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?
.

[benchwarmer]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

I'm going to answer no, religion does not fill an essential role in society.

Citing your main points:

Socially: We grow up in our own cultures which nowadays are very diverse, with input from all over the world. Religion is largely a stumbling block between people who happen to have different religions. So, from a big picture point of view, religion does not help. What does help are the 'rules of society' that we have cobbled together, refined, and attempt to use to live in harmony with each other. Granted some of these appear to come from various religions, but I would say that society happened before religion did, so religions are simply borrowing what societies have come up with.

Personally: Religion ties one to a specific dogma and leaves one at odds with those of other religions and many times even yourself as you grapple with the inconsistencies and atrocities of any given religion. Especially Christianity. In my opinion, I think it's better for us to build on the failures of all these religions and come to a moral consensus with the people we are actually living with now. Not trying to shoehorn the outdated morals from ancient peoples into our current lives and societies.

Spiritually: Often religions try to push their agenda in the name of an as yet unproven afterlife. We should live in the here and now and do the best we can with those who we can actually interact with. Living in hope for some 'fairy tale' leaves one looking up when one should be looking forward and around. We've seen what some peoples hope for heaven have wrought. I highly doubt they are sipping cool spring water, sitting on couches, and entertaining virgins after committing atrocities in the name of their religion. They put their spiritual needs over all else and it was all based on religious stories. If there is an afterlife, I'm sure we will do our best there if we have done our best here. In order to do our best here, we need to acknowledge the truth of what we can actually see and accomplish. Not pin our hopes on fantasies and conflicting tales of various gods.

IMHO of course.

[Divine Insight]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

I would have to agree with Benchwarmer, especially concerning dogmatic religions that make specific claims about what certain God's have commanded and directed men to do, etc.

There is no place for 'dogmatic religions' in society. All these religions do is cause people to condemn each other for supposedly worshiping the 'wrong God' or following the 'wrong dogma'. And far too often dogmatic religions also cause people to degrade and belittle other people based on their religious dogma (i.e. the condemnation of gays and transgender individuals, etc.)

I see no constructive place in society for dogmatic religions that incite division and even hatred towards others for either non-belief, or no conformance to the religious dogma.

So I would strongly support that there is No constructive role for dogmatic religions in society?

Having said the above, I do support non-dogmatic wishful thinking that there may be something more to life than just a freak materialistic existence. I see no problem with groups of people coming together to exhibit "praise" or "wonder" to a possible imagined supernatural entity that perhaps created all of reality.

I see no problem with this at all as long as it is free from any dogma that proclaims to know what this imagined entity supposedly likes or dislikes, etc.

If people could keep their spiritual wishful thinking dogma free, then I think there could be a place for spirituality in society.

We would just need to be very careful to keep all dogma out of it.

For example, we could set up the following principles.

1. Everyone is free to imagine a spiritual essence of reality however they so choose.
2. No one is permitted to belittle anyone else for not having the same imagination.
3. People are free to believe with all their heart, mind and soul that a spiritual essence to reality exists.
4. Others are free to openly confess that they merely participate because they like the dream.
5. Still others should be free to participate in "spiritual rituals" simply because they enjoy the activity, They are free to believe that it's a totally futile fantasy.
6. Anyone is free to say "Bah Humbug" to it all without becoming the target of negative criticism.
7. Finally, I think society should also embrace the social convention that if someone thinks it's all bunk, that's fine, but it should be considered socially inappropriate for those people to make fun of, or attempt to belittle the intelligence of those who do prefer to imagine a spiritual essence to reality.

If we could get to the point where there are no disagreeing dogmatic factions fighting against each other, then I can see where a spiritual view of reality could potentially play a valuable role in society. *(see note below)

But if it's going to end up being nothing more than finger-pointing and disapproval of disagreeing religious factions, then no, it has no value at all.

*Note: I think there could be different groups that "imagine" different types of spiritual essence to reality, and even imagine different types of spiritual entities. So there could still be different groups that conduct different spiritual rituals in different ways. That alone is not a problem. It only becomes a problem when these disparate groups start accusing each other of "worshiping the wrong gods", etc. Or claiming that only the gods they imagine to exist are the "One-True-God". <---- that instantly becomes a problem. Now we're back to dogma again.

