Last night on twitter, @cameronreilly informed the twitterverse that he was bored, and was looking for Christians to argue with. Somewhat unwisely (140 characters is a very limited debating medium), several Chrstian twitterers (including myself) took the bait; for at least half an hour, there was much vigorous to-ing and fro-ing as each side stubbornly put forward its own opinion.
Cameron's main argument was that Christianity is a violent religion, citing several verses in order to try and prove his point. He also claimed (without presenting a lot of actual evidence, preferring to state opinions as fact - but I digress) that Christianity has shown by actions done in its name to be inherently violent and intolerant.
To which I raise a few questions:
- Evolutionary theory has species pitted violently against species; each vying for survival at the expense of others. Does that sound inherently peaceful or tolerant?
- The very foundation of society and law is based on intolerance: the law outlines those actions which cannot be tolerated by the people. Why is this form of intolerance acceptable, when it is fundamentally no different to the Christian idea of sin, which God does not tolerate?
- If those who preach "tolerance über alles" are so tolerant, why don't they let Christians hold to their own beliefs? This smacks of hypocrisy to me...
Interestingly, today Cameron has said that he wants to start a podcast where he debates Christians. I'm all for that, and would probably listen to it - provided he doesn't pick straw men to argue with...
Hmm, I can't help myself here, heh:
Tolerance is a tricky topic... I don't think it can be classified as a virtue, as it often seems to be. In fact I think springs from a culture of individualism. Christianity doesn't teach tolerance (I'll let you live your way as you think best, if you let me live my way as I think best), it teaches love (I want the best for you based on what is truly good, not what you might think is good).
Tolerance is about living cooperatively with each other so that everyone can maintain a core commitment to their own well-being (selfishness). Love is about living with a core commitment to others' well-being, which I guess means being uncooperative in matters which honor selfishness.
(I won't be at Hawthorn at all next semester! All classes at Prahran. I guess I'll wait and see how it works out with CU).
Tolerance is always an interesting thing, which itself can be seen as intolerant. Why? Because it is based on a set of morals and beliefs that are held.
As far as the double standards, not much can be expected from someone who's presuppositions are borrowed from a Christian world view.
God bless,
Matthew Delves
Here's my point of view for what it's worth:
re: 1. I'm not sure that anyone has ever claimed that evolution is peaceful or tolerant. You seem to be implying that evolution is some sort of belief system that a person subscribes to as a way of living their life, similar to a person's adoption of Christianity. Which I think is totally wrong. That the reality of the natural world is that resources are scarce and species sometimes have to fight to access them (sometimes violently) is neither here nor there - it's just the way it is. Doesn't mean human beings have to live that way. Besides there are many fine examples of nurture and cooperation in nature as well.
re: 2. I feel the difference is secular laws are developed over time in response to a growing consensus of morality amongst peoples of a nation. The rejection of slavery, racism for example. It evolves over time. 'Sin' is a concept where a set of restrictions is decreed by an arbitrary authority and is unchanging over time. It slowly loses it's relevance as society moves on/changes - ideas about sex/modesty are an example.
re: 3. The right to believe in something is as valid as the right to be free of religion. As a hypothetical example, I certainly do not want the laws of my country to be based upon such an arbitrary concept as 'sin' and I would like to feel free to debate the validity of such laws. Just as a Christian would not like to be bound by an Islamic law. Furthermore if I though someone close to me was under the influence of some faulty thinking based upon dubious facts (if they were paying a fortune teller for example) I'd certainly was to feel free to be critical of their words if they tried to convince me of their beliefs.
In fact it is this kind of debate that leads to the formation of the consensus of morality I mentioned above and thus common law.
After my conversation with Andrew on Twitter tonight devolved into him calling me "stupid" and telling me to "Grow a pair", I thought I'd check out his blog. And then I found this post.
First of all, I rarely have to resort to opinions when discussing Christianity. I have enough facts at my disposal that I don't need to. So I reject Andrew's claims that I didn't use facts in my Twitter debate. I'll provide more facts below as I take a crack at answering his questions:
1. Evolutionary theory has species pitted violently against species; each vying for survival at the expense of others. Does that sound inherently peaceful or tolerant?
As atetlaw correctly stated before me, evolution isn't a philosophy, it's a scientific explanation for the diversity of species in nature. And yes, nature is violent. Humans are violent. But there are some of us who hope we can grow out of that violence. My main issue with Christianity is that it, as a philosophy, is inherently intolerant and violent. I recently blogged a list of violence committed by Christians (http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2008/04/16/christianitys-greatest-hits/).
The basic principle of Christianity is contained in Matthew 25:41. Let me paraphrase: "Those that don't agree with us, will spend eternity in hell." That is the most intolerant and violent basis for a philosophy ever. If I disagree with Christianity's claims, then I am sentenced to an ETERNITY of torture. This idea has been the justification for the long list of bloodshed committed by Christians (see blog post above) and from this stems the rest of Christianity's ills and makes it unfit for a modern social philosophy.
2. The very foundation of society and law is based on intolerance: the law outlines those actions which cannot be tolerated by the people. Why is this form of intolerance acceptable, when it is fundamentally no different to the Christian idea of sin, which God does not tolerate?
See above. The foundation of society is to STOP intolerance and violence. Christianity is BASED on intolerance and violence (again, Matthew 25:41, not to mention the entire OT). This line of "Christianity is based on love" is a con-job. It's based on "love people who AGREE with you - everyone else, BURN THEM." That, my friends, is intolerance defined.
3. If those who preach "tolerance über alles" are so tolerant, why don't they let Christians hold to their own beliefs? This smacks of hypocrisy to me...
Oh but we do, Andrew. I'm not advocating armed conflict against Christians... like Christians have done for the last 1700 years (again, see my earlier referenced blog post). I'm not condemning Christians to an eternity of torture - not even a single lifetime of torture. But tolerance doesn't mean we shouldn't question and challenge dangerous, delusional ideas. Sane people don't tolerate paedophilia. Or rape. Or slavery. Or murder. Or many other ideas which humans accepted for most of our history. We don't tolerate them because they are unhealthy for society and just plain WRONG. I include Christianity in that list, for the reasons I state above. I don't want to see Christian killed or thrown in jail. But I would love to see Christianity (and every other religion as well) go the way of other terrible ideas which have afflicted humanity over its history.
Please, Cameron, don't make such a silly mistake. A quick look at what I tweeted clearly shows that it was what you said that was stupid, not you personally.
Hmm. I would have thought Matthew 25:41 is talking about how God, not Christians, will not tolerate those who don't obey Him. Therefore it frees up Christians to, yes - obey God by loving others, instead of carry out acts of intolerance. So surely whatever 'Christians' in history that have carried out acts of violence and intolerance in the name of God are among those who are being talked about in Matthew 25:41. If it were Christians' job to carry out what is clearly God's job, then we should all be killing one another and committing suicide. Hypothetically.