"the religious are sheep"

A sibling of the idea that Christians aren't smart (the third blog entry!) is the idea that people with religious belief systems are "sheep" who somehow lost the ability to think for themselves: under specific conditions they just don't question what they hear. This is how, according to the rest of the diatribe, they can be uncritically duped by "irrational but seductive lies", even to the point of martyrdom. The religious maxims flourish in the mind through isolation from any other knowledge.

The automatons so described obviously exist. Cults, and the top figures of those cults, exploit them. Yet not all people who have religious belief systems are "sheep". Like "Christians aren't smart", "the religious are sheep" is a bald overgeneralization, having some flaws.

• Consider the grid of four possibilities, with rows of "religious" and "secular" and columns of "sheep thinking" and "non-sheep thinking". Some of the people in the "religious" row are in the "sheep thinking" column (the cults just mentioned) and some of the people in the religious row are in the "non-sheep thinking" column (much of this blog entry will essentially cover why and how those people can exist) . "The religious are sheep" implies "non-sheep are secular", so people in the "secular" row and the "non-sheep thinking column" tend to support rather than disprove the objection. But the fourth possibility of the grid, the intersection of row "secular" and column "sheep thinking", while not strictly applicable to the objection, also has many examples. This means in statement form that "all secular people have non-sheep thinking" is false. Clearly, people can think "like sheep" about virtually anything, religious or not. That's why active parenting is so important, why trends have influence, why outsiders (any outsider relative to any group) receive scorn, why oppression often operates through media control and "loyalty-creation exercises". The point is that while this doesn't disprove that all religious people are sheep, it does disprove that "secular" and "non-sheep thinking" are one and the same. Therefore, religiosity and sheep thinking are distinct scales of measurement.
• Sometimes people (choose to) forget that their belief systems contain foundational doctrines which cannot be challenged because those doctrines are the method to structure other knowledge, yielding its meaning. Removing the foundational doctrines would leave the person with no way to comprehend, interpret, and apply. These foundational doctrines will be in the "sheep thinking" realm; someone must have gotten them from somewhere. Granted, some people have more elaborate and explicit doctrines than others. They would doubtless argue that the doctrines are thereby more effective and honest.
• The "sheep thinking" accusation glosses over the subtle, delicate relationship between ideals and particular ideas. Belief systems in general, religious or secular, have ideals/values (of almost equal importance to the foundational doctrines of those belief systems). Part of what makes human communication tricky is the easy pitfall of mistaking the ideals of belief systems and common, everyday ideas. Someone who, under specific conditions, imbibes every idea communicated, is by definition sheep thinking. However, someone who, through sharing ideals (more or less) with the communicator, understands and checks the ideas communicated, is not sheep thinking. Also, if the communicator is reinforcing ideals, nobody is learning what he or she hasn't already consciously chosen as an ideal in the past. In these situations, the participants in the communication are jointly figuring out what ideas best match the ideals. The most drastic of conversations, a switch to a different belief system, can work by identifying similarities in ideals between belief systems. Of course, the mistaking of ideas for ideals can also be put to the sinister use of luring someone to accept an idea that seems to match an ideal when it is actually opposite and/or false.
• A telling discriminator of a belief system's dependence on sheep-thinking, and the person advocating that belief system, is if the believers are (truly) encouraged to rely on more than one source of truth. Practically speaking, a belief system should make it clear that authority over truthful information isn't the province of the Person Whose Name Is ______ (what happens when he or she is no longer able to serve that function?). Centralizing authority in one regularly-swapped official isn't too convincing, either, although one must grudgingly admit absolute dictates have the benefit (curse?) of avoiding debates. In the Christian traditions I am involved in, a balanced, self-checking approach to Biblical truth is the nominal norm: a combination of tradition, reason, and experience do and should inform one's understanding. A prescription for sheep-thinking this is not! I bring this up solely to give an example.
• The desires of independence and freedom are active in people, to varying degrees in various people with their various personalities. The religious are people, regardless of a "sheep" label. They will believe what they choose, and do what they choose. In a society privileged to have religious freedom, any religious "leader" will discover how little control he or she really has. Scolding, discipline, and correction will only be effective on believers who on some level welcome it. Requests for volunteers usually don't lead to an overcrowding of applicants. Levels of commitment and participation are on a wide range. In their deepest of hearts, in the bottom of their minds, and in their locations of privacy, the outwardly "religious" can be surprisingly unwilling to carry out what they claim to believe. Honestly, the religious can be too insincere or weak-willed to aspire to be sheep.
  
