It seems as though as of late (and by that I mean over the past 2000 years or so), the safety net argument of atheism and agnosticism seems to be the perception of so-called "hypocrisy" in the Christian church. Now, in my limited experience, this argument has primarily been a last resort and is almost always an emotive response to Christianity. Be that as it may, agnostics and atheists frequently fall back on either propaganda fed to them by media, academic professors, "best seller" books, and Dateline specials or some negative personal experience in or by the church. They seem to revel in this as they enjoy the "score-one-for-the-antitheists" attitude.
As you may have already guessed, given the nature of my web log, I have a few problems with this accusation. The two issues I'll discuss here are (1) "hypocrisy" is not just a Christian phenomenon and (2) this perceived "hypocrisy" is a question of standards.
Before we progress any further, when the world says "hypocrisy," in my estimation they mean that someone professes to believe a proposition while acting against that very proposition. An example would be as follows: I believe that it is wrong to lie. When I lie, that is perceived as being hypocritical.
One difficulty with slinging this particular mud in the face of Christianity is that this epidemic is not strictly a Christian illness. In fact, in my experience, at one time or another everyone in the world is guilty of believing or professing to believe something while simultaneously acting against that professed belief. So in order to be fair (which the antitheist rarely is), the mud must be slung in the face of every person who has been hypocritical, including his or her own. In fact, if an antitheist accuses a Christian of being hypocritical, and then commits the same act, that is being hypocritical in itself. So if one is to use the argument, "Christians are hypocrites," one must apply the accusation to everyone who is a hypocrite, which would severely weaken the argument. Otherwise, one would do well to withdraw this accusation all together.
Also, this perceived "hypocrisy" is a matter of standards. Essentially, there are two elements at play here. The first is our "moral." This is what we actually believe about any particular matter. The second is our "ethic," what we actually practice in any particular matter. The correlation of these two elements determines the strength of our integrity. A high correlation of belief and practice makes high integrity. A lack of correlation between these two is what the antitheistic world would call "hypocrisy." Herein lies the problem from a Christian perspective. As Christians, while we are, for the most part, responsible for what we do, we (try to) let God set the standard for what we believe. Unfortunately for fallen humanity, God's standard is perfection in all areas. When we fail to meet these moral standards, it is perceived as "hypocrisy." The world's solution to this problem is to lower the moral standard until it matches your current ethical situation. These are the makings of a mediocre-at-best person with high integrity. This is never, never, never, not even once, not even a little bit, an option for Christians (don't even think about it). When it comes down to compromising God's moral standard on our lives and being called a "hypocrite" by a few ignorant hypocrites, we must be prepared to choose the latter eleven times out of ten.
I believe we would do well to define some terms at this point. My definition of "hypocrisy" as stated above, while representing the world's perception of hypocrisy, is not true hypocrisy. Sure it's bad, sure it's sin, sure it's an example of the black eye of humanity shining brightly on the face of Christianity, but it isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a double standard. Hypocrisy isn't acting against what I believe. Hypocrisy is thinking that it is acceptable for me to act against what I believe. It is setting a different standard for myself than for everyone else. If I believe that it is wrong to be prideful and then I, myself, am prideful, while I am sinning, I am not being a hypocrite. This is evident when I confess that what I have done is wrong. However, if I believe that it is wrong for everyone else to be prideful, but I believe it is o.k. for me, then it becomes hypocrisy. And if the informed antitheist were to examine the Christian church with this new understanding of hypocrisy, he or she would find that it, while still existing here and there, is quite a bit more rare than he or she expects.
Finally, many times when an antitheist uses this argument, he or she likes to site various instances of perceived "hypocrisy" ranging from the Crusades, to some priest in the news who abused an altar boy, to a negative personal experience with a pastor or church-member. To this, I would like to say two things. First, this line of argumentation frequently leans toward the "boo/yeah," emotive argumentation. If you are familiar at all with philosophy, arguments, apologetics, or any sort of academic discourse, you know that this emotive argumentation has no place in an argument based on truth and reality. Second, while these negative things do happen from time to time, they are not the norm in Christianity nor are they approved by most Christians. Antitheists need to understand that the Christian Church is full of humans and humans, all humans, make mistakes.
Anyway, all of this is to say that the argument that many atheists and agnostics use that Christians are hypocrites holds very little water and probably should be withdrawn and discarded from one's arsenal.
Peace out.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
How Great the Faith it Takes to be an Atheist
Many atheists and agnostics I know make the claim that they would prefer to rely on "science" than on the blind faith it takes to be a Christian. To that, I have two responses. (1) If it took blind faith to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one. I prefer to bank on truth and proven data than believing in something with no particular reason. However, Christianity and the God of the Bible is knowable if one just takes the time to know Him and know about Him. (2) I contend that it takes greater faith to be an atheist than a Christian. Keep reading.
