WARNING: This thread is a debate about religion. If you do not like religion threads or you are unprepared to read a bit of text and act maturely then please do not post in here.
Okay so about two weeks ago I began a discussion with Silver_Dragon17 about an issue that I noticed within Christianity. For those who can't be bothered reading the 2,637 word transcript of our conversation the gist of the argument was this:
Domatron23- "There are many coincidences between the lifestyle that Christianity teaches and the social behaviour that is neccesary for the human species to survive. Does this mean that Christianity and religion in general is a product of mankind designed to keep society together?"
Silver_Dragon17- "That could be but to me it makes more sense that the positive effects of Christianity are a part of the benevolence of God"
We ended in a stalemate between our respective arguments and so I have come here with the hopes that the Off Topic community could add their input into the matter.
The discussion between Silver_Dragon17 and myself went like this:
domatron23 wrote: Hey Silver Dragon.
First off let me compliment you on the mature way you always manage to debate matters of religion on off topic. It's good to see someone who doesn't resort to screaming in a religious debate. I was reading a recent thread named "to religious people" recently and I was quite intrigued about a response you made. When asked what your life would be like if you (hypothetically) discovered for certain that God didn't exist you replied that "I'd stay a Christian. The Christian lifestyle is for me anyway, whether or not Christianity exists." That got me to thinking and reaffirmed the basic reason why I think many people here (including myself) are atheists.I think that most people are religious not because of the cause but the effects. Allow me to explain.
The cause of Christianity is the existence of God, his judgment upon mankind and the reality of an afterlife, correct no? But the effect of Christianityis the Christian lifestyle as you described. Now I basically live the Christian lifestyle (with a few exceptions) I don't smoke, don't drink, don't take drugs and I most certainly never murder or intimidate or anything of the like. The only difference is that I do not accept Jesus Christ as the son of God and my savior. This brings me to my point about cause and effect. I am an Atheist because I recognize too much coincidence between the effects of Christianity and how the ideal human society should work. The ideal human society requires things like selflessness and sacrifice which are very hard to justify outside of the promise of an afterlife. This is a quote from Sigmund Freud which sums up my point fairly well (please examine the quote on its own merit rather then the merit of the person saying it):
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
Is it not conceivable that God is a product of humanity, designed to achieve the effects of Christianity without the causes actually being real? Is it not possiblefor a person like me, identical to you in every way except for my faith, to be an equal? Is it not possible for you to live exactly as you do now without believing in God's existence? I know that you are not stupid and have probably thought of this already but could you please consider what I have said and if you are not convinced explain why.
Many thanks.
Silver_Dragon wrote: The cause of Christianity is more the existence (and sacrifice, of course) of Jesus. The promise of an afterlife never even came until the New Testament; In the Old Testament, the people who worshipped and obeyed God never had any such promise. I would still be a Christian even if I had no promise myself.
Can society live the Christian lifestyle without being Christians? I'm not sure. For one thing, I don't think it's possible to live the Christian lifestyle without being a Christian--that's why I called it the Christian lifestyle. Society would most certainly be better off if they did the things you mentioned: No drugs, smokes, murder, etc. But is that the Christian lifestyle? I'm not so sure. Moses? He was a murderer. James, Christ's disciple? He denied even knowing Jesus, three times, when he was afraid for his own life. I am not certain (yet) what constitutes a Christian lifestyle, and I most certainly am NOT advocating the nad things you mentioned, but It is certain, like you said, that those are not what makes somebody a Christian, so why would the be the lifestyle of one?
Well, Freud is right that that's what we would like, but think about this: If that were true, why sacrifice? Does anybody actually WANT that? Or, what about the very real possibility that a family member or a close friend could end up in Hell? That is frightening beyond imagination, for the believer. If Christianity was simply invented for all the nice little things in the world that we would like, then why did they throw in all those things that are definitely not convenient for either the believer or non-believer? An all-convenient religion would definitely HAVE to be fake.
Is it conceivable that God is simply a product of humanity? Sure. Is it possible for you and me to be equal? Of course. Is it possible that I could live the way I do now without believing in God? I'm not so sure.
