Unbeliever culpability with Tony English

[tonyenglish7]

Here's an interesting self-observation:

I'm most disturbed by the illogic of people whose thinking I admire more. Therefore, when people like Scott or Wonders drift off into illogical lah-lah land, I want them to go back to making sense rather than leaning on a 4000-year-old mythology. I think I'd enjoy having dinner with those guys.

Tony, however, leaves me with the impression that I wouldn't enjoy his company even if he agreed with me on religion, politics, and dog training. So I really don't get revved up over his nutsiness. If he becomes an atheist, I don't believe I would gain a friend.

indeed. however, i accept that i'm speaking to christians, and that if an intellectual discussion continues far enough, we will eventually find ourselves at a point where we fundamentally disagree. this does not, however, mean we cannot build on the common ground that we have, and come to basic agreements on certain points, accepting our minor disagreements and foibles as unavoidable consequences of socialization. Wonders, Scott, Narsil, Koin, Norton, and even mike(on occasion ) have shown themselves to be capable of rational and intelligent discussion and a will to give and take intellectually. Tony doesn't seem interested in this concept at all. all Tony seems interested in is telling all of us non-christians how wrong we are and how happy he'll be in heaven while we're all in hell hating ourselves for knowingly rejecting the One True God(tm). i've got no tolerance for that particular brand of shenanigans.

What If I am right?

[tonyenglish7]

I really liked Emery's thought of "if you believe that Atheists are in denial (of their knowledge of God, and the reasons why they reject it), how do you know that Christians aren't in denial themselves?". I think this idea can be taken further:

As much as you can find reasons for Atheists to deny their knowledge of God, like to pursue some hidden sin, to not have to answer to any authority over them, to be able to sleep in on Sundays..., you can find reasons for Christians to deny their knowledge of the shakyness of Christian doctrine, for example fear of losing the community of faith they are in, their friends and maybe even family, the feeling of belonging, purpose, security etc.. I know I had many of these reasons to cling to my faith, even more selfish ones like being looked up at as a Christian hero , and it was a big loss of all the things mentioned when I left the Christian faith.

Then there was also a parallel to what Tony described as "once you are awakened by the Holy Spirit you know that you knew all along" (my paraphrase): as I am out of the Christian mindset and reflecting on some of the ideas and concepts I adhered to, I realize that I had an uneasy feeling about them all along. I find out that they just are as silly as they looked to my non-Christian friends to whom I was defending them all the time. I was just very creative in making them sound reasonable to them and myself, but the simpler explanation that they are just as silly as they look on first sight, I believe now, is simply true and I used to live in some kind of denial to this.

As for how I experienced Tony on the podcast, since a lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be focused on that:

I don't think I have read any of his post, so I can't compare. I think, in the podcast, he always stayed calm and friendly, just as Emery did and was mostly actually answering the questions he was asked (even if it sometimes needed some convincing ). However I recognized some "classical" evangelization techniques, such as using anecdotal evidence, talking about Emery's life as a kid, maybe even trying to instill some guilt. I think Emery handled that very well, staying calm, answering the questions, but not allowing to being led down the road Tony might have wanted him to go. But for the podcast, I thought all that was really unnecessary. There is no need to "convert" Emery (well, that's what I believe ) and it just isn't the place for it. It's about an exchange of ideas, not about manipulation. But this evangelization was only a part of the podcast and I kind of mentally fast forwarded it and enjoyed the rest.

Thanks for this way of encouraging reflection!

I am interested in your story? What church did you attend? How did you decide to leave? Was there a specific event that caused it or just a slow moving away? Were you raised a Christian or did you convert prior? How do you view reality now? Is there a reason for your existence other then chance?

[jori]

I am interested in your story? What church did you attend? How did you decide to leave? Was there a specific event that caused it or just a slow moving away? Were you raised a Christian or did you convert prior? How do you view reality now? Is there a reason for your existence other then chance?