[marco]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Since a large number of people get on very well without religion, it cannot be an "essential" role. It provides for many a focal point; weekly attendance at church may be a way to belong, especially for older people, who then have a chance to converse. So religion serves a social purpose.

it also serves to divide people for no good reason. Catholics in some areas won't marry Protestants, without incurring social penalties. Some Protestant sects display hatred for Catholics. Move out of Christian squabbling into Islam and the situation is worse; escaping from the religious party system might incur death.

Religion, then, creates differences where none should exist. We are formed of the same chemicals but religion claims some hydrogen atoms are more favoured than others.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, in my original post I was reacting to the question of the OP.

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Where I was taking "religion" to be a generic idea.

However, in response to the title of the thread: A case for Christianity

Then if we change the question to Does Christianity fill an essential role in society?

My answer here is a resounding no.

Christianity even has Christians pitted against Christians, never mind that it spreads animosity and rejection toward all other religions as supposedly either worshiping the wrong gods, or supporting the wrong dogma.

So the only role that Christianity plays in society is a role of division (even division among itself). So unless we argue that division is essential for society, we can hardly argue that Christianity has an essential role to play in society.

Christianity even has Christians divided against Christians.

[Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Since a large number of people get on very well without religion, it cannot be an "essential" role.

That's a slightly different question: You're pointing out that religion isn't essential for some individuals, which I acknowledged in the opening post. And I suppose you could say that religion isn't absolutely essential even for societies as a whole, given examples such as the USSR and North Korea which have survived with little or no religion for decades, at least. But on the other hand, coercion obviously played a major role in that state of affairs and in contrast we have examples such as the United States, a secular country for some 230 years which in the absence of coercion has seen a continued flourishing and surprising (even worrying) intensity of religious belief and practice.

It provides for many a focal point; weekly attendance at church may be a way to belong, especially for older people, who then have a chance to converse. So religion serves a social purpose.

it also serves to divide people for no good reason. Catholics in some areas won't marry Protestants, without incurring social penalties. Some Protestant sects display hatred for Catholics. Move out of Christian squabbling into Islam and the situation is worse; escaping from the religious party system might incur death.

Religion, then, creates differences where none should exist. We are formed of the same chemicals but religion claims some hydrogen atoms are more favoured than others.

Does religion create those differences, or is it merely one of the vehicles through which innate tribalistic tendencies can be expressed? If anything, prior to the advent of global communications and travel religion was arguably one of the strongest unifying forces between disparate regions, ethnicities and languages: Muslims clashed with Christians in the territories they conquered, but without Islam the tribes of Arabia would still have been fighting each other. Protestant countries and Catholic countries fought against each other, but no moreso than the conflicts between Protestant countries and between Catholic countries - conflicts which perhaps would have been all the more vicious without the shared religious reference points.

Even in modern times far more death and destruction has been wrought by secular powers such as the USSR, USA and so on than by any religions. Clashes between gangs in the United States or fans of different football clubs in the United Kingdom have caused far more deaths than clashes between different churches. Religion can be and often is a medium of great divisiveness between different groups, but speculating that without religion those groups would simply get along with each other is a long shot, to say the least. And even if we assume that were so, it would probably still be the case that the common ground generated within religious sects has outweighed the divisiveness between them.

[Mithrae]

By the way, in my original post I was reacting to the question of the OP.

Does religion fill an essential role in society?

Where I was taking "religion" to be a generic idea.

However, in response to the title of the thread: A case for Christianity

Then if we change the question to Does Christianity fill an essential role in society?

My answer here is a resounding no.

Christianity even has Christians pitted against Christians, never mind that it spreads animosity and rejection toward all other religions as supposedly either worshiping the wrong gods, or supporting the wrong dogma.

This is an interesting perspective: Certainly some variations of Christianity seem to suggest that other conflicting ideologies should ultimately not exist, that the world would be better off without them.

So do we in turn say that those variations of Christianity should not exist?

Or even (as you seem to here) ignore the nuances of different sects and interpretations, and suggest that all Christianity is bad for society?

So the only role that Christianity plays in society is a role of division (even division among itself). So unless we argue that division is essential for society, we can hardly argue that Christianity has an essential role to play in society.

