The ‘Post-Christian’ Civilization

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/lisbon-1755.jpg?w=450&h=297
Lisbon, All Saints Day 1755

It was in the 17th and 18th centuries that Europe began clearly to become a ‘post-Christian’ civilization. It was a period not only during which the Church as an institution began to lose much of its political power and social influence, but during which many persons — educated and uneducated alike — began more openly to reject the Christian story and to adopt alternate narratives of reality.

I’ve always wondered how we got to where we are and if you would like to read one man’s interpretation you could probably find no better guide than the orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, who gives an overview in a couple of the topics from his coffee table book, the Story of Christianity.

It’s all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/?p=1942

dj

 

[djeter]

whoops! a better link to the above here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/03/17/losing-faith-the-%e2%80%98post-christian%e2%80%99-civilization/

dj

 

[Berean2]

Wonder how much Nominalism contributed to that (before I read the entry about N. in the Catholic Encyclopedia, having previously read that Catholicism held something of a “vendetta” against that idea, I did not know that Nominalism was one of the schools of thought actually accepted by the medieval RCC).

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

The problem may well be the whole concept of a “narrative of reality.” The phrase itself suggests something made up. Something which, even if constrained to correspond sufficiently to certain parameters, is primarily a model invented by humans from their own comprehension for their own purposes.

If one decides that this is the only possible way to grasp reality, then the revealed truth of Christianity must be discarded. Similarly, if one wishes to discard the truths of Christianity (which, for those who exalt humanity more than is appropriate, is a truth more inconvenient than anything concocted by Al Gore), denying the existence of objective truth and limiting our endeavors to model building is an indirect but effective tactic to set those truths aside.

If one seeks to exalt humanity more than is appropriate, Christianity pretty well has to go. But the joke is on them, because nothing could possibly exalt humanity more than to have God assume humanity and die for its sake.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[AntiTheist]

If one seeks to exalt humanity more than is appropriate, Christianity pretty well has to go. But the joke is on them, because nothing could possibly exalt humanity more than to have God assume humanity and die for its sake.

I think you may have inadvertently illustrated one of the very many reasons that I think Christianity – and most other narratives that stress the centrality or importance of man, including those of most other religions and/or conspiracy theories involving aliens – are made up.

People really like to think that humans are special. People love the idea that humanity are the stars of a narrative, and they especially love it when the narrative has some sort of cosmic import – the battle between good and evil spirits, for example. Even if the narrative contains unflattering elements, that’s still part of the overall story, which is really, really appealing to the average person (“You’re all sinners, and you all have a wicked nature – but if you serve the lord really well and resist those temptations and battle evil then you will be help your god conquer death!”).

At the root of religion is not just a fear of death, but an overinflated self-image and a desire to be important and matter. Most people don’t like the idea that we’re just another race of creatures floating around on some rock going around a star in the middle of nowhere, one out of who knows how many planets in a cold and unfeeling and uncaring universe so vast that we’re even smaller than specks in the grand scheme of things. And yet that’s what the evidence suggests the case to be.

People would much rather be the fawning servants of some imaginary tyrant or the conquering opponents of some imaginary demons than just face up to reality. People want to think they’re special, and they have a tendency to read “specialness” into the universe when there is none.

Thanks for illustrating that for us. It’s a good reminder of what we have to be on guard against.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Nice try, but you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Your logic is flawed.

And of course, it does not account for the fact of the fall, and that even with redemption, humans cannot make it to what awaits them on their own.

Now there are some new age religions that would have one believe they can. However, I can’t answer for those, because they have nothing to do with the teachings of the Church.

And please. Next time you want to condescend, get your logic in order.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[AntiTheist]

Nice try, but you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Your logic is flawed.

You misread me. I’m not attempting to “prove” anything – I am pointing out what the reality of the situation is. If you want proof, there is a lot of really strong and convincing evidence out there if you are willing to look at the facts objectively.

And of course, it does not account for the fact of the fall

Correct, my reply does not account for fairy tales, which you insist on misdescribing as “facts.”

and that even with redemption, humans cannot make it to what awaits them on their own.

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “what awaits them” – I assume you have in some mind some kind of fantasy utopia or something? Utopias don’t exist, except in the imagination of people who create them, just like fantasies of gods watching the doings of mortals – or the updated, sci-fi version of aliens watching the doings of mortals – don’t exist, except in the imagination of people who create them (and sadly, who sometimes believe in them).