I would love to answer some of these questions. However they feel to me like the evangelization techniques I had just mentioned. So I'll wait with that until I read something substantial from you about what I had written.

[jori]

This topic seems to come up again and again both in the podcasts and in the forum discussions. So I would like to add some ideas of mine that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

I think it is easier to keep some set of ethics if it is supported by some religion, than without. Without you are depending on your "good will", your long term thinking and maybe your concern for society as a whole. With a religion you do it, because you are told to, without all that reflection necessary. I remember that, when I first realized the implications of the destruction of the environment by humans, that I thought " we will need some kind of religion to prevent that from happening, logical reasoning will just be to slow to make it into a society-wide behavior".

So there is a need for religion or some other kind of common world view in societies to keep ethics up in the society as a whole. Also for a society to prosper, there needs to be some kind of common ethics (for example you can't develop a successful economy if contracts are not being kept). So it is often helpful for societies to develop some kind of religion to prosper.

In a way you can say that evolution encourages the development of religion, because societies with a (functioning) religion are "fitter"... This also works for individuals, because of all the security, belonging, self-support a (functioning) religion provides. These individuals can often be more successful because of lack of fear, loneliness etc. (unless the self-deceit weighs out this self-help and leads to too many illogical and not helpful decisions).

I am still an atheist though, knowing that being religious could be better for me doesn't make me believe any religion, more to the contrary.

(edited language mistake)

[JustJim]

The statement, "only what can be know by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true" is self-refuting. And any self-refuting argument is wrong and it's opposite is right be default. There is no way out of this truth.

I think you might have misstated this idea, since it doesn't make sense. If the opposite of a self-refuting argument is "right by default", then, based on the first part of your statement, there would be "no way out of this truth" that: "Only what canNOT be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true." Surely, that's not what you meant. Is it?

I am not saying God implanted in every human morals, but that every normal human... has the ability to have first hand knowledge of basic right and wrong.... We all agree in the rules of right and wrong in general.

Then what IS the source of our morals, if not either from God or as Emery suggests? Where do you think this "general sense of basic right and wrong" you say we all have comes from, if not as a result of God's implantation or because of his commands? (I realize you're talking about a universal "ability" to be able to know right from wrong, rather than some universally agreed upon "list" of morals we all share, so feel free to answer regarding this "ability" and where IT came from if you prefer.)

The question is, why are we obligated to obey them? A naturalistic world view seems to fail philosophically. It says, we all got here because it was good for society, yet that doesn't answer the question as to why I need to follow those rules once I understand the foundation of them. The naturalistic world view leads to an absurd reason to obey. The theistic world view leads to a rational reason for the foundation of morals, the source of morals the motivation for morals and a fair outcome to violators of morals.

I think you're confusing morals with rules. We don't "obey" morals. We act in accord with them. They're incorporated into our whole decision-making process. We use them to weigh the possible outcomes of our actions. They affect the ways we view our worlds and our interactions with other people and our environment. They are a strong determining factor in how we think and form our opinions. They're part of "who we are" as individuals. And when a bunch of individuals collectively agree on some particular moral values (such as "murder is wrong", for example) then rules are often made to attempt to control the behaviors of people who don't share the moral in question or choose to act against it. "When morals are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. When they're not, laws are ineffective." -- (I wish I knew who said that...)

Anyhow, I think it's less "absurd" to picture the development of moral values as a function of "survival of the species" than to assume moral values were somehow supernaturally imposed on us. People who act in accord with what most of us agree on as some kind of universal moral standard are more likely to contribute to the continuation of the society (and therefore the species) as we know it than are people who act otherwise. IOW, people who think murder is wrong and act accordingly increase the survivability of the species, while those who either think murder is okay or who commit murders even though they don't, detract from the survivability of the species. Similar things are easily demonstrated regarding stealing, lying, cheating, having sex with someone else's mate, torturing babies for fun, etc.

Moral values like those set out in "rules" like (all but the first few of) The Ten Commandments are things that are "good" for survival of the species. That's why those moral values were held as far back as we're able to determine - LONG preceding YHWH and his list of rules. And that's why you don't steal Emery's iPod. It's good for the survival of human beings as a species.

