Epicurus and Christianity

Posted by on

Another one of my Modern Philosophy posts. I hope I speak with some authority on this one, having been brought up in an Evangelical Christian home, attended church regularly for eighteen years, and familiarised myself with the key tenets of Christian doctrine. Having already written about Islam, I hope to complete an analysis of the three monotheisms with a post of Judaism, so look out for that over the coming months. 

On a metaphysical level, Epicureanism and Christianity fundamentally contravene each other. The former is a materialist philosophy, claiming that nothing exists beyond the empirical realm that humans can know about. There may be gods, but their activities are inconsequential to life here on earth. On the other hand, Christianity is essentially about mankind’s redemption from sin through the resurrection of Jesus, so that we may enjoy a direct relationship with God. In the ancient world, Epicureans and Christians often clashed because they disagreed on so much.

Despite their contradictory claims, both Epicureans and Christians would profess to adhere to the same standards of behaviour: compassion, forgiveness, generosity, inclusion, hospitality, love, as well as an aversion to excess. Some Christians would claim that Christianity, or at the very least formalised religion, is a pre-requisite for living a truly moral life, though that isn’t a view held by all. Epicureanism certainly never made a claim to a monopoly on morality. As an Epicurean, I think people of all religions are capable of living highly fulfilling lives. A late Christian friend of mine spends her life looking after children, volunteering to help the elderly, and participating in the church choir and band. I may not agree with her metaphysics, epistemology or ethics, but I can certainly appreciate the difference she made to the lives of those around her. Equally, the Islamic Society at Exeter University raises a lot of money for charity. So I’m afraid ascribing truthfulness to a doctrine based on the good works of its adherents is a rudimentary fallacy because virtually every doctrine can claim to have had good effects.

Therefore, it’s important to establish what sets Christianity apart. I won’t get into any obscure verses in the Old Testament; the Christian community is divided as to how to interpret those verses and their relevance for the modern day- a debate that ought to be resolved amongst Christians. As I said before, Christianity is fundamentally about the death and resurrection of Jesus. This was to satisfy an all-powerful God who cannot abide sin. But thanks to sinful human nature caused by Adam and Eve (see the first few books of Genesis to find out how this happened), people are incapable of living perfect lives, requiring God to come down in human form to die as a blood sacrifice for human redemption.

This is a totally immoral and depraved doctrine. The notion of blood sacrifice is a barbaric idea, invented when man was in a far more primitive state. It’s little different from the polytheisms that preceded Christianity, killing animals as sacrifices to vengeful Gods. The fear of divine punishment has permeated human behaviour for thousands of years. It’s largely a result of our innate sense of guilt. In the case of Christianity, you have a god that demands perfection, knowing that humans are now incapable of obeying his every whim. He then states that all of the world’s people are damned to an eternity in hell unless they accept his blood sacrifice. It’s a frightening belief, one that perpetuates constant guilt and feelings of inadequacy. Christians are forever apologising for themselves, even as they know full well they are trying to live to an impossible standard.

The truth is, humans are not in need of redemption. We are certainly highly flawed, and Christians have done an excellent job of pointing out that despite our advances in science and technology, we are not necessarily becoming more moral. We can never expect to be perfect, so there’s no point in apologising every time we aren’t. Christianity claims to absolve its believers from sin, yet Christians behave as if they are just as guilty as before, because Christianity demands absolute obedience to God, even after having believed in the resurrection.

As a result, I’ve noticed that Christianity attracts people who express a high degree of regret at how they use to live. Maybe they had a problem with alcohol or drugs. Maybe they were ill-tempered, or even violent. Perhaps they lived lives deemed to be sexually promiscuous by society, and so feel inadequate due to a new sense of shame. Christianity entices such people with the promise of absolution. But even after confession, Christians strive to improve to what are unrealistic standards, that ought never to be said if people are to live truly fulfilling lives. Christianity fails to offer a point in which the believer can be satisfied with themselves, apart from a vague promise of eternal life- a derivative notion that satisfies the base human greed and selfish desire to live forever.

The belief in blood sacrifice for the redeeming of sin has grave consequences for the modern world. Christians largely regard the non-Christian world as ‘fallen’, and therefore inherently corrupting. I’ve met Christians who have shut themselves away from the world, because they regard it as morally poisonous. In some cases, this has led to segregation, with Christians choosing to live apart from others, instead of trying to improve the world in which they live. I appreciate most Christians aren’t that extreme. But the casual dismissal of the non-Christian world is insulting to the followers of other belief systems who are only trying their best.

