We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Religions fight for ‘market share’ like everyone else I came across a couple articles that puzzled me. Advocates of all beliefs, be they religious, political or philosophical, generally try to argue their position and convince other people their view of the world is the best one. Of course some religions (and pretty much all political systems) are evangelical, whereas some, like Judaism for example, are not. Nevertheless even Jews will argue their corner on why their beliefs are sensible and it is far from unheard of for people to convert to Judaism, something most Jews would probably regard as A Good Thing.
Yet strangely as of late, some Jews and Muslims seem a bit bent out of shape when another religion, the Roman Catholic Church, either lands a high profile convert or prays openly for non-believers to convert.
Being God free myself, I have no dog in this fight but this all strikes me rather like shop owners protesting that some other shop is advertising and therefore ‘stealing’ their customers. Guys, like everything else, religion is a market… why are you shocked that the Boys in Rome engage in marketing?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Because the corner store knows it’s in competition for customers.
Religions think that anyone who isn’t their customer is going to hell. And that therefore it isn’t only good for the religion that the customer chooses them, but it’s also of critical importance to the customer.
In this way, religions are similar to government “services”.
Perry,
I don’t think it’s quite like that.
There is a rough analogy between business market-share and religious (or political or whatever) and clearly some religious characters I have met* treat it like that but…
I regard much “mainstream” Christianity as fighting a rearguard action aimed at being seen as (still) “relevant” to a world that is leaving them behind. Why else would, in short order, Ratpoison and Fangorn endorse/ make statements contra material wealth** or the Catholic Church in the UK get it’s cassocks in a twist about embryology? The interesting thing about such statements is that they are designed to appeal outside of their flock in a rather unusual way. Both were prefaced by vague ideas that “increasingly large numbers of people feel a spiritual void” type stuff… They were saying, essentially, “You don’t have to believe our stuff but please just don’t write us off as a load of dull old buffers in frocks”.
Which they might be but that, as Father Jack would put it, is an ecumenical matter.
Islam has a similar problem but at current it would seem a more direct solution.
Judaism has an age-old problem but it’s not about being taken too seriously (if anything it’s worst enemies take it far too seriously). For Judaism it is just about survival and not being seen as the global evil incarnate.
I am normally much less scathing here about mainstream Christianity but the recent histrionics from the Catholics about embryology is just a shark jump moment for me. The minute someone drags Ms Shelley’s creation into a debate upon scientific ethics I switch off.
I feel the same when Bush is compared to Hitler or climate change is “the greatest challenge the planet has ever faced” or nano-tech will turn the world into goo or whatever bizarre antithesis of getting up in woad and hitting each other with mistletoe is currently in vogue as the worst thing ever(TM).
And I haven’t really mentioned the absurdity of Dr Williams position on the pursuit of material wealth (which is fucking rich coming from the inhabitant of Lambeth Palace) but it’s late and I haven’t yet been genetically upgraded for 22 hr days.
Full-speed ahead and damn the atavists!
*Nottingham University CU spring to mind.
**See the RC’s new 7 Deadly Sins which sound like they were dictated by Jonathan-£!%$&*(%@-Porritt
Nick M, in general I agree with what you said there (although I don’t think Christianity is dying so much as changing its core region away from Europe.) Just thought i’d mention one thing because its pretty important to me. When I heard about the so called “New Seven Deadly Sins” it about had me seeing blood. It sounded like some sort of Greenpeace/Sierra Club bulletin, not doctrine from one of the oldest institutions in the Western World. I’ve heard since then that this was either a hoax, or it was the personal opinion of some Bishop and not Church policy. I certainly hope its a hoax, because despite personally being agnostic I still usually look somewhat favorably on the Church and it would make me rather sad to have to start detesting it.
Perry,
The base issue is not that the religions are in competition with a similar product, but that each regards the others products as not just worthless but as positively harmful.
You see, I am right, absolutely and positively right, and you are wrong, wrong to the point that, now you have heard the truth, you will spend the eternity following the end of creation suffering for your denial.
Seriously, what decent human being would not want to preserve their neighbour from that fate?
Al right, I know this is not precisely true of all religions, but it gets the point over.
A shopkeeper might claim to have better milk, but at least he acknowledges that his rival is selling milk, even if inferior stuff. I, on the other hand, am selling the one, the only, true religion. All the others are false profits (sic) who will take your money and give you nothing in return.
They are competing in the marketplace of ideas sure, but the analogy with shop bought produce doesn’t stand up.
I feel the same when Bush is compared to Hitler
When I see this I can’t resist making the best riposte I have seen –
If Bush is like Hitler, why aren’t you a lampshade?
You see, I am right, absolutely and positively right, and you are wrong, wrong to the point that, now you have heard the truth, you will spend the eternity following the end of creation suffering for your denial.
Seriously, what decent human being would not want to preserve their neighbour from that fate?
Seriously, what intelligent human being would believe that load of bulls**t?