 

[Berean2]

“You’re all sinners, and you all have a wicked nature – but if you serve the lord really well and resist those temptations and battle evil then you will be [sic] help your god conquer death!”

He didn’t need any “help” with that, AT: He did it singlehandedly, in great agony, back on the cross and in the Resurrection. And precisely because He achieved that for us is why His perfection is credited to us (read Romans 4); resisting the temptations and battling evil are what we try to do bec. in that crediting of righteousness to us, He also gives us a new nature, a new core, a new spiritual “cell center,” if you will. More and more, the new nature makes a person see the hideousness of sin and evil. The other thing you seem to be ignoring is that the renewed soul can not help but worship Him—bec. He is worthy! Think of it this way: if human artists (musicians, painters, sculptors, poets, etc.) garner ecstatic acclaim from audiences and fans, how much more should the Ultimate Artist of the universe? The whole universe is His open air Art Gallery/Music Hall.

At the root of religion is not just a fear of death, but an overinflated self-image and a desire to be important and matter.

Careful with broadbrushing. Actually, in my own case, what eventually brought me to Christ was neither a fear of death, nor a fear of hell, but rather the revulsion at realizing that, by nature, every single one of us carries within us the same soul-cancer that afflicted folks like Mengele, Heydrich, and the Einsatzkommandos. I had the same diseased cells as those guys, tho of course not as metastasized. It was simply ghastly to realize there was no way on my own to extricate myself from the presence of those cells, or to extirpate them. I had no idea that the Gospel was the very medicine for that.

Tell me, AT, how do you explain Auschwitz & the “medical” experiments on twins? Mengele came from a solid Middle Class background, complete with university education. How do you explain the monster he became? (IOW, it can’t be blamed on his being “disadvantaged,” which is a favorite cop-out of too many sociologists when they analyze criminal behavior.)

People would much rather be the fawning servants of some imaginary tyrant or the conquering opponents of some imaginary demons than just face up to reality.

The One who lived 33 years in our squalor and then died the agonizing death on the cross can hardly be termed a “tyrant.” What do you do with, for example, the fact that He even totally restored the ear (the one that impetuous Peter had sliced off) on one of the guys that was coming to execute Him? This is the action of a tyrant? Maybe it’s time for you to brush up on what real tyrants do to people.

People want to think they’re special

Are you speaking from a yearning way down in yourself, perhaps? Because I myself have never really considered myself special, if by that you mean “special” in the way, say, Miss Universe is, or Einstein. On the other hand, it’s intriguing that no 2 people are exactly alike, and that not a one of us, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, would’ve been conceived if, say, our parents had had relations 30 min. before or after they actually did. To boot, the human body is stunningly amazing, wouldn’t you say? For me, there’s a certain "special"ness in those aspects.

they have a tendency to read “specialness” into the universe when there is none.

The more researchers find out about the earth and the universe, the more the whole cosmos seems “special” to me, in the sense of awesome. Even just the fact that all the planets are hanging in mid-air by nothing, and that they rotate as orderly as they do…does that not impress you? See, I guess it’s kind of like someone who’s color-blind or tone deaf: there’s no way to get across to them, respectively, the magnificence of the Mandarin duck or the poignancy of The Swan of Tuonela. I could write my fingers ragged in vain trying to somehow convey to those folks what they’re not perceiving.

Most people don’t like the idea that we’re just another race of creatures floating around on some rock going around a star in the middle of nowhere, one out of who knows how many planets in a cold and unfeeling and uncaring universe so vast that we’re even smaller than specks in the grand scheme of things. And yet that’s what the evidence suggests the case to be.

Ever watch how good attorneys can interpret evidence different ways? All depends on your underlying paradigm/presuppositions. Notwithstanding decades of indoctrination to the contrary (schools & media), I myself don’t feel compelled to share the ones you’re using. It’s true that we’re indeed “specks” (even the Psalmist exclaimed, “What is man, that Thou art mindful of him?”), but ones created in His image, and ones He cared enough about to come down and rescue us from our plight. Now, if we simply choose to leave Him out of the equation when we factor all the info around us together, then, yes, we’re going to come up with “a cold and unfeeling and uncaring universe.” But that’s bec. we’re not adding the equation together right.

