Generalisations have the power to reveal deep truths or to conceal deep deceptions.
.
Consider the words Jesus spoke to Peter at the time of his arrest: Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword shall perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
.
Taken in a strict, literal sense, this is of course not accurate. Sometimes violent men die peacefully. But Jesus’ saying does capture something that is more generally true of the world. Violence incites further violence, and so its perpetrators often become its victims. Carl Williams comes to mind.
.
More significantly, Jesus is beckoning us toward an even more profound insight. Peter’s actions stood in stark contrast to Jesus’. Peter drew a sword, and struck out to defend Jesus. But Jesus himself submitted to his arrest, humiliation and crucifixion. Jesus overcame evil by yielding to its fury; Jesus brought peace by suffering violence. In the same way Jesus’ followers are to be “peacemakers” who “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:9, 39). On this theme, you might also like to reflect on Hebrews 12:24 together with Genesis 4:10, 14-15. Jesus’ blood speaks a word of grace which breaks the cycle of vengeance!
.
However, not all generalisations are windows into wisdom; some act as shutters to a sham. Take this quote by philosopher A. C. Grayling:
.
The distorted lives of the victims of religion are plain to see from the Bible belt of the United States to the veiled and shrouded women of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan; genital mutilation, “honour killings,” forced marriages, and dozens of other abuses are perpetuated in the name of religion and tradition contrary to rationality and humanity; the toll is great, and constitutes an indictment of religion as by far one of the least happy inventions of human ingenuity.
.
These words comes from Grayling’s essay in the book 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists, edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk.
.
In one sentence Grayling is guilty of two questionable generalisations. First, he lumps American Christianity together with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, implying all are equally guilty of genital mutilation, “honour killings,” forced marriages and other abuses. (Incidentally Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are countries, not religions, although Grayling’s intention seems clear.) Secondly, Grayling groups together “religion and tradition”, and then, forgetting he has included the latter, blames the miseries just mentioned entirely on the former.
.
To be fair, it is possible that Grayling meant to attribute this list of evils only to Islam, having already critiqued Christianity for teaching doctrines which lead various people to feel “apprehension and doubt because of their sexual feelings”. But in any case, I am not certain that causing “apprehension and doubt” about sexual temptation warrants the same condemnation as mutilation or murder.
.
Grayling has conjured up a powerful piece of rhetoric, which is nonetheless completely devoid of the clarity and precision necessary for sensible thought and debate. But then again, that’s the danger with generalisations.
.
I have just finished reading 50 Voices of Disbelief, and over the next week or so plan to post a series of reflections on atheism. 50 Voices is only one entry in a recent spate of books attacking religion, but this particular volume attracted my attention because it has an Australian editor (Blackford) and a number of Australian contributors. And for all the indiscretions of some of the essays in this book, I’m glad to say that Blackford himself is aware of the risk of overgeneralising.
.
In a recent talk at the University of Newcastle Blackford stated that it is difficult to discuss what is wrong with religion because religion is not really a unitary thing. This is a crucial observation, with which I am in full agreement. Christianity is not the same kind of thing as Islam, and neither is the same kind of thing as Hinduism or Buddhism. Different religions must be evaluated individually. If critics aim to sweep away everything in one stroke, they will end up demonstrating nothing except the weakness of overgeneralisations. That said, most of the essays in 50 Voices sidestep this danger by focusing their sights particularly on Christianity. So it seems appropriate to offer a particularly Christian response.
.
However, in making a response, I want to acknowledge that Blackford’s caution cuts both ways. Religion is not a unitary thing, but neither is atheism. So my general reflections on atheism may suffer the same weaknesses as general critiques of religion: they will not be true of every atheist, and in fact may be vast caricatures of some.
.
So please don’t use these reflections to bludgeon your non-believing friends. Instead, as we search for deep truths and try to expose deep deceptions, please receive these thoughts in a spirit of dialogue and feel free to add your comments.
