Religion and Culture - what comes first?

[Tetchytyke]

Just really to bring a new thread out from the Scottish Referendum debate.

The question isn't really whether every Christian regime is or has been democratic. The better question is whether, when designing our current Western society, our forebears thought they were expressing their Christian faith.

I think it depends where you look, and what we mean by "Western society".

The law in most of Europe is based on the Napoleonic Code, which very clearly and very expressly is secular. It was Napoleon who got rid of the last dregs of feudalism by abolishing the Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon was attempting to keep the religious leaders on side but he designed his laws based on equality and freedom before the law (mostly because he was a very minor noble and had struggled under monarchism).

In Napoleon's case, it was the absolute monarchs who attempted to use their religion as justification for the status quo. They had a "divine right" to lead- God wouldn't have made them leaders otherwise, would be- and it was against the religion to question this.

And in Britain it was similar. Absolutism disappeared because the nobles didn't want to pay taxes, and so both sides attempted to use religion to show that they were right. But it was purely about money and about power.

So no, I don't think our democracy is based in Christianity. I don't think Christianity is intrinsically democratic and I don't think democracy is intrinsically Christian.

There is something to be said that some countries are much further behind us on the road to liberalism- Saudi Arabia is still pretty much absolutist and fedual in nature- but I don't think that has anything to do with religion.

 

[meridian2]

Do you think the French Revolution and Napoleon in particular was a net benefit to society? The divine right to rule was a manifestation of the reformation. Prior to that the monarch was always subject to natural and divine law, not above it. I don't believe Christianity is inherently democratic in a legalistic sense, because it fails to recognise any earthy authority. I do believe it's the most just way of running a society, and compared to its immediate predecessor the Roman empire, was immeasurably more humane and democratic.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't believe Christianity is inherently democratic in a legalistic sense, because it fails to recognise any earthy authority. I do believe it's the most just way of running a society

I think it very much depends. My point is more that any political system is dependent on the leadership it has, and that leadership has nothing to do with religion.

King John is a great example of this. Magna Carta came about during his reign but he is widely regarded as one of the most evil men to have ever sat on the throne. Magna Carta happened because he would have lost power without conceding ground to his noblemen, not because he intrinsically believed in the goodness and correctness of Magna Carta.

and compared to its immediate predecessor the Roman empire, was immeasurably more humane and democratic.

That depends on which side of the fence you were on, as always.

Were slaves of the British Empire treated any better than slaves of the Roman Empire?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

It is important to remember that much of what is called Christianity is actually culture and not religion. They are rules and understandings that have developed over the past 2000 years, but are not based on the raw teachings of the religion.

For example, all of the hierarchies within the church are artificial, at no point is Jesus quoted as establishing the post of Arch-Bishop or Senior Clergyman. Much of the establishment of the contemporary church is based on the letters of Paul who was 'only human'.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You need to go back to historical times in Britain to see what were the ruling powers and the religion that was the one of the rulers:-
Pre-Roman....Celts, Picts, etc.......Not democratic
Roman governance.....................Not democratic
Anglo Saxon period.....................Not democratic
Norman period...........................Not democratic
Lancastrian/Yorkist period...........Not democratic
Cromwellian period.....................Not democratic
Restoration of the Monarchy........Not democratic
Netherlands/German monarchy....Not democratic

This takes us to the period when slavery was abolished and when the first glimpses of what might be considered as democracy began to surface. Do you consider it democratic for women in Britain to be deprived of the full voting right until as late as 1928.

 

[meridian2]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed, which is born out by my experience, certainly. It emphasises responsibilities, not just rights, which is completely counter to current political fashion. I don't see any replacement that supports human rights from the womb to the grave, and not merely benefits those with power, money or political clout

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is important to remember that much of what is called Christianity is actually culture and not religion. They are rules and understandings that have developed over the past 2000 years, but are not based on the raw teachings of the religion.

It's impossible to separate the two out, really.

The choice of which texts to include in the Bible was taken by humans, not by God himself. Some of those choices remain controversial, both in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament. Even the raw teachings of the religion are based on a cultural and political decision as to what to include and what to leave out.

Everything is about interpretation. Everything. For every love thy neighbour story in the Bible there's a story of burning someone or something to the ground. If I want to send an army to destroy the Infidel I can find plenty in there to justify it. All the Abrahamic religions are the same.

 

[me123]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed, which is born out by my experience, certainly. It emphasises responsibilities, not just rights, which is completely counter to current political fashion. I don't see any replacement that supports human rights from the womb to the grave, and not merely benefits those with power, money or political clout

I personally don't find the doctrine of original sin to be appealing in any way (this is the way in which Christianity tells humans that we are fundamentally flawed). It's actually pretty awful. We are all born "sinners" because Adam (who didn't exist) ate an apple in defiance of Jehovah. As such we all must repent. The exact interpretation of the first parts of Genesis varies from denomination to denomination, but it's a repulsive idea that every single person is considered a "sinner" at the moment of their birth.

