Kenneth Clarke in his 1966 BBC television series on Civilization said that lack of confidence, more than anything else, is what kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs he warned.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines cynics as those showing "a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions" and a tendency "to express this by sneers and sarcasms".
It is often very hard to see what might be the legitimate positive motivations for religious extremists, but to conclude there is none is to be a cynic and an enemy of civilization. Its one of those catch 22s - you need faith in the goodness of humankind in order to persevere and eventually rationally understand the legitimate humane motivations of the religiously fanatic. This is because the religious fanatic is not a true believer but is really just a cynic himself. Anyone who oppresses voices of reason fears his religion cannot stand up to the scrutiny of reason and is therefore not a true believer.
For those who prefer a scholarly explanation Clark also pointed out that Western civilization is a series of rebirths, which means that history has shown that we should never lose hope when things look bad.
Posts
Test Article
2 years ago
Ya - lefties assume they have all the facts - so anyone not agreeing is assumed to be meanspirited and hiding behind their religion.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how a political term like "lefties" is related to a religious argument. Please explain.
ReplyDeleteI certainly do not profess to "have all the facts". However, it is the dogma of Christianity to "preach the good news", as facts. (1 Cor. 9:16)
Circular logic at it's best.
Is a cynic someone who sees the world, and assess a negative outcome if present conditions continue?
"It is often very hard to see what might be the legitimate positive motivations for religious extremists" (end quote)
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? Religious extremists have had 2000 years, to convey their message.
But I'm a cynic if the message is contradictory, exaggerated, or flat out wrong?
Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI am uncertain as to why you are choosing to use the term "lefties". I have re-read the comments from GMP and see nothing that would lead me to believe he/she is a left leaning person. The idea that someone questions religion has nothing to do with "right" or "left" leanings, it simply means they are questioning. I personally know many non-religious people who are very "right" in their thinking. Let's not make comments that are intended to be inflammatory, it degrades the debate.
On another note (or maybe the same note): Obama and Maccain are both religious men. I wonder why Obama's religious beliefs were attacked and berated so often during the campaign? I am confused by people who believe that others are not "religious enough". Belief in God is belief. Extremists make me nervous.
GMP
ReplyDeletePeople who believe in gay marriage tend to be on the left and don't believe there is any value in the religious (christian, muslim, buddist, jewish) prohibitions against it, except mean spirited discrimination.
I read 1 cor 9 and do not see how you get the message that the good news is supposed to be presented as facts, but rather the truth. I think there is a difference. I think we can know truth without knowing facts. For instance there are intuitive truths that we can't explain but we feel. Science is full of misteps in claiming truths (eat low fat and you will become thin)that turn out to be wrong because the underlying facts were based on wrong assumptions. I am not saying that reason is not worth anything, I am just saying it is not as fool-proof as we like to believe and can be based on circular reasoning too.
What you call circular logic I call faith. My process is this, I have a gut reaction to something, I then look to either reason or religion to explain it. Sometimes my gut reaction changes when presented with more information, sometimes it is not. In the end, I have to use my religious beliefs to justify my final decision because I cannot ignore my instincts. My reasoning is that my religion is telling me something that others have also endorsed through time and resonates with me. I especially do this where I think reason is particularly poor, like issues of sexuality that we know so little about in terms of its causes and consequences.
A cynic is someone who collects only bad examples like Sam Harris and always puts the worst interpretation on ambiguous situations and instead of trying to uncover the reasons for the differences concludes the other side is coming from a bad place.
Another test for dogma is if it leads you to contradict yourself. For instance, love of liberty and freedom for all (no discrimination) is based on the assumption that people are good. When someones disagrees with gay marriage without offering a ratinale explanation, only a religious justification - do we have to change our assumption and conclude that intolerant people are bad? Ironically this leads to a sympathesizing of their underlying assumptions.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe comment was made prior to gmp's comment but rereading gmp's posting I would still infer from his reference to Christian dogma - that he/she believes all Christians are dogmatic, a position commonly held by those on the left, not the right. Either way my intention was not to insult but rather spark comments - which it did!
On your second comment - I think Obama's middle name and Muslim background caused a lot of fear amongst the Christian right.
Religion as opposed to spirituality helps people feel like they belong to something bigger than themselves (and is not surprisingly highly correlated with lower incomes). therefore any percieved threats to Christianity are highly scrutinized by the right. Further, Obama is the first born again Democratic leader making him slightly suspicious for those on the left. Had he not been a lawyer and black, I think the born again attribute whould have hurt him with the lefties.
Karen Armstrong speaks of the difference between belief verus faith. I think we agree that extremists in action are scary. Extremists in belief however, or those with enough faith that God can deliver a better earth without their intolerant actions is always good. I think extremists are those who don't believe in God's all powerful wisdom and think God needs their help.
If we don't start to make this distinction, then we have to agree with Sam Harris who points out in The End of Faith, that moderate believers cannot reclaim religion from the extremists.
Thanks for your comments