.
Stay tuned…
.
.
photo credit: foxypar4 (sheep)
photo credit: xJasonRogersx (man)
He is speaking about abuses perpetuated in the name of religion and cites the Bible belt of the Unites States (not American Christianity), Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan as locations abuses are likely to be found. Perhaps unfairly he is not very democratic in listing examples of such abuses, restricting himself to examples mostly found at the later two locations mentioned, but it can’t be denied there exists abuses perpetuated in the name of religion in the Bible belt. I doubt very much that Grayling is trying to tar all Christians in the United States with the “genital mutilation” brush.
But religion is a tradition. Of course, not every tradition is religious in nature though, so are you suggesting that the examples Grayling listed aren’t acted upon on religious grounds? It must be remembered that religion is often used as a platform for enforcing tradition, from the claimed justification of the stoning of a child in Africa to the claimed basis of Australia’s legal system. If a tradition is enforced on religious grounds, religion must be considered when assigning blame.
Anyway, I totally agree with you that generalisations can be dangerous, but I don’t see how this post really discusses atheism.
Thanks for your comments Ben. You’re right, I don’t really say much about atheism in this post. It is more of an introduction to the series. But even the series could probably more accurately be title “reflections on some things atheists are saying”, rather than “reflections on atheism” per se. Sorry if it’s a bit misleading.
What do you have in mind when you mention “abuses perpetuated in the name of religion in the Bible belt”?
Personally, I think even Grayling’s statement that “abuses are perpetuated in the name of religion” is an unhelpful generalisation. Whatever abuses he may have in mind, they are not perpetuated in the name of religion in general, but in the name of one religion in particular.
I fully agree that religion is often used as a platform for enforcing tradition but I think this has often been the case of someone seeing a means to meet their personal agenda in religion.
I don’t think the suffering and abuse mentioned by Grayling should be traced back to religion and the trail end there – we should continue our inquiry. What does the religion teach – do the practitioners hold to the teachings? Why does the religion exist? Many may well be human traditions…
Speaking more specifically (which may be useful in a discussion about generalisations!), in Christianity we have Jesus, as recorded in history, to study. We can see the way he lived, the abuse he suffered, and genuinely ask “Does any abuse perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians call in to question Christianity, or just those poeple who call themselves Christians?”
I think a strong argument could be made that religion isn’t anywhere near the problem that people are.
Ok, the title “reflections on some things atheists are saying” will likely be interpreted as “all atheists are saying this” though, which falls foul of what we both agree on about generalisations. It’s easier to see what I mean if you change the word “atheists” to “Christians”. It can also be interpreted as “a particular atheist said this”, and I presume that’s what you meant, but this intepretation may have problems too (see below): I have to ask is the fact that Grayling is an atheist relevant to a discussion about generalisations or abuses perpetuated by religion? Unless you want to claim that only atheists make generalisations or criticise certain aspects of religion?
I’m kind of picking on your use of the word atheist/atheism a bit here because a lot of people use the word subconsciously, and at times consciously, in a poising the well type fashion. Here, the problem seems a little more general/complex than a basic poisening of the well though: introduce the term atheism, attempt to discredit some comments or arguments made by an atheist that aren’t actually dependant on or related to atheism, and hope this negatively influences readers’ perceptions of atheism. I’m sure you weren’t deliberately doing this, in particular I hope I’m not offending you by pointing out this issue – I didn’t write this much just to try and offend someone
Of course, if your other articles are quoting atheists who are talking about atheism in some sense then my point is moot and I look forward to reading those articles.
We may not agree on what each of us consider abuse, but hopefully we can agree on this one: faith healing. Some of those kids suffer so horribly.
Of course you’re right, no-one ever takes an action screaming “I do this in the name of religion!”
But I don’t think Grayling meant that either, I think he was talking about abuses in the name of religion in general where, as you say, specific abuses can be attributed to specific religions (and specific sects and things too if you want).
