UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I think you answered your question right there. I also have issue with the common perception amongst today's Christians about a great many things. I have a feeling that many modern Christians would be disappointed with the historical, real Christ. And doubtless most modern Christians misinterpret some of the different biblical teachings - some more than others. But that doesn't make those teachings incorrect, merely because some can't seem to understand them.

But reading the gospels, it doesn't say anything about how Christ was supposed to be a big, powerful actor in the world. In fact, a closer reading of the gospels suggests that Christ specifically rejected any attempt to do such a thing. In this case then, the major historians of the day do not contradict the gospels at all. It would be another thing entirely if Christ attempted to set himself up as a major political figure to then not be mentioned in any of these texts. But that's not the way it played out now, is it?

Based on the bold sections I highlited above and the final section in red, is there a specific sect of Christianity or otherwise that has understood the teachings correctly?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Based on the bold sections I highlited above and the final section in red, is there a specific sect of Christianity or otherwise that has understood the teachings correctly?

Nope. Not even the one I subscribe to.

Notice, however, that most of the different sects change and "evolve" their understandings. It's not because the teachings are fundamentally flawed, but because humans are fundamentally flawed.

It's similar to Plato's idea of the ideal. We are unable to properly see the ideal - it is obscured from us somehow. Time, bias, incomplete records and imperfect learning all keep us from being able to understand that ideal. But it's still there. Just because we are not able to fully grasp it does not mean it is meaningless, or that it is futile to try. In fact, the act of trying is in my mind a virtue.

Christian teachings acknowledge this (as do most of the sects. "modern" big-box style American christianity does attempt to minimize this fact, however, as it doesn't fit with their "feel good" style). In fact, the idea that humanity is flawed is central to the religion. It is something that most non-believers find the hardest to accept, mostly because they don't like the implications of it. But when was the last time you met a perfect human?

[photon]

I don't know any non-believers that don't think they are flawed.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Nope. Not even the one I subscribe to.

Notice, however, that most of the different sects change and "evolve" their understandings. It's not because the teachings are fundamentally flawed, but because humans are fundamentally flawed.

It's similar to Plato's idea of the ideal. We are unable to properly see the ideal - it is obscured from us somehow. Time, bias, incomplete records and imperfect learning all keep us from being able to understand that ideal. But it's still there. Just because we are not able to fully grasp it does not mean it is meaningless, or that it is futile to try. In fact, the act of trying is in my mind a virtue.

Christian teachings acknowledge this (as do most of the sects. "modern" big-box style American christianity does attempt to minimize this fact, however, as it doesn't fit with their "feel good" style). In fact, the idea that humanity is flawed is central to the religion. It is something that most non-believers find the hardest to accept, mostly because they don't like the implications of it. But when was the last time you met a perfect human?

Chrisitianity and most other religions use the idea that man/woman is inherently flawed/bad/evil as their main selling point. It works "MIRACLES".
I completely disagree and believe that bad/evil is taught or genetically implied.
Nothing is more flawed than theism....of any stripe.
Flaws otherwise are normal and nothing we need salvation over.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Chrisitianity and most other religions use the idea that man/woman is inherently flawed/bad/evil as their main selling point. It works "MIRACLES".
I completely disagree and believe that bad/evil is taught or genetically implied.
Nothing is more flawed than theism....of any stripe.
Flaws otherwise are normal and nothing we need salvation over.

So then humanity is perfect? How do you account for all the #######s out there then? How could someone "learn" a flaw, if there wasn't an inherent flaw there to begin with? Where would he get such an idea?

Edit: sorry, I see your point. You think flaws are normal, and nothing we need salvation over. I disagree, and feel that people can be better than they currently are.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

So then humanity is perfect? How do you account for all the #######s out there then? How could someone "learn" a flaw, if there wasn't an inherent flaw there to begin with? Where would he get such an idea?

