Opinion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument

[Mopsus]

Ignoring the (dubious) premise of your views on human flourishing, is it really inconceivable to you that a person might live a life dedicated to charity and the betterment of society without being religious? And in any case, I reject the idea that it's possible for a person to "think about things other than themselves." If a person acts charitably or engages with his community (traits you seem to reserve only for the religious), it is because he wants to do this; he is not being compelled forward by some external force. Every action a person takes comes from their inner motivations, so it is impossible to completely divorce a person's actions from their own experiences and beliefs. In other words, "selflessness" is simply a myth.

I've never said that a person can't be charitable or community-oriented without being religious. In fact I have explicitly said that a person can be charitable or community-oriented without being religious. Please read my posts more carefully before engaging with them. Setting that aside, what I and everyone else mean by selflessness is not being compelled to act by external forces, but acting for the benefit of others or for a cause greater than oneself. You'll note that this is very close to your definition of a cult, except that cults are by definition harmful, whereas this is the only thing that has ever made people happy.

Once again, my definition of a "cult" is "An organization or group united in the common veneration of a person, idea, or object above all others." This definition has remained rock-solid throughout this conversation, whereas yours has changed multiple times.

It's not that my definition has changed, it's that it's multifaceted enough to capture the variety of experience that exists in real life. Unlike yours, as I've amply demonstrated.

Why does that mean the comparison doesn't work? And again, are you seriously saying that Christians conquered the world because God wanted them to?

I'm saying that there has to have been some reason Europeans came to lead the world in all the things that we associate with civilization, and it probably had something to do with the values imparted to them by their culture, including the values imparted to them by their religion.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

That doesn't surprise me. As I said, you live in Gomorrah.

[John Dule]

Ignoring the (dubious) premise of your views on human flourishing, is it really inconceivable to you that a person might live a life dedicated to charity and the betterment of society without being religious? And in any case, I reject the idea that it's possible for a person to "think about things other than themselves." If a person acts charitably or engages with his community (traits you seem to reserve only for the religious), it is because he wants to do this; he is not being compelled forward by some external force. Every action a person takes comes from their inner motivations, so it is impossible to completely divorce a person's actions from their own experiences and beliefs. In other words, "selflessness" is simply a myth.

I've never said that a person can't be charitable or community-oriented without being religious. In fact I have explicitly said that a person can be charitable or community-oriented without being religious. Please read my posts more carefully before engaging with them.

Ok, so to be clear, you're abandoning your prior claim that nothing cultivates selflessness as well as religion does?

Setting that aside, what I and everyone else mean by selflessness is not being compelled to act by external forces, but acting for the benefit of others or for a cause greater than oneself. You'll note that this is very close to your definition of a cult, except that cults are by definition harmful, whereas this is the only thing that has ever made people happy.

If one voluntarily joins a cause that is greater than oneself, one is still choosing this cause based on one's own morals and values. Even a religious person will likely hold some moral views that are independent of their religion, and those morals may even come into conflict with the religion if the two are opposed. Again, I think you are overestimating the degree to which a person can actually act "selflessly."

Also, are you arguing that joining a cause greater than oneself is an inherent good?

It's not that my definition has changed, it's that it's multifaceted enough to capture the variety of experience that exists in real life. Unlike yours, as I've amply demonstrated.

Your definition has changed multiple times over the course of this short conversation. If that's what you call "multifaceted," then so be it. I'm still unclear on what flaw you think you've located in my definition; if you could be more specific, that'd be much appreciated.

I'm saying that there has to have been some reason Europeans came to lead the world in all the things that we associate with civilization, and it probably had something to do with the values imparted to them by their culture, including the values imparted to them by their religion.

Quite a few books have been written on this subject. While culture certainly had something to do with it, this is mostly related to how pluralistic the European countries were-- in other words, how many different poles of power existed in their societies. I have no doubt that the church's existence as an institution separate from the government was one such contributing factor. Societies with multiple poles of power are more likely to spread political power around, resulting in more inclusive social and economic institutions. It is this kind of distribution of power that leads to structures such as free market capitalism. So yes, in that sense, I will agree.

Of course, there were other contributing factors. The availability of many kinds of livestock and food in Europe certainly played a major role, as did the easy transmissibility of ideas and inventions across Eurasia. European soil is well-suited to agriculture, and unlike the Mesoamericans, the Europeans had access to tamable livestock that could be herded and kept easily. Horses were also important. Europe's ability to produce food surpluses was what led to the creation of dense cities (something that was rare in the Americas), which in turn caused the spread of disease. This is why European explorers spread disease to Americans, but Americans did not spread disease to Europeans. The list goes on.

