So what about today? Should we be predicting disaster? I have to say I have concerns. I don't have faith in technology. I don't have faith in the strength of the human spirit. I have faith in God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. So when societies move away from that then you can expect that things are going to come undone. I have been pessimistic about Europe for a long time. I saw some enclaves that I thought would hold out against the onslaught of secularism like Ireland and Poland. But in general there was very little faith in Europe, very few going to church, very few children, very little respect for Christian morality. You add to that huge Muslim immigration and you can easily see Western society quietly fading away.
Many don't see that as a bad thing. They think all the western values like human rights and democracy will remain intact. I don't. I see them as having Christian roots. If Europe ceases to be Christian then why would they respect that? I even wonder about values like science and education. Would they just fall apart as well? They would take longer but when the foundation falls then nothing is safe.
Look at the trouble people are having getting democracy and education established in Muslim countries. How long have we basically had total control of Afghanistan? Even 10 years ago I thought if we persisted eventually people would see the benefit and buy in. Now I see the problem as deeper. It is a religious issue. Even the Bush administration, who understand the importance of religion better than most Western governments, was not able to directly address religion.
I did once think the bible belt would save the US from the same fate. It may still. I am just less sure about that. After 8 years of Bush didn't bring very many positives I am wondering. It is not that the Christian cause had temporary gains that were wiped out when Obama was elected. That would have been disappointing. But we went backwards over those 8 years even on social issues. That is when gay marriage gained momentum.
Beyond that, I tend to be less optimistic on environmental issues. More concerned about addictions. Less impressed with the overall quality of political leadership. More concerned with some signs of real moral cracks in the evangelical movement. There are just a lot of reasons to be concerned that the foundations of western society are not going to hold.
The one area of real optimism has been the Catholic church. Even in the few years since I became Catholic it has grown much more orthodox. There are a lot of bishops and a lot of lay leaders who really seem to get this. Pope Benedict has been amazing both in his teachings and in the appointments he has made. It is like the Catholic church hit its low point and is already on the road to recovery. Everyone else is still on the way down.
Of course that is the west. The west is not the whole world. Christianity has long been associated with Europe but it really isn't true anymore. Western countries have much less than half the Christians and Western Christians tend to be more wishy-washy. There are a lot of good things happening in Africa and Asia.
Wow I can't believe I'm going to be the voice of optimism here.
ReplyDeleteLet me just point out that Christianity itself is a product of a far greater existencial crisis. Judaism with its promise of God's blessing in exchange for ceremonial and religious purity had proven itself a farce. The country had been invaded after just a few centuries unable to govern itself. Well over 1/2 the population had started to eagerly assimilate the culture of the invaders. An anti colonial war had soon been followed by a ferocious civil war which left the population torn between religious groups which were trying to form a syncretic faith between Judaism and Hellenism and another that was corrupt and cruel.
That independence didn't last long and the Roman Empire held Judea, and didn't even consider it much more than a convenient location to post troops. The messianic promised look like a false hope and when finally messiahs rose up they drove their people to ever greater levels of political and economic ruin. The Romans minted coins showing the victory of Jupiter over Yahweh and many Jews in their hearts were inclined to agree.
And it was in this environment of total defeat that a form of Judaism that rejected the temple, rejected a military messiah and allowed for hope in the hereafter grew to become the dominant faith for the world.
Christianity's problems today are comparably minor. On a few moral issues they need to reform not unlike reforms of the past. Catholics missed the battles over abolition but they were far more heated than the sexual issues caused by a migration from Victorian morality to an ethic of responsibility.
Yes Catholicism deals with these issues too slowly. At Trent the Catholic church finally dealt with the financial abuses which had been dogging the church for 500 years. But by then religious pluralism was established. At Vatican II the Catholic church finally came to terms with French Revolution. The church never dealt with the challenges of Islam and lost the middle east and north africa forever. I'm not sure when the church is going to deal with the Radical Reformation but they likely will. There will still be a Catholicism but it will be weaker.
I don't want to sound Pollyannaish : In America the Cafeteria Catholicism has become the norm and even that is fading away into outright apostasy over the generations with a major refusal of (white) Catholics to baptize their children. In Latin America Pentecostalism is exploding. The dominant religion among the middle class is become Pentecostal with the Catholic church for a few formal ceremonies. Among the poor quasi Catholic cults like Santa Muerte are starting to create a theology which is deeply non Catholic with Catholic ritual. The conversion of pagan Europe running backwards.
But I think the church knows this. It is my belief that the leadership since John XXIII has been in a fundamentalist revolt against reform. But those blow over in a generation or two.