Edit: sorry, I see your point. You think flaws are normal, and nothing we need salvation over. I disagree, and feel that people can be better than they currently are.

well lets deal with what you think are all the ####### out there? What or who would you refer to as those #####?

[photon]

Improving one's self != salvation.

Improving one's self through introspection and education and practice and contemplation is something anyone can do, it doesn't require salvation (which basically tells people they can't improve without God).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...And doubtless most modern Christians misinterpret some of the different biblical teachings - some more than others. But that doesn't make those teachings incorrect, merely because some can't seem to understand them...

I'm sympathetic to what I think you are trying to say, but I have to tell you: this really sticks in my craw.

In the first place, your statement begs the presumption that there is an "accurate" interpretation to be had, and I simply cannot endorse this idea when it is applied to "scripture". I know at this point that I might be construed as hypocritical, given that I have come down on people on this forum many times in the past for reading the text wrong. I need to qualify first off that while I do not believe that there is any fixed meaning in scripture, I am also convinced that not all readings are equal. In fact, a "good" reading from a past generation may no longer be useful, and will need to be replaced.

I would like to draw attention back to my Genesis example from post #645 on p. 33 above. At one time, the plain reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 was useful and served as a perfectly reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos. It effectively borrowed from past perceptions and improved on some of them. It simply does not work plainly today, which is why the "better" interpretation is likely one that is more reflective and sensitive to elements from the passage that still hold currency. I prefer to read it as an pertinent description of the ongoing struggle between chaos and order; the establishment of society and the forces at odds with it.

This is not a matter of "misunderstanding"—this is rather a matter of "misappropriation", and this is where the biblicists fail at every turn as they continue to beat their breasts and insist on providing answers to questions that people stopped asking a long time ago.

Second, I also do not think it is unChristian nor unwise to recognize that there are indeed "biblical teachings" that are simply wrong. No matter how much we wish we could, we cannot gloss over or rehabilitate the misogynistic, or ethnically prejudiced doctrines throughout scripture. It will not do for us to attempt to recast slavery or genocide or ritual mutilation into something other than what it actually was. It helps to realize that the Bible is not an "instruction book", and that it is best not to receive it as a codification of divine legislation. It is a record of faith—a description of people's exceedingly varied experiences and perceptions of God and the world around them. We can look to these and clearly see how some of them are off or wanting, but these in turn can help to inform us better about ourselves. I recently read a pretty good book titled The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) in which author Thom Stark drew a great analogy for what he has called the "condemned texts" of scripture. He says that imprecatory, barbaric and incredulous stories and teachings in scripture are a little like the alcoholic uncle who comes to Christmas dinner every year. We loathe what the uncle does—we may even hate the man himself—but we cannot excise him from our family. He will always be our uncle, and we tolerate him in part because we recognize who he is and what happened to him. In Stark's words:

"Scripture is a mirror...When we peer into the looking glass and see the many faces of God, we see ourselves among them. The mirror reflects our doubt and our mediocrity. It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between. To cut the condemned texts out of the canon would be to shatter the mirror. It would be to hide from ourselves our very own capacity to become what we most loathe. It would be to lie to ourselves about what we are capable of. It would be to doom ourselves to repeat history."

The problem is not that scripture is wrong; the problem is not that it is misunderstood. The problem is that far too many people fail to reflect: they either miss seeing what scripture is, or they take no notice of their own image it casts back, or both.

[octothorp]

This is all my own, atheistic perspective on flaws (so don't extrapolate it to other non-believers):
From a purely evolutionary perspective on human history, what we perceive as flaws (greed, lust, gluttony, etc.) are all traits that have benefitted previous generations at various times. And that sounds like a pretty cynical way of looking at human history on its own. But our best traits (generosity, selflessness, compassion) are similar evolutionary traits, albeit ones that tend to benefit the group rather than the individual.
We see a lot of these basic traits in other intelligent animals, but one trait that is particularly strong in humans is a desire to codify traits and acts into positive and negative ones. The fact that we want to create complex and useful moral codes is one of the most fascinating evolutionary traits that we possess, and it's created everything from religion to philosophy. Even if you're a theist and believe that your religion sprouts from divine intervention, the rest of the religions out there had to come from some underlying traits that affect most humans. To me, it's a very reassuring thing that we have this sort of overlying desire to codify all other traits and acts into positive and negative... even if we don't always agree on how certain things can be classified.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Improving one's self != salvation.