In any case, I am glad that you are backing away from the positively Medieval worldview that Europeans grew to dominate due to the divine providence of Yahweh.

That doesn't surprise me. As I said, you live in Gomorrah.

Have you been to California? I'm traveling through your state as we speak, and I have to say, if Godliness leads to human flourishing then you guys really have a weird way of showing it.

[Mopsus]

Ok, so to be clear, you're abandoning your prior claim that nothing cultivates selflessness as well as religion does?

"Nothing cultivates selflessness as well as religion does."

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

If one voluntarily joins a cause that is greater than oneself, one is still choosing this cause based on one's own morals and values. Even a religious person will likely hold some moral views that are independent of their religion, and those morals may even come into conflict with the religion if the two are opposed. Again, I think you are overestimating the degree to which a person can actually act "selflessly."

And I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by "selfless". Obviously everyone has their own views on right and wrong, but those views are ideally based on some sense of objectivity, not what is convenient or inconvenient for one's ego. That's the difference between selflessness and selfishness.

Also, are you arguing that joining a cause greater than oneself is an inherent good?

No. Such causes are capable of being manipulated, by fascists for example. Or cult leaders.

Your definition has changed multiple times over the course of this short conversation. If that's what you call "multifaceted," then so be it. I'm still unclear on what flaw you think you've located in my definition; if you could be more specific, that'd be much appreciated.

To reiterate, your definition would not apply to most pagans, who did not worship their gods as ends in an of themselves, but as means to an end; this is in contrast to most modern religions, which view communion with God as the end of human life, in comparison to which all other goods are subsidiary. On the other hand, you claim that some Trump supporters fall under your definition of a cult, which they obviously do not - they support him to an extent you find unreasonable, but he is not the be-all and end-all of their lives.

In any case, I am glad that you are backing away from the positively Medieval worldview that Europeans grew to dominate due to the divine providence of Yahweh.

I never claimed this, nor would anyone in the Middle Ages!

Have you been to California? I'm traveling through your state as we speak, and I have to say, if Godliness leads to human flourishing then you guys really have a weird way of showing it.

In a sense, all Americans grow up in California, as your state exports its culture to the rest of the country through Hollywood and Silicone Valley. While I would never claim that everyone in Missouri is godly, one still meets godly people, which I suspect isn't the case in whatever subdivision of Nineveh you live in.

[John Dule]

Ok, so to be clear, you're abandoning your prior claim that nothing cultivates selflessness as well as religion does?

"Nothing cultivates selflessness as well as religion does."

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Yes. You started off by saying that there is no substitute for religion, before then saying that ethnic identity serves as a substitute for religion among Asian people. You then clarified by saying that ethnic identity isn't as good as religion at filling this void in people's lives. Does it not follow from this that religious people are inherently more charitable than others-- or at least, that they have a higher capacity for charity than all others?

And I think you are misunderstanding what people mean by "selfless". Obviously everyone has their own views on right and wrong, but those views are ideally based on some sense of objectivity, not what is convenient or inconvenient for one's ego. That's the difference between selflessness and selfishness.

In order to make "objective" judgements on the matter of right or wrong, one must at least have the self-respect necessary to believe in one's own capacity to make those judgements. A truly "selfless" person would have no faith whatsoever in their own judgement-- after all, who are we to judge when God the Father is the judge of all? Why should my own puny individual morality ever take precedent-- or even come into consideration-- when compared to the morality passed down by scripture? I don't mean to get into a semantic argument, but there is an obvious contradiction happening when someone believes a book represents the "ultimate truth" and then simultaneously incorporates moral judgements they arrived at independently into their worldview. For a Christian to hold moral views external to those that exist in Christian teaching, they must at least be selfish enough to feel that their own opinions are worth something.

To reiterate, your definition would not apply to most pagans, who did not worship their gods as ends in an of themselves, but as means to an end; this is in contrast to most modern religions, which view communion with God as the end of human life, in comparison to which all other goods are subsidiary.

