Ever since I can remember, the Christian god has been present in the culture surrounding my life. My family is Italian, so we're naturally Catholic, and we attended church regularly until I was about 5 or so. After my parents got divorced about that time, my mom started feeling like the church walls would collapse on her if she
returned, so we stopped. Nonetheless, we still celebrated Christmas, complete with references to Jesus' birth. Although in our house it still felt like a pretty secular holiday, my mom still made plenty of Christmas decorations with angels and cute little baby Jesus Christmas cards. I've also had many religious friends throughout my childhood, and if I were to number them, I'd say they were about 80% Christian of some permutation, 15% Jewish, and 5% something else. And the influences of Christianity in current American culture are more pervasive than tweed jackets in the '70s. So the ambient exposure was certainly present.Currently, I'd say Christianity among my close friends still heavily outweighs any belief system by similar proportions. I think I've been exposed to a few more involved ideas to say the least (including Mormonism, Wicca, Buddhism, and Atheism), however Jesus and the canonical Christian bible are still the pervasive ideas among my peers. That alone doesn't make them true necessarily, just very available.
So why would one commit their life and their eternal soul to something, other than the fact that their mom made adorable Christmas ornaments and their friends are doing it too? I'm discovering that Christianity has a very big differentiating factor: faith based on a foretold historical event, versus mere philosophy or the visions of one charismatic founder.
The one event is of course the execution and resurrection of Jesus, the prophesied Messiah of the Jewish people. Note: this article is not about the provable historicity of that event, I'm just using it as a point if reference for comparison.
Most other religions seem to share one general attribute: they are mainly based on philosophies, traditions, rituals, and sheer faith, and don't seem to rely on even remotely provable (or even implied) historical facts or events. Many of them also seem to have one visionary "founder". This includes Hinduism and most related Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc); many of the ancient religions of the Celts, Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, American Indians, Mayans, Incans, etc; even current sects of Christianity such as Mormonism (and their sole visionary founder Joseph Smith) and Jehovah's Witnesses (sole founder Charles Russell). And I think everyone can agree that Scientologists are just freakin' wackjobs who buy their way into enlightenment.
It is in my personal opinion that the idea of betting your immortal soul on a tangible event allegedly witnessed by thousands, and then recanted under pain of torture and death by countless thousands has more grounds for consideration than one man's dream about the nature of the universe. Especially when the event in question was allegedly foretold hundreds of years before it took place. I'll add that the canonical texts of Christianity have had numerous, unrelated and widely varied authors over huge periods of time.I feel Atheism is the only other considerable belief system, because it is based on nothing BUT historical events and provable facts. It also has countless contributors and scrutinizers of its texts over vast time periods.
I will still take interest in other major religions, because I'm on a journey for truth in whatever form (plus there is something very artistic I find in many ancient and exotic religions). However Christianity and its antithesis of Atheism will bear the brunt of my research, focus (and scrutiny for that matter).
"And I think everyone can agree that Scientologists are just freakin' wackjobs who buy their way into enlightenment."
ReplyDeleteHow much do you actually know about Scientology?
Having met a few of them I can tell you they're not all whack jobs. Tom Cruise yes, but Mel Gibson is also. Not all Catholics are like Mel Gibson, right?
Some good points here - interestingly enough, your answers match pretty closely to what I say when I'm asked "Why do you atheists always focus on Christianity?" - it's the predominant belief system in our culture, so my focus is there. Of course, if I was looking for the "truth" like you are, and I was doing it somewhat systematically, I'd feel obliged to strongly consider Islam, given the huge number of practitioners.
ReplyDeleteI do have a couple points to disagree with you, though. Your discussion of Christianity being unique in apparent prophecy (Christ's birth and resurrection) and historical accuracy are actually just Christian talking points themselves - a sort of "appeal to uniqueness" fallacy when, in fact, Christianity isn't at all unique in either.
I also take issue with you saying that "many of them also seem to have one visionary "founder"" - Hinduism certainly doesn't, and the "religions of ancient cultures" you name don't either. There's also the small point that many of those ancient cultures don't have a single unified system of belief internally - they have many beliefs, some of which jive with each other, and many that don't. I have a feeling this is another Christian talking point you've picked up somewhere, which attempts to show that Christianity is somehow unique in its history and non-creation by man.
Lastly, and most importantly to me, atheism isn't a belief system any more than not believing in unicorns is a "belief system" - it's a lack of belief, and typically stated in response to a culture that largely does believe in god. If no one believed in any gods, we'd all technically be atheists, but it'd be meaningless to refer to ourselves that way. Atheism has no dogma, no set list of beliefs, and doesn't require you to actually believe in any practices, history, science or reality - it's a generic, umbrella statement of lack of belief in a god. That's all. The only people who consider it a "antithesis" of Christianity are Christians looking for a boogyman. Atheism doesn't claim to be "against" anything, or the opposite of anything.
Definition of ATHEISM
ReplyDelete1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
This would lead you to believe that a member of this group were against the belief in a central deity of any type. That would therefore make one in opposition to any such belief system. The word itself is a-theism or the opposite of theism.
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
This is more along the lines of not being against anything.
mike, i've heard you make the argument that atheism is not a belief system, and i agree with all the points you're making, i'm just deciding to classify it something different. i think having a lack of beliefs IS a belief system, just like zero IS a number. And black, the absence of light, is still a color. You many not have any kind of "system" to your belief system; however, based on the conclusions you draw from whatever evidence you choose, you still BELIEVE that there is no god.
ReplyDeleteeh, i guess kind of a moot point. it really is just for classification/reference/comparison, so it's not a huge deal.