Comment by anonAndOn
5 years ago
The comedian Emo Philips has a well-known joke about religion that may explain some of the decline in membership...
"Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."
Emo Philips has another joke which I think was voted somewhere as funniest joke ever, and is a great take on western religion :
“When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.”
Rarely does anyone ever ask my religion but when people do i tell them Hellenism (Belief in the greek gods). People often give me a quizzical look - but when you study the 'religion' you find interesting beliefs that help you in modern day.
For instance, claiming you don't have 100% complete faith in the myths and gods wasn't a heretic offense. Everyone respected the fact that the stories were arch-types that displayed courage, anger, revenge, ect.
Also, if someone else came up to you from Egypt and believed in an entirely different pantheon you respected their opinion and could see similarities in your own religion.
Christianity from the very early days (The skims' under Constantine) was a very absolute one. There was a right and wrong. There was only one god and you are wrong and a heretic for believing in another.
That's why Hellenism works so well for me. I do not claim to be a moral precept but i do offer you this; A peace treaty. You can believe what you want to believe as long as you respect my own moral reasoning. In the grand scheme of things as long as there is no direct harm to you for my actions you must accept and respect them but i do not have to bow to them. It cannot be a suicidal pact, meaning if i do not believe in YOUR GOD, slip up and don't call you a 'They' or say somethings 'Gay'.
I truly believe one of the biggest problems with current society is everyone believes they are a moral precept and have all the answers. Love your neighbor.
>Also, if someone else came up to you from Egypt and believed in an entirely different pantheon you respected their opinion and could see similarities in your own religion.
More than that, they believed each others gods were cultural representations of the same actual gods. After all there is only one sky. It doesn't make any sense to think that our sky god is different from their sky god, or our sun god is different from their sun god, though being gods they can manifest in different forms.
But then it's shocking how many people seem to think that Christians, Jews and Muslims worship different gods. There's only one god of Abraham, which arguably Hindus call Brahman. They're all just names and stories, there's only one reality*.
* citation needed
>More than that, they believed each others gods were cultural representations of the same actual gods.
Ironically, Christianity kind of did the same thing, rather believing everyone else's gods were just demons or sorcerers in league with Satan. In further irony, this led to a lot of syncretism of pagan beliefs and rituals into Christianity.
Note that they understood the myths to be archetypes, but outright atheism was a charge punishable by death. That's what they got Socrates on.
Also note that they were pretty limited in their tolerance. If people got pissed at you, they wrote your name on a piece of pottery (ostrakon). If enough names were gathered, you were banished -- the root of the word "ostracized".
On the upside, they were very tolerant of transgender and intersex individuals. Note in particular the case of Callo/Callon, who changed their sex and pronouns.
I'm certainly not a religious expert, but from my understanding Christianity's main innovations were not monotheism or absolute morality. Those concepts had been around for a very long time and Christianity adopted those ideas that from others and then added their own innovations on top of that.
It's weird how many Americans are completely unaware of the second largest branch of Christianity (or better call it "the trunk" and everything else - "a branch") - the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the original Christianity without a pope, indulgences, inquisition, and other things, which have nothing to do with the early Christianity.
Prior to the East-West Schism, and from the beginnings of organized Christianity, the entities which became the Eastern Orthodox Churches after the schism had the same Pope, with a somewhat different role, as Western Christianity.
Some of them also have had things not unlike the inquisition, though they don't call it that.
And, of course, outside of the Eastern Orthodox and maybe the “Old Catholics”, even those Christians who disagree with the Roman Catholic position don't see the Eastern Orthodox as having a particular claim to original Christianity.
EDIT: for example, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East are, in their current form, older than the Eastern Orthodox, and from their perspective the branch containing both sides of the 1054 Schism is a divergence from “original Christianity” in the same way that Western Christianity is viewed by the Eastern Orthodox.,,
So it's like the relationship between modern agile methodologies and the original agile manifesto then?
No, it's more immutable vs mutable... or accepting messages with bad public key signatures.