 

[AlterEgo]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed, which is born out by my experience, certainly. It emphasises responsibilities, not just rights, which is completely counter to current political fashion. I don't see any replacement that supports human rights from the womb to the grave, and not merely benefits those with power, money or political clout

This, I can support - it is very much my own viewpoint. However, as an atheist, I'd counter that this isn't a uniquely Christian viewpoint, and indeed is a viewpoint shared by many people of many religions, and none.

 

[WelshBluebird]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed, which is born out by my experience, certainly. It emphasises responsibilities, not just rights, which is completely counter to current political fashion. I don't see any replacement that supports human rights from the womb to the grave, and not merely benefits those with power, money or political clout

How on earth is the idea the humanity is flawed purely a Christian thing?

 

[najaB]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed...

Then you should be Buddhist.

 

[EM2]

One of the appeals of Christianity is its insistence that humanity is fundamentally flawed, which is born out by my experience, certainly. It emphasises responsibilities, not just rights, which is completely counter to current political fashion. I don't see any replacement that supports human rights from the womb to the grave, and not merely benefits those with power, money or political clout

Everyone knows that humanity is flawed.
As for emphasising responsibilities, doesn't every culture do that? The responsibility not to rob others, or kill others, for example. I don't see how this is 'counter to current political fashion', could you give examples?

 

[meridian2]

I don't see how this is 'counter to current political fashion', could you give examples?

No, because experience has shown there would never be enough to satisfy your notion of proof. I can say that if you don't see an emphasis on the rights of the individual over personal and mutual responsibility, you're not looking very hard. This perspective wasn't always the case, and runs counter to Christian ethics.
As for everyone knowing humanity is flawed, wherever I look there are people trying to tell me humanity is essentially good and science has the answers to all his problems, if we'd only trust scientists.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, because experience has shown there would never be enough to satisfy your notion of proof. I can say that if you don't see an emphasis on the rights of the individual over personal and mutual responsibility, you're not looking very hard. This perspective wasn't always the case, and runs counter to Christian ethics.
As for everyone knowing humanity is flawed, wherever I look there are people trying to tell me humanity is essentially good and science has the answers to all his problems, if we'd only trust scientists.

The opposite of "good" isn't "flawed". You can be both good and flawed; in fact most people are.

Everyone has flaws, but nearly everyone is also good.

It's concerning to read someone so glibly dismiss science. Thankfully, your viewpoint on this in 2017 is rare enough to have novelty value.

 

[EM2]

...if you don't see an emphasis on the rights of the individual over personal and mutual responsibility, you're not looking very hard. This perspective wasn't always the case, and runs counter to Christian ethics.
As for everyone knowing humanity is flawed, wherever I look there are people trying to tell me humanity is essentially good and science has the answers to all his problems, if we'd only trust scientists.

But personal and mutual responsibility have been long established, through laws. And following on from that, it's surely only fair that individuals also have their rights protected through the same mechanism.
Humanity *is* essentially good. But the key word is 'essentially'. It's not 'perfectly' or 'totally'. I'm good, but I'm certainly flawed.

 

[me123]

The opposite of "good" isn't "flawed". You can be both good and flawed; in fact most people are.

Everyone has flaws, but nearly everyone is also good.

It's concerning to read someone so glibly dismiss science. Thankfully, your viewpoint on this in 2017 is rare enough to have novelty value.

This is pretty much what I was about to say.

People are flawed, but that doesn't mean that most people aren't inherently good. I suspect that most people do have good intentions.

As for science, science doesn't have all the answers. If it did, we wouldn't have to do it any more. Science does, however, give us answers. Thanks to science, we know what the speed of light is, we know how old the universe is, we know how humans came to be, we know how to treat illnesses and extend life. We don't have all the answers, but we're getting more answers each and every day.
Religion has, on the other hand, contributed nothing of value when it comes to answering scientific questions. The Bible has been proven wrong on many things (Noah's ark didn't happen, the creation story didn't happen...) yet this continues to get pushed by some Christians as irrefutable fact.

 

[meridian2]

The opposite of "good" isn't "flawed". You can be both good and flawed; in fact most people are.

Everyone has flaws, but nearly everyone is also good.

It's concerning to read someone so glibly dismiss science. Thankfully, your viewpoint on this in 2017 is rare enough to have novelty value.

