Letters to the Editor
-
History
I've followed and at times participated in this sort of debate in the past. It is usually a passionate one for some, and an opportunity be aggressive and hostile for others. But most of the time it leads to dead ends all the way around.
To me, the fact that there is so much debate and so much uncertainty only succeeds in proving one thing to me: HISTORY IS IMPORTANT!
The old adage is that the winners write the history and there is in fact truth in that. But that truth is simply that that is who records history, not necessarily that what is recorded is the truth. What is often overlooked (intentionally in most cases) is that when the winner writes the history the complete truth rarely survives. There is no guarantee that the accuracy of events was preserved and it is often tainted in favor of the victors beliefs or motivations.
It is clear that there were struggles in early Christianity about exactly what IT was. The existence of these divergent texts proves this without question. Once a particular side gained the higher ground it set forth to banish all others to oblivion as heretical and secure it's own dominance and survival. And so most now accept that the winning sides version as truth and all others as heretical. All of this we know occurred. And because the "winner" says things happened in "this way" most simply accept it without question. My question to the faithful is simply do you have faith in God or in the winning belief systems or institutions which claim that God is who THEY say he is? I think that is an important question that many people of faith should honestly ask themselves.
Looking deeper into these differences with an open mind is important if the real "truth" of things is ever to be understood. That is why history, from many perspectives, is so important. Because several thousand years later we have people hating and killing one another over what amounts to their "winning" versions of what happened back then.
-
A slight misstatement of the argument
Also, I find it maddening that many religious people seem to think that morals are not possible without religious belief.
This isn't really the argument. It's not that you can't have morals without religious beliefs; it's that you cannot have morals without a God, the ultimate "Says who?" Because if there is not a higher power, what is the point of being moral? Moreover, what is the source of the morality? By what authority do we condemn those who violate morality? (Remember: moral judgments are not just things we apply to ourselves; we apply them to others, too.)
You cannot have a concept of crooked without first understand the concept of straight. We all have written on our hearts the concept of "straight," and therefore we instantly recognize "crooked" when we see it. We may try to rationalize it away (especially if we're the ones being crooked), but the very act of trying to dispose of it is an acknowledgement that it exists.
In short: you cannot have morals without God.
-
A Little More Scholarship, Please
For one thing, just because a gospel was written by the gnostic branch of early Christians doesn't make it "bogus." Early Christianity was in the developmental stage at a time when communication was not as we have it today and various groups proposed different analyses and implications of what began as a simple belief system. Ultimately the Pauline sect took over and wiped out other variations as "heretical." (Even the pope acknowledged recently that modern Catholicism is a product of Christianity filtered through neoplatonic thought.) The only reason we have these gnostic texts at all is because they were buried for millennia.
As for Pagels, she is the feeblest of religious scholars and understands very little of the material. The entire gnostic cache called the Nag Hammadi library has been available for some decades and the Gospel of Judas is among the least interesting of the texts. The Gospel that is revelatory among this cache is the Gospel of Thomas which reputable religious scholars believe should be included in a revised Bible while a number of the Epistles should be scrubbed (as not coming from Paul), as well as the Book of Revelation which was written by a crank at a much later date than the other texts.
In early Christian times, there was considerable debate on a number of issues and gnosticism was a particularly strong sect that was only finally wiped out in the Second Crusade. Ramsay McMullin's latest book reviews the debates over doctrinal issues that solidified much of what became modern Christianity. For those interested in how Christianity became what it is today, I recommend further study while avoiding the popular and facile stuff the major media tend to focus on. To truly understand the history of this belief system, one must put aside one's own and be open to strange and challenging ideas, and be objective in this most subjective field.
-
To 'A Guy': Morals Do Not Come From God
It is completely clear that god is not a prerequisite for moral behavior, despite your claim to the contrary. Morals are a product of evolution. Morals are simply successful ideas that have propagated, versus unsuccessful ideas that have been cast by the side of the road along the way. Social animals protect close family members (the tribe) against any incursions. Altruism wins the day. Behavior evolves.
If one needed a God to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, as you indicate, then what is God's enforcement mechanism? Is it eternal life? If that's the case, than the moral religious person has far less virtue than the moral atheist, because the atheist is behaving morally due to his nature; the religious person because, like Pavlov's dog, he expects a reward at the end of the day.
In short: God is a man-made creation used as a parable to explain the value of moral behavior to small children.
-
It's OK to believe in the metaphysical
Me... I don't. Metaphysical beliefs (God, religion, astrology, Lady Luck, undefinable magic of most kinds...) have been working less and less well for me over the years. But we gotta stop basic criticism of people for whom a belief in non-objective reality is important.
It's fine to talk about behaviors. Teaching religious beliefs in science classes is a bad idea. Staying on top of fundamentalist efforts to reduce our rights is a good thing.
But telling people to "grow up" because they have spiritual beliefs is insulting. In a world where successfully dealing with (working with, living with) other people is more important than the physical reality of most situations, it's arguable that a blend of scientific and spiritual understanding is going to produce the best results.
Humans have an apparently never-ending need to believe in magic. It's not good practice, nor very considerate, to use that need as a leverage point for never-ending criticism.
Consider this another vote for getting away from I'm-right-you're-stupid.