But you can always simply say Person X’s flavour of Christianity was wrong, they should have adhered to Person Y’s flavour (equivalently, “I’m a Christian and I would not have done that”). The problem with that is: they can say the same thing. There is no definitive version of Christianity, right? So when someone claims to be acting in the name of Christianity …
None of this changes that fact that “abuses are perpetuated in the name of religion”. Agreeing with the action is irrelevant isn’t it?
God revealed himself to us through his Son Jesus, and has given us his Word to know, the bible. Any “christianity” which denies or moves away from what is held in the bible is false, and so I would disagree with you here and say “no, there is only one Christianity – that which was revealed by God in the bible”.
.
However there are two points about the bible which ought to be made:
1. The bible is definite on some points (Jesus’ life, death resurrection, our sin, God’s character etc.) but vague on others (e.g. it doesn’t prescribe how church services must run). So here, one may say “There – the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, who is to say which is wrong?” And this brings point:
2. The bible is a means of communicating God’s ideas/words/message/meaning to us. It isn’t a book which we can read and say “for me, this means…” I think many Christians (including myself) can get caught on this, and become lazy. There is true meaning in the bible, and I believe there is onus on us to do the work!
.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the final paragraph, but what I was trying to say is that it doesn’t matter what purpose is given by people for their actions – people commit atrocities in the name of religion, science, themselves, profit… but that is besides the credibility/worth of these things.
Equivalently, [a]ny “christianity” which denies or moves away from what is held in the bible is false. You see that anyone can say this to anyone else with respect to interpretation right?
What work? Do you mean find the correct interpretation? Can you please name someone who has, or has come close to, finding this correct interpretation in, say, the last 1000 years?
I disagree with that. How a concept is used, what it inspires, etc, contributes greatly to that concepts worth. If people are acting poorly on behalf of Christianity, then Christianity does not get off with its reputation intact.
I used to wonder about the vast array of interpretations – how could I know which was right? Catholics? Protestants? Maybe the Mormons or the Muslims have the correct interpretation of the bible? But one thing which helped me immensely, was just sitting down, opening the bible up, and reading what it has to say for itself. Although it’s incredibly deep, at the same time it isn’t that hard to get a good grasp on the bible if you just get stuck into reading and learning it.
.
Looking for the right interpretation without looking at the bible itself is like trying to have a baby by going pram shopping
.
On the last point – I think I might just be failing to put into words what I’m thinking (should have done more English at skool!) But ultimately, what I’m thinking, is deeper than a reputation. A reputation is often just an outward perception, which can be completely wrong. I don’t think (for example) that Hitler’s experimentation on Jews with Cyanide makes science bad, wrong or evil. I reckon science is great, love it. If, however, science stated that “Jews must be experimented on with Cyanide” then I would detest it. Similarly, although the Crusaders may say they’re Christians, what they did is clearly in contrast to what the bible teaches. Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place”. Why wage war to recapture Jerusalem? I think the people have committed atrocities, but this due to twisted agendas rather than biblical instruction. I’m not sure if that all sounds right, come back at me on this.
Hi Ben.
I’m not offended at all. Please say what you think.
.
Hopefully this discussion will help stop my reflections on atheism from “poisoning the well”. That was in fact one of my aims in this introductory post – see its last couple of paragraphs. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all atheists employ a general Argument from Religious Violence/Abuse to oppose all religions.
.
That said, Grayling isn’t alone. In fact, you can find the very same leap of logic in a number of atheist books and films. So it seems to me it is at least broadly “related to atheism” and that it does warrant a response. Here are another couple of examples.
.
Michel Onfray, The Atheist Manifesto:
.
Bill Maher, Religulous:
.
What do you think? Have you come across similar all-encompassing arguments from religious violence before? Do you think they are fair, measured criticism? It would be great to hear some atheists and sceptics speaking up to oppose such fallacious arguments too.