I just finished watching the special on the Discovery Channel about the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." In this special, they claimed to find the remains of Jesus and His family, including His wife, Mary Magdalene, and His secret son (DaVinci Code, anyone?). I watched it with my natural, skeptical eyes as opposed to the blind faith that I'm afraid too many people used concerning this special. Basically, they found a tomb with several ossuaries in it. These boxes were labelled with names and full of bones. Bada bing, bada boom, you've got the tomb of Jesus.
The evidence presented appeared to be mildly compelling at first, that is until I started using my brain. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the great amount of faith it takes to fall into this bovine excrement. Let me explain...
First, it is clear that the special was implicitly making a truth claim. So one has to believe in absolute objective truth to begin with. If one doesn't believe in truth, the argument is over, the show meant nothing because it conveyed nothing, and ones time would have been better spent gleaning "truth" from the Simpsons or Seinfeld (and probably would have enjoyed themselves more). The existence of truth in this special was a "given."
Second, it must be taken on faith that the producers, directors, documentors, archaeologists, and anyone associated with the production were in fact conveying what they thought to be true. We are just expected to take it on faith that this was filmed in Israel and not in a Hollywood studio and that the people on the screen actually believed what they said and were not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience. Let me tell you, given the nature of the entity of television and the "truth" therein, this is a MAJOR leap of faith. The Discovery Channel is selling something just like every other station, don't kid yourself.
Third, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes matched up to the LORD and His family. In the presentation, many of the names "sounded like" names that these people could have used, or were possibly nicknames for them. This seems like a fairly weak connection to me.
Fourth, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes were written at the time of these people's deaths about 2000 years ago and not by some dude 500 years ago playing a great, elaborate prank on the world or by one of the archaeologists the day before they began filming.
Fifth, it must be taken on faith that the bones in the boxes actually match the names on the outside. Who's to say that when they were building the tomb, they didn't just find dead people's bones and put them in the boxes? Recorded history tells us that there were people trying to cover up the resurrection of Jesus (c.f. Matthew 28:11-15). So there is certainly a distinct possibility that the bones in the box labelled "Jesus" are not actually his bones.
And finally, the special used very little Biblical evidence. Why is this important? Because the New Testament documents are some of the most highly accredited documents according to the science of historiography. But the special was very quick to use considerably less accredited documentation. For a show that implicitly claims to be scientific, this seems a little odd to me.
Here are five major leaps of faith required to buy into what the Discovery Channel was selling. (I don't consider the existence of truth a "leap of faith," hence five.) Call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or a skeptic, whoever you are, you've got to have some incredible faith in order to believe what "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" claimed to be true. Personally, I prefer to place my belief in more reliable sources.
I just finished watching the special on the Discovery Channel about the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." In this special, they claimed to find the remains of Jesus and His family, including His wife, Mary Magdalene, and His secret son (DaVinci Code, anyone?). I watched it with my natural, skeptical eyes as opposed to the blind faith that I'm afraid too many people used concerning this special. Basically, they found a tomb with several ossuaries in it. These boxes were labelled with names and full of bones. Bada bing, bada boom, you've got the tomb of Jesus.
The evidence presented appeared to be mildly compelling at first, that is until I started using my brain. The more I thought about it, the more I realized the great amount of faith it takes to fall into this bovine excrement. Let me explain...
First, it is clear that the special was implicitly making a truth claim. So one has to believe in absolute objective truth to begin with. If one doesn't believe in truth, the argument is over, the show meant nothing because it conveyed nothing, and ones time would have been better spent gleaning "truth" from the Simpsons or Seinfeld (and probably would have enjoyed themselves more). The existence of truth in this special was a "given."
Second, it must be taken on faith that the producers, directors, documentors, archaeologists, and anyone associated with the production were in fact conveying what they thought to be true. We are just expected to take it on faith that this was filmed in Israel and not in a Hollywood studio and that the people on the screen actually believed what they said and were not trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience. Let me tell you, given the nature of the entity of television and the "truth" therein, this is a MAJOR leap of faith. The Discovery Channel is selling something just like every other station, don't kid yourself.
Third, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes matched up to the LORD and His family. In the presentation, many of the names "sounded like" names that these people could have used, or were possibly nicknames for them. This seems like a fairly weak connection to me.
Fourth, it must be taken on faith that the names on the boxes were written at the time of these people's deaths about 2000 years ago and not by some dude 500 years ago playing a great, elaborate prank on the world or by one of the archaeologists the day before they began filming.
