|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
quote: This was the primary illustration of hell, as it originated in the Christian religion. For 1900 years, that is the hell that people believed--torment, agony, flames, all of it. At the end of the 19th century, something happened. Darwin's theory allowed atheism to become a reasonable thing to believe. And atheists started to get prominent philosophers, authors and speakers to rattle the cages of Christianity. Considered the best orator of his time, the most prominent spokesman for the exclusive cause of anti-religion was Robert Ingersoll, and he took full advantage of the doctrine of hell, the primary weakness of the Christian religion. He wrote, "All the meanness, all the revenge, all the selfishness, all the cruelty, all the hatred, all the infamy of which the heart of man is capable, grew, blossomed, and bore fruit in this one word--Hell." He wrote most eloquently in his book, Why I Am an Agnostic:
quote:Hell used to be a nightmarish way to gain converts. But, it became a nightmarish weakness in the Christian religion. Christians did not take this sort of criticism lying down. They responded. Some of them changed hell, and it became a destination that sinners could willingly choose. C.S. Lewis wrote in his 1940 book The Problem of Pain: quote:Hell, then, is not so much a place of inflicting torture, but it is a place that the damned souls willingly choose. Though it may strongly contrast to the gospel parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it is a view that has become predominant among modern Christian evangelists and apologists. Besides the exegesis, it seems to solve the problem. How cruel can it be if the damned actually want it? Peter Kreeft and Ronald Keith Tacelli wrote in Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions,
quote:Christians are divided about whether to interpret the fires of hell literally or metaphorically. Metaphorical fires are often preferred because it is difficult to imagine why even an insane person would choose the prolonged pain of fire. In the widely-popular apologetic book, A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, the theologian J. P. Moreland is quoted as saying, quote:To Moreland, the fires of hell are merely metaphorical. He objects: how does it make sense for hell to be fiery and dark at the same time? So, many Christians have thrown away the old hell and adopted a new hell that is suitable for the rhetorical battles against secularism. Of course, not all conservative Christians have jumped on this bandwagon. Matt Slick, of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, wrote:
quote:Christian apologists fight against other Christian apologists about such problems more than against those on the outside. From the perspective of an opponent of Christianity, the rhetorical point of the problem of hell serves a good purpose. If the proponents of the orthodox hell win the debate, then Christianity is significantly weakened. The world will have more Robert Ingersolls. If the proponents of the choose-your-own-afterlife doctrine win the debate, then hell is less of a fearsome nightmarish thing used to manipulate children and frightened people into adherence. The world will have fewer Christian evangelists who employ the villainy of hell. And that is why rhetoric matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
The idea that non-believers choose hell really is a robust belief. Many times, I have observed atheists say that they would rather be in hell than be a slave to God for all eternity, though of course all of those times could have been hyperbole--with the orthodox view of hell, that conviction would be hard to imagine. To me, hell is a doctrinal element of a religion, which either helps the religion or hurts it, and that is how I make the best sense of it. Phat, do you have any thoughts about how rhetoric against hell affects the Christian doctrines of hell? I wrote this thread to show that rhetoric against religion really does matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: I would prefer not to dispute the point with Rrhain (I have argued with him vainly in the past), but I would be willing to do so with you. I have been puzzled by such an opinion, and I would love to get the reasons for such a perspective. Atheists did exist before Darwin, but they were not nearly as many, not nearly as well known, and not nearly as influential as until after Darwin. With the theory of evolution, there was no scientific reason left to believe in God, and biology was formerly a very big scientific reason. When Darwin's theory became established at the end of the 19th century as the only theory besides God to explain life, 100 years after Lyell had already explained the planet Earth without God, that is when we see a big historical shift toward atheism--Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Ingersoll--and each of them influenced a helluva lot of people with antipathy toward religion. That time is when we see the coining of the phrase, "agnostic," by a protege of Darwin. The philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote a book on the subject titled, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It really was a dangerous idea to religion. If you underestimate the influence of Darwin's theory on religion and philosophy, then I suggest that you find another way to explain the rise of atheism.
