People who are in some way obvious disciples of Richard Dawkins message on how to be a proper atheist (see the God Delusion) have the temerity to talk about religious tolerance.
Let us not forget the section in the ''God'' book deriding and outlining how to spot an atheist ''heretic''.
-
I find it hard that People who are in some way obvious disciples of Richard Dawkins message on how to be a proper atheist (see the God Delusion) have the temerity to talk about religious tolerance.
Let us not forget the section in the ''God'' book deriding and outlining how to spot an atheist ''heretic''.
What is this pathological obsession that you have with Richard Dawkins, Vlad? I'm not sure whether you were addressing your post to Jeremy, who first raised the matter of Judaeo/Christian intolerance, or me, who was pointing out that a certain part of the Bible (not the only one) is not so intolerant - or is this just another example of your scatter-gun approach? Whatever, I'm pretty sure that Jeremy lost his faith way before RD ever wrote TGD, and I certainly ceased to be any sort of theist before the writing of the same, or before I'd read any of Dawkins' books (of which I think TGD is not one of his best by any means).
How ironic than that you should be directing people to re-read parts of TGD :)
Maybe it's also ironic that I should be directing you to the Book of Micah, particularly Chapter 4. I presume you have actually read it?
-
What is this pathological obsession that you have with Richard Dawkins, Vlad? I'm not sure whether you were addressing your post to Jeremy, who first raised the matter of Judaeo/Christian intolerance, or me, who was pointing out that a certain part of the Bible (not the only one) is not so intolerant - or is this just another example of your scatter-gun approach? Whatever, I'm pretty sure that Jeremy lost his faith way before RD ever wrote TGD, and I certainly ceased to be any sort of theist before the writing of the same, or before I'd read any of Dawkins' books (of which I think TGD is not one of his best by any means).
How ironic than that you should be directing people to re-read parts of TGD :)
Maybe it's also ironic that I should be directing you to the Book of Micah, particularly Chapter 4. I presume you have actually read it?
Maybe Vlad is in love with Dawkins, but in denial! ;D ;D ;D
-
One of the reasons sometimes given for the survival and growth of Christianity is that it somehow, because of its success, points towards the existence of the Christian God. So, to show how nonsensical an argument that would be, I referred to the extraordinary growth of the LDS church, and the even more extra ordinary growth of irreligion in the last 100 or so years. They don't exactly fit well with such a presumption do they?
Enki
The case of the LDS is interesting, and its growth and transformation in some ways mirrors what happened to the traditional Christian church. I mentioned that I thought that one of the reasons why Christianity took off with such force was because of its apocalyptic character - people were led to believe that God was about to wind up history, so it was a matter of utmost urgency that individuals got into the right herd of sheep or goats. Trad Christianity managed to put off the imminent end of the world to the first millennium, and then almost indefinitely.
Joe Smith's imaginings and fake Book of Mormon managed to salvage this apocalyptic note from the original Judaeo/Christian scriptures, and spread the idea that the Kingdom of God would imminently be set up in America. Brigham Young continued the urgent message in his trek to Salt Lake City. Thereafter, the sense of imminent apocalypse abated somewhat and many of Smith's original teachings were completely altered. There are now many other reasons for the religion's apparent global success. I'm not sure what all of these might be, though no doubt the prospect of ruling your own planet is probably quite a draw :)
-
What is this pathological obsession that you have with Richard Dawkins, Vlad? I'm not sure whether you were addressing your post to Jeremy, who first raised the matter of Judaeo/Christian intolerance, or me, who was pointing out that a certain part of the Bible (not the only one) is not so intolerant - or is this just another example of your scatter-gun approach? Whatever, I'm pretty sure that Jeremy lost his faith way before RD ever wrote TGD, and I certainly ceased to be any sort of theist before the writing of the same, or before I'd read any of Dawkins' books (of which I think TGD is not one of his best by any means).
How ironic than that you should be directing people to re-read parts of TGD :)
Maybe it's also ironic that I should be directing you to the Book of Micah, particularly Chapter 4. I presume you have actually read it?
I don't have an obsession with him.
I am interested in movers and shakers in the history of religion...and Richard Dawkins holds an important place in the stealth religion phenomenon which is New Atheism..
He is far bigger IMHO than Lewis, Graham, Pope John Paul who with one or two other popes kept Christianity in the public sphere in the 20th century.