.
If I have understood you rightly, I definitely agree with you. While God can heal people, teaching that God promises physical healing to anyone as long as they have enough faith is harmful. It misrepresents God, it gives people false hope, and it undermines Christian assurance. It is also unbiblical. I don’t know how prevalent this false teaching is in the Bible belt, but you are probably right that there is at least some of it around.
.
Christian pastors, if you are teaching this false doctrine, please re-examine the scriptures and stop. James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:3-9; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20 and 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 would be good places to start.
So it comes down to a personal interpretation?
I don’t doubt this, and this wasn’t my concern (though thanks for providing references). My point was: atheism has nothing to do with “claims of abuse perpetuated in the name of religion” or “generalisations”, and I failed to see why the atheist tag was added to a discussion on those things. My concern was that it might be to try and tarnish atheism by association, which I tried to (perhaps poorly) explain above.
No, I think your explanation was clear. Thanks for raising that concern and for the discussion!
I disagree. When God wrote the Scripture, he had an intended meaning, and if our personal interpretation is not the same as the intended meaning, our interpretation is wrong. (I think it’s important to say here that I don’t claim to understand every piece of the bible in entirety and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!)
.
The Bible was written by God’s Spirit:
.
… the same Spirit Jesus promised to send to his disciples, as John wrote in his bibliography of Jesus:
Similarly, in one of Paul’s letters to the Christians in Corinth:
So, the same Spirit who wrote the Bible, God sends us to understand the Bible. However, the Bible says that we should expect many different interpretations, and there will be people who twist the words to serve their own purposes:
Humbly reading scripture will reveal that a lot of it is plain – it can be understood. If it is read in an attempt to understand the meaning which God put into it, then one won’t jump to conclusion, but will see what the Bible claims for itself. If this is the approach, then I believe a lot of personal interpretations will overlap heavily, on the meaning intended by God.
So I suppose it’s not a big leap to assume you believe you have interpreted some of the Bible correctly. I’m wondering how you decide this, and if someone disagrees with you, how you decide you are correct? Thanks.
Yeah absolutely man, I agree totally.
.
I think an example may be useful here: one mis-interpretation of the Bible is to state that God saves people who are good, or who he foreknew would merit saving. I disagree with this, based on parts of the Bible such as the following excerpt (it’s a letter Paul wrote to the church in Galatia):
I believe this says that we are saved/redeemed/given God’s Spirit by faith in Jesus, rather than being good, observing the law, or by any merit on our behalf. The reasons I believe this, and the points I would discuss with someone who believes differently, are:
.
1. Paul repeats the significance of trusting God as compared to observing the law 10 times.
.
2. Latter parts of the same letter agree with this understanding:
3. The parts of the Old Testament which Paul references support this view of the faith vs the law, for instance, Genesis chapter 15 talks about Abraham believing God, and because of this he is credited righteousness (just as we are given righteousness through believing God by believing Jesus)
4. Wider writings in the Bible repeat the point, (this e.g. from one of Jesus’ biographies):
5. The big picture of the Bible is that God has worked to save his people for the praise of his name. How does this understanding stack up against that? Well, by sending his Son, Jesus, to die in our place, God has both saved us from our deserved punishment, and done it in a way that gives all the glory to Jesus, rather than to us. It fits.
.
Other points we could consider: are there terms which stick out? Any that may have slightly different meanings that the ones we use today?
.
If someone has a different interpretation to the Bible than I do, I like to sit down with them and check this stuff out together. Humility is really important here, because it could be that I’m wrong, or they are, or both of us are. But again, sitting down and nutting through a passage word-by-word with someone is huge in terms of coming to a similar understanding. I think a lot of mis-interpretations come about because specific parts of the text are over-emphasised, parts are skimmed over, or not enough thought goes into what a certain understanding would mean to all other facets of who we know God to be.
Sorry for the wall of text!