And you’re spot on about utopias not existing: whenever man tries to create one, he invariably ends up creating dystopia instead, untold misery and wretchedness for millions. But have you ever wondered why man seems to have this penchant for utopia (especially “modern” man, with his DungShirt Reichs and BloodShirt Worker’s Paradises)? What is it in man that makes him hanker for and think he can perfect humanity?

 

[AntiTheist]

by nature, every single one of us carries within us the same soul-cancer that afflicted folks like Mengele, Heydrich, and the Einsatzkommandos.

I dispute that every person has the potential to be as cruel as those monsters. If you are seriously asserting that every single person would act like Mengele given the opportunity, I would say that either you yourself are a scary monster or that you know absolutely squat about human nature.

Tell me, AT, how do you explain Auschwitz & the “medical” experiments on twins? Mengele came from a solid Middle Class background, complete with university education. How do you explain the monster he became?

I’d say a severe lack of empathy in his case, coupled with some insane racist beliefs. As for the holocaust itself, it was the result of overzealous soldiers “following orders” from a bunch of loonies whose racist ideas led them to order the deaths of millions, deaths that they were far too chicken to ever carry out themselves.

There’s nothing supernatural about the existence of megalomaniacal loonies. And certainly not all people are loonies-in-waiting who are just itching for the chance to behave like Nazis if given the opportunity. The vast, vast, vast majority of people have no desire to do such things.

You make absolutely no sense when you compare the average person to monsters.

The One who lived 33 years in our squalor and then died the agonizing death on the cross can hardly be termed a “tyrant.”

Is this the same one who is going to punish people forever if they don’t worship him?

You know, infinite torture seems to me far, far worse than the finite sufferings undergone by the victims of Mengele. What does that say about your god, exactly?

The more researchers find out about the earth and the universe, the more the whole cosmos seems “special” to me, in the sense of awesome.

I’m with you there. The “specialness” I’m talking about in my post is the imaginary kind of “specialness” that people come up with – the kind where they imagine that humans are the stars of a narrative in which imaginary powers of good and evil fight for their souls.

Even just the fact that all the planets are hanging in mid-air by nothing, and that they rotate as orderly as they do…does that not impress you?

Well, first of all, it’s not “nothing” – that’s good old gravity doing that, and it’s a nice example of how orderly activity can arise from blind, unintelligent forces, by the way.

But sure, I’m deeply impressed by the universe. Again, that kind of specialness – the real kind – is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about imaginary specialness, the kind people come up with because they want to think that magical creatures are watching them.

Ever watch how good attorneys can interpret evidence different ways? All depends on your underlying paradigm/presuppositions.

No, it really doesn’t. There’s not a shred of evidence for the existence of any of this supernatural stuff. There is a lot of reason to think that the universe completely and totally operates on blind, unfeeling, unthinking laws and that there are no supernatural thing-a-ma-bobs running around watching us.

What is it in man that makes him hanker for and think he can perfect humanity?

The imagination.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

You misread me. I’m not attempting to “prove” anything – I am pointing out what the reality of the situation is. If you want proof, there is a lot of really strong and convincing evidence out there if you are willing to look at the facts objectively.

Congratulations on your success in proving absolutely nothing, which of course includes the truth of your position.

Correct, my reply does not account for fairy tales, which you insist on misdescribing as “facts.”

Strange that one would in one paragraph invoke the need to examine “convincing evidence out there,” and then dismiss as an erstwhile fairy tale that which this evidence most clearly demonstrates (the fall). Another logic problem, it seems.

Well, I don’t know what you mean by “what awaits them” – I assume you have in some mind some kind of fantasy utopia or something? Utopias don’t exist, except in the imagination of people who create them, just like fantasies of gods watching the doings of mortals – or the updated, sci-fi version of aliens watching the doings of mortals – don’t exist, except in the imagination of people who create them (and sadly, who sometimes believe in them).