Jim

[tirtlegrrl]

Tony wrote:

tirtlegrrl wrote:Congrats to Emery and Tony for a fascinating and memorable exchange of ideas!

That said, I find Tony's "Atheists are really Christians in denial" allegation one of the more repugnant and bizarre positions that allegiance to Evangelical Christianity requires of its adherents. One could also argue that Christians are Muslims in denial, or Buddhists are Hindus in denial. Or one could argue that Christians believe in Jesus because it gives them an excuse not to follow the 613 mitzvot of Orthodox Judaism.

Tony, as long as you're questioning people's motives, why would you admit that "God is fair, but you don't want fair, you want to live in a perfect world in a glorified state" (if I've paraphrased you correctly), and that's why you believe in Jesus? Doesn't that make Christianity a religion that rewards spiritual cowardice or laziness? Likewise, if Christians honestly believe an eternal Hell is actually a just penalty, why are they so desperate to avoid it?

My point was, I am now aware of my sin, something non-Christians seem to be unaware of. I do not want to rely on fairness as my judge. God'sl ove caused an incredible thing to happen, Jesus humbled himself, took on human flesh and suffered humiliation in an effort to save me from a fair judgment. That is what I want. That is what I am getting and I am telling everyone I care about that this offer is available to them as well. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice" ...

I'm confused. How can every human being have the same notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong", and non-Christians also be "unaware of their sin"? I have many, many friends, Christian and non, and I don't know a single one who would claim they have never behaved improperly or immorally. That said, my non-Christian friends also probably don't think their various transgressions merit eternal torturous detention, without regard for any of the good and selfless things they have done. What kind of "offer" is that, anyway? (I don't buy that "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" stuff, especially applied out of context like I learned it in Bible camp.) That isn't justice--that's vengeance. How can the wrongs done to non-believers be made up to them if everybody is in Hell? If, today, I were to be approached by a proselytizer with the good ol' "Romans Road" pitch, knowing what I know, and NOT having been baptized into the faith previously, I'd think something was wrong with Christians' heads, that they worship a God whose wrath burns eternally against finite and pathetic human beings.

I am telling everyone I care about that this offer is available to them as well.

Nothing personal, but that line caused an infomercial to pop into my head: ("For a limited time only! Salvation, free of works! All you have to DO is believe you're rotten to the core and cry out to Jesus!")* If the offer is truly available to all, and God will judge everyone the same regardless of their exposure to the Christian Message, why is it necessary for Christians personally to proselytize others? What happens if you screw up, or decide to watch Monday night football instead of evangelizing your neighbors? Do they pay an eternal price for your negligence? Is there any sort of spanking for Christians who fail to adequately spread the Word?



*Some restrictions apply. For all terms and conditions, see Bible, whichever translation and interpretation best suits advertiser's agenda. There may be optional yet aggressively courted costs associated with Christianity, possibly including but not limited to: 10% of income, your life, and one (1) or more of your offspring, legitimate or otherwise. Side effects of Christianity may include depression, cognitive dissonance, anxiety regarding the "eternal salvation" of friends and family, not to mention the alienation thereof. However, consequences of exposure to but non-acceptance of advertiser's version of The One True Faith may be much worse, including but not limited to eternal guilt, shame, and physical exposure to combusting hot gases.

[stickmangrit]

indeed. however, i accept that i'm speaking to christians, and that if an intellectual discussion continues far enough, we will eventually find ourselves at a point where we fundamentally disagree. this does not, however, mean we cannot build on the common ground that we have, and come to basic agreements on certain points, accepting our minor disagreements and foibles as unavoidable consequences of socialization. Wonders, Scott, Narsil, Koin, Norton, and even mike(on occasion ) have shown themselves to be capable of rational and intelligent discussion and a will to give and take intellectually. Tony doesn't seem interested in this concept at all. all Tony seems interested in is telling all of us non-christians how wrong we are and how happy he'll be in heaven while we're all in hell hating ourselves for knowingly rejecting the One True God(tm). i've got no tolerance for that particular brand of shenanigans.

