Published by Let’s get down to basics here, Christianity is an oriental religion that has shaped the course of development of the classical world. That is an undeniable fact whether someone chooses to believe in the religion or not.
So how would the history of the West have developed and proceeded had Christianity expired after a short time, in much the same way as other versions of a similar theme had?
The academies of Aristotle and Plato in Athens would not have been suppressed due to their ‘pagan’ teachings. The Olympic games would not have been stopped due to the athletes nudity (Gymnos, from which the word gymnastics derives, means ‘naked’.).
Of course had Christianity not become the ‘official’ religion of the Roman Empire we would not have the Annunciations and Crucifixions of Renaissance art but in balance with the crusades, Inquisitions, drowned witches, hostility to sex, religious wars and oppressive morals, would that have been the greatest loss?
A religion flourished and still does today but it would appear that, in the main, ethical enquiry into it is restricted to the interpretation of divine commands. Fundamentally it comes down to the argumentum ad baculum, literally ‘an appeal to force’.
A moral sceptic may well ask: “Why should I behave in this way?”
The religious reply may well be: “Because God requires it of you.”
That response though is just a polite way of saying that ‘if you don’t, you will be punished’, that is where the appeal to force comes in. A threat can never be a logical justification for acting in one way or another. If such a deity exists, like the vengeful Judaeo-Christian variety, there is an argument that it would be prudent to obey it (avoiding the flames of hell) but is the threat of punishment a principled reason for obedience?
Of course there is a counter-argument to that, one that religious apologists are always quick to point out. And basically that is, the real motive to act in a moral way should not be the threat of vengeance but the love of God and mankind. No matter how well meant that is, it is just an example of camouflage because, from the religious view, if one was not able to feel a certain way that they should they would suffer the same fate of the fig-tree which was blasted for bearing no fruit out of season.
There is another way of thinking of things. If love (in the sense of the Latin caritas) is the reason for being moral, what relevance does the existence of a deity have? Is it not possible to live an ethical life through our own charitable feelings?
Fundamentally, a moral life seeks to free us all from the fear and threats of punishment. So the existence of a god adds nothing to our moral situation apart from an invisible policeman who watches all that we do and may punish if we misbehave.
Considering all of the above, why is it that ‘churches’ are given a somewhat privileged position in social debates on morality?
Here is a thought:
In modern developed societies, the values that are held dearly include personal autonomy, earning a living, providing for a family, saving for a rainy day, success in one’s career.
Yet conversely Christian morality teaches to think not of tomorrow, give possessions to the poor. It teaches complete submission to the will of a deity; which is the polar opposite of personal autonomy.
Most people choose to ignore these contradictions and the churches have a tendency of keeping it quiet but if someone was to examine what Christian morality demanded they would be struck by just how much in opposition it is to what is regarded as morally normal nowadays. Which raises the question why ‘churches’ have such a privileged position in debates on morality.
Image via Wikipedia
In the world today, religious fundamentalists incarcerate women, mutilate genitals, murder, bomb and terrorise in the name of their faiths. It was not so long ago ( in historical terms) that Christian priests were burning people at the stake; teaching that masturbation was worse than rape because at least the latter could result in pregnancy; whipping people for having sex outside of marriage. So who can really argue that would still not be happening in the ‘milk-and-water’ Western world today if Christian priests were still ‘on-top’?
Considering such disparities and contradictions is it any wonder that most people are of the opinion that religion has very little to offer moral debate?
Religious apologists argue that church-based charities do much good at both home and abroad. That fact is not in question. The work they do is needed and very welcome in the exact same way that secular aid organisations and charities work is. But three points need to be raised:
1) Secular organisations are based on humanitarian promptings and NOT an appeal to beliefs about anything supernatural.
2) No secular organisation is going to use covert or overt means to claim credit for a certain denomination.
3) The charitable concern shown by religious organisations does very little to compensate for the huge amount of suffering they have caused historically.
In many respects it is similar to allowing the fox to set the rules for fox-hunting.
Yuo have clearly stated your points. though I may have a different view. Nevertheless, In my own opinion Christianity or I may say, a relationship with God should not be force. As Christians our own obligations or duties is to share the good news (gospel) and it is thw duty of the Holy Spirit to convict an individual.
@Papaleng; I actually agree with your sentiments there. I think though that what ‘can’ spoil religion is when others use a belief in one thing to proof a belief in something else that has nothing else to do with the religion.
If that makes sense.
I observe the errors of Christianity, in the dim human nature, the angels do not govern here on earth in person, but God still used these errors to keep your church; ask ourselves: The world is better now than before some errors of the church?
It be that God governs us as little boys, now that the world might be in a teen stage, we are more likely to abandon current that destroys the family, a pillar of society.
Glad I stumbled across this one. Very thought-provoking and I like the way it questions how we look at things. Amazing write.
It seems to me that religion has always caused arguments and wars. Strange thing, people killing each other to prove their faith in a god none of the antagonists have ever seen. Therefor, arguing about religion is totally pointless unless you wish start a war.
This is very good and I thought that I was the only one who thought like that… Very good write
I am a Christian, but I believe every person has a right to believe as he/she sees fit. It is interesting to read some of the questions others have about any religion.
My idea is: Live and let live. Janet Meyer
Very good article Al\’, and you presented the debate well. I suspect while writing this, that you toyed with the idea of including theories on how society would be adversely affected by the absence of Christianity. If so I can also appreciate it may not have worked well in this piece. In saying that though, I think it would serve you well to write a follow up to this. Just to address the issue of the Annunciations and Crucifixions of Renaissance art; I believe creative minds will be inspired, in their craft, regardless of the source.