Fifth, it must be taken on faith that the bones in the boxes actually match the names on the outside. Who's to say that when they were building the tomb, they didn't just find dead people's bones and put them in the boxes? Recorded history tells us that there were people trying to cover up the resurrection of Jesus (c.f. Matthew 28:11-15). So there is certainly a distinct possibility that the bones in the box labelled "Jesus" are not actually his bones.
And finally, the special used very little Biblical evidence. Why is this important? Because the New Testament documents are some of the most highly accredited documents according to the science of historiography. But the special was very quick to use considerably less accredited documentation. For a show that implicitly claims to be scientific, this seems a little odd to me.
Here are five major leaps of faith required to buy into what the Discovery Channel was selling. (I don't consider the existence of truth a "leap of faith," hence five.) Call yourself an atheist, an agnostic, or a skeptic, whoever you are, you've got to have some incredible faith in order to believe what "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" claimed to be true. Personally, I prefer to place my belief in more reliable sources.
Friday, January 26, 2007
"Keep Religion To Yourself" -The Impossibility of Practical Privatization
A couple of years ago, I was at a comedy club in downtown Denver. The comedian made the comment that his friend had "found religion" then gave his opinion that it's great when people find something that works for them, "just keep it to yourself." I'm hoping and praying that this was just a joke (since that's what comedians do). But it did get me thinking. Because of the increasing secularization of society, people are subscribing to the mantra of "keep religion to yourself." In consideration of this, I asked myself a question; is this a reasonable request of Christians? My answer was an immediate and resounding "No." This led to two follow-up questions. First, is this just because of my own bias toward Christianity? Second, why is this an unreasonable request?
The answer to the second follow-up, herein contained, is a commentary on the nature of humanity. As such, I believe that it makes the answer to the first follow-up also "No." I believe that there are a myriad of reasons why the Christian religion cannot be kept to oneself. However, there are five primary and sufficiently compelling reasons that I would like to make special note of.
No. 1. People like to tell stories of personal experience. Almost all of casual conversation consists of people telling stories. Sometimes these stories have significance, sometimes they don't. But the fact remains, people like to tell stories. The statistic is that when someone receives good customer service, they will probably share the experience with an average of five people. If someone receives poor customer service, they will tell nine people. Why? People like to tell stories.
Because of this fact, when people find the Way, the Truth, and the Life, when people are forgiven for every sin they have ever done, when people enter into a relationship that gives them eternal life, because of their human nature, they want to tell people about it.
Of course, along with the "keep religion to yourself" slogan comes the idea that it is impolite to talk religion or politics with your friends. Now, I'm no politician. I know very little of the political sciences so I am not qualified to speak to its validity in casual conversation. However, I fully believe that spirituality is by far the number one most important aspect of human existence without question. In my experience, it seems as though at one point or another, every human faces questions of "who am I?" "what is the meaning of existence?" "why can I comprehend cognitive thought while my dog just smells butts and drinks from the toilette?" and so on. There is very clearly something beyond the purely physical existence. Why would someone choose to never speak of these things with their friends? It is part of human nature to consider these things and it is part of human nature to do so collectively.
No. 2. This one is related to the previous one. When people find truth, meaning, or any positive element in life, they naturally want to share it with those they care about so that they, too, can share in the positive experience. Consider the last really good movie you saw. How many people did you tell to go see this movie? I would guess you spoke of it to at least two people. Why did you do that? Because you had a positive experience and you want your friends to enjoy it as well. When someone finds a relationship with the One who gives life more abundantly, human nature dictates that they have a desire to share this information.
The flip side of the coin is true with negative experiences. When you get stuck in bad traffic, you call your friends and tell them to go another way. That's just how people work. From what I understand, eternal damnation is a negative experience (call me crazy). So it only makes sense that I would warn people to avoid this.
No. 3. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response. Our metaphysical minds are tied to our physical bodies like a marionette puppet. When the personal belief moves, the physical body follows. Consider this example: if you were standing by a dark ally and you saw six hefty men walking toward you, your body would respond in a certain manner. We call this the instinct of fear. The heart-rate increases. The body temperature rises slightly. Breathing becomes shallow. However, if you knew that these six men had just come from a Bible study, you would respond in a completely different way. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response.
Why do people physically demonstrate and live out their metaphysical beliefs? Because they have no choice. This is human nature. This is what separates us from the animals.
No. 4. In my experience generally pluralists and secularists would not make the same request of other worldviews (i.e. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc.). In western culture, hindering the free speech of groups such as these is severely frowned upon. However, if the words are coming from a Christian perspective, the rules change so that we are asked to keep it to ourselves. The request is unreasonable because it is inconsistent.
There is an even greater problem with the consistency of the request. Statements made of the Christian faith must be viewed as either statements of opinion or statements of fact. If they are viewed as statements of opinion, then a consistent request of this nature would dictate that all statements of opinion should be kept private. (Feel free to save my space by inserting your own ad absurdum argument here.) If the statements are viewed as facts (yeah, like that will happen), there are absolutely no grounds by which one can request that they be kept to oneself. Which leads me to...
No. 5. Asking this of Christians is hypocritical. To put the request in general terms, it is like saying, "It is my opinion that personal opinions should be kept private." By making the request, you are breaking it yourself.
Spiritual privatization is pragmatically impossible because of the nature of humanity. Because of this, I say please don't keep religion to yourself. If you find something good, share it with your friends. If your religious views aren't that good, for God's sake, change them. If you don't know how good they are, run them by someone.
But I would wager that you probably already have. It's just what we do.
The answer to the second follow-up, herein contained, is a commentary on the nature of humanity. As such, I believe that it makes the answer to the first follow-up also "No." I believe that there are a myriad of reasons why the Christian religion cannot be kept to oneself. However, there are five primary and sufficiently compelling reasons that I would like to make special note of.
No. 1. People like to tell stories of personal experience. Almost all of casual conversation consists of people telling stories. Sometimes these stories have significance, sometimes they don't. But the fact remains, people like to tell stories. The statistic is that when someone receives good customer service, they will probably share the experience with an average of five people. If someone receives poor customer service, they will tell nine people. Why? People like to tell stories.
Because of this fact, when people find the Way, the Truth, and the Life, when people are forgiven for every sin they have ever done, when people enter into a relationship that gives them eternal life, because of their human nature, they want to tell people about it.
Of course, along with the "keep religion to yourself" slogan comes the idea that it is impolite to talk religion or politics with your friends. Now, I'm no politician. I know very little of the political sciences so I am not qualified to speak to its validity in casual conversation. However, I fully believe that spirituality is by far the number one most important aspect of human existence without question. In my experience, it seems as though at one point or another, every human faces questions of "who am I?" "what is the meaning of existence?" "why can I comprehend cognitive thought while my dog just smells butts and drinks from the toilette?" and so on. There is very clearly something beyond the purely physical existence. Why would someone choose to never speak of these things with their friends? It is part of human nature to consider these things and it is part of human nature to do so collectively.
No. 2. This one is related to the previous one. When people find truth, meaning, or any positive element in life, they naturally want to share it with those they care about so that they, too, can share in the positive experience. Consider the last really good movie you saw. How many people did you tell to go see this movie? I would guess you spoke of it to at least two people. Why did you do that? Because you had a positive experience and you want your friends to enjoy it as well. When someone finds a relationship with the One who gives life more abundantly, human nature dictates that they have a desire to share this information.
The flip side of the coin is true with negative experiences. When you get stuck in bad traffic, you call your friends and tell them to go another way. That's just how people work. From what I understand, eternal damnation is a negative experience (call me crazy). So it only makes sense that I would warn people to avoid this.
No. 3. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response. Our metaphysical minds are tied to our physical bodies like a marionette puppet. When the personal belief moves, the physical body follows. Consider this example: if you were standing by a dark ally and you saw six hefty men walking toward you, your body would respond in a certain manner. We call this the instinct of fear. The heart-rate increases. The body temperature rises slightly. Breathing becomes shallow. However, if you knew that these six men had just come from a Bible study, you would respond in a completely different way. Personal belief is inseparably tied to physical response.
Why do people physically demonstrate and live out their metaphysical beliefs? Because they have no choice. This is human nature. This is what separates us from the animals.
No. 4. In my experience generally pluralists and secularists would not make the same request of other worldviews (i.e. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc.). In western culture, hindering the free speech of groups such as these is severely frowned upon. However, if the words are coming from a Christian perspective, the rules change so that we are asked to keep it to ourselves. The request is unreasonable because it is inconsistent.
There is an even greater problem with the consistency of the request. Statements made of the Christian faith must be viewed as either statements of opinion or statements of fact. If they are viewed as statements of opinion, then a consistent request of this nature would dictate that all statements of opinion should be kept private. (Feel free to save my space by inserting your own ad absurdum argument here.) If the statements are viewed as facts (yeah, like that will happen), there are absolutely no grounds by which one can request that they be kept to oneself. Which leads me to...
No. 5. Asking this of Christians is hypocritical. To put the request in general terms, it is like saying, "It is my opinion that personal opinions should be kept private." By making the request, you are breaking it yourself.
Spiritual privatization is pragmatically impossible because of the nature of humanity. Because of this, I say please don't keep religion to yourself. If you find something good, share it with your friends. If your religious views aren't that good, for God's sake, change them. If you don't know how good they are, run them by someone.
But I would wager that you probably already have. It's just what we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)