How so? When we speak of a "Cult of Dionysus" or a "Cult of Apollo," what we mean is that this particular group of worshipers holds that specific god above all other Greek (and by extension, foreign) gods. I acknowledge the point you made earlier in this discussion (that Greeks often used their gods to achieve material ends, e.g. ritual sacrifices for fortune in war), but I still do not understand the distinction you draw between this and a Christian praying to Yahweh for material wealth, success, or happiness. Your insistence on the assumption that all "real" Christians are selfless worshippers for whom the intangible afterlife is the only good is simply not representative of reality.

On the other hand, you claim that some Trump supporters fall under your definition of a cult, which they obviously do not - they support him to an extent you find unreasonable, but he is not the be-all and end-all of their lives.

On the contrary, there are indeed Trump supporters who believe him to be the ultimate good in their lives, much as there were Italians and Germans who venerated Mussolini and Hitler as borderline demigods. This is not to say that all Trump voters do this, but his most ardent backers do indeed meet most of the criteria for a "cult." QAnon, for example, has been called a "digital cult" by mainstream sources across the political spectrum.

In any case, I am glad that you are backing away from the positively Medieval worldview that Europeans grew to dominate due to the divine providence of Yahweh.

I never claimed this, nor would anyone in the Middle Ages!

I was referring to the logic behind the claim, not the literal claim itself.

In a sense, all Americans grow up in California, as your state exports its culture to the rest of the country through Hollywood and Silicone Valley. While I would never claim that everyone in Missouri is godly, one still meets godly people, which I suspect isn't the case in whatever subdivision of Nineveh you live in.

Yes-- and yet the "godless" person in this country is nevertheless, on average, richer, healthier, better-educated, and more likely to find gainful employment than the "godly" person. Anyway, I'll take this to mean that you've never visited California in your life, which is probably for the best. The shock of seeing secular people prospering together in a wealthy, democratic, free society might make you catatonic.

[Mopsus]

Yes. You started off by saying that there is no substitute for religion, before then saying that ethnic identity serves as a substitute for religion among Asian people. You then clarified by saying that ethnic identity isn't as good as religion at filling this void in people's lives. Does it not follow from this that religious people are inherently more charitable than others-- or at least, that they have a higher capacity for charity than all others?

I would say that charity is built into religion and tribal identity, but in religion more explicitly, and the heights of charity attained by certain religious people surpasses that attained by any secular person.

In order to make "objective" judgements on the matter of right or wrong, one must at least have the self-respect necessary to believe in one's own capacity to make those judgements. A truly "selfless" person would have no faith whatsoever in their own judgement-- after all, who are we to judge when God the Father is the judge of all? Why should my own puny individual morality ever take precedent-- or even come into consideration-- when compared to the morality passed down by scripture? I don't mean to get into a semantic argument, but there is an obvious contradiction happening when someone believes a book represents the "ultimate truth" and then simultaneously incorporates moral judgements they arrived at independently into their worldview. For a Christian to hold moral views external to those that exist in Christian teaching, they must at least be selfish enough to feel that their own opinions are worth something.

The pursuit of moral knowledge and the pursuit of God are intertwined in the search for the ultimate nature of the universe. This is a selfish pursuit if it's made purely to comfort one's ego, the results of objective inquiry be damned, but it's not selfish if it's made out of the love of truth. As it turns out, the New Testament promises Christians that through spiritual transformation they will be able to discern good from evil and the true from the false, so there's not any conflict between reason and revelation here.

How so? When we speak of a "Cult of Dionysus" or a "Cult of Apollo," what we mean is that this particular group of worshipers holds that specific god above all other Greek (and by extension, foreign) gods. I acknowledge the point you made earlier in this discussion (that Greeks often used their gods to achieve material ends, e.g. ritual sacrifices for fortune in war), but I still do not understand the distinction you draw between this and a Christian praying to Yahweh for material wealth, success, or happiness. Your insistence on the assumption that all "real" Christians are selfless worshippers for whom the intangible afterlife is the only good is simply not representative of reality.

I never said that eternal things were the only good Christians seek, I said they were the ultimate good. Obviously there are good things in this life just as there are bad things in this life, but the proper way to view temporal goods is as a foretaste of things to come. People who are obsessed with holding on to transitory pleasures tend to become unpleasant.

By the way, Jesus himself criticized those who worshiped Yahweh primarily for their own gratification. This isn't a distinction that I invented.

On the contrary, there are indeed Trump supporters who believe him to be the ultimate good in their lives, much as there were Italians and Germans who venerated Mussolini and Hitler as borderline demigods. This is not to say that all Trump voters do this, but his most ardent backers do indeed meet most of the criteria for a "cult." QAnon, for example, has been called a "digital cult" by mainstream sources across the political spectrum.