The worst aspect of the blood sacrifice doctrine is its effects on children. As a child, I was taught that I could never be perfect (or even good enough since God’s standard is perfection.) My only hope was to believe in Jesus and follow whatever the Bible says, or else be guilty of disobeying God. The image of hell was frightening for a child, who like most, had a vivid imagination. Christianity kept me afraid and anxious for many years. There was even one point when I cried when I couldn’t find my family, because I believed they had been taken to heaven and I was left to go to hell. In my view, instilling that sort of fear into children ought to condemned by wider society, though sadly it goes barely noticed.

A Christian upbringing was also damaging in other ways. Particularly when I was young, I wasn’t allowed to learn about other religions properly. I was never taught the arguments in favour of other religions, or even atheism. I wasn’t even allowed to find out bad things about Christmas. Even at A level, my mum was sceptical of me taking a philosophy course because it may cause me to ‘turn away’ from God. My parents also had a very authoritarian parenting style, demanding my absolute obedience and not allowing me to question them. Other Christian parents I knew were far worse, banning their children from anything they claimed portrayed Christianity badly, be it Harry Potter for its ‘Satanic’ influences or The Simpsons due to Ned Flanders’ ineptitude as a prominently Christian character.  Making fun at Christianity was deemed ‘blasphemous’ and resulted in severe punishment. This was a despicable way to raise children, one which I couldn’t possibly regret more. It is healthy for anyone to make fun at themselves and their beliefs, be they religious or otherwise.

Christianity still has an anti-scientific streak. Young-earth creationism, which denies biological evolution, natural selection, and the true age of the universe and the earth, is still a very prominent belief. Science denial was rife amongst the Christians I knew, even on issues like climate change that have nothing to do with Christian doctrine. I’m not at all surprised that American Evangelical Christians are more likely to be climate change deniers than the general population- the latter is at least somewhat related to the former in my view. Other conspiracies, like 9/11 being a hoax, or the Federal Reserve being owned by the Rothschilds, are disproportionately common amongst the Christian community.

At least by British standards, the Christianity I’m familiar with is quite extreme. But by world standards, it is the norm. International Christianity is fostering a culture of authoritarianism, patriarchal gender norms, heavy-handed parenting, instilling fear into people, demanding the morally impossible, total and unquestioning submission to God, and in some cases, conspiracy theories, science denial and segregated lifestyles. Even in the United Kingdom, where the Church of England is relatively benign, Christianity still affirms the doctrine of blood sacrifice because it is essential to the Christian message. Epicureans should holistically repudiate Christianity, for its practical effects as well as its beliefs.

Best of the Week #2

Posted by on

Thanks to the positive feedback I received for the first Best of the Week, I’m pleased to announce it will feature every Sunday on the Epicurus Blog. Initially it was only going to be about newspaper op-eds, but anything of interest- political or otherwise- may be recommended here. And what a week it’s been, with both the UK General Election and the James Comey hearings taking place.  

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-theresa-may-lost-the-election-but-no-one-else-won-a3561051.html. An acerbic indictment of Theresa May and her election campaign, from none other than the former Chancellor and Evening Standard editor, George Osborne. May started the election with a commanding lead in the polls, a weak opposition, and the support of the right wing tabloids. All she had to do was run a risk-averse campaign, utilising the Conservatives’ popularity on the economy and national security to her advantage, and a landslide would be hers. Instead, her election bid promised unpopular reforms to the welfare and social care systems, insulted the electorate’s intelligence by repeating vacuous phrases like ‘strong and stable,’ and she seemed disengaged and unenthused due to her non-participation in mass rallies and televised debates. On the Andrew Marr Show, Osborne described May as a ‘dead woman walking,’ and quite rightly too; her days in Number 10 are numbered.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723197-election-reveals-astonishing-changes-political-landscape-culture-wars-arrive. The Economist’s Bagehot offers a unique analysis here. He argues that British politics is being Americanised through the arrival of the so-called ‘Culture Wars’ on this side of the Atlantic. If he’s right, Britain will end up more divided than ever before. Faced with an ageing population, a lethargic and unproductive economy, and the monumental task of negotiating with the EU, a high degree of political unity will be required. The polarisation of the British policy along the social issues is the last thing the country needs.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15739606/saudi-arabia-ties-qatar-trump. An excellent explainer of the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It is a geopolitical issue with huge ramifications for the United States, particularly its relations with Iran. If left unchecked, this conflict could force the US to dramatically alter its Middle East policy, and has the potential to significantly increase world oil prices. Unfortunately I’m no expert on the Middle East. But this article is required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the region’s current fractures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/opinion/james-comey-senate-testimony-donald-trump.html?_r=0. Roger Cohen excellently summarises my thoughts on the Comey hearing here. Even if Trump didn’t act illegally when firing Comey, it’s obvious that he acted improperly. The case for impeachment isn’t quite open and shut, but it has certainly been made stronger over the week.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/nicola-sturgeon-the-second-biggest-loser/. One of the most positive outcomes of the UK General Election was that it dealt a blow to the cause of Scottish Nationalism. Alex Massie brilliantly explains why. The SNP is far from dead, it still holds a plurality of Westminster seats in Scotland. But separatism is the preserve of a minority of Scots; the election confirmed this and a strong desire to move on from the constitutional question. Having said that, the union is still under threat. If Labour goes into decline, if the Conservative alliance with the DUP proves unpopular in Scotland (as it almost certainly will), and if Brexit (which a majority of Scots voted against) goes badly wrong, it is very easy to see a rejuvenated SNP, capitalising on a series of crises which are very likely to occur

