A case for Christianity

[Mithrae]

Sometimes I like to imagine the interesting conversations I might have if I ever decided to 'become a Christian' again: “No, I'm actually not even sure that 'God' exists. In fact I think that any rational assessment would conclude on balance that Jesus probably did not literally rise from the dead.� Christians often profess a desire for others to become members of their religion, yet obviously I couldn't pretend to believe things that I don't believe, or to not know the things which I do. So if they somehow got their wish, how would I explain or justify those seeming contradictions, even to myself? According to most Christians throughout history, including in the bible itself, many of those intellectual hurdles but particularly these two above are pretty much non-negotiable, central elements of the religion.

Of course, there are some Christians who would disagree with that. I haven't read or seen much of them in books or the like – I gather that John Shelby Spong would be one well-known example – but there've been a few such folk on the forum on occasion. Trying to put myself in their shoes, I believe that they would emphasise more of a 'mythopoetic' perspective on 'God' and the resurrection; perhaps not necessarily viewing them as definitely literally false, but treating them primarily as powerful, fundamental or even transformative archetypes or metanarrative placeholders whose value (at least in day to day life) do not depend on a literal understanding at all.

How would I explain that to some of my more traditionalist family members? The simple fact is that aside from vague notions of 'feeling God's presence,' the actual existence of a deity has basically zero relevance to our day to day life; overt miracles or the like are pretty rare, to say the least! In fact in all probability, if a god exists it would be simply impossible for human minds to have anything even remotely approaching a conception of what that entity is really like; to imagine otherwise is to commit the 'sin' of dragging the Ultimate Reality down to our meagre level and reconstructing 'God' in our own image. So from that perspective perhaps even more traditional Christians might be able to acknowledge that 'God' as we conceive it probably doesn't exist. Yet the concept of god, however far removed that may be from the reality, is one which provides us with a potential sense of place in the world, some imagination of what might be a purpose to existence, and perhaps even hope for the future. The concept of god is a mere placeholder for something which our minds probably can't even come close to comprehending, but that concept represents an overarching story or metanarrative about our world which arguably serves us much better than a bleak deterministic materialism.

It may well turn out that after we die we'll find ourselves in a new life, and with a greatly expanded capacity for understanding reality; a scenario in which the literal reality of God (or rather, something probably quite unlike our base conception) will have become much more relevant. But in day to day life, the relevance of this placeholder concept really only comes from its role in 'answering' or even simply outlining existential questions.

Similarly for the resurrection: Again, the supposedly magical transformation of the conversion experience aside (which arguably could more properly be considered the work of the Holy Spirit in any case), whether or not Jesus literally rose from the grave really doesn't affect anyone's day to day living. But the imagery or symbolisms of humility, of self-sacrificing love, of triumph over (or fearless towards) death, of transformation and of new life... these are profound and powerful themes which find many expressions in many different cultures, but perhaps most profoundly and certainly most widely and enduringly in the stories of the Jesus of Christianity. More than once as a young Christian, when faced with a difficult course of action or hostility from others, I thought of Jesus' courage in even going to his own death and his forgiveness of those who crucified him, and they sometimes gave me the inspiration and strength do what I considered right.

Of course the thematic and existential roles which these stories of Jesus and God occupy could potentially be filled by others instead. There are stories of courage and self-sacrifice in the face of wars or disaster which by any natural measure are unquestionably more compelling than Jesus' largely self-provoked execution. With so many thousands of examples in the centuries since, it could hardly be otherwise. Similarly some of the stories of people who've overcome crippling adversities or turned tragedies into triumphs are more inspirational than the contradictory gospel stories of the resurrection. But more than those discrete themes considered individually, Christianity offers the unity and diversity of over a thousand years of ancient Hebraic culture from the bible alone, and two thousand years of Christian evolution, mistakes and growth since then.

It's a possibly unfortunate tendency amongst Protestant Christians especially to ignore or dismiss much of church history, rather than 'owning' and learning from our culture's failures every bit as much as from those of Israel and Judah in the Tanakh. In all likelihood, if we'd grown up in the times and cultures of a few centuries ago many of us would have been there burning witches with the best of them. So rather than just self-righteously condemning such atrocities, part of the historical and cultural legacy of Christianity should be providing an opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to learn about what went so badly wrong with Jesus' message of love, and why, and how we can hope to make our own lives and institutions better because of that knowledge. But even more than just the lessons of history, there is a vast wealth of artistic, architectural, literary and musical legacy to relate to on the basis of even tentatively-shared religious reference points: Because I was a Christian, I can appreciate anything from Handel's Messiah to Ben Hur potentially more than I might have if I'd been raised in an entirely different culture.

Socially therefore, Christianity potentially offers a sense of context, culture and community which can often be sadly lacking in our atomised, consumeristic world.

Personally, it offers the moral and existential reference points of the bible stories; whether those stories are true or false, and even when we decide that they are stories which show how earlier generations and societies have used 'god' as an excuse for their xenophobic or even genocidal agendas.

And spiritually, it offers the hope and possibility that maybe, just possibly, there really will turn out to be a loving God and a better life after death, along with the inner peace and fulfilment – for those who seek it – of exploring and imagining those possibilities as if they were fact.