Thanks Rrhain, you beat me to the punch. I fully agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: That's possible, of course. I try to go with the proposition that has the highest probability. Given that the theory of evolution provided a very scientifically evidenced and very scientifically authoritative reason to dismiss God as an explanation for the existence of life and humanity, it seems very probable that the theory of evolution increased the actual percentage of atheists rather than just bring them out of the closet. I don't think there were any less than then now % wise, but like homosexuals in the 1950s, most Atheists back in Darwin's time were in the "Closet." A few years ago, a member of the Eagle Scouts was kicked out of the club because he did not believe in God. He explained in an interview what motivated his disbelief. He said that in high school he learned about the theory of evolution, and that removed reason to believe in God. Is it more likely that he was simply in the closet until the theory of evolution gave him an excuse? I figure that, if it makes perfect sense to take people at their words, then it is better to do so. There seems to be an activist motivation to separate the theory of evolution from atheism, because that would help to make the theory acceptable to a religiously diverse population. Well, OK, but I would draw the line on infringing on the actual reality. Yes, even if we have to agree at least in part with the daily political propaganda of creationists, which claims that the theory of evolution and atheism are intimately intertwined, it is better to be honest and reasonable--atheism as we know it really was allowed its place on the table by the theory of evolution. Edited by ApostateAbe, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
nwr writes: Absolutely. Deism, or belief in God without belief in religion, was at least seemingly close to the predominant belief among philosophers and scientists. Where is deism, now? It was replaced by atheism, because there was no more reason left to believe in any sort of God at all.
ApostateAbe writes:
Before the theory of evolution, there was already no scientific reason to believe in God.With the theory of evolution, there was no scientific reason left to believe in God, and biology was formerly a very big scientific reason. Scientists tend to be skeptical. Those that believed in a God, mostly took a deistic like view of God - roughly, deism + Jesus. And they were probably full of doubt about the miracles. The reason there there are more biologists than other scientists who become atheists, seems to be that biologists see first hand the cruelty of nature and find it difficult to square that with the Christian idea of a loving God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
nwr writes: You find it more probable, then, that even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were merely lying about their preference for deism over atheism to spare them from the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Whenever there are disputes about what was going on inside people's brains, there are people who say, "Nobody knows," but I really do find some positions to be exceptionally strange.
ApostateAbe writes:
For most people, there aren't many important differences between deism and atheism.
Absolutely. Deism, or belief in God without belief in religion, was at least seemingly close to the predominant belief among philosophers and scientists. ApostateAbe writes:
But I doubt that evolution was important for that. I suspect that it has more to do other changes which have lead to a reduction in the social pressure against atheism.Where is deism, now? It was replaced by atheism, because there was no more reason left to believe in any sort of God at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
nwr writes: OK, just to be clear, you find it more probable even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were pressured to keep out of atheism by the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Is that right?
ApostateAbe writes:
I would not accuse them of lying. Either deism or atheism avoids religious commitment. It doesn't make much of a difference as far as I can tell. I expect that they were influenced by social pressures, but so what? If I wear a shirt because of social pressures, does that make it a lie to wear a shirt?You find it more probable, then, that even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were merely lying about their preference for deism over atheism to spare them from the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
nwr writes: OK, yeah, I think "pressured" covers both implicit pressure and explicit pressure. Anyway, bluescat48 thinks that there were a lot of atheists in the closet before Darwin. I think those people were generally telling the truth as they actually believed, and Darwin's theory caused an actual shift in belief in society about the existence of God, following from the shift in the best available explanation for life.
ApostateAbe writes:
No, I am not suggesting that.OK, just to be clear, you find it more probable even the vocally anti-religious philosophers such as Voltaire and Jefferson were pressured to keep out of atheism by the anti-atheistic forces of society than to believe that they really did think that the existence of God was probable following from the argument that there was no other way to explain life and humanity. Is that right? I am suggesting that they sensed implicit societal pressures, not that they were explicitly and specifically pressured.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
nwr writes: OK, I do find that belief odd, but it is not like I can do much about it.
ApostateAbe writes:
I'm not convinced that Darwin's theory made that much difference.I think those people were generally telling the truth as they actually believed, and Darwin's theory caused an actual shift in belief in society about the existence of God, following from the shift in the best available explanation for life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Coyote writes: Possible, as always. It is difficult for me to understand how it is sensible to believe that an equal percentage of people could believe atheism, albeit secretly, given that there was no sensible way to explain life before the theory of evolution except for God. The old Watchmaker argument really was a very powerful argument. Life is complex, complex things require design, design requires a designer, all religious traditions identify a god as the designer, therefore God exists. That is an argument that secret atheists would have a very difficult time answering. David Hume did his best, but his argument is ambiguous and difficult to comprehend. Why not just believe that the theory of evolution really did cause the late 19th century rise in atheism? Is there a good reason why not?