Improving one's self through introspection and education and practice and contemplation is something anyone can do, it doesn't require salvation (which basically tells people they can't improve without God).

This is exactly true, and it is also where you and I would most fundamentally disagree. I am not convinced that we can improve (enough) without God.

You know me a little bit from our exchanges on CP, but enough to know that I most certainly am not nostalgic or romantic about the past. I champion enlightenment, modernity, and the many wonderful changes wrought on by "progress". However, I also perceive that this world is still a mess. We plug one hole in the dam and another leak appears.

I am not fatalistic about this problem, as I am convinced that it requires proactivity. Where you and I differ is in my belief that even our best efforts will never be good enough, and yet I believe, hope and expect that God will ultimately set the balances aright.

[photon]

If I had to make a call either way, I'd probably agree that our best efforts will never be good enough (depending on what the definition of good enough is I guess) either, simply because there's too many individuals, too many variables, too many circumstances, and too much randomness to really hope for good enough.

So trying'll have to be good enough.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is exactly true, and it is also where you and I would most fundamentally disagree. I am not convinced that we can improve (enough) without God.

You know me a little bit from our exchanges on CP, but enough to know that I most certainly am not nostalgic or romantic about the past. I champion enlightenment, modernity, and the many wonderful changes wrought on by "progress". However, I also perceive that this world is still a mess. We plug one hole in the dam and another leak appears.

I am not fatalistic about this problem, as I am convinced that it requires proactivity. Where you and I differ is in my belief that even our best efforts will never be good enough, and yet I believe, hope and expect that God will ultimately set the balances aright.

In your view, what is "He" waiting for? And how can you love or worship or even respect a God who could set the balance aright but chooses not to while billions of people have suffered over thousands and thousands of years? (I'm not trying to be disrespectful; I'm sincerely curious.)

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In your view, what is "He" waiting for? And how can you love or worship or even respect a God who could set the balance aright but chooses not to while billions of people have suffered over thousands and thousands of years? (I'm not trying to be disrespectful; I'm sincerely curious.)

In answer to your first question, I have no idea. It often seems to me, a theist, that when encountering atheists who question my worldview, their expectation is that I MUST have an answer which supports or explains every element of my faith. Well, I don't. Theodicy is a serious and compelling problem that has plagued the greatest religious minds for thousands of years.

On the second point, perhaps God is not all powerful, neither is he all knowing. Perhaps the divine balances are such a complicated apparatus that they defy human comprehension. The point is not that these are questions that don't concern me, nor that I think for a second that they are all resolved by simple answers. The point is that for me, my inability to produce satisfying answers or to desist from asking the same questions does not prompt me to abandon my faith that God is both real and benevolent. I don't need to know it all or to understand it all, and my failure to know and to understand is something with which I have come to terms.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I'm sympathetic to what I think you are trying to say, but I have to tell you: this really sticks in my craw.

In the first place, your statement begs the presumption that there is an "accurate" interpretation to be had, and I simply cannot endorse this idea when it is applied to "scripture". I know at this point that I might be construed as hypocritical, given that I have come down on people on this forum many times in the past for reading the text wrong. I need to qualify first off that while I do not believe that there is any fixed meaning in scripture, I am also convinced that not all readings are equal. In fact, a "good" reading from a past generation may no longer be useful, and will need to be replaced.