Science gets round the problem of evil by dismissing it as poor mental health or social conditioning, there are no other categories to explain the inhumanity of humans. I don't believe nature and nurture exhaust the reasons why, for example, serial killers behave the way they do. I believe they are fully aware of the effect of their actions, and derive pleasure from it. For me that is indistinguishable from Christian notions of evil. Materialist science promotes the idea that free will does not exist, and consciousness is epiphenomenal (an illusion based on global complexity), which means both good and evil are not "real" because the will to do otherwise is not available. I believe this is promissory and there is no evidence for it, nor is it born out by the legal system. The materialist position is not the only one in science, but it is the most common one, and because it perceives behaviour as subject to material laws, sees the solution to such behaviour as material in origin.

I'm not dismissing "science" (it provides the X-Box and anaesthetic which is persuasive enough for most people), I am suggesting materialism is completely out of its depth and grossly presumptuous with regard to consciousness.

 

[EM2]

Science gets round the problem of evil by dismissing it as poor mental health or social conditioning, there are no other categories to explain the inhumanity of humans. I don't believe nature and nurture exhaust the reasons why, for example, serial killers behave the way they do. I believe they are fully aware of the effect of their actions, and derive pleasure from it.

That behaviour is so far departed from the norm, if you're going to simply say that they are 'evil' then what do you think makes them do that? You don't think it's just either nature or nuture, so what other factors are there? Are you suggesting something like possession?

 

[me123]

Science gets round the problem of evil by dismissing it as poor mental health or social conditioning, there are no other categories to explain the inhumanity of humans. I don't believe nature and nurture exhaust the reasons why, for example, serial killers behave the way they do. I believe they are fully aware of the effect of their actions, and derive pleasure from it. For me that is indistinguishable from Christian notions of evil.

Someone who derives pleasure from sadistic actions could most likely be diagnosed with a mental health disorder of some sort. There's quite a lot of them, and they aren't very well understood (as of yet - there's lots of ongoing research in this field). There is no evidence of any supernatural effect causing "evil", ergo it is illogical to assume that one exists.

I'm not dismissing "science" (it provides the X-Box and anaesthetic which is persuasive enough for most people), I am suggesting materialism is completely out of its depth and grossly presumptuous with regard to consciousness.

And here's the crux of your argument - "I don't know, therefore God". Science hasn't fully explained consciousness - it's hugely complex. But there's no reason to believe that it can't be explained. There is lots of evidence that consciousness arises through complex biochemical interactions. Consciousness can be altered by a variety of pharmacological methods that are understood.

And even if we ultimately never fully understand consciousness, it's fallacious to assume that a supernatural deity is the answer unless of course you can demonstrate this with some evidence. There's no doubt that evidence of a god's existence would be the biggest breakthrough in science... ever.

 

[meridian2]

That behaviour is so far departed from the norm, if you're going to simply say that they are 'evil' then what do you think makes them do that? You don't think it's just either nature or nuture, so what other factors are there? Are you suggesting something like possession?

I don't think it so far removed from the norm, I believe it to be a more obvious manifestation of a more common and banal evil that runs through mankind. You can call it original sin, although I consider the term to be an allusion to a very real phenomenon, not an explanatory framework for the literal origins of humanity. That is in direct contrast to popular thinking that insists man is essentially altruistic, good, kind and progressive with the odd flaw to be ironed out, and completely against materialist science that maintains he has no free will either way.

 

[EM2]

I don't think it [serial killing] so far removed from the norm
...
That is in direct contrast to popular thinking that insists man is essentially altruistic, good, kind and progressive with the odd flaw to be ironed out.

So you think that the latter description *is* removed from the norm?

 

[meridian2]

Someone who derives pleasure from sadistic actions could most likely be diagnosed with a mental health disorder of some sort. There's quite a lot of them, and they aren't very well understood (as of yet - there's lots of ongoing research in this field). There is no evidence of any supernatural effect causing "evil", ergo it is illogical to assume that one exists.

There's no evidence for a neurological basis for such behaviour, it that's what you mean by "mental health". As for supernatural, I dislike the term on the basis that anything true is natural, no other categories required. That doesn't mean I accept such behaviour is rooted in genetic flaws, brain damage or bad parenting, though each can contribute to the proliferation of evil. I believe consciousness to be primary, not a manifestation of brain function.

And here's the crux of your argument - "I don't know, therefore God". Science hasn't fully explained consciousness - it's hugely complex. But there's no reason to believe that it can't be explained. There is lots of evidence that consciousness arises through complex biochemical interactions. Consciousness can be altered by a variety of pharmacological methods that are understood.

And even if we ultimately never fully understand consciousness, it's fallacious to assume that a supernatural deity is the answer unless of course you can demonstrate this with some evidence. There's no doubt that evidence of a god's existence would be the biggest breakthrough in science... ever.

