Moderation seems to be under attack.
This attack is clear in the realm of politics, as each party flees to the ideological extremes, claiming that compromise with the other is a dereliction of duty and principle, and that moderation is a weak and indecisive position. A good case can also be made that the aversion to moderation was the basis for the recent financial collapse. The lure of the extremes is not a new phenomenon to be sure, but our economic and political systems have historically been self-correcting, ensuring that extremism does not take hold of us for long, and moderation usually prevails. This elasticity and natural balancing is the genius and gift of America.
The attack on moderation has also not spared religion. I've witnessed this first hand in many responses to my blogs, in which I usually attempt to portray faith in a way that is reconciled with science and reason. In response to my last blog, "Can the Existence of God Ever be Proven?" for example, one person wrote: "You religious moderates claim to stand for equality, but you really stand for nothing. At least the fundamentalists follow their actual religion and take its teachings seriously. A religious moderate makes no sense because all religions profess to contain absolute but conflicting truths. Moderates also tell us that no one can criticize their religion because, after all, it's a free choice, and none are better than the other."
This viewpoint sets up a no-win situation for religions, positing that one is either an authentic extremist or a phony moderate, while condemning religion because of its extremism. The only conclusion, then, is that religion must go. Of course, this writer's position itself is an extremist one, making no room whatsoever for compromise or moderation.
This attack on moderation is not surprising, really, because we do seem to like extremes. In them we can find clarity, strength, the sense of being right and righteous, a common community of those who agree with us and a common enemy who is absolutely wrong. Extremist positions are also attractive because they indulge our laziness; we don't need to critically examining our position or search for the higher ground that embraces and transcends both extremes. It is inevitable, then, that religious moderation would come under attack. Beyond the dangers in the rejection of moderation, though, this attack on religious moderates is factually wrong, and stems from shallow assumptions and a profound lack of knowledge about how religions actually operate. Of course there are positions in which moderation is impossible -- one can not be a moderate Nazi -- but is this really true of religion? Let's look at the popular attacks on religious moderates and examine the factual basis of each:
1. Moderates are not practicing their "true" faith.
Critics often state that religion is inherently extremist and dangerous because all religions make absolute truth claims based on the belief in literal infallible scriptures, whose texts contain blatant historical inaccuracies and demand fanatical actions -- like stoning wayward sons, burning witches and destroying the un-believer -- and that moderates either don't know or conveniently ignore these true doctrines of the faith. The truth that the critics of religion so often seem to miss is that even the most orthodox branches of religions are not (and can not) be based on the literal reading of ancient scriptures and never were, but that all religions are necessarily interpretive and layered. No Jew, for example, lives by the strict word of the Torah (and none could), but instead lives in accordance with the myriad interpretations and refinements that continue to this day. This is the process that underlies all religious understanding and practice. Religions, like all systems, evolve and expand with new insights, and to meet the changing needs of their followers. This is not a concession, but is the process itself, and stems from the investigations and debates of theology, much as technology advances through the progress of theoretical science.
As I was working on this blog I came across a very well written explanation of this process from a 1953 paper by Professor C.D. Broad (who was not a religious man) of Cambridge University. He wrote, "If the primitive witch-smeller is the spiritual progenitor of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primitive rain-maker is equally the spiritual progenitor of the Cavendish Professor of Physics. There has obviously been a gradual refinement and purification of religious beliefs and concepts in the course of history just as there has been in the beliefs and concepts in science."
2. Moderates give "cover" to extremists by blunting the ability of outsiders to criticize their religion.
The claim here is that moderates create a smokescreen that both obscures and protects extremists. This too is not historically accurate. Religious moderates have actually been the loudest voices condemning extremism within their own religion. This began with the ancient Prophets, who railed against the empty ritualized practices of their day and urged their people instead toward compassion and charity. The critical voices of the Prophets are deliberately included in the Bible to continually remind us of this truth, and to be a moderating force against fundamentalism. For example, the Prophet Isaiah proclaimed, "Hear the word of God. What need do I have of your ritual sacrifices? I have no delight in lambs and goats that you bring before me. ... Cease to do wrong! Devote yourselves to social justice. Aid the wronged. Uphold the rights of the orphan. Defend the cause of the widow." This is a direct criticism of the extremism of the day, demanding change and moderation.