Ok, let me see if I have this straight: There is a god so powerful that he can create an entire universe out of nothing, yet he is so insecure that he needs to be worshipped (or feared) by his own creations. He endows human beings with the capacity for rational thought, yet he only reveals himself through mystics, miracles, “inspired” texts, etc., requiring us to accept his very existence “on faith” and thus eschewing the very attribute which makes us human. He also causes all sorts of gratuitious bad things to happen to his creations in order to “test our faith”. He permits myriad religions to flourish, yet anyone who (through accident of birth or misreading the “revealed texts”) falls prey to the “wrong” brand of religion, or who doesn’t follow the orthodoxy propounded by a self-annointed cadre of priests, will be punished in Hell for all eternity.
Does that about sum it up? Thanks, but (as Pierre Laplace famously said to Napoleon) “I have no need of this hypothesis.” You can keep your anthropomorphic God; I think Lucifer had it about right.
Perry, as an agnostic Jew, personally I tend to just shrug it off. But I think that what bothers many Jews is that we are being singled out as a particular group of customers of the competing shop. Not to mention that many of us still can remember the times when means well beyond peaceful persuasion were applied to convince us to change our shopping habits.
Seriously, what intelligent human being would believe that load of bulls**t?
My opinion exactly, but the point is – a lot do, and we have to deal with it. That includes understanding the motivations this belief set generates.
Laird wrote, in strongly critical vein:
All human societies contain religion**; thus I am struggling to see that such belief is “eschewing the very attribute”.
While rationality is extremely important (and I assume that is Laird’s “attribute”), it operately (merely) in the physical*** world that we understand. Moreover, its use is that of prediction of what will happen and explanation of what has happened, within its domain of useful operation. As there are things in the physical world that are not explained by science and probably never will be (eg the creation of the universe, all its energy and matter), and a great many things in human society that lack rationality, it strikes me as somewhat lacking in rationality to pick on just religion which (in many forms including Christianity) claims belief by faith rather than by rationality.
A more rational approach would be to attack those aspects of religion that are, have been, and will again be clearly detrimental to human life and society, such as wars founded (supposedly) on religious difference. To enquire as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything is surely, of itself, not worthy of attack (even if such enquiry is unlikely to give firm answers). To attack such a broad thing, when your claimed justification is narrower, surely itself lacks rationality.
[** Noting the possible exception of communist and other extreme political ones that surpress it successfully, though for only a period.]
[*** and arguably, but not certainly in my view, somewhat into more abstract and societal domains.]
Best regards
Re: Laird at March 24, 2008 06:14 AM
I would just like to compliment Laird on a splendid statement of my views.
“All human societies contain religion”
………because all human societies need control. That means alpha fe/male hegemony.
How many of us, when children, do not remember a parent answering the challenging “Why?” with “Because I said so.”
No other reason was deemed necessary & it had to be accepted as a matter of ‘faith’.
But as Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism, that is hardly surprising.
The argument from permanentexpat @ March 24, 2008 12:41 PM strikes me as a claim along the lines of “religion is the opium of the masses”.
There might be some historical truth in that. However, I feel that the recent half-century or so of my experience (and perhaps longer) have replaced the culprit of that with the politics of communism and, more recently in the UK, socialism.
Much of politics is, of course and like religion, a matter of faith: “heaven forbid” though that we should accuse our political masters (the alpha of alpha fe/males) of that.
The trouble is that, in the modern western world at least, the consequences of religion on one’s life are largely optional. The same cannot be said of the consequences of politics. And are the masses any more intellectually discriminating than they always have been?
And is permanentexpat really arguing that the alpha fe/male hegemony will disappear with the removal of religion from society; I doubt it and (as I value highly his analysis) sincerely hope not. Surely the truth is that those of a dangerously hegemonious nature will exploit any tribal affiliation they can, to get to the top of a bigger heap.
As to Perry’s point that religions fight for market share, the current “belief fight” (even beyond the Embryology Bill) seems to be that between religion and authoritairian politics, with the latter winning. And will the world be a better place through this?
Best regards
“And is permanentexpat really arguing that the alpha fe/male hegemony will disappear with the removal of religion from society;………”
Absolutely not.
While pointing out that Biology isn’t my strong suit, it seems to me that most, if not all, societal life would be even more chaotic than it is were this hegemony absent…be it religious, political or societal.
And hardly less bothersome.
Nigel notes that “there are things in the physical world that are not explained by science and probably never will be (eg the creation of the universe, all its energy and matter).” Fair enough, at least when limited to the example in his parenthetical (although probably not to anything else). If you want to posit a “first cause” which got everything moving, I’m fine with that; I don’t think it’s usefully distinguishable from a Big Bang. It is the anthropomorphic conception of god, embedded into all Western religions, which I reject.
