Leaving the depressing sociopolitical scene for the moment, there has been an interesting online debate in other corners of the Blogosphere. Commenter Ark, who's appeared here a few times, began a discussion yesterday at InsanityBytes' blog promoting Atheism, which has spilled over into today, and over at The Lion's Den, and probably elsewhere. Admittedly, it's hard to follow all of this: at our site, a half-dozen comments qualifies as a lively discussion.😏
Anyway, Ark made three points which the debate has turned upon:
1. Believers indoctrinate children with this unfounded nonsense.
2.Believers try in inveigle religion into society
3.Religion is supernaturalism, brutal, violent and divisive.
Actually, if Ark phrased it this way: "Some professed believers &c." I'd probably agree with the first two points and even the third with some qualification. The way that he stated these points is too general overall. Let's examine his points:
1. Believers indoctrinate children with this unfounded nonsense. All civilized cultures recognize the indefeasible right of parents to be responsible for the spiritual instruction of the young. However, in the United States, parents are willing instead to turn over as much of their duties to the State or external institutions as possible; so in this sense, Ark has a point. Even countries like China respect the principle of parental responsibility more than the contemporary US does.
The State has no right nor authority to interfere in these matters at all, regardless of whether one believes what's being taught is unfounded nonsense or not. The only occasion for State intervention is when the laws are violated as to abusive or grossly negligent behavior on the parents' part.
2. Believers try to inveigle religion into society. Again, some do and some don't. Our Founding Fathers led off the Bill of Rights with Freedom of Religion for a reason (and many of them were 'believers'). Unfortunately, in the Postmodern US, we've seen a rise of Christian Nationalism which largely rejects the idea. The Founders justly were concerned that, in a pluralistic society like ours, a very narrowly-defined version of religious interpretation could force its way into power.
In countries like Russia, they've taken the more rational approach of setting up a council of religious leaders to advise on social issues. It's headed by the Russian Orthodox Church though the many religions of Russia have a seat at the table. In Russia, the approach has been effective because everyone has a voice; and has led to several humanitarian relief efforts abroad, as well as blockading corrosive threats to society and suppressing dangerous religious cults.
However, this is not what American Christian Nationalists have in mind. They envision something closer to 15th-Century Spain, only with Prosperity-Gospel Megachurch pastors in charge instead of Popes and Cardinals, and the Holy See in Hollywood as opposed to Rome. Lest we imagine, however, that Catholics aren't as susceptible to the same ideas, consider a comment recently left on a Catholic site:
"The so-called Dark Ages were precisely the time that Europe turned towards God. These were the centuries one might say began with St. Augustine and St. Benedict, proceeded through Charlemagne and led up to the marvelous 11th century. Would that today's world had half the faith of the Dark Ages!!!"
After I pointed out that the Dark Ages were a harrowing time of tyranny, poverty and ignorance, the commenter countered that:
"The Inquisition was highly effective in maintaining religious and social stability and was not as bad as people's lurid imaginings. Read some responsible historian on the topic. Feudalism as a sociopolitical arrangement is neither good nor bad. It did provide people with a sense of purpose at their level. I wonder if our modern arrangement or disarrangement is better. As for literacy, I think it is highly overrated. What good has come from everyone knowing how to read? As Our Lord said, we'll always have poverty. It is a relative term."
In fairness to Ark, stupidity like this creates Atheists more efficiently that all of the Scientistic theories put together do. Which brings us to Ark's final point:
3. Religion is Supernaturalism: brutal, violent, and divisive. In this case, Ark is confounding Religion with Fanaticism, and also stretches the term 'Supernaturalism.' There are people who firmly believe in God, angels, demons, heavens and hells who don't belong to any organized religion (and actually they tend to be the least brutal, violent, and divisive of people).
I think that it's noteworthy here to comment that Christianity---and to some extent traditional Judaism---are the only two religions that I know of where the prophets and apostles are depicted in the Sacred Writings as denouncing and opposing the leadership of their own religions. The earlier of the Jewish prophets (e.g. Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah) were not exactly revered by the Religious Establishments of their day for exposing the corruption and hypocrisy rife within them; just as Christ did in His time, and the Apostles speak at considerable length about religious charlatans. The maxim "By their fruits you shall know them" applies to religious leaders too. Nearly every other religion teaches belief in a leader or system whereas ours specifically says, "Try the spirits to see whether they are of God or not:" in other words, don't believe everything you hear just because an authority says so.
Faith is dependent upon Reason and Free-Will. Obviously, a culture that allows the maximum independence of thought also allows the greatest expressions of Faith. Most of our spiritual problems as a society has come from outsourcing our thinking, and it certainly is not a matter of Faith to do so.