I would like to draw attention back to my Genesis example from post #645 on p. 33 above. At one time, the plain reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 was useful and served as a perfectly reasonable explanation for the origin of the cosmos. It effectively borrowed from past perceptions and improved on some of them. It simply does not work plainly today, which is why the "better" interpretation is likely one that is more reflective and sensitive to elements from the passage that still hold currency. I prefer to read it as an pertinent description of the ongoing struggle between chaos and order; the establishment of society and the forces at odds with it.

This is not a matter of "misunderstanding"—this is rather a matter of "misappropriation", and this is where the biblicists fail at every turn as they continue to beat their breasts and insist on providing answers to questions that people stopped asking a long time ago.

Second, I also do not think it is unChristian nor unwise to recognize that there are indeed "biblical teachings" that are simply wrong. No matter how much we wish we could, we cannot gloss over or rehabilitate the misogynistic, or ethnically prejudiced doctrines throughout scripture. It will not do for us to attempt to recast slavery or genocide or ritual mutilation into something other than what it actually was. It helps to realize that the Bible is not an "instruction book", and that it is best not to receive it as a codification of divine legislation. It is a record of faith—a description of people's exceedingly varied experiences and perceptions of God and the world around them. We can look to these and clearly see how some of them are off or wanting, but these in turn can help to inform us better about ourselves. I recently read a pretty good book titled The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) in which author Thom Stark drew a great analogy for what he has called the "condemned texts" of scripture. He says that imprecatory, barbaric and incredulous stories and teachings in scripture are a little like the alcoholic uncle who comes to Christmas dinner every year. We loathe what the uncle does—we may even hate the man himself—but we cannot excise him from our family. He will always be our uncle, and we tolerate him in part because we recognize who he is and what happened to him. In Stark's words:

"Scripture is a mirror...When we peer into the looking glass and see the many faces of God, we see ourselves among them. The mirror reflects our doubt and our mediocrity. It mirrors our best and worst possible selves. It shows us who we can be, both good and evil, and everything in between. To cut the condemned texts out of the canon would be to shatter the mirror. It would be to hide from ourselves our very own capacity to become what we most loathe. It would be to lie to ourselves about what we are capable of. It would be to doom ourselves to repeat history."

The problem is not that scripture is wrong; the problem is not that it is misunderstood. The problem is that far too many people fail to reflect: they either miss seeing what scripture is, or they take no notice of their own image it casts back, or both.

I can see why this might stick in your craw, but you don't need to have a single truth in order for something to be inaccurate, correct? I would agree with you that the Bible isn't cut and dried, that there is not only one true interpretation and all others are untrue. There are multiple interpretations that can give insight. While I believe in the existence of an ultimate truth, I do not necessarily believe this can or needs to translate into an ultimate interpretation of scripture. "I don't agree with those people who require the truth to be put forward in single sentences or it's not valid." Even though you highlight that "the problem is that far too many people fail to reflect" (which I agree with), this doesn't deny that there are some outright incorrect interpretations, most of which tend to be selfish or egocentric.

As for your assertion that: "In fact, a "good" reading from a past generation may no longer be useful, and will need to be replaced" - I would like to point out that the bible highlights this as well. A perfect example is the story of Peter and the sheet of unclean animals. The bible itself tries to show us exactly what you said, and I agree with this view. It was one of the main points of Christ's teachings that got him in trouble with the religious leaders of his time.

As for much of the rest of the bible, not all of it would be considered an "instruction book", because some of it is intended as history. Of course there are things in it that are vile, mainly because there are people that are vile. You can still learn from the acts of vile men.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Makarov

In your view, what is "He" waiting for? And how can you love or worship or even respect a God who could set the balance aright but chooses not to while billions of people have suffered over thousands and thousands of years? (I'm not trying to be disrespectful; I'm sincerely curious.)

In my view: he's doing it this way because he's waiting for us to do it. Sometimes you let children do something stupid because they need to learn from their own mistakes. Besides, I think you would likely HATE a world where God forces you to do things you didn't decide on yourself, merely for the good of everyone.

