CelticBear’s Musings
Posts Feed
“Should we embrace moderate Christianity?”
Posted by CelticBear on May 6th, 2008
…is the question Skepchick contributor “writerdd” asks in that same-titled article:
♦ Should we embrace moderate Christianity?
Her point is less “embrace” than “befriend.” She wonders if the New Atheist movement is being too hard on the liberal, moderate Christians (which is the majority of self-professed “Christians”) who don’t believe in literal interpretations and evangelism.
I don’t know about you, but I, for one, would rather encourage a moderate, liberal kind of faith where people are free to cherry pick what they want to believe while they conform to modern, secular values and use skepticism to make decisions in daily life. I think I’d like to befriend people with this type of faith and work together with them to keep fundamentalism in check, to preserve the separation of church and state, and to protect the benefits of a scientific and secular society. I’d like to see society become less polarized, not more. I’d like to see people talking to each other instead of fighting with each other.
Honestly, I don’t know what opinions I have on this. On the one hand, I agree with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who say moderate religions give validity and and justification to the extremists and fundamentalists who do the most damage and spread the most hate. I reject the idea that anyone should live in a deluded state of belief based on ancient myth. Even a moderate belief in Yahweh is no different than a belief in Zeus or vampires or fairies. People who believe in imaginary figures who can be prayed to to intercede in worldly actions is potentially harmful to the individual and the people involved with them.
But then, we’re evolutionarily design to believe in something “bigger than us,” so it would seem. Some of us have transfered this need for an anthropomorphic sky-daddy into an awe at the natural universe. Should we blame people who have a faith, even if it’s based on a 2000 year old cult, when their brain is designed to follow authority and cultural tradition, when they’re otherwise reasonable in their lives? I really don’t know. it’s very conflicting to me.
It’s better to be a liberal moderate than a fundamental evangelical–no argument. But isn’t that like saying, it’s better to be a petty thief than a grand larceny crook? Or better to be unconscious than dead? If you have the ability and capability of living a reason driven life without myth and fantasy having a say in it, to refuse to do so simply compounds the “innocent problem” of moderate belief into intentional delusion–literal interpretations or not. Should this be allowed to continue without at least being remarked upon?
Now, I get the point of the article: in the fight against the spread of hatred and intolerance and theocracy, non-theists and moderate-theists are generally on the same side. It’s like the U.S. and England aligning with the Soviet Union in order to fight Nazism. Stalin might be wrong and misguided, but Hitler was a much worse enemy to both and all. I’m very conflicted about this concept.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
As am I. I agree with your first paragraph completely as well. I just can’t get my head wrapped around this and decide what I think about it, which is why I keep writing posts that question my own assumptions. I wish I could just figure it out and be done with it!
But, I don’t think that Hitler was really much worse than Stalin. Just ask someone who lived in an Eastern Bloc country like Lithuania what they think about that. It’s hard to choose the lesser of those two evils.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Thank you for visiting and commenting.
That’s why I blog as well, to try to sort things out. In the process of five years of blogging I’ve gone from a Christian capitalist to an atheist anarcho-socialist. Darn Interwebs are evil and corrupting!
Yeah, it’s arguable. In reality Stalin was about as bad, but in the general American mind, Stalin was just some dictator of some murky, barely understood empire; while Hitler was the embodiment of acute evil. We went into a sharp, brutal war with Hitler because he was so evil, but a sort-off kinda war with the Soviet Union that lasted for decades–the difference has instilled in the American conscience that Hitler=most evil, Stalin=bad guy.
It worked for my barely thought-through analogy.
Skepchick is one of my favorite sites.
Thanks again for stopping by, and keep of the great blogging.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Thanks!
While we’re off topic, we went into a war with Hitler because he was on the same side as Japan and they had the nerve to attack us.
I went though a similar de-conversion process and political change, but it was before the world wide web. Oh my. There I go dating myself again.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Well, true. When japan attacked, the treaty they had with German required that Germany declare war with the U.S. In truth, many in the U.S. government and many many in the U.S. corporate world (like IBM) were actually approving of Hitler’s antisemitism and economic rebuilding of Germany which meant lucrative contracts.
But you’re messing up my metaphor! Well, simile actually. Grr.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Sorry
I had no choice. Belief in the soul, God, and the supernatural flew away from me when I learned more about cognitive science, cosmology, and biology. But I never would have chosen a life without “myth and fantasy” as you call it. I would have chosen to live in a magical world. I think most people would as shown by the popularity of all kinds of fantasy fiction in print as well as on film and TV. Magic is beautiful and the Enlightenment robs us of that. A lot of people find this depressing and unsatisfactory.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This topic has been on my mind a lot, particularly since I’ve been in both camps (from moderate Christian to atheist) in the past two years.
I think during my recent self-examination, if I had been over-exposed to strongly-opinioned atheists, or had been overtly challenged, it might have kept me in the “moderate Christian” camp much longer. What really turned the corner for me was the acceptance of tolerant atheists willing to explore my point of view without insulting my intelligence. Through them, I found several great resources that further revealed to me the delusion of religion. “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees” (website) was probably the first of these, followed by many others. Julia Sweeney has a fantastic monologue from a former Catholic’s perspective that is very popular and hilarious (“Letting Go of God”). But I spent much more time researching the myths of the early Christian church in academia, and found that the basis of the new testament is not even close to rock solid. I read Elaine Pagels and others… sometimes getting angry because of the growing cognitive dissonance.
The best thing an atheist can do is ask a believer to explain what brought them to believe what they do? If they have a solid answer, then that can lead to interesting discussion. But there comes a point where you have to let them off the hook, to process it all in their own way, in their own time. They’re often just as interested in hearing how a former believer lost their faith, and this can have a profound impact on them.
I think atheists are better off if we try to reach out to moderate Christians who share our social values (even those who don’t, though they tend to be harder to reach because of their inflexible attitudes), and realize that many of them are going through the same process that many of us went through to get where we are. People are drawn to religion for many different reasons, and sometimes a little bit of delusion is helpful, in moderate doses, at various stages in our lives.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Holy moly, that’s my path as well!
“Why won’t God heal amputees,” and Julia Sweeney! Also Skeptic’s Annotated Bible Web site as well.
Well, actually it started years earlier when I was squarely a devout Christian who decided to read the Bible in its entirety. That’s when the path to non-theism actually started for me.
For me, this is one of the best reasons there is to being a soft-spoken, non-activist atheist. Well, that and to generally show people non-theists aren’t rabid amoral baby eaters.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.