I can understand the belief that Eastern Orthodoxy is more of a "trunk" than more recent "branches", but what about core ideas that predate Jesus? e.g. the immortality of the soul was reasoned by Plato (Republic, circa 350BC); heaven and hell have been portrayed by Virgil (Aeneid, circa 19BC). Aren't these the "trunk", and the Hebrew Bible and Jesus another branch?
Trees have roots, too.
Yes, also Christians in the US are mostly Protestants, which purposely moved away from the things you mentioned.
I'm a Lutheran and I've studied the works of Luther. When I learned about the Orthodox church as an adult, I really liked what I saw. If Luther had been an Orthodox priest, I wonder if he would have launched his gentle rebellion (and, later, his not-so-gentle rebellion).
This is a somewhat funny joke but it doesn't actually map to reality. Inter-Christian conflict is almost nonexistent in 2021 and has been so for probably a generation.
Edit: by “conflict” I mean actual real violent conflict. Not people arguing on Reddit. People literally killing each other (or pushing them off bridges) because they are “heretics.” This doesn’t happen much at all anymore in the Christian world. Even the edge cases like Northern Ireland have little to do with actual religious differences. That issue is mostly political in nature and revolves around the relationship of Ireland to Great Britain, not the intricacies of the Christian religion.
It’s easy to observe the difference when you look at the Muslim world, where there still is a lot of violent conflict and people being persecuted or killed because they are “heretics.”
As an atheist apostate who was raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist, Christian church in the Great Lakes region, it hits pretty close to home.
I was last in church a couple weeks ago for a funeral; it was a little weird hearing about the ways people from various highly-similar churches talked about Grandma's spiritual history as she was enlightened from her Christian Reformed early childhood to know a living and true God. Did she know the theological differences at age 10? We talked about the effect she had as the matriarch of our extended family bringing everyone together for decades by sponsoring an annual summer trip to a nearby Bible conference ground, and about how she justifiably ended that when the Bible conference lost their way and endorsed some speakers with relatively minor theological differences.
It's not "conflict" in the sense of the Spanish Inquisition - no one, as far as I know, would genuinely push someone off a bridge for being in a different sect - but around here they'd pray for the person to accept the truth, call for church discipline/excommunication/speaking bans if in a position of power, or they'd leave the church and find a slightly different sect that didn't make the wrong call on whatever issue was brought up by the council of 1912.
There's a paradox of intolerance at play: A group that aims to be universally tolerant cannot actually tolerate intolerance, and fundamentalist Christianity advocates a singular, accurately understood, unique truth at its core. You can and tolerate love those who hold different theologies all you want, but if you believe in one absolute universal truth as a lot of Christian culture does, then anyone who believes even a little bit differently is not right, which is to say, by definition, they're wrong.
Karl Popper was a moron. You can tolerate intolerance just fine by assuming there will be someone equally intolerant of such intolerance.
I wish people would stop quoting that denthead. It’s as silly as people claiming the Qu’ran has passages specifically commanding them to blow people up.
3 replies →
The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland may be over but there is still tension and violence in Northern Ireland between a subset of Catholics and Protestants. The sectarian violence still happens but does not get reported internationally because the scale is so much lower than it was up to 2010, but to say Inter-Christian conflict has been non-existent for a generation (25 years?) is wishful thinking at best.
See my edit.
Idk, man... about two years ago, I heard an evangelical dude say Catholics aren’t even Christians. As a Catholic, I found it a bit startling to learn that I am - by default - going to hell.
Pop by r/catholic and you'll come across some people's hush-hush Catholic views that Martin Luther was evil by leading away millions to eternal damnation because there's no salvation outside The Catholic Church.
2 replies →
Was it because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelations, or because it's secretly a pagan religion that worships Saints and the Virgin Mary as gods? I love the rationales people put forward for that kind of stuff.
For a Guy purportedly trying to bring salvation to humanity, some Jesus's followers do seem to relish opportunities to keep the everyone they can out of the Kingdom.
2 replies →
You don't know, they might be of the opinion that a good life dedicated to Jesus may be enough, regardless of how you dress it up.
But, from outside, they appear to be at least half right.
The catholic church seems to be less CHRISTian and more ... Trinity-ian. I assume it's a fairly large difference on the ground as one is all about a single person, born a regular man, who brings forgiveness for unintentional sins. The other, a story about a much more conscious god who manifests himself in a young body and proceeds to lecture on morality and the afterlife.