St. Thomas More coined the word “Utopia” by combining two Greek parts: the “U” means not; and the “topos” means a place. So you seem to be of a mind with one of the greatest minds in the history of the Church, and one of her prominent patron Saints. A strange position for an “antitheist.” The paragraph then goes on to denigrate something that the Church does not teach. Between the faulty logic which includes this straw man approach, and the selective use of evidence previously noted, what is presented resembles irrational, visceral hatred much more closely that rational, reasoned disagreement.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[jam070406]

As for the holocaust itself, it was the result of overzealous soldiers “following orders” from a bunch of loonies whose racist ideas led them to order the deaths of millions, deaths that they were far too chicken to ever carry out themselves.

Survival of the fittest, no? If you object, then how does it feel to be among the weak?

 

[AntiTheist]

Survival of the fittest, no? If you object, then how does it feel to be among the weak?

Evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive – it describes how the diversity of life arose…not how we should behave.

 

[AntiTheist]

Strange that one would in one paragraph invoke the need to examine “convincing evidence out there,” and then dismiss as an erstwhile fairy tale that which this evidence most clearly demonstrates (the fall). Another logic problem, it seems.

The “fairy tale” I mean is the story involving serpents and fruit – and, of course, the belief that humans “fell” from any sort of prelapsarian state of grace. The fact that people do bad things doesn’t come anywhere near demonstrating that there was a prelapsarian state of grace (and it certainly doesn’t prove that talking snakes exist).

If you think “this evidence most clearly demonstrates” the fall, then you need to seriously re-examine your own positions before you have the gall to accuse others of having “logical problems.”

St. Thomas More coined the word “Utopia” by combining two Greek parts: the “U” means not; and the “topos” means a place. So you seem to be of a mind with one of the greatest minds in the history of the Church, and one of her prominent patron Saints. A strange position for an “antitheist.”

While we’re on the subject, there’s this weird tendency that some religious people have that I like to call “all or nothing.” You’ve illustrated it quite nicely here: it’s the unspoken assumption that either everything someone ever said is right or everything that person ever said is wrong. In real life, people can be right about some things and wrong about other things.

Just because I agree with St. Thomas More on one rather obvious point doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything that person ever thought.

And it’s not a “straw man” to correctly state that religions in general – including Catholicism – teach a kind of fantasy that envisions man as having some sort of cosmic import, being “watched” and “tempted” by all sorts of imaginary creatures.

 

[chris_molter]

And it’s not a “straw man” to correctly state that religions in general – including Catholicism – teach a kind of fantasy that envisions man as having some sort of cosmic import, being “watched” and “tempted” by all sorts of imaginary creatures.

You’re right. It’s begging the question.

 

[jam070406]

Evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive – it describes how the diversity of life arose…not how we should behave.

Unfortunately, for people such as you, the description lacks purpose.

 

[Erethorn]

There is a lot of reason to think

that

the universe completely and totally operates on blind, unfeeling, unthinking laws

Isn’t there anything that strikes you as a bit odd, or ironic, in that sentence ? Reason and thinking coming out of this universe that operates 100% on blind and unthinking laws ?! Reason and thinking as being part of this universe, and being capable, based on blind and unthinking laws, to think about itself ?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Isn’t there anything that strikes you as a bit odd, or ironic, in that sentence ? Reason and thinking coming out of this universe that operates 100% on blind and unthinking laws ?! Reason and thinking as being part of this universe, and being capable, based on blind and unthinking laws, to think about itself ?

I’m interested in seeing the answer that will be given to that, too.

We seem to have on our hands a method which seeks to present itself as somehow being bold and dynamic, when, in fact, it is very old and tired. The technique is to try to simply define out of existence that which does not suit one’s purposes. Revealed truth is not refuted. It is defined out of existence, and labelled as something akin to fiction. This process is rather akin to trying to discuss the field of real numbers following the definition of fractions as numbers that do not exist.

The technique, as we have seen, is to use this reduced sphere to attempt to demonstrate that what one opposes cannot possibly be true. What has actually been done is to demonstrate that the restricted sphere is so restricted that it can contain next to nothing at all. About all that fits in it is the assertion that all is simply material, random, and meaningless.

This is not the first attempt to refute religion by defining God out of existence. It is just one of the least elegant ones. And it is lazy, though tempting because to define what one does not like to be non-existent is a lot easier than offering proofs.

Post-christian thought denies, but simply does not disprove, revelation. By defining it out of existence, it can pretend to be logical, and to brand religion as illogical. And one of its hallmarks is that when this is pointed out, the proponents of this cut-down system turn vicious.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[AntiTheist]

Isn’t there anything that strikes you as a bit odd, or ironic, in that sentence ?