But then, none of those sources would call Christianity a cult, because their definition is closer to mine than it is to yours.

Yes-- and yet the "godless" person in this country is nevertheless, on average, richer, healthier, better-educated, and more likely to find gainful employment than the "godly" person. Anyway, I'll take this to mean that you've never visited California in your life, which is probably for the best. The shock of seeing secular people prospering together in a wealthy, democratic, free society might make you catatonic.

I'm sure I would get along just fine with such people. Having to overlook all the homeless camps would weigh on my conscience however.

[John Dule]

Yes. You started off by saying that there is no substitute for religion, before then saying that ethnic identity serves as a substitute for religion among Asian people. You then clarified by saying that ethnic identity isn't as good as religion at filling this void in people's lives. Does it not follow from this that religious people are inherently more charitable than others-- or at least, that they have a higher capacity for charity than all others?

I would say that charity is built into religion and tribal identity, but in religion more explicitly, and the heights of charity attained by certain religious people surpasses that attained by any secular person.

A follow-up: How do you even quantify charity? The percentage of one's time and money that one gives away? The raw amount of money one dedicates to a cause? I find it dubious that you could make this kind of claim with any objectivity.

The pursuit of moral knowledge and the pursuit of God are intertwined in the search for the ultimate nature of the universe.

Comments like these make me seriously pessimistic about any meaningful communication between theists and atheists. To claim that belief in God is some kind of "knowledge" that you obtained while searching for the true nature of reality is just plain false. Are you telling me that you arrived at your beliefs because you became genuinely convinced of God's existence based on empirical scientific data, in which you weighed various belief systems from across the globe and objectively determined that the Christian faith is the only legitimate faith? Come on, now.

This is a selfish pursuit if it's made purely to comfort one's ego, the results of objective inquiry be damned, but it's not selfish if it's made out of the love of truth.

Really, it's amazing how much we manage to say the same things while intending them to be read in completely opposite ways. This sentence practically encapsulates my exact worldview. However, I'd question the very idea that one could pursue the discovery of "moral knowledge" or the "ultimate nature of the universe" out of any motivation other than a love for truth. A person who wishes only to comfort their own ego will likely not pursue these kinds of questions at all. This is why any belief system that professes to have all the answers is antithetical to the truth. It's important that we do not shy away from the harsh nature of reality, even when the truth frightens us. I would simply ask that you consider applying this maxim to your own faith, and ask whether you arrived at Christianity out of the "pursuit of universal truth" or simply to "comfort your own ego."

As it turns out, the New Testament promises Christians that through spiritual transformation they will be able to discern good from evil and the true from the false, so there's not any conflict between reason and revelation here.

Oh, what a cheap cop-out. There have been millions of Christians throughout history who have committed brutal acts-- perhaps the easiest examples are the southern slave owners. The idea that Christians possess special moral knowledge that is inaccessible to others is blatantly untrue.

I never said that eternal things were the only good Christians seek, I said they were the ultimate good. Obviously there are good things in this life just as there are bad things in this life, but the proper way to view temporal goods is as a foretaste of things to come. People who are obsessed with holding on to transitory pleasures tend to become unpleasant.

By the way, Jesus himself criticized those who worshiped Yahweh primarily for their own gratification. This isn't a distinction that I invented.

I don't believe that any Christians consciously see themselves as "worshipping Yahweh primarily for their own gratification." But this applies to just about any religious faith. Most religious people (yes, even the Aztecs) viewed their faith as representative of a higher truth, and not just a means by which they could gain material wealth. Whether or not their actions always aligned with their image of themselves... well, that's a different story.

On the contrary, there are indeed Trump supporters who believe him to be the ultimate good in their lives, much as there were Italians and Germans who venerated Mussolini and Hitler as borderline demigods. This is not to say that all Trump voters do this, but his most ardent backers do indeed meet most of the criteria for a "cult." QAnon, for example, has been called a "digital cult" by mainstream sources across the political spectrum.

But then, none of those sources would call Christianity a cult, because their definition is closer to mine than it is to yours.