Catholicism also teaches that every non-Catholic person is going to hell.
4 replies →
Maybe you need to clarify by what you mean by conflict -- do you mean violent conflict? Because ideological conflict and schism seems quite high between denominations, christian branches, and even within congregations. E.g Rob Bell vs Francis Chan / Tim Keller on whether hell is real and if Rob Bell is going there. A lot of evangelical groups today are "non-denominational" meaning they face these ideological clashes within their congregations.
I mean, as an atheist it seems obvious that they're all facing the problem of ill-defined views causing confusion. There's no ground truth so everyone's just interpreting it how they feel is right, whether that's by focusing on literal biblicisms or focusing on real world feedback / interpersonal relationships, and the lines are drawn around litmus test issues across the spectrum of christian beliefs.
The violence is just the punchline that makes it a joke. The point is how ludicrous it is that people take these minuscule differences in dogma seriously, and just how seriously they do take it. That's what maps to reality.
This is only true as far as how most Christians and churches are so casual in their beliefs, there's no meaningful difference in their lifestyle vs a non-believer's.
In the us it's conservative christians against everyone else (mostly evangelicals but multiple other groups too, and they also fight among themselves).
The group that isn't fighting much is liberal christians (I try to define them as accepting homosexuality) and non believers. Those are the groups not fighting.
I don't think that's true. Churches are deeply divided on some core issues, and in some cases are splitting over these differences: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/united-methodist-conserv...
That link is about Methodists splitting over a fairly big issue (gay marriage) and not the minute differences referred to in the parent comment.
1 reply →
And yet our society is more polarized than ever. From your anecdote, one would think that declining religion would result in peace and love overflowing in society, but we see the opposite. Public morality cannot be maintained without religion; we will sadly see the end result of that in coming years.
I'd argue that the polarization is a direct result of the rise of evangelical Christianity. And as church membership decreases, their perceived persecution will fan the flames of their crusade against soft drugs, LGBTQ+, and trans rights to name a few.
>crusade against soft drugs, LGBTQ+, and trans rights to name a few.
So then why have those crusades all but evaporated?
Weed is on its way to being federally legal. Hard drugs are becoming legal or decriminalized in some jurisdictions. Trans people are pretty much universally accepted/tolerated as being a thing that isn't going away with the remaining conflict more or less related to all the gender based stuff that's been codified in law over the years.
2 replies →
> Public morality cannot be maintained without religion
Do you have evidence or arguments for this, or is this just a feeling? I can see an argument for the statement "religion can be and has been used to maintain public morality" but that's not what you said, so I'm curious about your reasoning.
What is morality? It is not a physical material phenomenon and it is not scientific, so if it exists it is by definition supernatural or its synonym metaphysical
Once you are discussing the supernatural, you are discussing religion.
2 replies →
? how do you explain the relative stability of largely secular nations then?
The two most destructive regimes of the twentieth century were explicitly secular. The stability of modern Western Europe is more of a historical consequence of Pax Americana and the Cold War than secularism.
10 replies →
People wonder if they are only temporarily stable, since the only subset groups that are reproducing at replacement rates are the religious.
3 replies →
Depends on how you define secular. Most secular states are simply neutral and promote plurality of culture and religion, i.e. allowing choice. The other type of secular state is one which is openly hostile to religion.
The US is becoming openly hostile to religion, as many of the comments in this thread evidence, which is distinct from neutrality. I agree with religious freedom as such, with everyone being on equal standing.
If you define secularism as the USSR or China, I would disagree with their long term stability, or even with liking their regimes.
14 replies →
It's an interesting argument that you lay out, and as agnostic that came from a religious family, it's something that I've personally grappled with. In the absence of religion, where do people find their moral and ethical compass? I wasn't raised atheist, and when I ask atheists this question they often dismiss it as not important or obvious. I feel like that's half the reason religion persists, because they actually attempt to answer such questions with respect.
Have you considered that it is not important, that it is obvious?