What If I am right?[/quote]

nice to see you actively participating in the forum again tony.

but what if you're wrong?

[NH Baritone]

Here's an interesting self-observation:

I'm most disturbed by the illogic of people whose thinking I admire more. Therefore, when people like Scott or Wonders drift off into illogical lah-lah land, I want them to go back to making sense rather than leaning on a 4000-year-old mythology. I think I'd enjoy having dinner with those guys.

Tony, however, leaves me with the impression that I wouldn't enjoy his company even if he agreed with me on religion, politics, and dog training. So I really don't get revved up over his nutsiness. If he becomes an atheist, I don't believe I would gain a friend.

Ouch! That one kinda stung...

LATER

indeed. however, i accept that i'm speaking to christians, and that if an intellectual discussion continues far enough, we will eventually find ourselves at a point where we fundamentally disagree. this does not, however, mean we cannot build on the common ground that we have, and come to basic agreements on certain points, accepting our minor disagreements and foibles as unavoidable consequences of socialization. Wonders, Scott, Narsil, Koin, Norton, and even mike(on occasion ) have shown themselves to be capable of rational and intelligent discussion and a will to give and take intellectually. Tony doesn't seem interested in this concept at all. all Tony seems interested in is telling all of us non-christians how wrong we are and how happy he'll be in heaven while we're all in hell hating ourselves for knowingly rejecting the One True God(tm). i've got no tolerance for that particular brand of shenanigans.

What If I am right?

This kind of non-discourse, Mr. English, provides an excellent example of reasons to avoid your company.

[kobodur]

Here's an interesting self-observation:

I'm most disturbed by the illogic of people whose thinking I admire more. Therefore, when people like Scott or Wonders drift off into illogical lah-lah land, I want them to go back to making sense rather than leaning on a 4000-year-old mythology. I think I'd enjoy having dinner with those guys.

Tony, however, leaves me with the impression that I wouldn't enjoy his company even if he agreed with me on religion, politics, and dog training. So I really don't get revved up over his nutsiness. If he becomes an atheist, I don't believe I would gain a friend.

indeed. however, i accept that i'm speaking to christians, and that if an intellectual discussion continues far enough, we will eventually find ourselves at a point where we fundamentally disagree. this does not, however, mean we cannot build on the common ground that we have, and come to basic agreements on certain points, accepting our minor disagreements and foibles as unavoidable consequences of socialization. Wonders, Scott, Narsil, Koin, Norton, and even mike(on occasion ) have shown themselves to be capable of rational and intelligent discussion and a will to give and take intellectually. Tony doesn't seem interested in this concept at all. all Tony seems interested in is telling all of us non-christians how wrong we are and how happy he'll be in heaven while we're all in hell hating ourselves for knowingly rejecting the One True God(tm). i've got no tolerance for that particular brand of shenanigans.

What If I am right?

If you're right, it's up to God to regenerate who ever he want to. In other words, everyone is pretty much stuck the way they are until God changes that.

[TheFonz]

Hello all...
I realize I am late to the boards for this podcast, but I wanted to add my two cents.
First, I am constantly impressed with Emery and his ability to ask the tough questions. He is a great host. Second, I think Tony did a good job representing his religion and was consistent within his world view.
However, Emery kept coming back to the culpability argument as he was not satisfied with Tony's answer. I believe the bottom line (with culpability) is this: to the unbeliever, there is no culpability. Only from the Christian world view does one see humans as flawed and in need of redemption. For unbelievers to see their sin as a barrier between them and God takes a prompting by the Holy Spirit.
I know this gets into predestination and that whole mess, but I think that is the basic Christian viewpoint.
I would like to hear from some of the atheists on the point of sin (doing bad things). I heard and understood Emery's point, but I am curious to hear from others as to what motivates someone to do good or evil. NH, please don't say feedback loops