• "The religious are sheep" may be connected to the assumption that religious belief systems gain believes through filling a personal, perhaps emotional, chasm, instead of through a "rational" evaluation. This assumption has some merit, since in most cases a belief system engages entire people, not just the part known as the mind. And it shouldn't be controversial to note vulnerable, damaged people are easier to influence, nor that people who are undergoing forced life transitions are more likely to take the opportunity to jump belief systems. Nevertheless, isn't it naive and unsympathetic to expect that people would act any other way? A belief system that doesn't work for someone is likely to be left behind for another. If a large number of people, the "sheep", are rejecting a belief system or replacing it with a competitor, then might that indicate something?
• "The religious are sheep" may be connected to the assumption that religious belief systems gain believers through people imitating and inculcating each other. This assumption has some merit, considering all long-lived belief systems (religious or not) are at least partially spread in this manner. But this assumption is too much of an overgeneralization of how religious belief systems spread, and applicable to too many secular belief systems, for it to be compelling. It also conveniently overlooks the fact that belief system switches also may come about through imitation and re-inculcation. In fact, it's not hard to imagine (or observe) a family in which a grandparent's religious zeal caused the parent to be anti-religious, and the parent's anti-religious zeal caused the grandchild to indulge religious curiosity.
  
• It would be negligent not to acknowledge the Bible's recurrent metaphor of the Church as sheep, still more because the quotes are from Christ. The content and context of those verses don't support the interpretation/application that people should follow each other like sheep. Rather, the relationship between Christ and the Church is like the relationship between a shepherd and a flock, as He enumerates. Shepherds guide, protect, care, sacrifice themselves for sheep. The emphasis is on the shepherd's actions, not the sheep. Note that when preachers talk about the "flock", call themselves "pastors", and so on, the meaning is (or should be) a Christ-inspired sentimental affection for the people they serve, not a way to degrade/dehumanize them.
  

freedom of speech and press is a good thing

Freedom of speech and press is marvelous. Regardless of belief system, every U.S. citizen should be grateful and zealously defensive of it. Please heed the following corrections of some all-too-common misconceptions.

• Having moral standards and respectfully expressing them is in no way "oppressing" other people, nor "inflicting" alternative points of view on the general populace. A free exchange of ideas is a benefit, not a burden. To parrot some popular clichés, "if you don't want to see it, don't watch" and "if you don't want to hear it, don't listen". Parodying and general mockery of differing ideas and media are fully permitted, of course (postmodernists hardly have any other tactic to employ), but have the reprehensible tendencies to emphasize societal division and antagonize the believers of what is mocked.
  
• Having moral standards about speech or press and respectfully expressing them is not detrimental to the freedoms thereof. The respectful expression of a moral standard for speech does not include forcibly silencing immoral speakers. Obviously, it also does not include attacks, sabotage, harassment, etc. It does include whatever means are lawful and respectful. These might be raising awareness of the immoral speech, encouraging the personal choice to avoid it, refusing to support it economically, even participating in peaceful demonstrations. The same freedoms a speaker uses to spread a message can be used by other speakers to protest the spreading of that message. The point is that all the speakers can speak; none of them may prohibit the speech of the others.
  
• It isn't contradictory for someone to believe in freedom of speech while having definite limits on what speech is acceptable to him or her. In fact, the existence of speech someone disagrees with is more or less guaranteed. People who would be generally considered as extremely permissive (and/or apathetic) about speech will nevertheless tell you that some speech or media wouldn't be around in an ideal world: at the very least, the speech or media which communicate the wrong viewpoints, as judged by him or her, and at the very most, any speech or media which have a cumulative negative effect on the audience, again as judged by him or her. Speech is a human activity. Therefore, it is possibly subject to moral consideration. Freedom of speech denotes freedom from interference in communication. As always, freedom doesn't include absolute "release" from all restrictions.
  
• Freedom of speech has come to be valued for serving many different purposes. One is the frequently-well-earned criticism of government actions and officials. Another is the frank investigation of important yet taboo topics, in the proper context. A third is the nonviolent collision of disparate belief systems. To the individualistic modernized consumer, freedom of speech allows the exaltation and exposure of the central ego, whose nurture and actualization is the goal of existence. Moral standards for speech don't, and shouldn't, stop the achievement of these purposes.
  

Worldview Fragment: restriction is freedom

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

All of the worldview fragments covered up until this one enjoy current (really perennial) popularity, but are also misleading or unbalanced in sometimes-subtle ways. Each fragment is commonly accepted by people who have nothing to do with Christianity. However, these fragments can sometimes confuse Christians who have heedlessly picked them up...or who simply haven't heard counterbalancing truths.