There was also the enlightenment a few decades earlier. A lot of folks from that time on probably were closet atheists. After Darwin more felt they could come out of the closet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Yes, that's right, and his writings gained traction among thinkers, leaders and populations who oppressed religions decades after the Manifesto and after Darwin's theory was established.
Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto a decade before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species.Dr Adequate writes:
If you are going to quote someone to make a point, then it is essential to first make the best sense of that quote and fit it into the point that the author made. Nietzsche most certainly did not reject Darwinism, but it was the foundation of his entire philosophy! He writes that the school of Darwinian thought was thrown into doubt because the weak are prevailing within human society, and the Ubermensch is being repressed. He saw that as a huge problem, and he blamed religion.
Nietzsche rejected Darwinism:
I see all philosophers and the whole of science on their knees before a reality which is the reverse of the struggle for life as Darwin and his school understood it- that is to say, wherever I look, I see those prevailing and surviving, who throw doubt and suspicion upon life and the value of life.- The error of the Darwinian school became a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to make this mistake?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
The theory of evolution is essential to atheism, but harmful to religion. Religion can merely accommodate the theory of evolution. There is still no totally accepted theory of the beginning of life and evolution, only explains changes after that first life existed. Whats more not only Atheists, Agnostics & Deists accept evolution but many Theists accept the ToE. Explain how this can occur if Evolution and Atheism are directly related. Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
Why is it harmful to religion, unless you mean fundamentalism? Sure, OK. Harmful to religious fundamentalism, good for atheism.
Why is it harmful to religion, unless you mean fundamentalism? Whether there is a god, gods or no gods is irrelevant to the ToE. Whether it is directed or not has no bearing on the ToE. If a person want to imply that a god directed evolution so be it. The point can also be said for other science disciplines particularly Physics, Chemistry & Geology that add to the coming out of Atheists or the conversion from theism to Deism, Agnosticism & Atheism. Whether there is a god, gods or no gods is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Absolutely. But, to look at the converse, the theory of evolution is extremely relevant to the question of whether or not gods exist, because gods are and have been very often and very widely used to explain life on Earth. The connection is very straightforward.
Whether it is directed or not has no bearing on the ToE. Absolutely. And, that is not an issue.
The point can also be said for other science disciplines particularly Physics, Chemistry & Geology that add to the coming out of Atheists or the conversion from theism to Deism, Agnosticism & Atheism. Yes, yes. Physics, chemistry and geology were big scientific hurdles to a purely naturalistic model of the universe, and biology was the biggest. The scientific theories of physics certainly helped, but they could just as easily play into the idea that God engineered a clockwork universe, which is what Newton proposed. The creation of life is central to religion, and it was a core philosophical argument for God. That is why the theory of evolution made such a big difference in belief. Maybe it had such an effect only because of the accumulation of all of the science that preceded it. Sure, I think that is an acceptable proposition.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Maybe it wasn't harmful to liberal religion. Maybe it even helped, I don't know. The point is about what happened to atheism.
Still how is it harmful to moderate theists?bluescat48 writes: OK.
Atheists make up a very small percentage of those who accept evolution. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4649 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Iblis writes:
That wasn't my initial intention, but, interestingly, a lot more people seem to be interested in what I have to say about how the theory of evolution allowed atheism to rise. That really is bad forum etiquette--hijacking my own thread like that and ignoring the people who actually stay on topic. It was shameless, but I do find it more interesting. Some people who sort of did stay on topic kinda missed the purpose of what I wrote, which may have been my fault because I wasn't clear. I don't really care about anyone's opinions of what hell is or how hell is justified. The purpose was to talk about the influence of rhetoric. There was someone in another thread who implied that I can't gain anything by criticizing Islam and the Koran, and I wrote this thread as an example of how such criticism can actually be productive. Arguing the theology of hell is something I have done endlessly in the past. It goes all kinds of bizarre directions.
So far, you have received four answers about hell, none of which you have responded to; two about the impact of rhetoric, your alleged point, neither of which you have gotten any use out of; and 15 posts responding to your categorization of evolution as historically enabling atheism, of which 14 disagreed and one was vaguely supportive. You have engaged the 14 in every post you have made since the OP. Was this the thread you intended to be having?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024