Very good article. I would not criticize cultural Christians who admit that Christian values make for a better society if they left it at that. The rub comes when they vocally condemn the faith of those who make it work the way it does.
Brilliant article. I hope to see the same thing honestly. I have been praying for it on and off for years.
The thing is Matt. God gives us the choice to believe. At the end of the day even though Christianity with its message of love, decency and goodness will prevail through its most honest adherents. And requires all of us who do believe to be earnest.
Men are allowed the choice. Even to do what Dawkins is doing. Which to me is really just one step forward on the road to Christ and the truth.
Our faith is never one of forcing others to believe. So even if Dawkins is a bit shameful. He can do it. I'll never forget that God spits the lukewarm water sooner than the cold.
His journey is clearly longer than most. And he may never get there. But I hope to God he does because it would make Jesus so happy.
I have a longer response that I'll post here later (largely disagreeing), but I'm on the road this weekend and my wife has the hotel room computer desk at to the moment.
That said, here's an article from The Dispatch this morning that touches on a lot of your piece.
I did another run-through of this piece and my main disagreement is with this:
"It seems at 81 years old, Dawkins realized that societies can’t function on the ideals of people alone, without some kind of external structure for morality. Science and reason don’t provide that morality—they are merely engines for discovery and application of knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience, and morality comes from discipleship. It does indeed matter where one gets his discipleship. I’ll take 'Samaritan’s Purse' over 'ISIS-K' every day and twice on Sunday, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t bad Christian teachings."
I'm not going to defend Dawkins' brand of atheism - I think he gets a ways over his skis when it comes to the certainty behind his strong atheism - there's nothing in science that precludes stronger and more capable beings in the cosmos (or lurking in the "Dark Forest" for all you Cixin Liu fans). However, as someone who doesn't subscribe to a metaphysical supernatural framework - trust me, as a young Christian I reached out and tried to experience it, and only received static - I'd argue that empathy and reason provide the foundation for a more robust moral framework than winning or losing the Christian afterlife.
As human beings, we possess something called a "theory of mind", which allows me to make decent educated guesses about how you will think and feel about something I might do. We use this all the time in order to maintain smooth social interactions, and when we encounter someone who is weak on that front, we feel the awkwardness arising from that deficiency.
Furthermore, we have preferences for how we'd like to be treated. In general, we don't like to be upset or put in a state of pain. Given those preferences and the empathy that arises out of our "theories of mind", you don't need virgin births, djinns, or the threat of being smited to arrive at basic principles such as the Golden Rule, which leads us to understanding that reciprocity in treating others the ways we would like to be treated is a decent guide to interacting with your fellow human beings.
From that basic principle, one can construct (or adopt) a moral system that allows people to lead decent productive lives, all without the need to appeal to some higher authority to sign off on one's actions.
As someone who also describes themselves as "culturally Christian" (in much the same way that Hebrew atheists may call themselves "cultural Jews"), I'm happy to acknowledge the contributions that men led by their faith have given the modern world. I'd also argue that faithful Christians should also appreciate the science and reason that arose out of the Enlightenment (often DESPITE the Church) and how that's transformed their faith as well, such as the idea of personal relationships with Christ, which wasn't a big emphasis before the Enlightenment elevated the individual as a unit that had rights, values, and inherent worth.
You’ve correctly discerned the Golden Rule and “do not cast the first stone.” But what evolutionary whirlpool would produce those impulses? I say they came from the metaphysical static, aka God.
You don't need anything as complex as evolution (or a supernatural being) to arrive at the Golden Rule, it arises naturally out of simple reasoning about interactions you will have in the future with other beings with their own agency (a.k.a. "tit-for-tat" in game theory).
Very good article. I would not criticize cultural Christians who admit that Christian values make for a better society if they left it at that. The rub comes when they vocally condemn the faith of those who make it work the way it does.
Brilliant article. I hope to see the same thing honestly. I have been praying for it on and off for years.
The thing is Matt. God gives us the choice to believe. At the end of the day even though Christianity with its message of love, decency and goodness will prevail through its most honest adherents. And requires all of us who do believe to be earnest.
Men are allowed the choice. Even to do what Dawkins is doing. Which to me is really just one step forward on the road to Christ and the truth.
Our faith is never one of forcing others to believe. So even if Dawkins is a bit shameful. He can do it. I'll never forget that God spits the lukewarm water sooner than the cold.
His journey is clearly longer than most. And he may never get there. But I hope to God he does because it would make Jesus so happy.
I have a longer response that I'll post here later (largely disagreeing), but I'm on the road this weekend and my wife has the hotel room computer desk at to the moment.
That said, here's an article from The Dispatch this morning that touches on a lot of your piece.
https://thedispatch.com/article/why-church-attendance-is-more-important-than-ever/
I did another run-through of this piece and my main disagreement is with this:
"It seems at 81 years old, Dawkins realized that societies can’t function on the ideals of people alone, without some kind of external structure for morality. Science and reason don’t provide that morality—they are merely engines for discovery and application of knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience, and morality comes from discipleship. It does indeed matter where one gets his discipleship. I’ll take 'Samaritan’s Purse' over 'ISIS-K' every day and twice on Sunday, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t bad Christian teachings."
I'm not going to defend Dawkins' brand of atheism - I think he gets a ways over his skis when it comes to the certainty behind his strong atheism - there's nothing in science that precludes stronger and more capable beings in the cosmos (or lurking in the "Dark Forest" for all you Cixin Liu fans). However, as someone who doesn't subscribe to a metaphysical supernatural framework - trust me, as a young Christian I reached out and tried to experience it, and only received static - I'd argue that empathy and reason provide the foundation for a more robust moral framework than winning or losing the Christian afterlife.
As human beings, we possess something called a "theory of mind", which allows me to make decent educated guesses about how you will think and feel about something I might do. We use this all the time in order to maintain smooth social interactions, and when we encounter someone who is weak on that front, we feel the awkwardness arising from that deficiency.
Furthermore, we have preferences for how we'd like to be treated. In general, we don't like to be upset or put in a state of pain. Given those preferences and the empathy that arises out of our "theories of mind", you don't need virgin births, djinns, or the threat of being smited to arrive at basic principles such as the Golden Rule, which leads us to understanding that reciprocity in treating others the ways we would like to be treated is a decent guide to interacting with your fellow human beings.
From that basic principle, one can construct (or adopt) a moral system that allows people to lead decent productive lives, all without the need to appeal to some higher authority to sign off on one's actions.
As someone who also describes themselves as "culturally Christian" (in much the same way that Hebrew atheists may call themselves "cultural Jews"), I'm happy to acknowledge the contributions that men led by their faith have given the modern world. I'd also argue that faithful Christians should also appreciate the science and reason that arose out of the Enlightenment (often DESPITE the Church) and how that's transformed their faith as well, such as the idea of personal relationships with Christ, which wasn't a big emphasis before the Enlightenment elevated the individual as a unit that had rights, values, and inherent worth.
You’ve correctly discerned the Golden Rule and “do not cast the first stone.” But what evolutionary whirlpool would produce those impulses? I say they came from the metaphysical static, aka God.
You don't need anything as complex as evolution (or a supernatural being) to arrive at the Golden Rule, it arises naturally out of simple reasoning about interactions you will have in the future with other beings with their own agency (a.k.a. "tit-for-tat" in game theory).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201607/the-prisoner-s-dilemma-and-the-virtues-tit-tat