The worldview fragment "restriction is freedom" is different. It isn't popular, and least of all among the anti-religious. Its downfall isn't in being enticing yet somewhat false, but in being disconcerting yet somewhat true. Some practices and branches of Christianity have deeply embraced this fragment, while others "theoretically" agree with it but typically ignore it. Like the other fragments, it has been mixed with many compatible worldviews beside Christianity. And people and cultures have discovered it more or less independently of Christianity.

"Restriction is freedom" is a short name for the tricky belief that behavioral restrictions can lead to freedom from a detrimental influence. What makes it tricky is the juxtaposition of opposite concepts. On first hearing, it sounds nonsensical, like stating greater heat will cool someone off. How can someone claim to gain freedom by allowing less?

The solution to the contradiction is apparent after admitting the ultimate freedom of all people, free will to make significant decisions, is afflicted by a multitude of bondage-inducing interferences. Personal freedom is simultaneously inviolate and continually buffeted. The most extreme case is addiction, in which someone faces pains of withdrawal that would stoop just short of making the decision for him or her. The least extreme case is a whim or hunch, which vanish when brushed aside or not acted upon.

It's singularly foolish (or, if you prefer, supremely bold) to try to live consistently without recognizing and manipulating the extent of the opposing forces. The person who seriously wants to pursue a goal should observe the interconnectedness of decisions. One shaky, not even arguably evil, decision can lead to a situation that presents a genuine good-and-evil dilemma. Christianity admonishes people to flee temptation. Some of the "hard", "unreasonable" stances some Christians assume on certain activities may be due to the attempt to preemptively avoid opportunities to sin. Naturally, those Christians who can honestly, before God and self, claim total mastery/freedom over the related temptation(s), don't need to do so. To put this into non-Christian terms, a dieter shouldn't be surrounded by no-no foods, and a recovering alcoholic shouldn't be surrounded by problem drinkers. Willpower, especially supplemented by the Holy Spirit, is great, but hardly infallible. When it's weak from lack of practice or has a dismal record in one specific area, it shouldn't be counted on.

Freedom through restriction is beneficial for preventing tough settings, but it is a still more important weapon for breaking shackles that can't be outran: the inner life, with its lusts and compulsions. Many of these desires and drives are natural, and when exercised in the proper outlets could be considered neutral or holy. Once redirected into perversions or overindulged, however, the quality of innocence is gone: all that's left is a clinging urge to do wrong. At that point, someone is at civil war within him- or herself. The situation is serious. For Christians, who believe entanglement in sin produces spiritual death, the situation is literally deadly. Seeking out God, support of others, a renewed commitment to directing the impulse properly, and thoughtful contemplation/refocusing in the midst of the struggle will all be helpful.

Freedom through restriction is a more drastic technique. It entails foregoing not only unlawful gratification, but also lawful gratification, within well-defined limits. By doing this, greater control and strength are asserted. Power is restored to the person's soul, as the very fuel and habit of the specific lust is denied. Failure in carrying out the rule of restriction is treated similar to an actual sin, though not bearing the same weight of guilt: confession, pondering on the failure's root, and repentance. The goal is to train oneself to rely more fully on God during the time of restriction, and to put the problem into adjusted perspective. Interestingly, restricting the action of one inner weakness can lead to increased freedom from other inner weaknesses too. This is one explanation for the importance many Christians have placed on fasting, whether during Lent or in more frequent intervals.

As mentioned earlier, Christianity is not alone in its use of the "restriction is freedom" worldview fragment. Self-denial as a means to self-control is widely applicable. Although it may seem ridiculous in a culture whose attention is riveted on pursuit of pleasure (no matter the time or place of that culture), it in fact makes a lot of good sense.

truth sources

Truth can come from many different sources. One group of sources, here to be referred to as "personal", is connected to oneself. This group includes personal experience, reason, intuition, and so forth. Other sources clearly fall into another group, here to be referred to as "extrapersonal", which is truth sources outside oneself. Individual truths from any of the sources in either group is potentially suspect. So is each truth source as a whole. However, speaking in general, the personal truth sources are less questionable than the extrapersonal truth sources.

The point is, someone else, who says one truth is "supported by the evidence" and that a second truth is "unsupported by any evidence", is an extrapersonal truth source to the listener. Moreover, the speaker is probably referring to one of his or her own extrapersonal truth sources, who in turn were referring to yet other extrapersonal truth sources, etc. This mesh of extrapersonal truth sources all referring to and trusting one another, here to be referred to as a "hive", has a more complicated value compared to other truth sources. Is a hive of five people referring to mere extrapersonal truth sources more trustworthy than one person who refers to a personal truth source? What if the one person's personal truth source is likely biased?