History’s greatest, most long-running robbery

Posted by on

Most robberies are done and over quickly. Depending on the nature of the theft the timescale could be anything from a few moments for a spontaneous bag-snatch to the month or so it takes, with lawyers in tow, to rob a contractor who has, in good faith, refurbished one of your hotels and isn’t being paid.

Nobody has so far commented on this, but the election of Trump and his subsequent installation in the White House, complete with the damaging policies now being pursued, is the most sophisticated theft, maybe, in the history of the world.

Think of it: he is legally elected, and in this he has the support of law enforcement. Instead of a single robbery of, say, jewels, Trump and his oligarchs are there for four, maybe eight years, quite legally depriving poor Republican voters, and giving to the Mob (whoops! Excuse me) the rich, his close, like-minded cronies in particular. Support for this breath of fresh air is waning somewhat, but he retains the enthusiasm of a significant proportion of the population as he deprives people of healthcare and civil rights, and most things that make America liveable, and claims this is what he promised to do. Since he controls the right-wing media he can misrepresent his actions with impunity. And when (and if) his supporters wake up to the fact that they have been conned, he can blame the Democrats (who wouldn’t let him do this, that or the other) and the liberal media who have been “more unfair to him than any other U.S President in history”. And people believe him through it all! What an artist! His chances of ending up in jail are zero, too!

Five minutes research (more research than Trump has done in his life) shows that he and his fellow thieves, operating on an unprecedented scale, will have robbed the American people of one and a half trillion (you read it correctly) dollars by the end of eight years. No, this is not scientifically arrived at figure, but is presented in the spirit of Republican ethical thought. And in any case we now know that science is a scam, don’t we, and dreamt up to interfere with The Great Loser Robbery, 2016-2024.

Let us change our methods of election

Posted by on

From Campbell Wallace, Redon, France
“Dave Levitan and Alice Klein rightly deplore politicians such as Donald Trump and Malcolm Turnbull, who disregard scientific evidence in favour of policies chosen for short-term electoral advantage or to further special interests. But the problem is a consequence of the electoral system itself, which repeatedly brings to power people unfit to use it.

“Since the 18th century we have assumed that elections are both necessary and sufficient for democracy, and that without them tyranny results. Yet the Greeks of Aristotle’s day knew that elections could lead to oligarchy, not democracy, and that a democratic alternative existed.

“Athenian democracy selected decision-makers by lot to get a statistically representative sample of the whole community: this is called “sortition”. It is perfectly feasible to design a system with the means to ensure that those chosen are well informed on each issue that comes before them.

“Sortition would end the reign of big money, greatly reduce corruption and allow intelligent decisions, taking into account the interests of all. It’s high time we abandoned the myth that elections equal democracy”.(published in The Week)

At the moment we have politicians beholden to somebody, usually rich somebodies, for their election, owing to the huge expense in America of simply getting yourself known to the public, name recognition being essential. In Britain the principal funders of the political parties have to kow-tow to their big funders, whether individuals or unions. It is no way to to maintain a democracy, and sure enough, we get the governments we deserve. On top of this we have constituencies that are gerrymandered or arranged in such a way to ensure a right- wing outcome, and legislators whose education, general knowledge and intelligence is often questionable. Then there is the lopsided bias in the media (in the U.K). Last night we walked psst a late-night convenience store with all the national papers displayed in full view. Most had anti-Corbyn headlines, despite the apparent public sentiment that appears to be running in an anti-May direction. The system is rotten and sortition seems an intelligent answer. Pray for it, but don’t expect it anytime soon!