Aha! And now we are back to the first statement I made in this thread: "What separates Christianity from the standard definition of a "cult" is its organization size, its longevity, and its broad acceptability in society." It has been my contention throughout this conversation that these are the only three criteria by which Christianity differs from an organization such as Scientology. And aside from these three criteria, you have not been able to conjure up any other acceptable delineations between what we call "religions" and what we call "cults." Hence my argument that Christianity is nothing more than a very, very successful cult.

[Mopsus]

A follow-up: How do you even quantify charity? The percentage of one's time and money that one gives away? The raw amount of money one dedicates to a cause? I find it dubious that you could make this kind of claim with any objectivity.

The literal meaning is the amount of grace someone shows to others. The best example I can think of is that of the Dutch Protestant Dirk Willems, who, to quote Wikipedia, “is most famous for escaping from prison and turning back to rescue his pursuer—who had fallen through thin ice while chasing Willems—to then be recaptured, tortured and killed for his faith”. Such people show such a superhuman regard for others, and such a superhuman disregard for their own self-preservation, that, to a purely biological worldview, it’s miraculous.

Comments like these make me seriously pessimistic about any meaningful communication between theists and atheists. To claim that belief in God is some kind of "knowledge" that you obtained while searching for the true nature of reality is just plain false. Are you telling me that you arrived at your beliefs because you became genuinely convinced of God's existence based on empirical scientific data, in which you weighed various belief systems from across the globe and objectively determined that the Christian faith is the only legitimate faith? Come on, now.

Not at all! I actually believe that there are a wide range of legitimate belief systems, and what I want to do is distinguish those belief systems from illegitimate ones (I’ve been calling them cults, but I suppose the name isn’t as important as the fact that such belief systems are distinguishable from the other kind). For example, I have a lot of respect for the other Abrahamic religions (particularly in their more mystical strains, but then I’m attracted to mysticism in Christianity as well), I believe that the psychological insights found in the yogic religions are unparalleled, and I’m very attracted to the naturalistic reasoning in philosophical Daoism. You might also be surprised and pleased to know that I find Nietzsche’s philosophy extremely moving - in contrast to almost all other atheistic thinkers, who I believe mostly accept the worldview they inherit from religion, his thought didn’t stop until it had penetrated to first principles, which I believe makes him the premier challenger that religious people have to grapple with. With all that being said, I’m a Christian because Christianity “solves” the human experience better than any other belief system, and I believe that the mystery of human consciousness is the secret that demands our attention above all others. It’s neat that we know how to calculate the air pressure on Mars, but such tasks kind of pale in comparison to that.

Oh, what a cheap cop-out. There have been millions of Christians throughout history who have committed brutal acts-- perhaps the easiest examples are the southern slave owners. The idea that Christians possess special moral knowledge that is inaccessible to others is blatantly untrue.

“Jesus said not to do bad things, so Christians who do bad things are being unchristlike.”
“Yeah, but what about the Christians who do bad things?”

I don’t know how many more times I can have this exchange.

I don't believe that any Christians consciously see themselves as "worshipping Yahweh primarily for their own gratification." But this applies to just about any religious faith. Most religious people (yes, even the Aztecs) viewed their faith as representative of a higher truth, and not just a means by which they could gain material wealth. Whether or not their actions always aligned with their image of themselves... well, that's a different story.

The Aztecs sacrificed people to the sun god so that the sun wouldn’t go out; the Assyrians conquered other nations because they believed that if they didn’t satisfy their war god the world would end. Personally I believe that even if such gods did exist they wouldn’t merit the worship they demand, but a genuine belief in such things is different from using such beliefs as an excuse for tyranny and human sacrifice. It makes a difference when one is talking about Christians who act like they worship the god of the Aztecs or the Assyrians, yet profess to worship a god who unequivocally demands us to love each other, not terrorize each other.

Aha! And now we are back to the first statement I made in this thread: "What separates Christianity from the standard definition of a "cult" is its organization size, its longevity, and its broad acceptability in society." It has been my contention throughout this conversation that these are the only three criteria by which Christianity differs from an organization such as Scientology. And aside from these three criteria, you have not been able to conjure up any other acceptable delineations between what we call "religions" and what we call "cults." Hence my argument that Christianity is nothing more than a very, very successful cult.

And I think I’ve expounded enough on what I consider to be the differences between religions and cults. If these differences are too - I would say “nuanced”, you would say “ill-defined” - for you to accept, so be it. I don’t feel that that threatens me any.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

It’s a tiresome argument at this point. I get the point of it, but it’s been played out and this is coming from someone who made up a religion as a joke in high school.