I really think he's up there with Joseph Smith, The Wesley's Charles Taze Russell but maybe not Luther, Calvin or the various Doctors of the Church
-
I don't have an obsession with him.
Oh yes you do!
I am interested in movers and shakers in the history of religion...and Richard Dawkins holds an important place in the stealth religion phenomenon which is New Atheism..
You certainly seem to think so but I'm struggling to name any atheists here who have referred to RD as often as you. You seem to be mildly (or not so mildly) obsessed by him.
He is far bigger IMHO than Lewis, Graham, Pope John Paul who with one or two other popes kept Christianity in the public sphere in the 20th century.
Thank you for expressing your opinion.
I really think he's up there with Joseph Smith, The Wesley's Charles Taze Russell but maybe not Luther, Calvin or the various Doctors of the Church
Do you really: that's nice.
-
Oh yes you do!
You certainly seem to think so but I'm struggling to name any atheists here who have referred to RD as often as you. You seem to be mildly (or not so mildly) obsessed by him.
But without him would you even be here? Since atheism used to be more Jonathan Miller than The Four Horsemen and Dawkinisms pepper the argument.
-
But without him would you even be here? Since atheism used to be more Jonathan Miller than The Four Horsemen and Dawkinisms pepper the argument.
Yes to the first sentence: your second sentence is, unsurprisingly, meaningless drivel.
-
I don't have an obsession with him.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
You got on stage before it wore off!
-
I don't have an obsession with him.
I am interested in movers and shakers in the history of religion...and Richard Dawkins holds an important place in the stealth religion phenomenon which is New Atheism..
He is far bigger IMHO than Lewis, Graham, Pope John Paul who with one or two other popes kept Christianity in the public sphere in the 20th century.
I really think he's up there with Joseph Smith, The Wesley's Charles Taze Russell but maybe not Luther, Calvin or the various Doctors of the Church
Dawkins is a very important scientist, but a pretty crap philosopher. Like C.S.Lewis, who was a third-rate theologian although a great literary critic and historian, he should never have strayed beyond his speciality.
-
Dawkins is a very important scientist, but a pretty crap philosopher. Like C.S.Lewis, who was a third-rate theologian although a great literary critic and historian, he should never have strayed beyond his speciality.
I confess to never having read Lewis with any sense that his writings were original or academic theological writings. He might draw from theological ideas but is an apologist. If anything he is an explainer of theology in which case he was first rate.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, having ''Got'' Darwinism myself years earlier I confess not to seeing Dawkins books as anything startling. They are not scientific papers and one must see what their actual effects were in academic science. But he is more instrumental in the invention of a new stealth religion whereas Lewis is part of a long line.
Dawkins religious achievement is crystalising a cosmic view based on Universal Darwinism, Defining atheists as a social and political group, scientism, and evangelical atheism, a fundamental antitheism, the moral imperatives of the New atheism.
I agree that most think he is a crap philosopher.
-
I don't have an obsession with him.
I am interested in movers and shakers in the history of religion...and Richard Dawkins holds an important place in the stealth religion phenomenon which is New Atheism..
It's a stealth religion because no matter how hard you look at it, the religion is still undetectable.
-
Dawkins is a very important scientist,
No he isn't. His fame rests on the fact that he is a very good science communicator.
but a pretty crap philosopher.
And I'm a crappy football player. But I don't claim to be a footballer and Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
Like C.S.Lewis, who was a third-rate theologian although a great literary critic and historian, he should never have strayed beyond his speciality.
So we wouldn't have the Narnia books.
-
It's a stealth religion because no matter how hard you look at it, the religion is still undetectable.
What's missing is God, but he is absent from Buddhism. The rest is all there then, The evangelism, The zeal, the charismatic prophet, The sacred Texts, Good and evil, sense of mission, substitute for those aspects of life taken up by religion.
Check this out: It is an atheist evolutionary biologist critique of New Atheism.
https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-new-atheism-as-a-stealth-religion-five-years-later/
-
So we wouldn't have the Narnia books.
No loss.
-
And I'm a crappy football player. But I don't claim to be a footballer and Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
But Jeremy, we never see you on TV running onto the pitch trying to crash a Premier league match or popping up in the team as the camera scans the players during the National anthem, or claiming that you don't have to know about the offside rule because it's patent rubbish.
-
What's missing is God, but he is absent from Buddhism. The rest is all there then, The evangelism, The zeal, the charismatic prophet, The sacred Texts, Good and evil, sense of mission, substitute for those aspects of life taken up by religion.