I used to be an Atheist, you know. And I was quite the stubborn, immature, selfish, and just plain stupid prick I am NOT saying that Atheists are all like this, but I can guarantee that it was my Atheism that helped along these traits. If I were to convert to Atheism today, then would I be like that? I doubt it, because I've grown up. But then I never would have been a Christian in the first place.
Anytime.
domatron23 wrote: Cheers for the thoughtful reply but I have a few points to elaborate on.
When I said the Christian lifestyle I meant the way of life promoted by the bible, the ten commandments and the church. I know that not every Christian follows this exact lifestyle but I do think that this is what religion is striving for. The Christian lifestyle is the effect of religion on the non-spiritual world, morality, family values etc. Now keep in mind that these effects of Christianity affect society rather than the individual. With that said you can see why it is still an awfully convenient religion even though it requires things like sacrifice. A successful society requires altruistic behaviour such as sacrifice to function properly. If you take religion as a tool for the benefit of society rather than the individual you can see that Freud's quote is still pertinent to our situation because the religion in question is still all-convenient. Could religion still be just an invention of man to hold society together?
As for the causes of Christianity I know that Jesus' teachings were incredibly important but didn't the whole thing kind of hinge on the fact that God was his father? It's that aspect ofJesus which separates him from a common idealist.
The only part of your post that I disagreed with was when you said that you weren't sure that a non-Christian could live the Christian lifestyle. I know that you and others need the guidance of religion to live the way you do (given that you said that you were a little bastard as an atheist) but there are many people like myself who don't need a God to justify Christian-like morality. The principles that Christianity teaches are pretty reasonable to me and I think that it's very smart to follow them. Now in effect I am satisfying the effects of Christianity (which I think is the alterior motive behind it) without believing in the causes (the divine presence behind Jesus' teachings). If religion is indeed just a creation of man then that makes you and me exactly the same.
I will acknowledge that religion is necessary (I think the world would be worse off without religion) but does that still mean that a God exists? Can you still account for the coincidence between religion and mankind's personal and societal needs? Are the effects ofChristianity all-convenient?
Thanks again for your thought and input in the matter.
Silver_Dragon17 wrote: If religion is simply an invention of mankind, then I can see how it was developed as a way to control society and keep it somewhat together. However, as I said before, if it's convenience you want, you can do much better than Christianity. Why not something with little to no consequences on the individual, instead of something that requires hardship? A society can function without sacrifice, but then there are the other 'negatives' of religion, Christianity in particular.
Yes. There is what is known as a Trilemma, which goes as thus: Either Jesus was a liar, that He knew that what He was speaking was not the truth, but He spoke it anyway; A lunatic, which means He thought He was correct, but in fact was not, and so was crazy, or He was telling the truth and was the Son of God. He never claimed to be a simple idealist. If He was lying, then He certainly took it a little too far. He had nothing to gain, except a crucifixion, over such a tremendous lie. Maybe He was insane. If so, He was the smartest, most influential insane man in history. He also had a rather sane way of words, which is shown when He confronts the Pharisees. But just a teacher, or a prophet, or an idealist? He never made any such claim.
Let me ask you something: You say that you live much the way a Christian does, and I'm not saying you're lying, but what stops you from being a Christian? Not much would change regarding your morality, or the way you see the world, and, if I may invoke Pascal's Wager (which I have a problem with, but still), you'll go to Heaven if you're right.
I'm glad you acknowledge that, because nothing makes me lose it more than "religion is the problem with the world!!" No, that doesn't automatically mean God exists. If Christianity (I don't like to speak for all of religion, because my knowledge is limited to Christianity) was invented for the benefit for society, then what prompted this invention? Was society going down the drain at the time? Why is it that most of the writers of the Bible were unknowns, or even fugitives for what they believed? Would you suffer the kinds of deaths as they did (Apostle Peter was crucified upside-down) for the betterment of society? I know that they could have been martyrs for their cause, but if this is the case, we might need to take another look at the lunatic part of the Trilemma.
