glintofpewter Posted January 24, 2012 Author Share Posted January 24, 2012 Progressive Christians don't believe the miracle stories in the bible are literally true but they still think religion is useful and works in promoting social justice. So if religion works, it's fine even if it's not literally true, but if religion doesn't work, it's not fine. Progressive Christianity is essentially a utilitarian argument for religion. I don't understand the either/or and whose is making this an either/or. Literal or not. Works or not. How are the two connected? I think Karen Armstrong feels deeply that various religions find that compassion is the highest value. She would like to teach the world to be compassionate. Or perhaps in her Charter for Compassion effort she would like the world to commit to being compassionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I don't recall her making this argument, but I have only read, I think, one of her books and it was quite some time ago. Maybe you could find a quote from her and post it here. I really don't think most PCs posit a utilitarian argument for Christianity. George From her book, The Case For God, Religion is a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new capacities of mind and heart. This will be one of the major themes of this book. It is no use magisterially weighing up the teachings of religions to judge their truth or falsehood before embarking on a religious way of life. You will discover their truth-or lack of it-only if you translate these doctrines into ritual or ethetical ethical action. Like any skill, religion requires perservance, hard work, and discipline. Some people will be better at it than others, some appallingly inept, and some will miss the point entirely. But those who do not apply themselves will get nowhere at all.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding her, but Armstrong seems to be saying to me that you can't judge the truth of religion based on its theological beliefs but whether or not the religion produces good results from ethical actions. In other words, she's arguing for a "it doesn't work because it's true; it's true because it works" theology, which sounds to me an awful lot like a utilaritian argument for religion where she judges the worth of religion based on its results, not its truth claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 From her book, The Case For God, Perhaps I'm misunderstanding her, but Armstrong seems to be saying to me that you can't judge the truth of religion based on its theological beliefs but whether or not the religion produces good results from ethical actions. In other words, she's arguing for a "it doesn't work because it's true; it's true because it works" theology, which sounds to me an awful lot like a utilaritian argument for religion where she judges the worth of religion based on its results, not its truth claims. Yes, to the extent that religon promotes ethical behavior and justice, it does serve a utilitarian function. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Perhaps I'm misunderstanding her, but Armstrong seems to be saying to me that you can't judge the truth of religion based on its theological beliefs but whether or not the religion produces good results from ethical actions. More than one person here has said the same thing. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Yes, to the extent that religon promotes ethical behavior and justice, it does serve a utilitarian function. George I myself apply a utilitarian approach to religion in that while I don't believe in supernaturalism or the literalism of the bible, I still believe that there's a lot of good to religion and I won't deny that religion has played an important role in the development of social justice, but to say we wouldn't have social justice without religion or that religion is the only way to have morals and human rights is no different than the fundamentalist Christians who say their religion is the one true way to salvation and it's either their way or the high way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 she's arguing for a "it doesn't work because it's true; it's true because it works" theology, I think I could only agree with this if both statements are held simultaneously. It's true because it works and it works because its true. If 'truth' is given any honors in religious philosophy and practice, there must be a transcendence of mere utilitarian understanding. I myself apply a utilitarian approach to religion in that while I don't believe in supernaturalism or the literalism of the bible, I still believe that there's a lot of good to religion and I won't deny that religion has played an important role in the development of social justice, but to say we wouldn't have social justice without religion or that religion is the only way to have morals and human rights is no different than the fundamentalist Christians who say their religion is the one true way to salvation and it's either their way or the high way. I think it's a qualitatively different argument. There's probably something I didn't make clear in my posts. I don't look to religion as something external to human endeavors, as a process happening beyond the actuality of life itself. Religion originates in us. It is a way -- or more accurately -- a category of ways in which we have found to relate to our existence. This is through reasoning about the nature of reality, our place in it, and how we ought to live. Metaphysics. I think more than this, we, as it were, originate in religion, in the sense that religious questions swell up from our very existence. The truth of our existence seeks to articulate itself in us, through us. On this understanding of religion, I would maintain that we do not have values, rights, morality, apart from this. The "secular" is a secularization of values that we creativity put into practice based on an understanding of the universe that is essentially metaphysical and convictions that are indistinguishable from religious convictions. I personally believe in the inherent worth and dignity of each person. This is not a truth that science has demonstrated. It's not something I can prove. I appeal to intuition that lies beyond physical fact, and to meaning, which is intimately woven throughout all my doings -- throughout actuality itself, holding the world together. By such appeals, am I not being religious? Perhaps religion is a verb. It is nonetheless how I get my values. Without these (or similar) appeals, I don't see how nihility would not follow. I certainly have no seen any derivation of "human rights" apart from such a process, and here none has yet been suggested aside from consequentialism. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 By such appeals, am I not being religious? Mike, perhaps you are being religous using those points, but I think it's a fair stretch from what most people regard as the defintion of religion: religion [rɪˈlɪdʒən] n 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny 2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief the Christian religion 3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers 4. (Christianity / Roman Catholic Church) Chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns to enter religion 5. something of overwhelming importance to a person football is his religion 6. Archaic a. the practice of sacred ritual observances b. sacred rites and ceremonies [via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind] Using your terms, it would seem that just about anything I thought or did, would be religous in its initiation. IMO, I don't think that was the direction of this topic being debated. Dutch's friend that was mentioned in the original post, did seem to take the traditional approach concerning 'religious' views affecting human rights views. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 Perhaps religion is a verb Perhaps God is a verb and if religion is praxis then ... Mike, When I understand what you have written I am often blessed. Thanks. (My lack understanding is often my problem.) Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I suggest there may be some need to consider some distinction between utilitarian argument and simply testing through observation of results. Jesus, and throughout the bible over all, especially in the NT, placed a great deal of credibility and value on evaluating, judging, the true nature in any matter, through observation of the fruit, the outcome, the result. Quite simply if something isn't bringing about results consistent with what it claims to be doing, then it isn't doing what it claims to be doing, or was intended for the purpose of doing. This is the spiritual principle, or natural law one might even call it, of "consistency throughout", so often demonstrated through plant metaphors...the seed,the root,the tree, the fruit. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 I hope it doesn't cause a problem but I think it is unyieldly to focus on the basis of human rights in this thread so I gave it its own topic: Basis of Human Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Dutch, good idea. I don't know about unyieldly but it certainly has gotten unwieldly...has gone off on too many rabbit trails to keep up with. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 In regards to the secular nature of the constitution, I think this video by Obama is still one of the best arguments in favor of why need the separation of church and state: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Neon, that's the man I voted for. Too bad we cant talk publically about it again. My preference is for a public space that is not devoid of religious talk but unfortunately we often don't behave well and the parent takes the ball away saying if you can't play nice you can't play at all. I don't know what the state of affairs is currently but several years ago there was a movement by atheist groups to put up Solstice billboards with a statement affirming reason next to a nativity on public property. In several instances all done according to code. But not all public leaders had the strength keep both up and ignore the yelling. So I expect we devolve. the only peace is secular peace? America was not intended - although intentions may have been pluralistic - to be the secular nation that France is but because we can't behave it looks like we have to pave over the play ground. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 That you would demonize atheists by falsely accusing them of taking away your free speech to talk about religious issues while mocking them by comparing them to a parent/child relationship and taking a holier than thou approach and claiming that atheists are responsible for the devolving of peace shows you obviously have no intereset in anything I say and are only interested in promoting your anti-atheist agenda, and it is also clear now that atheists are the dreaded enemy of progressive Christians and not welcome at The Center For Progressive Christianity, despite one of the eight points hypocritically claiming to welcome non-believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Neon, I recommend that you please read what is actually there said instead of reacting to what you perceive to be there. We can only communicate via text here, so it is of utmost importance that we make a genuine effort to understand each other by that means. Where in Dutch's post does he "demonize atheists" ect., etc., etc.? Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Yet everyone here keeps ignoring what my posts are actually saying and causing me to have to repeat myself a thousand times so I have to question if I'm really welcomed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 Neon, I am sorry you understoood me to be denigrating atheists. I welcome them in the public space we should see of them. Good without God bus signs, solstice season of reason boards. I don't know about you personally but I see that many atheisst feel personally persecuted, rightfully so. What I want is to see people of all approaches in the public space learning how to speak to each other not a space devoid of religious talk. But maybe a silent space is what we have to do. I googled that youtube of obama. He gave that speech in an unique setting but the conservatives had a field day feeling that he had dissed their Bible. I had no intention of dissing you. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I'd say there's been and continues a lot of bad behavior and nasty rhetoric on all sides of this and other common issues. And it is just as bad whether coming out of atheists or religous people. Neon, I can speak for no one but myself here. I do not 'disrespect' atheists. I walk a fine line in this kind of thing with my own son, who is strongly atheist, and also has some issues that cause him at times to fall into attitudes that all people of faith and religion hate and are abusive toward atheists. He and I do get into some 'lively' discussions and debates on that kind of thing. We love each other, and for the most part get along well. I do regularly have to deal with in my relationship with him, these very kinds of issues, both remind him that I do not hold or express toward him or atheists in general such attutudes, that he is wrong to feel and speak of ALL people of religion/faith as doing so, which of course would include myself, and that I refuse to accept his occasional reactions and comments to the effect that he has a problem with, and therefore I should take care in not making, any casual reference to my faith, at least around him. His atheisism IS a signficant source of conflect between us, actually the biggest and most common source of it, but it is NOT my atttitudes about it, but HIS, that are problematic. When I refer to my an casual reference to my faith, I do mean exactly that, I do not try to preach, proselytize, convert, argue that he is "wrong" or that he should accept God or faith. I respect his dedication and passion for seeking truth, and even his skepticism. But I do think there is a problem when it becomes cynicism, that paints all people of faith with a broad negative sterotype in the matter, or that takes offense when no offence was intended or implied. And btw, I agree totally with Obama's comments here, and the importance of maintaining separation of relgionand state even for people of religion/faith as well as atheists. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Yet everyone here keeps ignoring what my posts are actually saying and causing me to have to repeat myself a thousand times so I have to question if I'm really welcomed here. Neon, maybe we really just aren't understanding your question? I know I'm puzlling over what you mean by this myself. Just my impression, trying to figure out what you mean, maybe you are suggesting a question, rather than clearly articulating it, and we just aren't getting it? I know that I'm not trying to avoid answering any question you are asking, I just am not clear on what the question is. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Neon, I recommend that you please read what is actually there said instead of reacting to what you perceive to be there. We can only communicate via text here, so it is of utmost importance that we make a genuine effort to understand each other by that means. Where in Dutch's post does he "demonize atheists" ect., etc., etc.? Peace, Mike Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but glintofpewter made the accusation that atheists were trying to remove all of religion from the public square and he accused atheists of trying to "devolve" peace into secular peace, and accused public leaders who uphold the wall of separation of church and state of losing strength and suggested that public leaders should ignore atheists that protests these violations. Furthermore, he is also trying to paint a false dichotomy between atheists and Christians over the nativity scene battles, as if it is only atheists who oppose their inclusion on government property. Yet virtually all other separation of church and state orginazations also oppose nativity scenes on government property. The Jewish organization, the Anti-Defemation League, also opposes the inclusion of nativity scenes on government property. Yet glintofpewter didn't accuse Jews of trying to remove God from the public square even though they protest nativity scenes on government property all the time too and it was only atheists he singled out for claiming they were trying to remove God from the public square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I believe Dutch in that post, and as per his own explanation, was simply saying that he wishes the public sphere was home to all kinds of views and discourse on religion. But since the American people can't seem to deal with that, it seems there must be some necessary arbitration for "silence" on the whole matter. Dutch wrote, "In several instances all done according to code. But not all public leaders had the strength keep both up and ignore the yelling." He said nothing about atheists ruining the peace or whatever. Just that people couldn't handle that kind of openness. So it seems there is no place for a robust pluralism (of which atheists would be part), which is something of a devolution. Dutch can correct me if I have misinterpreted anything he wrote. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I believe Dutch in that post, and as per his own explanation, was simply saying that he wishes the public sphere was home to all kinds of views and discourse on religion. But since the American people can't seem to deal with that, it seems there must be some necessary arbitration for "silence" on the whole matter. Dutch wrote, "In several instances all done according to code. But not all public leaders had the strength keep both up and ignore the yelling." He said nothing about atheists ruining the peace or whatever. Just that people couldn't handle that kind of openness. So it seems there is no place for a robust pluralism (of which atheists would be part), which is something of a devolution. That was my understanding as well. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I believe Dutch in that post, and as per his own explanation, was simply saying that he wishes the public sphere was home to all kinds of views and discourse on religion. But since the American people can't seem to deal with that, it seems there must be some necessary arbitration for "silence" on the whole matter. Dutch wrote, "In several instances all done according to code. But not all public leaders had the strength keep both up and ignore the yelling." He said nothing about atheists ruining the peace or whatever. Just that people couldn't handle that kind of openness. So it seems there is no place for a robust pluralism (of which atheists would be part), which is something of a devolution. Dutch can correct me if I have misinterpreted anything he wrote. Peace, Mike They tried this experiment once at the Washington state capital where they tried to allow all religious symbols at the capital just so they could keep the nativity scene up. But then Fred Phelps wanted to put up his own sign that said God was going to send kids to hell for believing in Santa Claus, so they decided to scrap it and to just keep the state capital neutral to avoid this mess in the first place. If these Christians put as much energy in fighting poverty as they did crying over a silly Christmas decoration which isn't even biblical (there are no three kings in the bible) so they can force their religion on non-Christians, we might actually fix the economic crisis in our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 On the cries and big fuss of *some* over things like Christmass, public religious displays, prayer in schools, etc vs concern for things that really matter, Neon, I am in complete agreement with you. to me that is NOT about keeping religion out of the public shere, it's about keeping religion, as it should be, a private matter in which each person is free to beleive and practice equally.To me, that is protecting all our religious freedom. Many CHRISTIANS do not observe Christmass or at least the commercialized public displays or pagan elements such as decorated trees and gaudy lights. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Mike and George - well done, thanks Neon, If you have any concerns about whatever I say please honor me with a question to clarify my meaning. They tried this experiment once at the Washington state capital where they tried to allow all religious symbols at the capital just so they could keep the nativity scene up. Now I am really depressed!!! :o :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.