All the great spiritual leaders, from Buddha to Jesus, Philo, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Moses Mendelssohn, Karl Barth and Teilhard de Chardin, were moderates and reformers who criticized their own faiths. Instead of deflecting criticism, these moderates in fact welcomed and encouraged others to help their religion grow. Though some were condemned by the religious establishment of the day, their prophetic messages later became incorporated in to their faith.
3. Moderates are uninformed about the teachings and scriptures of their own religion.
People are often moderates because they did read the material, and know that there is a wide range of nuance and subtlety, that the core teachings of their faith are not literal, and that the deepest religious insights are in no way at odds with reason and science, or often with the deepest insights of other faiths. Although I do not have any hard statistics to back up this claim, anecdotal experience has shown me that the most informed members of a religion are not the fundamentalists, who may simply know what their fanatical or charismatic leader has told them -- who may actually discourage his followers from exploring the teachings on their own for fear they will discover that they are being misled. And, as mentioned earlier, the great religious reformers, who were the moderates of their day, were usually the most knowledgeable about their faith. (Yes, I did see the study which showed that atheists know more about religion that most religious folks. Perhaps this a topic for a future blog.)
One of the most eminent modern scholars of Judaism, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, noted, "All extremism, fanaticism and obscurantism come from a lack of security," concluding simply: "A person who is secure cannot be an extremist." Soloveitchik was deeply knowledgeable about his religion, and he was a moderate. He knew that one with a secure base of knowledge would never be an extremist and that extremism stems from incomplete or distorted information.
Like our political system, religion is also elastic and naturally balancing and seeks the middle path. Right in the very middle of the Five Books of Moses can be found this imperative: "Love your neighbor as yourself." It is not a coincidence that it is the middle, because the core teachings of all great religions is the middle path, drawing us to humility and telling us that what matters most is not how well we follow any specific doctrine or scripture but how we treat each other. Religious moderates represent this middle path between literal interpretation of scripture and arrogant or ignorant dismissal, between absolute truth claims and the dead-end of complete subjectivity, between blind adherence to tradition and uncritical adoption of transient fashion, and between the erroneous either/or choice of faith or reason. In this way, moderation is the true religious stance, and extremism, as a rejection of moderation, is a distortion.
Rabbi Alan Lurie: Can the Existence of God Ever Be Proven?
The Problem with Religious Moderates by Sam Harris- Beliefnet.com
Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan on Faith, Religion, Tolerance ...
If one position is argued to be superior solely because it is in the middle then this is the logical fallacy of Argument to Moderation.
Thanks to Caru for url:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldenMeanFallacy
Just whose teachings do these "Right-wing Christian radicals" REALLY follow? I want to know.
As a Catholic, it is perfectly acceptable (and better) for me;
to believe in Evolution
be against abortion and the death penalty
understand that the bible is not to be taken literally
disagree with gay people's lifestyle choices, but still love them and treat them as anyone else
understand that homosexuality is not a choice
be against fornication because I understand the consequences
not condemn others for their choices
choose not to use artificial means of birth control, but not condemn others for it
encourage others in their faith, even if it is not the same as mine
I could go no, but I'm running low on characters. Basically, my point is, I'm not crazy, I don't hate people, and try to emulate Christ. We are all called to be saints. I truly take to heart Gandhi's quote "...you Christians are so unlike your Christ" as a sentiment I must change
I have to wonder even about your belief in Evolution, one of the very few sensible things you listed - do you accept the scientific version or the Christian version where God was somehow involved? The scientific theory of evolution makes no mention of gods and a personal god's involvement in evolution is contrary to the evidence.
He accepts and loves the people. We are all God's children. That's why he is not extreme. He is opposed to certain actions - not people. Nothing radical.
continued
I have yet to hear loud, unrelentinÂg condemnatiÂon of fundamentaÂlism by religious moderates, nor have I seen measures to de-fund and ostracize extremistsÂ. Until I see tangible efforts in that direction, I'm going to assume moderates are still letting violent extremists serve as shock troops to further what they see as common goalsÂ. I think most of them would be quite comfortablÂe with a theocracy, assuming their flavour of foolishnesÂs was the one in charge.