Appeals to authority, arguments from complexity and promissory "jam tomorrow" science aren't explanations. They're a deferral of explanation as big as any god of the gaps argument, which is not what I'm arguing anyway. As for biggest ever breakthrough, that only applies to a tiny percentage of Western philosophical materialists. To the rest of mankind it wouldn't be surprising. As I believe consciousness is primary, God is not the figure of Renaissance frescos or Richard Dawkins' opprobrium, but omnipresent, not least in human consciousness.

 

[meridian2]

So you think that the latter description *is* removed from the norm?

Let's not go down the words in mouth route again. Read what I've said without ornamental corollaries.

 

[EM2]

Let's not go down the words in mouth route again. Read what I've said without ornamental corollaries.

I have.
You say a particular 'mindset' (for want of a better phrase) is not so far removed from the norm.
And then you say that another mindset is in direct contrast.

It appears that you think that mankind is inherently evil. And if that is the case, then it's surely God's fault?

 

[AlterEgo]

Outstanding derailment of a thread yet again. Page two!

I'm out.

 

[me123]

There's no evidence for a neurological basis for such behaviour, it that's what you mean by "mental health".

Literally took me thirty seconds on Google Scholar to find this open access (I hope - I am usually signed in to Athens) article: Neurodevelopmental and psychosocial risk factors in serial killers and mass murderers.

As for supernatural, I dislike the term on the basis that anything true is natural, no other categories required. That doesn't mean I accept such behaviour is rooted in genetic flaws, brain damage or bad parenting, though each can contribute to the proliferation of evil. I believe consciousness to be primary, not a manifestation of brain function.

And if something is natural, it can be demonstrated using the scientific process. Please demonstrate the evidence that consciousness is "primary". If you cannot, then your belief is supernatural.

Appeals to authority, arguments from complexity and promissory "jam tomorrow" science aren't explanations.They're a deferral of explanation as big as any god of the gaps argument, which is not what I'm arguing anyway. As for biggest ever breakthrough, that only applies to a tiny percentage of Western philosophical materialists. To the rest of mankind it wouldn't be surprising.

I haven't appealed to authority, and I'm not arguing from complexity.

Science is a process. You identify the questions, you set about finding the answers, and you answer the questions. In the process, you'll usually find that there are even more unanswered questions (the "unknown unknowns") and you go about answering them. No scientist will ever claim that they have all the answers; in fact they can't even claim that they know all the questions that need to be answered. But science is about the processes of finding out. Consciousness is a complex topic, but the only way to find out how it works is to investigate it. That is what science is doing. And we understand lots about the nature of consciousness. We know how consciousness can be altered - in fact, in my day-to-day job, I deliberately alter consciousness through well understood biochemical mechanisms.

Let's compare to religion. Christianity has the Bible and... that's really it. One book (or, rather, collection of books) whose authors are largely unknown and hasn't been updated in well over a thousand (nigh on two thousand) years. Everything else is just a derivation from that (and it's been well derived, into tens of thousands of competing denominations). Religion has not contributed to the scientific process - in fact, many religious people (you appear to be one of them) dismiss the scientific process on the basis of belief. There are people in America who don't believe in evolution and advocate teaching literal biblical creationism in science classrooms, ignoring the actual science. The Bible has been proven wrong on many occasions and relies not on evidence but on blind faith.

As I believe consciousness is primary, God is not the figure of Renaissance frescos or Richard Dawkins' opprobrium, but omnipresent, not least in human consciousness.

With respect, I don't care what you believe, I am more interested in what you can demonstrate to me. Demonstrate to me that God is omnipresent in human consciousness. You'll win a Nobel prize, international fame and a million dollars so it should be worthwhile.

 

[J-2739]

It appears that you think that mankind is inherently evil. And if that is the case, then it's surely God's fault?

It's Adam and Eve's fault.

 

[meridian2]

Outstanding derailment of a thread yet again. Page two!

I'm out.

You take a fundamentalist approach to thread derailment. If you look through the thread all my responses (can't speak for others) are concerned with the effect of religion on culture. I don't how you can avoid creation myths and the origin of the species as having a direct bearing on a culture. Without making clear what the assumptions of that mythos are, there's no way of knowing whether culture is a symptom, cause or bi-product of religious belief.

I would have thought it entirely obvious that Christian metaphysics and philosophical materialism (for example) inform society as to the role of the individual in entirely different ways. I asked you if you thought the French Revolution was culturally preferable to its predecessors in my first post in the thread. Did you reply?

 

[najaB]

Outstanding derailment of a thread yet again. Page two!

I'm out.

You stuck in there a lot longer than me.

 

[me123]

You take a fundamentalist approach to thread derailment.

This has to be the greatest single sentence ever written on this forum. I... I have no words