Is Christianity a 'fundamentally decent religion in a way that..

[Nearly Sane]

Islam is not', as Dawkins says in this interview?


https://youtu.be/COHgEFUFWyg?si=IImkBEQnOAGyNJgd

[jeremyp]

The Church of England seems to be.

That can't be said for Christianity historically though.

[Nearly Sane]

The Church of England seems to be.

That can't be said for Christianity historically though.

Surely that applies historically to the CoE too? And still to parts of the Anglican Communion now.

[jeremyp]

Surely that applies historically to the CoE too? And still to parts of the Anglican Communion now.

The Church of England is a reaction to all of the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It's basically a compromise invented by Queen Elizabeth I to stop her subjects from burning each other at the stake. It wasn't highly successful at doing that at first but things have been running smoothly for the last couple of hundred years.

[Nearly Sane]

The Church of England is a reaction to all of the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It's basically a compromise invented by Queen Elizabeth I to stop her subjects from burning each other at the stake. It wasn't highly successful at doing that at first but things have been running smoothly for the last couple of hundred years.

I might argue about that characterisation but I did wonder if Dawkins meant CoE in some ways, even if it makes no sense in a comparison with Islam.

[Aruntraveller]

The Church of England seems to be.

That can't be said for Christianity historically though.

Nor some Christianity currently.

Uganda for example.

I don't think you can take any huge religion and treat it as a monolithic entity and then apply a sweeping generalisation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting question and one that I think cannot be decoupled from the generally accepted cultural norms within a particular society.

So the UK has a predominantly christian heritage which has had a major impact on the cultural and societal norms. So it isn't unexpected if most people in the UK would see christianity in a decent way compared to islam, which has no similar heritage within the cultural norms of the UK. However I imagine were you to ask the same question in a country where there cultural normals are based on a strong islamic heritage then you'd get entirely the opposite answer.

What is perhaps more interesting is how the cultural and societal norms of the UK in general and of christianity in the UK have become increasingly divergent over the past 50 years or so. We now see christianity playing catch-up which issues that general UK society has become comfortable with decades ago.

Obvious examples are equality issues - in general UK institutions (whether that be governmental, private industry, public sector, charitable sector) embed equality in their policies. Whether they actually achieve this in practice is another matter but as an issue of policy, equality is enshrined. Yet major christian denominations (e.g. CofE, RCC) still embed inequalities against women and gay people within their policies. This isn't just an issue of whether they achieve equality in practice, they don't even embed it in theory in their policies so they don't even try.

So it seems to me that Christianity is becoming increasingly out of step with the generally accepted norms of UK society as they move on while christianity is increasingly slower at catching up, or at times seems to make no attempt to catch up.

What does this mean in terms of the question posed - well I think UK society will see christianity as more 'decent' than, say, islam - largely because of its cultural heritage. However I would argue that UK society will see christianity in 2024 as less decent than it might have done in 1954. Also I wonder what the result would be if the comparison was not with islam, but with buddhism?

[Nearly Sane]

Surely though given the use of the term 'fundamentally' herd, we're not talking about whether the CoE, or other mainstream branches of Christianity are seen as being in line with current social attitudes. Dawkins notes the issues with some Christian basics bit still sees it as different to Islam in some 'fundamental' way.

[Nearly Sane]

Nor some Christianity currently.

Uganda for example.

I don't think you can take any huge religion and treat it as a monolithic entity and then apply a sweeping generalisation.

I think that Dawkins is, in a less grand way, suggesting something similar to Tom Holland in Dominion, as mentioned in The Christian Revival thread, that there is something that marks Christianity out as a different type of religion, and that it is 'better' than Islam.

I suspect that Dawkins might think there are more religions than Christianity that might qualify so I don't think he's quite accepting the thesis of Dominion entirely.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely though given the use of the term 'fundamentally' herd, we're not talking about whether the CoE, or other mainstream branches of Christianity are seen as being in line with current social attitudes. Dawkins notes the issues with some Christian basics bit still sees it as different to Islam in some 'fundamental' way.

I've just watched the video and I think 'fundamentally' and 'fundamental' are used in different context. I think when Dawkins describes christianity as fundamentally decent, he is talking about its core values, which he compares to islam. Later he is asked about christian fundamentalists, in the context of the USA, but he considers this to be a separate issue to what he was describing in his fundamentally decent comment.

[Nearly Sane]

I've just watched the video and I think 'fundamentally' and 'fundamental' are used in different context. I think when Dawkins describes christianity as fundamentally decent, he is talking about its core values, which he compares to islam. Later he is asked about christian fundamentalists, in the context of the USA, but he considers this to be a separate issue to what he was describing in his fundamentally decent comment.

Yes, that's my understanding as well. Then though there  is the problem that religion outside of its adherents doesn't exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then though there  is the problem that religion outside of its adherents doesn't exist.

I would agree that without adherents a religion, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist.

But that doesn't mean that a religion is merely some cumulative of the sum of the beliefs of those individual adherents. We have discussed this before, but organisations are more complicated that that - they can maintain a culture or ethos which may not be in accordance with that of the majority of members, indeed could be counter to the views of all members.

And religions are peculiarly susceptible to this - firstly because many adherents are members not necessarily because they belief all those teachings, but because of societal and cultural affiliations. Also because religions set themselves up as being organisations with divine inspirations where the views of individual adherents aren't really critical.

So in UK terms the RCC is a prime example - the organisation institutionally holds to teaching on a whole range of matters which are soundly rejected by the vast majority of UK catholics. So the 'views' of the organisation is very different to 'views' of the membership.

[Nearly Sane]

I would agree that without adherents a religion, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist.

But that doesn't mean that a religion is merely some cumulative of the sum of the beliefs of those individual adherents. We have discussed this before, but organisations are more complicated that that - they can maintain a culture or ethos which may not be in accordance with that of the majority of members, indeed could be counter to the views of all members.

And religions are peculiarly susceptible to this - firstly because many adherents are members not necessarily because they belief all those teachings, but because of societal and cultural affiliations. Also because religions set themselves up as being organisations with divine inspirations where the views of individual adherents aren't really critical.

So in UK terms the RCC is a prime example - the organisation institutionally holds to teaching on a whole range of matters which are soundly rejected by the vast majority of UK catholics. So the 'views' of the organisation is very different to 'views' of the membership.

The institution doesn't hold views. The people in charge of the institution hold views.

[ProfessorDavey]

The institution doesn't hold views. The people in charge of the institution hold views.

Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.

Institutions have values, ethos, culture etc which may be retained, maintained, changed etc by those who are members of that institution. But that doesn't mean that it is only the individual, rather than the organisation, that has values, culture and ethos. Nor does it mean that the views of the members of that organisation necessary have views which align with the values, culture and ethos of the organisation.

Have you not heard of the notion of institutional racism - which is an institution that has values, culture, ethos and potentially policies and practices that are racist. And that can be the case even it every single person working for that organisation, or in a leadership or governance role is not themselves racist.

[Nearly Sane]

Yawn - we've been through this ad nauseam.

Institutions have values, ethos, culture etc which may be retained, maintained, changed etc by those who are members of that institution. But that doesn't mean that it is only the individual, rather than the organisation, that has values, culture and ethos. Nor does it mean that the views of the members of that organisation necessary have views which align with the values, culture and ethos of the organisation.

Have you not heard of the notion of institutional racism - which is an institution that has values, culture, ethos and potentially policies and practices that are racist. And that can be the case even it every single person working for that organisation, or in a leadership or governance role is not themselves racist.

Institutional racism is a metaphor. Remove the people, no institution, no views. That a dominant view held by people in power in an institution is not the view of the majority of members is about power, not the institution having views itself 

[Nearly Sane]

The discussion that I've just been having with Prof D triggers the following thought, and thanks to him for jumpstarting my sputtering charabanc of a brain, that one way that Dawkins comment might be looked at is the values espoused by Jesus, if he existed, mean that he seems like a 'fundamentally decent' chap as opposed to Mohammed and his views. I think there's a case there but it's far from a clear dichotomy, and it's very hard, particularly in the case of Jesus to see the views removed from the gloss put on by followers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Institutional racism is a metaphor. Remove the people, no institution, no views.

But we aren't talking about the views of individuals, but the culture, ethos, values, policies and practices of institutions and organisation.

So right back at you - remove the institution and there cannot be institutional racism etc.

That a dominant view held by people in power in an institution is not the view of the majority of members is about power, not the institution having views itself

But the institution or organisation may have embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices, which may not align with the views of those people who work for and/or are members of that institution or organisation. And it isn't as simply as glibly suggesting those in power in an institution can just change the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices as they wish to align with their own views.

Many institution and organisations have complex constitutions, articles of association which cannot readily be changed at a whim to align with the views of the leadership. In many cases these will be establish specifically to make it very difficult to change them in the future. Indeed in some cases the embedded culture, ethos and values might be enshrined through the action of completely separate organisations - e.g. Royal Charter. So it simply might be impossible to change the embedded culture, ethos and values from within quickly, if at all.

This becomes more challenging still with religious organisations where there may be a view that the embedded culture, ethos and values are actually divinely inspired with no-one in the organisation feeling that they empowered to make any changes.