But that's just my personal view, and shouldn't be read as something that all religious people believe.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...As for your assertion that: "In fact, a "good" reading from a past generation may no longer be useful, and will need to be replaced" - I would like to point out that the bible highlights this as well. A perfect example is the story of Peter and the sheet of unclean animals. The bible itself tries to show us exactly what you said, and I agree with this view. It was one of the main points of Christ's teachings that got him in trouble with the religious leaders of his time...

Good post, although I do not agree that Jesus's hermeneutic is what got him in trouble with the Jewish religious elites. In many respects, Jesus's understanding of the Old Testament was practically indistinguishable from the teachings of the Pharisees and especially the Essenes, whose writings are preserved (along with tonnes of other Jewish stuff) in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you read through a cross-section of the Jewish literature produced around the same time, you will discover a considerable amount of overlap with Jesus's own teachings. What Jesus's opponents objected to was his insistence that his own teaching lay outside the stream of tradition. He was not a Rabbi nor did he ground his teaching in one of the rabbinic schools—Jesus spoke "as one who had authority", and most frequently his own mind: "Truly, truly I say unto you..."

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That much is clear. However, I think Textcritic is suggesting* you must also have a difficult time with all the other texts written throughout history.

In other words, you must not think that highly of the collective sum of human experience. And you think much too highly of your own deductive abilities.

My initial answer was a bit overreaching, I think I was really just getting tired of discussing a subject I don't care about. I do see value in other texts, but as far as holy texts such as the Qur'an and the Bible (certainly not an exhaustive list) are concerned, I do not.

And thanks for your opinion of my abilities. Given how well you know me, I'll hold it the same regard I hold most uneducated opinions, but you're more than welcome to it.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That's fair, and that is a personal choice on your part. I would caution you not to make the same presumptions for others; simply because you find no value in it, it is fairly impudent for you to assume your experience on others, and to use this as a gauge for dismissing entire counter cultures and worldviews.

I don't recall saying that the book doesn't have value for 'anybody' - in fact, I specifically stated in the second part of my answer that it really depends on who is reading it. Beauty Value is in the eye mind of the beholder. And as with most things, I will hold things in uncertainty until such time that they either prove their legitimacy or prove they cannot be taken seriously. Then I can either accept or dismiss. The belief system upon which I was raised was dismissed a long time ago. Should a new piece of information come about, then I'll consider it.

[Red Slinger]

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
—Nietzsche, The Gay Science

There are a lot of really interesting and well thought-out comments in this thread. As I read them I keep coming back to the same question: why do we need God? Society has a morality, usually expressed in laws but not exclusively, that guides our behavior. That larger morality may be refined within the individual to the point where they have their own unique morality within the framework of the larger one. But nonetheless, that morality is there and more often than not, as pointed out by Textcritic, the societal morality and individual sub-sets are more relevant and applicable than those handed down by God.

In the quote above Nietzsche is not making a case for a literal birth, existence and death of God. Instead he is saying that the Judeo-Christian God (and I'll add others also) are no longer required or even relevant as a viable source of absolute moral principles.

As Textcritic does above, Nietzsche also concludes that the universe is a struggle between chaos and order (aka good and evil). With the 'death' of God people will reject absolute values themselves by rejecting any sort of objective, universal moral laws. This, according to Nietzsche, results in humanity having to re-evaluate the foundations of our value systems. This in turn, would result in a deeper, more effective and relevant morality than the absolute morality passed down by God.

Ultimately, this is the conversation that began this thread: are aetheists immoral or less moral than believers? Are they to be trusted? If you allow yourself to follow the logic it could be argued that aetheists are more trustworthy.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Author Sam Harris discusses 10 Truths and 10 Myths about atheism.

From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe.

My favourite quote.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Author Sam Harris discusses 10 Truths and 10 Myths about atheism.

My favourite quote.

How incredibly right he is with that view, IMO religious people F.E.A.R the universe...and for good reason I guess as it holds the truths they don't want to see.

I also like this quote:

Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

I'm a big fan of Harris...Thanks for the link.