Someone in a hive may vehemently state a truth because it comes from the hive. He or she may also speak of evidence, when the "evidence" is purely extrapersonal yet reinforced by the hive--a refined version of hearsay and rumor. "Look at our hive. We all think the same way about this topic. If you disagree, you're ignoring the evidence, which is attested to by everyone in the hive." "Evidence" which came from some other source, which was passed on from some other source, which was passed on from other source, etc., is hive thinking masquerading as a personal truth source. Regard it as such.

"why a Holy God?"

Objections to Christianity (and similar belief systems) fall into two broad categories: objections against the existence of God, and objections against a particular conception of God. One of the objections in the second category, roughly summarized as "why a Holy God?", has many expressions. "Why would the master and creator of the universe care about what tiny humans do?" "How likely is it that an all-powerful, all-knowing Force is constrained by merely human morality?" "What does matter matter to an eternal Spirit?"

Any answers to this objection will probably be insufficient to convince the objector, especially one who doesn't believe in God at all. Nevertheless, the Christian has some reasons to remain unfazed by it.

• Given that God is all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., is it really any more unbelievable that God is intimately aware of all aspects of creation? When someone can lift twenty pounds, what's questionable about positing that same person's ability to lift ten pounds? Ultimate awareness is ultimate awareness. Magnificence in the large includes, not precludes, interaction in the small. Put another way: assuming God can care about anything in the universe, why can't it be true that God cares about everything? God's plans may operate on the grandest scale, yet those plans can have roles for the tiniest participants.
  
• Given that God is the creator of the universe, the more surprising outcome would be not caring about his creation. Is it more reasonable to suppose that God went "through the bother" of all that creating without actually caring about the result, or that affection for the creation motivated the act? It's certainly possible to think of God as winding up the universe like a timepiece, then leaving it alone to proceed without any further attention (smart people have really thought this). But if God is sentient and has somewhat comparable motivations to human creators, clearly God wanted the universe to happen--God had a strong interest in it dating from its inception. That interest probably continues.
  
• The idea of a hard separation between the natural and the supernatural may not be well-supported by Christianity. Miracles presume that the supernatural can work in and with the natural. Sanctification is another recurrent indication. How can the notion of holy objects like a temple, an ark of the covenant, and so on be reconciled to a gap between God and creation? Saying that God's holiness, if it exists, has nothing to do with the universe, ignores or conflicts with the Christian accounts of how the supernatural hallows the natural. Assuming that a divide from the supernatural implies a divide from holiness also may be equating all supernatural beings with holiness, which is again not well-supported by Christianity's picture of the real demonic.
  
• Moreover, the distinction between matter and spirit hits closer to "home" in the concept of the human soul. The body and soul must have some connection for the soul to matter; how can the seat of free will even be the seat of free will if it has no effect on the movements of the body? Just as the soul can interact with the body, so can God interact with the universe.
  
• The seeming arbitrariness of the ultimate, divine God working according to the same morality as people is less stark after considering two points central to normal Christian doctrine. First, human morality's source is divine morality. God is good not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of good originates from God. God acts justly not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of justice originates from God. God shows mercy not only because that's God's nature, but also because the human concept of mercy originates from God. Second, human beings have been created in the "image" of God. Exactly what this refers to is mysterious. However, one of the common interpretations is that God created humans to have minds and souls that reflect (to a small degree) God's mind, and to share some of the same motivations and moral concerns. Humans were for fellowship with God. The point is that God doesn't resemble us through us imagining God; we resemble God through God purposefully creating us to do so.
  
• The objection against a holy God derives some of its vigor from the perception that attributing human-directed holiness to God is like placing constraints on the one entity which should have none. This perception is too hasty. God's concern for the world doesn't eliminate the possibility of concern for the universe, or other worlds. In the same way, God's concern for humanity doesn't eliminate the possibility of concern for other creatures, or the world itself. We have the moral laws for people, since God has communicated to us. Laws and holiness for others may exist, too (angels, etc.?), but we don't need those. God's holiness has been shown and demonstrated to us, and God is not reduced.
  
• A final reason, maybe the most important, why Christians think God cares about the actions of individual people, is (almost laughably) simple: God loves. Part of love is desiring that the beloved excels. Another part of love is desiring the beloved's safety and happiness. One narrow definition of holiness is functioning as it should. The intent of human holiness is to produce the outcomes planned for humanity in the beginning. Love and holiness are linked in God. God desires to impart this combination to people, for the benefit of all.