Check this out: It is an atheist evolutionary biologist critique of New Atheism.
https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-new-atheism-as-a-stealth-religion-five-years-later/
No mention of antitheists, you must be so disappointed.
-
No mention of antitheists, you must be so disappointed.
Have to say, I rather liked the article. One quote which may have some relevance to the subject of the thread is:
Those who are following my Stealth blogs have been on the edge of their seats, waiting to know the true nature of religion (see Part III for details). It is a superorganism? A form of exploitation? A disease? Like a moth to flame? Like obesity? A roll of the dice? And the answer is…
ALL OF THE ABOVE!
He then goes on to say that he thinks that perhaps the most significant of these is is that religion is "a superorganism", which has 'secular utility' (remember Vlad saying that "Christianity works". However, Wilson's summary of the reasons why religion 'works' are rather broader than Vlad's).
-
I reckon Richard Dawkins is better looking than Vlad and Vlad's having a job living with it.
I know all about this kind of thing and in all modesty, have to deal with this kind of jealousy every day.
ippy
-
The rest is all there then, The evangelism, The zeal, the charismatic prophet,
What charismatic prophet? Artheists don't characterise Richard Dawkins as a prophet, people like you do when they set up their straw men.
The sacred Texts
What sacred texts?
You've built a straw man version of atheism that has no bearing on reality, at least as not as the son called four horsemen are concerned.
-
or claiming that you don't have to know about the offside rule because it's patent rubbish.
I claim that, as somebody who does not play football, I do not need to know the offside rule. Why are you insisting that I should?
-
I reckon Richard Dawkins is better looking than Vlad and Vlad's having a job living with it.
I know all about this kind of thing and in all modesty, have to deal with this kind of jealousy every day.
ippy
Hmmmmm, Dawkin's Looks eh, well there is I suppose paleontological evidence there of him having once been a looker, but I can't decide whether it is evolution or plate tectonics which has left him with the expression of a slapped arse.
-
What charismatic prophet? Artheists don't characterise Richard Dawkins as a prophet, people like you do when they set up their straw men.
What sacred texts?
You've built a straw man version of atheism that has no bearing on reality, at least as not as the son called four horsemen are concerned.
Couldn't help noticing this post of J P's to you Vlad and when you add to this post the fact you don't fully understand secularism, it doesn't bode very well for the credibility of your posts Vlad.
ippy
-
Hmmmmm, Dawkin's Looks eh, well there is I suppose paleontological evidence there of him having once been a looker, but I can't decide whether it is evolution or plate tectonics which has left him with the expression of a slapped arse.
Jealousy talking.
ippy
-
And I'm a crappy football player. But I don't claim to be a footballer and Dawkins doesn't claim to be a philosopher.
Ho comes up with philosophical ideas, i.e. deductive arguments about life, the universe and everything, which don't bear much scrutiny. For example, in 'The Blind Watchmaker' he famously arguead that if organised complexity needs an intelligent designer, that designer must be even more complex, so who designed the designer? It was soon pointed out that that isn't true - a simple computer programme, for example, can produce very complex patterns.
-
Ho comes up with philosophical ideas, i.e. deductive arguments about life, the universe and everything, which don't bear much scrutiny. For example, in 'The Blind Watchmaker' he famously arguead that if organised complexity needs an intelligent designer, that designer must be even more complex, so who designed the designer? It was soon pointed out that that isn't true - a simple computer programme, for example, can produce very complex patterns.
... except that computer programs, no matter how simple, are also designed, which is the missing part of the refutation-that-isn't.
-
... except that computer programs, no matter how simple, are also designed, which is the missing part of the refutation-that-isn't.
The original point was that Dawkins is no great shakes at philosophy.
-
The original point was that Dawkins is no great shakes at philosophy.
It would have to be, since the point you used as an illustrative example is a sizeable pile of steaming horseshit. Great for the roses, but nothing else.
As for Dawkins: given that philosophy isn't science and doesn't adhere to the same canons of empirical evidence and therefore proof and disproof, there's no law that says trained academic philosophers are the sole proprietors of philosophical thought. Dawkins is as free to make philosophical arguments as I am or you are. Those arguments stand or fall on their own merits qua arguments, not on who makes/made them. They may be good arguments, they may be bad arguments or some mixture of the two; but if you're going to hold up any particular one as an example of a bad argument, pick a better one because the last attempt was crap.