Humility has been preached as a virtue for centuries by many teachers and groups. I have found through my own experiences that attempting to become more humble an odd experience, especially if you are a Christian. Let’s face it, according to Christian metaphysics we are all demi-gods in the making; we all have our very own guardian angel, and hordes of demons deem our souls to have such worth that they work tirelessly to obtain them. When this is your view of the world and more importantly your view of yourself, it is no wonder that humility has to be so stressed in Christian circles.
In contrast, take the atheist’s view of himself. He has strong evidence that he may have evolved from lesser primates, that he is not the center of a giant inter-dimensional soap opera/power struggle, that a lot of his impulses and desires are leftovers from a sloppy evolution over which he has little control, and that when his body dies, he dies. Which of these two groups would be more naturally inclined to humility?
A clear difference can also be observed in how these two groups settle an argument. Whenever I see two Christians debating a point of theological contention, my mind often paints a picture of two cavemen settling a dispute. In the case of a theological argument, evidence is never needed or even brought up, precisely because the two arguers have accepted the premise that what they are debating is “above” proof, or beyond human understanding (why they argue at all is an irony invisible to this sort). Now two cavemen in contention are completely unaware of the concept of evidence, so it is not a part of their discourse, and every contest is settled by force. The biggest caveman wins every argument. In comparison the biggest Christian Church won every argument ever raised in the Middle Ages with the use of its favorite club: the Spanish Inquisition. In our more modern, civil time, force of personality, or the force of conditioning has taken over the role of the inquisition. It does not matter to a Christian what a person says, but who said it, and how they said it. So the biggest and most eloquent Christian wins every argument. A good example would be when the High Priest of America declared that certain countries were not just a threat to the U.S., but that they were in fact evil. All his loyal Christian followers accepted this without any proof, simply because the biggest Christian had spoken (I’ll grant you, not eloquently) and we went to war.
The saying “he has strong convictions” is often thrown around in religious discourse. Merriam-Webster defines conviction as: a strong persuasion or belief. Every five year old I ever met had very strong convictions about the existence of Santa Claus. So just possessing a rabid conviction is no great achievement. I often wondered how one quantizes the strength of ones convictions, because it seems to me that in order to have strong convictions you must have successful convictions, meaning a lot of people adhere to your personal convictions. The methods needed to convince a mass of unthinking people are usually somewhat suspect. Of course Nuremberg springs immediately to mind, but I think that is taking it a bit too far. Used car salesman is more the line of modern Christian leaders. An absurd amount of self confidence, mixed with greasy charisma and fast talking seems to be the ultimate soil in which the seed of conviction grows best. And from that fertile soil springs the giant ego of the only gods we know, Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment