wingedbeast (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wingedbeast) wrote2015-09-27 11:40 pm
wingedbeast) wrote2015-09-27 11:40 pm
Entry tags:
Tip # 36 Surface-v-Substance
One of the things I see religions doing is providing a set of... let's call it clothing for certain virtues. Not just the literal clothing, but mannerisms, stock-phrases, etc. It provides these as a clothing people can put on for certain contexts, so that people can "wear" humble or "wear" wise or "wear" loving.
That's... not necessarily bad. Some people can and do use that to get into the right frame of mind for a certain role, as well as to signify to others. This clothing has valid uses.
The problem is when one starts to mistake the clothing for the substance.
I reviewed the movie The Encounter* and thought that one appropriate alternate title would be "Evil Jesus: The Movie". Some commentators on the YouTube video ecstatically admire the depicted Jesus for being loving and humble. The character wears those virtues. In the tone of voice, in the role as owner/operator of a diner and serving food, in clothing choice. But, the substance still shows a character far more concerned with being seen to be powerful and not-to-blame than for the real pains of the people right in front of him.
James White, in his debate with David Silverman, tells a story. In this story, he went to hold a sign outside an event that would be attended by atheists. The sign read "Atheists: creatures denying a creator." He tells that story in order to comment upon the language that some atheists used in response. The translation being "I showed deliberate disrespect to them, they responded in kind, but I made the appropriate surface motions, so see how morally superior I am and how morally inferior they are."
Ken Ham, in his debate about Creationism with Bill Nye, repeatedly brought up scientists who happen to be Creationists. He even redefined "science" to just mean "knowledge", so that he could divide that up into "observational" and "historical". The point being to make the case for dressing Creationism in the clothing of science... all without having to actually subject Creationism to scientific rigor.
Intellect, humility, wisdom, kindness, respect, love, all of these require more, to correctly understand and recognize, than the pure surface of matters. It requires more than just looking at how certain people/actions are dressed. Mistaking the surface for the substance, or in some cases actively choosing to focus on the surface over the substance, doesn't help you. It doesn't make your faith look better. It makes it look like it doesn't (or even can't) have real substance behind it.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/30142.html
That's... not necessarily bad. Some people can and do use that to get into the right frame of mind for a certain role, as well as to signify to others. This clothing has valid uses.
The problem is when one starts to mistake the clothing for the substance.
I reviewed the movie The Encounter* and thought that one appropriate alternate title would be "Evil Jesus: The Movie". Some commentators on the YouTube video ecstatically admire the depicted Jesus for being loving and humble. The character wears those virtues. In the tone of voice, in the role as owner/operator of a diner and serving food, in clothing choice. But, the substance still shows a character far more concerned with being seen to be powerful and not-to-blame than for the real pains of the people right in front of him.
James White, in his debate with David Silverman, tells a story. In this story, he went to hold a sign outside an event that would be attended by atheists. The sign read "Atheists: creatures denying a creator." He tells that story in order to comment upon the language that some atheists used in response. The translation being "I showed deliberate disrespect to them, they responded in kind, but I made the appropriate surface motions, so see how morally superior I am and how morally inferior they are."
Ken Ham, in his debate about Creationism with Bill Nye, repeatedly brought up scientists who happen to be Creationists. He even redefined "science" to just mean "knowledge", so that he could divide that up into "observational" and "historical". The point being to make the case for dressing Creationism in the clothing of science... all without having to actually subject Creationism to scientific rigor.
Intellect, humility, wisdom, kindness, respect, love, all of these require more, to correctly understand and recognize, than the pure surface of matters. It requires more than just looking at how certain people/actions are dressed. Mistaking the surface for the substance, or in some cases actively choosing to focus on the surface over the substance, doesn't help you. It doesn't make your faith look better. It makes it look like it doesn't (or even can't) have real substance behind it.
* http://wingedbeast.dreamwidth.org/30142.html