They think all the western values like human rights and democracy will remain intact. I don't. I see them as having Christian roots.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy never existed under Catholicism, Roman Democracy had collapsed by the time Christians had enough power to do anything about it and then they never added democracy.
Certainly the Catholic Humanist brought back the idea of trying to organize Europe around something other than religion. But the first widespread democratic forms reappeared with the English Civl War. But the two dominant forms came about in America with the religions of the radical reformation and in France with secularism.
I'm not sure why France's form of democracy which is based in secularism should falter at all as secularism gains steam. As far as American... the real issue is can the Baptist / Pentecostal faith thrive in a postmodern society? And my answer would be yes. I think it has always been moving in a direction which allows if not encourages this.
The main distinctions between Holiness faiths are:
a) Religion as alienated from the world
b) Private Illumination
c) Religion as escape
d) Narcissism
e) Elitism and the cult of celebrity preachers
f) Syncretism
all of which are perfectly compatible with modern culture. All of which are compatible and in fact strengthened by diversity. I'd also mention that Catholicism as practiced by the majority of American Catholics also has these traits. This is what I meant before by America being a profoundly Protestant country, so that even the Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Catholics end up practicing Protestant forms of their own religion. Which creates room for renewal if the church wants it.
So I think the next century in America is fine. I do think Democracy does survive quite well a moderate shift in sexual morality (which is what I think we are talking about) from a focus on female sexual fidelity to a focus on responsibility in sexuality. Christianity with an even greater focus on individual responsibility and morality does fine as well. From there people have choices.
You seem to misunderstand me. You seem to think I am worried about Christianity surviving. That is not my worry. It will survive.
ReplyDeleteSo I think the next century in America is fine. I do think Democracy does survive quite well a moderate shift in sexual morality (which is what I think we are talking about)
I think we are talking about something much deeper. We are losing understanding of human dignity. We are losing our sense of who we are. Where we came from. Why we exist. What is our destiny. We have not lost it completely but it is being lost. Once we do then we are back to might makes right. You say "responsibility in sexuality." What does that mean? You have the notion that everyone will have the same moral sense as you do. That is precisely what will be lost.
At some point people might realize their error and return to Christianity or a move to Islam. If it leads to atheism then we become like North Korea. Not every country needs to be the same. I just don't think secularism can survive as a thing unto itself. It needs Christianity. It is a parasite that dies if it kills its host.
We are losing understanding of human dignity. We are losing our sense of who we are. Where we came from. Why we exist. What is our destiny.
ReplyDeleteThose are easy.
We are the product of 4.3b years of evolution. We came from primates who began to specialize in tool making, language with requisite need for coordination (imagination) all of which required bigger brains.
We as a species exist to further the long term replication of our DNA. That is to create successful human societies which endure for hundreds of years and give birth to other societies. To spread to more and more habitats on earth and possibly beyond. And to do so in a way that is sustainable for the future. And finally if we are really and truly successful to hosts of other species that can fill ecological niches we never could. We as individuals within that broader mission find a way to transform ourselves and the world to create those new possibilities for humanity.
If it leads to atheism then we become like North Korea
Or what about say Denmark? Why always pick the most negative cases? North Korea is barely atheist they essentially worship their leader as a god.
But how can you sustain human rights based on those ideas? We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Why is that? Nobody asks that seriously now but what happens when they do? We are already using predator drones in a way we would not have a generation ago. I think giving Nixon those powers would have made more people wonder. But who says that can't happen again?
ReplyDeleteOr what about say Denmark? Why always pick the most negative cases? North Korea is barely atheist they essentially worship their leader as a god.
Because Denmark is still operating with a mostly Christian world view. North Korea is closer. They have not been atheist form many generations either. Even in communist Russia after 1989 it was surprising how many wanted to go to church. So they were not really atheist even after 70 years.
People say it is unfair to use Hitler's Germany or Pol Pots Cambodia. Now you complain about North Korea as well. How many free passes does atheism get? Remember each one comes at a huge human cost.
But how can you sustain human rights based on those ideas? We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Why is that? Nobody asks that seriously now but what happens when they do?
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when they do is the arrive at any of the atheist arguments for something much like the current morality. Or they start to agree on another morality because the situation has changed. The society will, in general on average, pick a morality which benefits the society. People will perceive the new morality as effectual generally because it is producing positive effects. As times goes on and the consensus builds other views some formally held will be seen as immoral. This is all going to happen within a narrow band because human needs don't change much.
We are already using predator drones in a way we would not have a generation ago.