[NH Baritone]

Hello all...
I realize I am late to the boards for this podcast, but I wanted to add my two cents.
First, I am constantly impressed with Emery and his ability to ask the tough questions. He is a great host. Second, I think Tony did a good job representing his religion and was consistent within his world view.
However, Emery kept coming back to the culpability argument as he was not satisfied with Tony's answer. I believe the bottom line (with culpability) is this: to the unbeliever, there is no culpability. Only from the Christian world view does one see humans as flawed and in need of redemption. For unbelievers to see their sin as a barrier between them and God takes a prompting by the Holy Spirit.
I know this gets into predestination and that whole mess, but I think that is the basic Christian viewpoint.
I would like to hear from some of the atheists on the point of sin (doing bad things). I heard and understood Emery's point, but I am curious to hear from others as to what motivates someone to do good or evil. NH, please don't say feedback loops

So rather than refute an argument, you say you just don't want to hear it any more? I can just see you with fingers in your ears, stomping around saying, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!"

You may be surprised (or maybe not) that I consider the concept of good & evil to be flawed, non-beneficial terms in discussing the human condition. They're over simplistic and place the onus on judgment of both the person and their behavior. I prefer discussing ethics in terms of behavior that appears variously in the range between somewhat more skillful/life enhancing and somewhat less skillful/life impairing. The goal of the behavior is always included in such a discussion, along with its effectiveness in achieving the goal and avoiding harmful consequences.

The issue of predestination vs. free will really is an argument BETWEEN Christians, not between atheists & Christians. I was a bit worried that Emery was going to start down that road in the podcast discussion, when in reality atheists really don't have a dog in that fight. (As a matter of fact, we think that the dog's are every bit as imaginary as Cerberus.)

[tirtlegrrl]

TheFonz wrote:

Only from the Christian world view does one see humans as flawed and in need of redemption.

Really? How about all of those observant Jewish people out there? Or all the secularists who will acknowledge the world is occasionally FUBAR? However, I suspect, based on your wording, that you subscribe to the idea that humans are actually incapable of genuine selflessness or virtue unless God zaps them according to his foreknowledge, which is as far as I know is a truly unique theological maxim. If this is genuinely your view, I'd love to see some evidence from BOTH testaments supporting it.

[jori]

Hello all...
(...)
However, Emery kept coming back to the culpability argument as he was not satisfied with Tony's answer. I believe the bottom line (with culpability) is this: to the unbeliever, there is no culpability. Only from the Christian world view does one see humans as flawed and in need of redemption. For unbelievers to see their sin as a barrier between them and God takes a prompting by the Holy Spirit.

There are so many things to say about that. I'll try to stick with a few:

One question that has kind of been addressed in the podcast (and I think, it was kind of Tony's last resort about the culpability question), is what are unbelievers actually culpable for? It could be either the unbelieving itself or their "regular" sins that everybody has done and for which the believers have some "magical" way to get rid of. The bible supports both ideas imho, so it isn't clear, what the Christian doctrine on this should be. For the first, Emery has given a lot of reasons why it doesn't make sense (why be punished for coming to different conclusions about how the world is set up, which at the most would be a logical error or the result of "denial", which you shouldn't be culpable of either since it is outside of your control), which kind of made Tony resort to the second idea. This hasn't been discussed at length, but why God should chose to distribute this magic "rescue" in the way described by Evangelical theology is beyond me.

Well, obviously believers can't see sin as a barrier between them and God, if they don't believe in God...

The "to the unbeliever, there is no culpability" is imho "short-fetched". I do think that unbelievers have the ability to get into the Christian mindset/world view to try to understand how it all fits together and see if it is logical, even if they don't believe it. They can still see logical flaws within the thinking and between the mindset and reality. Also, quite a few of the unbelievers here have been believers, so they know the mindset from within. And yet, it still doesn't make sense, as described above.