I think most NAZIs followed the herd, or what they perceived as the prevailing order. Same with most "moderate religious". The majority don't think very deeply about it; they just fit in.
What about informed educated dismissal?
DanJ is correct; before discussing the merits of the number of angels on a pin-head, perhaps a more pertinent starting point is to ask if angels even exist.
Baring the discovery of stone or gold tablets written by god's finger, magical glasses, burning bushes, or the flying zombie (good one JohnFromCen), then ALL that Abrahamic religions can offer are obvious patently false "absolute truth claims AND the dead-end of complete subjectivity," the epistemology of received knowledge.
There is nothing to show that the bible/torah was written other than by, or contains knowledge that exceeds the technology of 1st century desert goat herders.
Recognizing this, the value of historical moralism as a valuable topic of discourse is debatable.
Thank you for the brief history lesson, I'm sure xians will appreciate that you pointed out their sacred whale/angel stories originate in ancient Egyptian mythological periods.
Enûma Eliš is also very interesting for its practically word for word plagiarism by Genesis authorS, but the topic of this article is the defensibility of the duplet "Religious Moderate."
If you were addressing the topic of this thread, perhaps you could decode the Egyptian/Tarot/Sufis/Gurdjieff?
If Intolerant and biggoted describes "Right Wing" Chrisians, and Moderate describes 'inclusive , tolerant'Christians. IF 'moderate' denotes middle of the road. Who are 'Left Wing' Christians ?
Claiming to be a religious moderate does not contradict the fact that religious belief is irrational by definition.
Was that meant an insult? Ouch! :(
You've labeled me rightly, and i embrace my eccentricity proudly. When i mentioned my concern, my mentor said to me, "It's ok for the schizofrits to go crazy."
I suppose what makes me "extreme" is the very fact that I'm an atheist. Atheism is outside the mainstream of society, is it not? I guess all atheism is extreme. Though, being outspoken about atheism and critical of theism is taken as more extreme than being sort of quietly about one's atheist. That said, I don't think my disbelief in God is any more extreme than any other atheist's.
Like with gay marriage, I am extreme there too. I think gay marriage should be legal, end of story. But I am not an extremist relative to moderate supporters of gay marriage. Rather I am extreme opposed to those supporting gay marriage.
Why should I not be noisy and advocate my position? Why should I seek "higher ground" and consensus? Sometimes moderation is good, sometimes it isn't and sticking by an extreme position is better. I have no problem with moderation, though I strongly disdain the view that moderation is necessarily more virtuous than extremism.
Me thinks you are hiding irrationality (in particular faith) behind intricacy and mixing it with logic & reason. If you are talking about "faith in the unknowable mysteries", this is not logic nor reason. Also, we don't move on to discussing the intricacies and logic of Christianity if God does not exist and Jesus is not my Savior. We only move onto the fine details if it's true and justified.
"If you wish to debate the "merits" of religious teachings & theology..."
I don't. The merits of the religion itself is undermined by the lack of evidence for God. There is no need to move onto religious teachings and theology. The religion is baseless and irrational, end of story.
"...but it is not for you to judge the "merits" of someone else's beliefs."
Why not? If I believed the Earth was flat and Elvis lives, you'd judge that. Why does your religion get a special pass? This is just special pleading and originates in the Protestant doctrines, I don't necessarily need to follow such non-judgment. In fact, I think I should judge the merits of others' beliefs.
This in a sense is a distinction without a difference. I am only interested in whether a belief is true, not whether it is beneficial or nice to have. You might do great deed and have a good heart on a false belief, the belief is still without merit. So to me the merit of a belief lies in the support (i.e. evidence and logic) that justifies the belief.
"My Christianity greatly enriches & enhances my life."
I don't care. I only care if Christianity is true.
I hope you see that the truth of a belief is the only thing I am interested in.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PL9HGZM
"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules." (Matthew 15: 8-9)
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ." (Col. 2: 8)
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. " ( 2 Tim. 4: 3-4)