Sorry, but the confluence of Jews, Catholics and the concept of market share in this post inevitably makes me think of this joke:
In a Mexico City plaza dominated by huge church, two beggars are seated on the ground. The first holds a placard with a cross on it; the second, a star of David. The bowl in front of the beggar with the cross is filled with coins and some paper currency; the other beggar’s bowl contains little of either. A priest who has been observing the scene approaches. Addressing the second beggar, he explains “This is a Catholic country. Don’t you realize that people are going to favor the man next to you with the cross? In fact, some might even be giving something to him just to spite you.” The second beggar then turns to the first and remarks, “Nu, Moishe, look who’s giving us marketing advice.”
LOL! Only the premise of Jewish beggars (two of them!) is less than realistic:-)
The Jews concerned are acting in a ridiculous and embarrassing manner. First, there are genuine problems of anti-semitism in the world – including within the Roman church – on which time could be profitably spent addressing. Secondly, seeing as the premise of all forms of legitimate Christianity is that some form of faith in Jesus is a necessary pre-condition for salvation, asking for any denomination not to pray for the conversion of the Jews is equivalent to asking them to pray for their damnation ir at least acquiesce in it. Theoretically, Catholics could pretend Jews don’t exist, but this, it seems to me, would entail an excessive amount of mental gymnastics.
Dual covenant theology, which many Jews bizarrely insist all Christians adhere to, is a silly joke and not a single Jew in the world buys into it properly. (The argument is that there is one covenant for the Jews – the Torah – and one for everyone else – Christ. Not a single Jew believes that anyone is, ever has been or ever will be saved by faith Christ per se., though in some way it may help them to be better people).
As usual it is the ultra-liberal slime in the ADL (who, to be fair, are a fairly accurate representative of the majority of American Jews I have come across) that are mainly expressing their righteous anger. This German fellow I know nothing about, but he is plainly a very silly man with a rather idolatrous fascination with “inter-religious dialogue”.
OK, so some of you are atheists and agnostics. Great. I got that. But do you now have to insult Christians and other devout folks?
Which is what you’re doing, you know? I believe my faith is rational. I use the scientific method as well as anybody else. I formulate hypotheses and test them and try to falsify and allathat.
I would argue that it is the militant atheists and agnostics that are irrational, since they reject a priori the hypothesis that the anthropomorphic God as decribed by the Judaeo-Christian traditions can exist. I have yet to see one that says ‘Having evaluated the evidence, I find it lacking, and hence, cannot commit to this hypothesis’. No, it’s always a dogmatic assertion.
Well, having examined the evidence pro and con, I am convinced that it is reasonable to believe in a Judaeo-Christian God. Got something you wanna say about that?
Gregory, you ask:
“… I have yet to see one that says ‘Having evaluated the evidence, I find it lacking, and hence, cannot commit to this hypothesis’.”
I would offer ‘The God Hypothesis” by Richard Dawkins, as a book that claims to say exactly that.
Gregory, I think I’ve already given my answer. An all-powerful god shouldn’t play games with his creations. Does a rational parent demand “worship” from his children? If your god is anything close to reality I want no part of him.
The agnostics I know do not reject anything out of hand. But neither do they believe hypotheses, plausible or otherwise. There is a fundamental difference between believing a hypothesis and believing something that can be replicated using scientific method.
I do not have any problem with people who believe as a matter of faith and make no pretense that proof is available of what they believe. It is when they claim their belief is based on facts and science that I struggle to not roll my eyes.
While Atheists may hate and ridicule Christians, the agnostics I know merely say “Call me back when your ‘evidence’ meets scientific standards.”
Incidentally, I have never known (to my knowledge) a ‘militant’ agnostic. My comments on Samizdata probably come the closest to that description. But at least two of the strongest defenders of Christianity on this site advocate for agnosticism if they advocate anything at all. I have rarely met an Atheist who wasn’t militant’, but most agnostics are generally quite content to say “I don’t believe, but your opinions may vary.”
Strange as it may sound, research reveals that many Catholics labour under the belief that the Jewish people have been set apart, or, if you prefer, “chosen”, by virtue of a covenant between their forefathers and the almighty, which has subsequently been confirmed and extended by various signs and promises. Consequently, they are of the opinion that the spiritual condition of the Jews is of particular importance to G-d and that their fate forms an indispensible part of his plan for mankind, whatever that may be.
Now, where on earth they got this idea from I can’t possibly imagine. Perhaps if all the Jews got together to say their is nothing vey special about them, divinely speaking, this whole misunderstanding could be cleared up…
Gabriel: touche:-)
Good post Perry.
And I, as you know, am not a Roman Catholic.
And I will soon be visiting a person in York who converted from Christianity to Judaism.
Religions should argue the merits of their approach.
Even if some people remain athiests and some people (who perhaps cause ever greater irritation) say “I believe in the divine, but I do not claim any special knowledge of it – so I will just go along with the traditional way my people or nation have honoured the divine”.
Which is my position – although Rowen Williams and co seem to be doing their best to shame me into changing it.
Perhaps I will be looking for a new “shop” sometime soon.