(...)
I would like to hear from some of the atheists on the point of sin (doing bad things). I heard and understood Emery's point, but I am curious to hear from others as to what motivates someone to do good or evil. NH, please don't say feedback loops

I think I wrote quite a bit about that in my post "Atheist Morals". I now (as an Atheist) have the choice to behave "moral" or not and I have to say, that I do weigh the costs now. For example, I don't think I would risk my life easily to protect or help somebody. But the more important thing for me is that I can now choose what I believe is good or bad and don't have to follow somebody else's ideas on that. This is a big relief. For example I don't have to be judgmental towards homosexuals or polyamorous people or people who practice some other kind of alternative livestyle. As long as they don't hurt anybody, it's all fine with me. I also abandoned the concept of sinful thoughts, which is quite a relief. I don't have to put myself on thought control the whole time.

In general this Christian perfectionism in terms of "sin" (however it is defined in your current subgroup) is a rather strange concept imho. People have helpful and not so helpful aspects of their personality, sometimes they manage to arrange them in a way that their behavior is helpful (to them and to others) and sometimes they don't. That's life, and nothing to get hung up about, just try to get it done the best way you can. And if you fail, try to do it better the next time. And about others, be prepared that sometimes they fail as well. The concept of sin doesn't really help to deal with these facts imho.

Also the Christian idea of redemption only adds a new aspect in this and doesn't really change the existing ones. With the Christian doctrine you are told that you additionally hurt God with your behavior (or create a barrier or whatever) and that additionally there is a way to get rid of this problem. So it is a zero/zero game. Without Christian doctrine I don't have this problem (since I don't believe in God or at least not in a God I am separated from through my behavior) and with the Christian doctrine I don't have it either (since then I would believe that God has removed that self-created problem again). So what's the point?

[jori]

(...)
You may be surprised (or maybe not) that I consider the concept of good & evil to be flawed, non-beneficial terms in discussing the human condition. They're over simplistic and place the onus on judgment of both the person and their behavior. I prefer discussing ethics in terms of behavior that appears variously in the range between somewhat more skillful/life enhancing and somewhat less skillful/life impairing. The goal of the behavior is always included in such a discussion, along with its effectiveness in achieving the goal and avoiding harmful consequences.
(...)

Maybe that's the short version of what I wanted to say

[NH Baritone]

(...)
You may be surprised (or maybe not) that I consider the concept of good & evil to be flawed, non-beneficial terms in discussing the human condition. They're over simplistic and place the onus on judgment of both the person and their behavior. I prefer discussing ethics in terms of behavior that appears variously in the range between somewhat more skillful/life enhancing and somewhat less skillful/life impairing. The goal of the behavior is always included in such a discussion, along with its effectiveness in achieving the goal and avoiding harmful consequences.
(...)

Maybe that's the short version of what I wanted to say

We all get our say ... and a chance to work out our thought processes.

The bottom line is that Christians, in conversations with NON-Christians, do NOT have carte blanche in defining the terms and setting the ground rules (i.e., that humans are flawed and in need of redemption). Fonzarelli (perhaps grudgingly) makes this point when he says that:

Only from the Christian world view does one see humans as flawed and in need of redemption. For unbelievers to see their sin as a barrier between them and God takes a prompting by the Holy Spirit. I know this gets into predestination and that whole mess, but I think that is the basic Christian viewpoint. (Emphasis added.)

Carrying this further, what does he mean by this difference between Christians and "unbelievers"? I suggest it is Christian willingness to embrace shame. In other words, what he interprets as the incursion of the holy spirit into his thinking, I interpret as self-debasement, perhaps as a result of being degraded by society, chiefly other Christians. Almost every Christian worship service makes reference to it, either through verbal self-flagellation (via confession) or through praying for forgiveness.

Christian theology/practice is therefore antithetical to self-acceptance. This is often made worse when the particular theology preaches that non-believers go to hell. Such a schism based on belief divides families, carves up communities, and ultimately cleaves our planet's human population into religious tribes (who often subdivide even further).