No.

Reason and thinking coming out of this universe that operates 100% on blind and unthinking laws ?!

“Thinking” is brain activity. The brain – or, more accurately, the molecules that comprise the brain – operate according to the same laws of physics that everything else does.

“Reason” is our word for a process that our brains – that is, our processing machines – use to determine whether the thoughts they produce are likely to be in accord with the reality outside of them.

There’s really not a great mystery here.

chris molter:

It’s begging the question.

It’s not. I’m not assuming that my conclusion is true – I am convinced that my position is true because of evidence and reason (and the evidence is all around you, if you care to look). I am stating – as a fact – that the teachings of most religions, yours included, are fantasies. If you don’t like the facts, that’s too bad.

I’ll address Gerry in a new post below.

 

[AntiTheist]

The technique is to try to simply define out of existence that which does not suit one’s purposes.

Thus far, I have not been presenting an argument in favor of the facts – I’ve simply been stating them accurately.

If we are to have a conversation in which we argue over the facts, you need to understand something clearly. The burden of proof always rests on the party making the positive claim. It is religionists who assert that there is a god of some kind, and the burden is on them to demonstrate that this is true.

No religionist has ever met this burden of proof.

Based on this fact, I have no problem rejecting the claims made by religionists.

EDIT: Technicality: To be clear, what I have just presented is a truncated form of the argument for “weak atheism.” In addition to this, I do happen to subscribe to the position that it is unlikely that any gods – or any supernatural beings at all – exist. That is a claim that I have to support with evidence, and I feel that there is sufficient justification for it – such as, for example, everything that we have ever learned about the universe, which leaves basically no room for supernatural intervention – but the subject under discussion here is the claim that gods exist, which I do not think has sufficient evidence to support it.

Revealed truth is not refuted. It is defined out of existence, and labelled as something akin to fiction.

I can’t “define out of existence” something that isn’t even real. “Revealed truth”? Please. You have a bunch of stories collected from an ancient tribe, and a bunch of writings about the supposed feats of magic performed by a wandering Rabbi written down decades after his death by followers of followers of followers of his cult.

Your “revealed truth” is so paper-thin that it’s laughable.

About all that fits in it is the assertion that all is simply material, random, and meaningless.

Here’s another good point I can make. You religious folks seem to think that “meaning” can only ever refer to magical, transcendent meanings imposed by a magical being.

That’s not the only definition of “meaning.”

“Meaning” is necessarily subjective. Things have a value and a meaning to an individual. The value that I place on art – and the meaning I derive from it for my life – is unique to me. You probably derive meaning from completely different sources. It’s an abuse of language to treat “meaning” as anything other than a completely subjective value placed upon things.

Post-christian thought denies, but simply does not disprove, revelation.

I can no more “disprove” your particular religion than I can disprove hundreds of other religions or thousands of other supernatural or fantastic beliefs (leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, UFOs, etc)

I am asserting that there is no compelling reason to believe in any of these supernatural beliefs – particularly when they imply a magical narrative that makes humankind somehow special.

 

[KyivAndrew]

If we are to have a conversation in which we argue over the facts, you need to understand something clearly. The burden of proof always rests on the party making the positive claim. It is religionists who assert that there is a god of some kind, and the burden is on them to demonstrate that this is true.

Originally posted by AntiTheist
At the root of religion is not just a fear of death, but an overinflated self-image and a desire to be important and matter. Most people don’t like the idea that we’re just another race of creatures floating around on some rock going around a star in the middle of nowhere, one out of who knows how many planets in a cold and unfeeling and uncaring universe so vast that we’re even smaller than specks in the grand scheme of things. And yet that’s what the evidence suggests the case to be

Both of the above are AntiTheist’s responses to Gerry Hunter.

AntiT, you have above stated we live in a “cold and unfeeling and uncaring universe”. That is a normative statement. As you say, mutatis mutandis, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that “fact”. In using terms such as “uncaring” and “cold”, this means you somehow make judgments on what constitutes “caring” and “warm” and can understand there is a “moral” or “value” difference between caring and uncaring. In your world, what differentiates “caring” from “uncaring”, and on what foundation can you make such a normative statement?