As a person that wasn't raised religious, the concept that you need religion to find a moral and ethical compass seems weird to me. My parents taught me values, I learned them, society reinforced them. They made sense to me, and I feel bad when I don't follow them. The mechanics of it are pretty simple.
7 replies →
> In the absence of religion, where do people find their moral and ethical compass?
You do all the same things, except: (1) you can make your own choices depending on your own reasoning (e.g. you can independently decide whether circumcision/being gay is good or bad, independent of what any religion says), and (2) you’re doing things to be good, not to please god.
In fact, I consider people who are “moral” just because god says so / you fear the consequences / you want to go to heaven to actually be immoral. It’s akin to only helping in an accident if the person is rich - you’re not doing it because it’s the right thing to do, you’re just doing it to get something in return.
Edit: you can also pick any number of philosophical frameworks of morality. Personally I oscillate between golden and silver rules.
3 replies →
I think nowadays they can come from other people. Pretty much anyone/everyone (so maybe "society" is a good stand-in?) But, originally, perhaps when times were a lot different, the word of the Lord, whichever is your flavor, was more useful in keeping people on a more-fulfilling track. People with strong family ties likely didn't need to be as devout and so the church provided a good net for those alienated from society for many reasons. These days we're a lot more likely to have support and a lot less likely to be outcast (or at least not so severely) for being different.
I am also agnostic-raised-Catholic and this type of question is posed a lot. I don't struggle with it since I feel like I know the answer...BUT A) It's difficult to articulate, B) I can't really prove it, and C) it's also that I just know "the Bible" is very likely NOT the answer which just crosses one possibility off a list.
compassion and empathy shouldn't come from believing in God. It should come from believing that humans are all the same, meaning that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to yourself because otherwise how could you expect other people to treat you fairly if you yourself don't do it? At least that's where I stand and I attribute this feeling of compassion a lot more to cartoons of the 80s and 90s than I do to what I learned in the church. I'm not in the church anymore because I don't believe in God. But I believe in values and if being in church helps to give you good values then church is worth it for society. I see this pragmatically.
> Where do people find their moral and ethical compass?
I agree that atheists cannot point to a single book that everyone should use to define their moral and ethical compass, but I do think that utilitarianism (either act-based: "we should act always so as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number" or rule based: "we ought to live by rules that, in general, are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number") provides a healthy starting framework.
Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36 (10 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI
so depending on how you phrase that question, it can be perceived as an insult. it almost implies that, by default, an atheist wouldn't have a moral compass. I'm not saying you think that, just that it's a plausible interpretation for someone who's already feeling a bit defensive. also some atheists are just obnoxious.
but maybe I can answer your question. I think of morality as a way to rationalize the emotions I feel when someone treats me a certain way or I treat someone else a certain way. my morals are rules I can feel good about following.
1 reply →
I'm atheist, and my answer is simply empathy I guess? I just try to treat others in the same way I want to be treated.
People who say that morality can't exist without religion are scary. If they suddenly lose their faith, are they going to start hurting others? What if their religion has blind spots that doesn't tell them how to behave in a specific situation, or tells them that groups like gays and non-believers are fair game?
> Public morality cannot be maintained without religion
This tired, offensive and a thousand time debunked old trope requires imo a little more argumentation than the "it is thus" justification you just provided.
I'd recommend reading Hitchens, specifically [1] where he addresses that lame claim at length.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great
[EDIT]: here's a good summary from the man himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOHgrnaTxk0
Ive read Hitchens, and I am not impressed.
Subjective morality is ultimately simple preferance and ultimately just a battle of wills. I, and most other religious people, do not consider such a "moral order" to be morality at all.
Objective morality, with a judge above all judges who is justice itself, is the only way "justice" and morality mean anything at all.
3 replies →
Hitchens' knowledge of religion and philosophy borders on 0%. I would not reference him in any way if you intend to make serious arguments.
7 replies →
Are you claiming that marginally declining religiosity is the dominant factor to be considered in the breakdown of "public morality"? Among such factors as 50 years of stagnant wages and the rise of social media?
There is a decline in Christianity but there is not a decline in religion. The religions many preach today are non-theistic and secular but they are religions nonetheless and they don't tolerate heretics.