In short, the role of religion in this perspective bears some similarities to the kind of cultural fandom we often see in devotees of particular sports teams, musicians, games and the like, but going much, much deeper: Fandom fulfils some of the social role above, and even that quite meagrely or transiently. A slightly closer comparison would be patriotic nationalism, which offers a broader and more enduring answer to the social role, and provides an historical context for possible questioning and answers of moral and existential questions also. It's important to note that in these examples, identifying with this or that group needn't imply that one considers it to be monolithic or perfect in any way: Being proud to be an Australian doesn't mean that I share all of even most of my views in common with other Aussies, and nor does it mean I can't acknowledge and hopefully learn something from the historical (or recent) crimes or missteps of the country.

Finally of course there are many people who are “spiritual but not religious,� to greater or lesser degrees. I was interested to learn recently that even the noted atheist Christopher Hitchens once said “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic,'� and that “Everybody has had the experience at some point when they feel that there’s more to life than just matter. But it’s very important to keep that under control and not to hand it over to be exploited by priests and shamans and rabbis and other riffraff.� And perhaps for some the smorgasbord approach is found to be preferable, seeking spiritual fulfilment from one place and social integration in another while tackling moral and existential questions from yet a third angle.

But the only format in which all these needs are met (or at least addressed) in a united format as far as I'm aware is in religious contexts, in which community and history share equal importance with abstract theology and philosophy. As such it could well be argued that, even if it's not for everyone, religion fills a role in human society which is ultimately even more important than mere sports or nationalism, even in spite of the harm that it too has sometimes caused (or at least served as a vehicle for).


Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 98 by Mithrae]

I suggest that rather than try to make a case for Christianity or any other religion, you recognize that it is not religion that makes the difference but the rare courage of the single man. Jesus of Nazareth was one. Mohandas K. Gandhi is another. If you are not inclined to literature or history, I suggest http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083987/

The quote attributed to Gandhi and others makes the point:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

It isn't religion that makes the case for itself. It is the ideals that are espoused by secularists as well as religionists that make the difference.

As I have pointed out with profuse examples, mere belief in religion has often led to horrific atrocities. But a belief in ideals whether religious or not have enabled men to rise above such petty sectarianism. Your 'Case for Xianity' is closed. The argument is over. You are wrong. Your thesis is bunk.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 98 by Mithrae]

I suggest that rather than try to make a case for Christianity or any other religion, you recognize that it is not religion that makes the difference but the rare courage of the single man. Jesus of Nazareth was one. Mohandas K. Gandhi is another. If you are not inclined to literature or history, I suggest http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083987/

The evidence of the past few posts suggests that when it comes to discussion of history, you are more likely than I to betray a limited perspective and then retreat from its refutation. I already own that movie, much as I appreciate the recommendation, but I disagree with your assessment that it is "the single man" who makes the difference. Leaders and figureheads such as Gandhi, Rev. Martin Luther King and Martin Luther himself for that matter undeniably play an important role, but I suspect that they themselves would have emphasized that they could accomplish nothing if not for the widespread public opinions which they helped to express and bring to the fore.

It isn't religion that makes the case for itself. It is the ideals that are espoused by secularists as well as religionists that make the difference.

Is one of those ideals having the integrity and decency to acknowledge and apologize for blatant falsehoods made against a fellow human being? Specifically in this case, your claim that I "ignore the long history of atrocities including slavery, genocide, murder, and mutilations practiced in the name of Christianity" even though these were extensively highlighted both in the OP and in the post immediately preceding your claim.

As I have pointed out with profuse examples, mere belief in religion has often led to horrific atrocities. But a belief in ideals whether religious or not have enabled men to rise above such petty sectarianism. Your 'Case for Xianity' is closed. The argument is over. You are wrong. Your thesis is bunk.

Thankyou for your opinions. However if I had to summarize the discussions in the thread so far, it seems to me that there are at least five key points which haven't really been refuted yet:

• A > That religion is perhaps the only medium in which social, cultural, moral, existential and spiritual needs are all met or at least addressed in a coherent, united format.
  
  B > That most though not all of the evil which has been done in the name of religion has more probable distal causes - such as power, greed, scapegoating or innate human tribalism - for which religions have merely served as a vehicle, implying that the absence of religion would not have made the world a better place (and potentially quite the opposite, losing the good while leaving the bad unchanged).
  
  C > That religion is the single biggest counter-balance to the unrelenting psychological assault of advertising emphasizing extrinsic values and the underlying message that we can't be really happy or fulfilled without having more money and buying more possessions, a dominant (and still growing) paradigm likely to have far worse consequences if unchecked than modern religion does.
  
  D > That simple hope is another thing which is of incalculable benefit to most people at some time or other in their lives, providing some extra strength to struggle on through adversity; another essential role in society which religions fill as perhaps nothing else could so well.
  
  E > That 'conversionary Protestantism' was historically and statistically "a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, and colonial reforms, thereby creating the conditions that made stable democracy more likely" (Woodberry, 2012)

Ironically, the last two of these came up in discussion with you specifically in the past dozen posts (along with reiteration of the second point), and yet you haven't really responded to them at all. Given that fact, your attempt to suddenly close the discussion is quite interesting, to say the least.