People joke about how I always recommend this book, but I would really you look at Mere Christianity by C.S.Lewis, my favorite author, for more on what Christianity is.
domatron23 wrote: Ah yes Pascal's wager, It's better to have loved and lost then to have never loved at all. Pascal manages to demonstrate that the consequences of not believing in a true God are more significant than the consequences of believing in a false one. However you've got to take into account the fact that if you believe God to be impossible in the first place (as I do)the whole argument is irrelevant. I could make a statistical argument to demonstrate what I mean If you don't quite understand where I'm coming from.
Anyways on to the point at hand. I whole-heartedly disagree with you when you say that a society can function without sacrifice. We are a social species and require altruistic behavior to function (I use sacrifice and altruism as synonyms of each other). You know that three people working together are more efficient then three people working separately, the same principle is what society is founded upon and as such is what Christianity teaches.
Now unless I define sacrifice differently from you or if I am failing to take into account the other negative aspects of Christian faith, I still see Christianity as an all-convenient religion which as you acknowledged would have to be a product of mankind. Can you still account for this in regards to the original hypothesis me and Freud presented?
As for the trilemma I would argue that if Jesus was a lying sane man he would still havea good enoughmotive to "invent" Christianity. Yes he earned himself a tortured and untimely death but look at what he gained. It is similar to Achilles' situation in Homer's Iliad. Do you live a short but purposeful life which will be remembered for ever or a shallow anonymous life which you can enjoy for as long as it lasts? Some people value the immortality of remembrance and the opportunity to do something great over the transience of existence (I'm not saying that's true but one could definitely rationalize it as the better choice). If you view it like that then it's not really a trilemma at all.
Now I too don't know much outside of Christianity but I can say fairly confidently that allreligion in one way or another is "designed" to regulate the morality of society. Christianity wasn't new in that sense, it was just a replacement for the Greco-Roman religion that existed at that time. I'm guessing that the latter religion either wasn't working or simply just became irrelevant, like Christianity is today for people like me.
Why am I not a Christian if I live the Christian lifestyle? Well like I implied earlier with Pascal's wager I have 0% confidence in the existence of the supernatural, particularly with a God who I see so many alterior motives in. The Christian lifestyle is necessary if you are going to be a functioning member of society and so I follow it with exception to one or two commandments and principles which I view as superfluous. There's a common misconception that atheists are incapable of forming morality on par with that of the Church (not saying you think this). I have the morality which religion was designed to give but I don't need the white lie of God to justify it to myself.
Right now I have 0% confidence in God because of the coincidences betweenindividual and societal needsand the effects of Christianity I mentioned in my original message. That doesn't constitute stubbornnesson my part however. My viewscould change if I see faults within my theory which is why I contacted you in the first place.
I originally wrote amuch longer response to your last message but I lost it when I tried to send it to you. So if you don't understand what I said just ask and I will elaborate.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness and maturity on the matter and I will look into mere religion when I have the time.
Silver_Dragon17 wrote: Sorry for taking so long to reply--I've had a very busy week.
I thought and thought about this argument, because it is fairly new to me. When I come across a new argument, I obsess over it. And my fatal flaw is that I always look for some complicated answer that explains every aspect of the argument.
Then the realization hit me so hard that I have a bruise.
Of COURSE society would be "easier" because of Christianity--Wouldn't God want that? Wouldn't He want laws and rules that make things easier for us to live with each other?
Unfortunately, this does not account for Ol' Freud's argument. But it makes sense to me.
Sorry for the short reply, but I don't have time for an essay right now.
domatron23 wrote: Hmm I can see where you're coming from but unfortunatelyyour responseleaves us in a bit ofa stalemate.
We can rationalize that the effects of Christianity are the result of God's benevolence orthat they are the result of a cultural need for cohesion. I guess this oneboils down to perception and opinionwhich isn't very handy given that the whole God vs. no God argument has been nothing but that so far.
Would it be okay ifI posted our conversation on off topic and we let the community decide who has a more valid point?
END OF TRANSCRIPT
So what's everyone's opinion on the issue. Is Freud right, is Christianity really an all-convenient religion? Is the coincidence between the effects of religion and the needs of mankind suspicious or just providential. Does of Christianity originate from man or God?
Any thoughtful and mature responses are very much appreciated. Cheers.
Log in to comment