@Gringoperry, the thought did cross my mind to expand on that. To go into more detail at what the artwork etc would have been like under different conditions.
Such as portraits of Daphne, Apollo or even of Diana bathing.
And how it could be argued that the image of an Aphrodite emerging from the water is a more life-enhancing image than a gloomy Deposition.
Might get round to expanding on that one day.
The biggest problem with religion is also its greatest attraction; the belief that you alone possess the ultimate singular truth.
How would life on this earth be better without God? Well, for starters there wouldn’t be a world, or people for that matter, so we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Without God, people would do whatever seems right in their own eyes. Everyone could make up their own religion, design their own god, or have no god at all. There would be no absolutes, so no one could claim any authority. People would make up their own moral code, and no one could tell them they are wrong, because there would be no right or wrong.
In other words, anarchy.
I think a very strong case can be made that Western civilization wouldn’t exist without Christianity. Not to mention modern science as we know it. Obviously there are concepts unique to Christianity that allowed these to be born. Arabic civilizations certainly preserved knowledge from the ancients, but never developed science as we know it today. None of the great civilizations did, and one cannot, I do not believe, say that it was a matter of timing.
One prime example is the concept absolute truths or laws. It was not until Christianity that this concept came to modern science, and to the idea that there might be laws which govern the physical nature of the universe.
As far as the morality is concerned, the morality is considered absolute. Any absolute, whether in morality or science takes precedence of minor “accepted” laws or axioms.
Without the concept of an absolute law, coming of course from an absolute law giver, differs from man-made morals since these change. By definition, what is a man made moral is simply current societal whim. The most moral man is the one who conforms the most. And each man made moral has a value only as great as any other, and a subjective one at that.
It strains the definition of the words, for it also means that if there is no absolute law-giver, no absolute laws or morals, then nothing is truly good or bad. We may deem it such, but to argue that one is better than any other in anything but a subjective way is delusion. Thusly a moral crime such a child molestation, can be regarded as no different, neither better nor worse, than pursuing a life of service in the peace corp.
“Without God, people would do whatever seems right in their own eyes” & “People would make up their own moral code”
That is just a roundabout way of saying that people who don’t murder; people who care for other humans; people who uphold laws are as BAD as those that do the opposite BECAUSE they don’t believe in a God.
Interesting article, I have the feeling that the commenter Stephen J Ardent is one of the only ones who maybe truly understood the point of this article.
I was just reading the survey by Writeeditseek, and the thought occured to me – what if everyone choose to follow the example of onlywaytobesure? Just imagine.
So many comments deserved to being made.
Well written, and let us not forget that Constantine was the one who influenced Christianitys begining a great deal, he made it the official religion in Rome when he was a Pagan, and did so to separate from the Jews who were persecuted at the time, B Nelson wrote a link about it, explaining how Christians changed their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Most Christian Traditions base themselves in Pagan traditions, but most modern so-called Christains refuse to accept this.
I disagreed with one point as ALL the Christians I know do think of tomorrow, they are told to give up this or that in life, for the glorious afterlife, thus they are sacrificing not out of truly being selfless, but because they are greeding for their eternal reward.
Their are too many discrepancies and theologies that separate the entire world, and as a student of life I appreciate all religions and all opinions. I do not accept one religion, nor will I argue if there is a God or Gods. Actually, according to every civilization there is a type of God, but it depends on who is in control at the time.
So is there one God for every people? Only your faith can answer that.
Tortured.
Stephen J Ardent the arab civilizations did develope science not just preserve it. Math,medicine,architecture and astrononmy to name just a few disciplines they influenced. Also I’m pretty sure the chinese civilization was not christian are you going to try and claim the chinese made no contribution to science.
This is all part of the reason why I gave up Christianity 10 years ago and converted to Buddhism. And since then, the state of my mind has greatly improved and I see no reason to go back.
as with anything else, one needs to pray about what they’re being taught.In an ideal world all would be universal and universally taught;however, it is not ideal. Still if one were to look at all religions and properly transcribed or translated ancient scrolls one would see the similarities as well as the changes over the years.
What it boils down to is either one believes that Jesus is the son of God or one does not.
Keeping in mind the different languages etc and I have not researched it well enough to say fact or fiction, but from what little I have read over the years, I get the impression that Jesus and Buddha are one and the same.
Just as Allah and God are one in the same.
I am not a religious scholar nor do I intend to claim to be one.
the over all teachings need to be reviewed and analyzed.
Personally, I believe we are all created of God and are children of God. That’s just my opinion.
Great article Alistair!!
Morality is a great question – partly one of law and partly of conscience.
For example, driving at 40 is illegal on some roads, while on others it becomes legal – the act itself has not changed!!
Being unfaithful is not illegal and yet there is a line in most people’s minds that they don’t want to cross – even if they do, they know they shouldn’t have!!
Why is this? – because we have a wired in moral code – either “in the imageof the creator” or…because of conscience alone. Where does that come from?
Why can’t people be motivated simply by what the right thing to do is? If a little girl falls in a well, you should help her out because it’s the right thing to do, not because you’re afraid of Hell. God always sounded like a prick to me. “Pray to me, worship me, bow to me, and go to church every Sunday.” Is He insecure about Himself or what? If He’s so powerful, why does He need us to do all that? None of that is important. Be good to each other, not an entity that doesn’t exist. Instead people kill each other in His name. It doesn’t make sense. Morality should come from common sense and consideration for others, not the threat of a spooky myth about eternal damnation.
If you want to argue with me, click my name.