From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:00:43 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Apr.5.03.13.16.1992.6110@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>>> >I can only evaluate it by the effects that it has on believers.
>
>>> I believe that you can get the best information about Christianity
>>> by reading one of the first four books of the New Testiment part
>>> of the Bible, like the book of John.
>
>>That's on a par with telling someone to judge Communism by reading the
>>Communist Manifesto [and not looking at what actual Communist governments
>>have done.]
>
>Actually, if I wanted to judge Communism, considering the Manifesto is
>probably the only fair way to do it.  If I assess communists with
>their various track records, I am not judging Communism; I am only
>judging a particular interpretation and implementation of Communism.
>This is a valid thing to do, but it does not necessarily give insight
>on true Communism.

In an important sense "true Communism" (or "true Christianity", or "true
X") is an irrelevant abstraction. It exists only in the minds of individual
interpreters, and may have existed in the minds of founders. When it comes
to liking or disliking something, or thinking it has been good or bad for
the world, what is important is actual results. Certainly actual results
are in most cases mixed. (It is hard to think of any good results of
Communism which come close to balancing the bad, but surely there have
been some good results.)

There have been kind Christians and evil Christians.  Christians are not
slow to point out the kind ones, or the ones who claim to have been better,
more moral, or happier because of their faith. Unless you look at the actual
contributing causes to people's characters this is exactly on a par with
considering the perpetrators of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or the Spanish
conquest of the Americas as arguments against Christianity. If you allow one
argument you must logically allow the other. As a realist I don't think
either has anything to do with the objective truth of doctrines such as
the existence of God, the resurrection, etc. But that is not the subject
of the "dislike" thread.

One of the most serious and hypocritical logical errors made by
Christian apologists is to use a line of reasoning to support their
own position while discounting the same line of argument when used
by others. Pointing to examples of good Christians and ignoring
those whose evil has actually been amplified by their doctrines
is one of the most obvious examples of this. You want to have it
both ways.

Going beyond superficial claims, it is reasonable to ask whether certain
doctrines are part of the core teachings, and if they are whether they
lead naturally to good or bad results. The question isn't just the ideal
teachings, but what results they are likely to lead to. Quite a few people
who are not Communists think the ideals of Communism are fine, but that
they go against human nature and if there is any attempt to implement them
on a big scale by force they are a formula for disaster.

Similarly it is not unreasonable to look at how Christianity's traditional
claims to be the only true religion, that others lead people to Hell,
and that those whose doctrines are not correct are not only mistaken,
but evil, lead naturally to persecution and warfare. There are counter
balancing teachings not to judge others etc., but given human nature is
it any wonder that these haven't always prevailed and the net result
has been some horrible atrocities. A body of doctrine so easily misused
cannot be held harmless, regardless of its "true" meaning.

>I certainly hope that the world does not judge Democracy based on the
>current U.S. implementation.  It is a good system, but it has many
>known failings.

In spite of the failings of implementations the world can only judge
democracy by looking at implementations, versus the implementations of
other systems such as Communism. It is the implementations which matter.
I believe it was Churchill who said "Democracy is a very bad form of
government - but all the others are so much worse." In spite of our
known failings I would say that Democracy wouldn't come out so bad
if judged on the current U.S. implementation. Even if it did that
wouldn't be an invalid way to judge.

>Similarly, I would not assess all of a religion based on the actions
>of a particular group professing that religion.  To check out the
>Mulslim religion I would read the Koran and and any other work deemed
>important to defining that religion, coming to my own conclusions
>about its validity.  To check out Christianity I would read the Bible.

As I said, the question of objective truth is not what makes people
like or dislike a religion. Few people, especially including believers,
think critically about objective truth. If they did nobody would
bother with "It changed my life" testimonials.

For better or worse religions are judged and liked or disliked (if not
believed or disbelieved) by the actual behavior of their adherents.
This is as reasonable as it is inevitable.

>As to evaluating a religious or economic doctrine based only on the
>effect that it has on believers, I suggest that no school of thought
>would ever pass that test.  There are bad apples in every bushel.

But you can compare the number of bad apples to the number of good
apples, and compare the expected results of different doctrines based
on an undertanding of human nature. On this score a body of doctrine
which considers all others evil and infinitely harmful does not come
out so well. Christianity and Islam are the only major religions which
hold such doctrines, and not surprisingly have historically produced
the worst behavior.

Bill Mayne