Christianity even has Christians divided against Christians.

Diversity certainly is essential for a culturally, politically and intellectually vibrant society, and diversity inevitably means division. Most Christians can get along peacefully and productively even in discussion of religion with folk of a different denomination or even a different religion entirely; but some of course do not. Most classic rock fans get along with and might even appreciate other genres; but some will ridicule contemporary pop as mindless commercial crap or classical as boring antiquated pretentiousness. Most politically liberal folk and politically conservative folk get along with each other fine; but some consider those differences hugely important and irreconcilable.

I've often said that one of the greatest strengths of Christianity - compared to say Islam - is the range of different perspectives evident from the various authors of the anthology which is the bible, and the obvious evolution and adaptiveness evident between the 'old' and 'new' testaments. Fundamentalists who insist that there is or should be only One True Christianity (and these days, those fundamentalists seem to be critics more often than they are Christians) seek to destroy the wealth of interpretations, contradictions and questions which enhance both its potential to adapt alongside changing societies and technologies, and its potential to provide an intellectually rich and challenging culture.

[Mithrae]

Does religion fill an essential role in society?
.

I'm going to answer no, religion does not fill an essential role in society.

Citing your main points:

Socially: We grow up in our own cultures which nowadays are very diverse, with input from all over the world. Religion is largely a stumbling block between people who happen to have different religions. So, from a big picture point of view, religion does not help. What does help are the 'rules of society' that we have cobbled together, refined, and attempt to use to live in harmony with each other. Granted some of these appear to come from various religions, but I would say that society happened before religion did, so religions are simply borrowing what societies have come up with.

Personally: Religion ties one to a specific dogma and leaves one at odds with those of other religions and many times even yourself as you grapple with the inconsistencies and atrocities of any given religion. Especially Christianity. In my opinion, I think it's better for us to build on the failures of all these religions and come to a moral consensus with the people we are actually living with now. Not trying to shoehorn the outdated morals from ancient peoples into our current lives and societies.

I don't think it's true that religion ties one to a specific dogma anymore than being a proud American ties one to notions of manifest destiny or American exceptionalism. Incidentally this has always been a major concern of mine when I see people arguing that the violence of terrorists does not represent 'true Islam,' because it is in part the attitude of there being a 'true Islam' which is the problem to begin with. It's a little worrying when critics of religion in general seem to share that perspective in common with both apologists for non-violent religion and the extremists themselves.

Of course some religious folk are dogmatic about their beliefs - just as there is a great deal of dogmatism in political discourse - but as outsiders I think the most productive approach is not to keep encouraging the mindset that religion and dogmatism go hand in hand, but to join with the significant and growing number of religious believers who point out that it simply ain't so. And Christianity in fact is one of the religions which is most recognized for its adoption of or adaptations to dramatically new directions at various points in its evolution; in the 1st century in the ministries of both Jesus and Paul, in the 4th century with its sudden burst of state backing and power, in the 11th and even moreso 16th centuries with the East-West Schism and Protestant Reformation... and the current liberal theology movement perhaps leading towards an even more profound shift.

Some mainstream evangelical churches now even allow the ordination of gay ministers at the discretion of an individual parish, and you're telling me they're chained by dogmatism?

Spiritually: Often religions try to push their agenda in the name of an as yet unproven afterlife. We should live in the here and now and do the best we can with those who we can actually interact with. Living in hope for some 'fairy tale' leaves one looking up when one should be looking forward and around. We've seen what some peoples hope for heaven have wrought. I highly doubt they are sipping cool spring water, sitting on couches, and entertaining virgins after committing atrocities in the name of their religion. They put their spiritual needs over all else and it was all based on religious stories. If there is an afterlife, I'm sure we will do our best there if we have done our best here. In order to do our best here, we need to acknowledge the truth of what we can actually see and accomplish. Not pin our hopes on fantasies and conflicting tales of various gods.

IMHO of course.