A generation ago we took a world war II munition: which was a explose wrapping a flammable glue so that 1400 would stick to a person causing massinve 3rd degree burns up to 1000 meters away and started dropping in on people we didn't like, including civilians by the millions. Predator drones are the most ethical form of warfare invented since before the rise of Napoleon.
Because Denmark is still operating with a mostly Christian world view. North Korea is closer.
ReplyDeleteHow are you judging this. What objective criteria can I use to determine how much of a Christian worldview a country has at a point in time? This seems like a special pleading, good atheist governments are defined as "having a Christina worldview" while bad ones "true expressions of atheism". What about modern day Japan?
People say it is unfair to use Hitler's Germany or Pol Pots Cambodia. Now you complain about North Korea as well. How many free passes does atheism get?
Hitler's Germany wasn't atheist. Pol Pot was atheist, North Korea is not. Atheism gets no free passes at all. On the other hand we should be using fair standards. You seem to want to compare democratic countries to totalitarian ones, and well yeah I like democracy better. A far more reasonable comparison is to pair similar societies which differ on the religion variable.
culturally secular vs. culturally religious:
England vs. Ireland
North East USA vs. South East USA
California vs. Western Mexico
Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe
Vietnam vs. Thailand (one that falls in favor of Buddhism)
Japan vs. Philippines
India vs. Pakistan
Botswana vs. Tanzania
Any state which is explicitly atheist is a state with a state religion. In which case the comparison should be to states with state religions. Christians don't have state religions much anymore.
explicitly atheist vs. explicitly muslim.
Soviet Union vs. Saudi Arabia
India vs. Afghanistan
etc...
What happens when they do is the arrive at any of the atheist arguments for something much like the current morality.
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely what they won't do. You do it because you get the bulk of you morality from a basically Christian mindset. Atheists today just reason backwards and arrive at the current morality whenever they like it. But when atheism get further and further removed from Christianity then the backwards arguments are not going to sound convincing at all. Why is ethnic cleansing a bad idea? Why should I respect democracy when I can win through violence?
Or they start to agree on another morality because the situation has changed. The society will, in general on average, pick a morality which benefits the society. People will perceive the new morality as effectual generally because it is producing positive effects.
You are using words like "benefits" and "positive effects." You are assuming some basis for agreement on what those words mean. Atheism provides nothing of the sort. You are not close to imagining the problem. You have assumptions so deep that you can't think that not everybody will make them.
I am reminded of a video I saw with some gay protesters and some Muslim protesters. The gay man said to the Muslim, "Stop judging me." The Muslim just said, "Of course I judge you. You are gay. You are evil. In a proper Muslim nation you would be killed." They guy didn't know how to react. He was just assuming everyone accepted the idea that it was wrong to judge. Why? Because it is a Christian idea and nobody in the West has challenged it yet. But when you get rid of Christianity and you should expect violence against gays to go up 10 times if not 100 times.
You miss the point about predator drones. I am not saying they are bad weapons as weapons go. I am saying the process that we use to decide who to kill with them is troubling. It is more proof that the constitution is not respected like it used to be.
ReplyDeleteHow are you judging this. What objective criteria can I use to determine how much of a Christian worldview a country has at a point in time? This seems like a special pleading, good atheist governments are defined as "having a Christina worldview" while bad ones "true expressions of atheism". What about modern day Japan?
You are right. Good atheist governments do have a Christian worldview. They just don't have a foundation for it. So in a good storm the whole system might come down.
Japan is an interesting example. They had democracy imposed on them after WWII. Not sure of their history. I think one party ruled for a very long time. That might have changed at some point. If it hasn't that would not be an indication of a well functioning democracy.
Not sure of the details of their religion either. I do think it prevented many of the things we saw in the west that caused the rise of the middle class. But it is more complex. Catholic countries in Central and South America didn't see the same rise of the middle class either. Still Japan is interesting because it was able to do first class engineering and manufacturing but still seem behind in terms of social structures.
Hitler's Germany wasn't atheist. Pol Pot was atheist, North Korea is not. Atheism gets no free passes at all.
ReplyDeleteAtheism gets free passes because it fails so badly and so massively that we can't even bear to analyze its failures. You say Hitler's Germany was not atheist. How can a bright guy make such a stupid statement. It boggles the mind. So we can't talk about it. Human rational function ceases in the face of such a huge moral disaster. We just can't process it. So atheism gets a free pass.
Part of it is the value of truth. If atheism was guaranteed to produce another Hitler and atheism was true then I would be an atheist. I could not help myself. I have to pursue truth. It is a very good thing that we live in a world where goodness and beauty and truth flow from the same source. We are not faced with such choices.