The overall point is that when individuals are acting on behalf of an institution or organisation (e.g. as an employee or member etc) they may be required to act in accordance with that organisation's embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices regardless of whether those values etc align with their own. Now this can be both good or bad or just different. But the point remains that the organisation's embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices are dictating the behaviours of those that work or interact with that organisation regardless of their individual views.

And where it is difficult (or even potentially impossible in the case of religion's baed on claimed sacred scripts) to change those embedded culture, ethos and values we have moved well beyond your simplistic notion that it is all about individual views and those in leadership within an organisation can simply change cultures to align with their views.

[Nearly Sane]

But we aren't talking about the views of individuals, but the culture, ethos, values, policies and practices of institutions and organisation.

So right back at you - remove the institution and there cannot be institutional racism etc.
But the institution or organisation may have embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices, which may not align with the views of those people who work for and/or are members of that institution or organisation. And it isn't as simply as glibly suggesting those in power in an institution can just change the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices as they wish to align with their own views.

Many institution and organisations have complex constitutions, articles of association which cannot readily be changed at a whim to align with the views of the leadership. In many cases these will be establish specifically to make it very difficult to change them in the future. Indeed in some cases the embedded culture, ethos and values might be enshrined through the action of completely separate organisations - e.g. Royal Charter. So it simply might be impossible to change the embedded culture, ethos and values from within quickly, if at all.

This becomes more challenging still with religious organisations where there may be a view that the embedded culture, ethos and values are actually divinely inspired with no-one in the organisation feeling that they empowered to make any changes.

The overall point is that when individuals are acting on behalf of an institution or organisation (e.g. as an employee or member etc) they may be required to act in accordance with that organisation's embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices regardless of whether those values etc align with their own. Now this can be both good or bad or just different. But the point remains that the organisation's embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices are dictating the behaviours of those that work or interact with that organisation regardless of their individual views.

And where it is difficult (or even potentially impossible in the case of religion's baed on claimed sacred scripts) to change those embedded culture, ethos and values we have moved well beyond your simplistic notion that it is all about individual views and those in leadership within an organisation can simply change cultures to align with their views.

I do love it that you think it's a simplistic view for people to be needed to have racism. There can be no institutions without people. There can be racism with no institutions.

[ProfessorDavey]

I do love it that you think it's a simplistic view for people to be needed to have racism. There can be no institutions without people. There can be racism with no institutions.

And there cannot be institutional racism without institutions - what's your point.

The point is, of course, that institutional embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices can over-ride the individual views of those who work in or are members of that organisation as when working on behalf of the organisation they are expected to align to organisational  embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices, not their own.

And this can work in both ways - an organisation entirely staffed etc by people who are not racist can be institutionally racist if the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices are themselves racist.

Similarly an organisation entirely staffed etc by people who are racist can be institutionally non-racist if the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices act to ensure equality in practice.

[Nearly Sane]

And there cannot be institutional racism without institutions - what's your point.

The point is, of course, that institutional embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices can over-ride the individual views of those who work in or are members of that organisation as when working on behalf of the organisation they are expected to align to organisational  embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices, not their own.

And this can work in both ways - an organisation entirely staffed etc by people who are not racist can be institutionally racist if the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices are themselves racist.

Similarly an organisation entirely staffed etc by people who are racist can be institutionally non-racist if the embedded culture, ethos, values, policies and practices act to ensure equality in practice.

My point is that institutions cannot be anything without people. They don't have thoughts, intentions, values. You seem to be tilting at windmills.

[ProfessorDavey]

My point is that institutions cannot be anything without people. They don't have thoughts, intentions, values. You seem to be tilting at windmills.

But they can be institutionally racist even if none of the people are themselves individually racist.

You really don't get it do you.

Here is the definition of institutional racism from theCommission for Racial Equality

"If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have racial intentions."

[Nearly Sane]

But they can be institutionally racist even if none of the people are themselves individually racist.

You really don't get it do you.

Here is the definition of institutional racism from theCommission for Racial Equality

"If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have racial intentions."

That's like saying because the law treats a company like a person, a legal fiction, that it is a person.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's like saying because the law treats a company like a person, a legal fiction, that it is a person.

That is exactly how the law treats organisations.

But the point is that an organisation may act in an organisational sense in a manner that does not accord with the views of the individuals who work etc within that organisation, even if the racist (not non racist) policies and practices etc might be delivered by those individuals. See the definition.

Of course in the world of modern computer systems and AI organisations may act in a racist (or non racist) manner even if not delivered through individual people.