I'm not sure you've got the right idea of what I meant by 'spiritually,' though admittedly it's a pretty vague term. But try to think of what might come to mind if someone told you that they were "spiritual but not religious." As I commented in the OP, even Christopher Hitchens once opined that “We have a need for what I would call 'the transcendent' or 'the numinous' or even 'the ecstatic'...�

I might have explained it poorly in my post, but I would say that abstract philosophical or religious beliefs about the ontology and teleology of our world and our lives are answers to (or outlines of) existential concerns. We fear death and the impermanence of our legacy, so we tell ourselves stories about a life after death, or about reincarnation, or about a blind materialism where none of it really matters in the long run anyway. By contrast as I see it spiritualism is (at least for the most part) about addressing those kinds of concerns in terms of experience rather than beliefs. Someone out on a wilderness hike and pausing to admire the view might find themselves overcome by a profound sense of oneness with creation and the magnificence of all that is, such that their day to day concerns of living and dying seem unimaginably petty by comparison.

Such numinous experiences evidently don't need to be tied to any particular religion, but religions serve as the most common medium through which they are invoked and interpreted.




Thanks for the responses so far folks - it's looking like this could be a fascinating discussion, and there's no fun in setting myself a challenge if I don't get a run for my money

[marco]

That's a slightly different question: You're pointing out that religion isn't essential for some individuals, which I acknowledged in the opening post.

Then you are employing the wrong epithet. If only a few need it, that means it is not essential. Maybe you meant purposeful.

Does religion create those differences, or is it merely one of the vehicles through which innate tribalistic tendencies can be expressed?

There may be other factors that divide people; religion is surely one, regardless of its genealogy.

without Islam the tribes of Arabia would still have been fighting each other.

They still do. It was not only barbaric tribes that were overthrown; Christianity's stronghold in the Middle East was attacked, and churches became mosques.

As for "no compulsion" - do we suppose South America welcomed Catholicism from the Spaniards? Was Islam spread with a kind word?

Religion can be and often is a medium of great divisiveness between different groups, but speculating that without religion those groups would simply get along with each other is a long shot, to say the least.

I never leapt to that wrong conclusion. Man will fight man, I agree, when he has an excuse. Religion provides a wonderful excuse.

We must differentiate between loving one's neighbour and loving one's God. The former is commendable, the latter raises problems.

[Mithrae]

That's a slightly different question: You're pointing out that religion isn't essential for some individuals, which I acknowledged in the opening post.

Then you are employing the wrong epithet. If only a few need it, that means it is not essential. Maybe you meant purposeful.

Half the population is hardly "a few." From some quick wiki-ing, here's the level of religiosity in some of the world's countries: These include the world's biggest countries; the world's richest countries (Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Ireland and Switzerland are the countries with the world's highest GDP per capita, excluding Chinese territories like Hong Kong and countries where Islam is promoted by the state like Qatar); multicultural countries in which secularism and religious freedom have been established for over a century (eg. USA, Australia and Canada); and even countries in whose recent history religion has been actively suppressed (eg. China, Russia and Estonia):

Code: Select all

India		99%	(officially secular since 1976)
Ireland		85%	*
Singapore	81%	*
Taiwan		81%
Norway		81%	*
Luxembourg	79%	*
Canada		76%
Finland		75%
Switzerland	74%	*
USA			73%
UK			67%
Germany		63%
Australia	60%
France		57%
Russia		47%
Estonia		45%
South Korea	43%
Japan		>41%	(59% are no answer, not religious OR 'folk Shinto')
China		>27%	(73% are unaffiliated OR 'Chinese folk religions')

Short of some article of faith insisting that 230 years of secularism in America (or 150 years of scientific explanation for life's diversity) is not yet long enough to see how many people "really" want religion, it seems evident that roughly half the members of any given society, give or take, find that it has something important to offer them.

So the question then is would society be better or worse off if there were no religions to fill whatever needs are met for those people?

The needs which seem to be met by religions - spiritual, existential, moral and social - are fairly important, some would say critically important, and while they each might be potentially met through other avenues the only one which could obviously and easily be met for basically everyone is social. And again, as far as I know religions are the only medium which address the whole range of such needs together. Moral ambivalence - the tension between what we now merely feel to be right and any other desires we might have - and existential angst are hardly trivial issues, and I would guess that having a third or half of a country's population suffering from those conditions would probably result in huge social and economic losses.

Would they endure? Sure, folk have endured worse than that before. But I think it would still be fair to describe it as an essential role if religions manage to satisfy those needs for a substantial proportion of people.