Human beings are fallen creatures, according to Christians. Not only does that make us unable to live good lives on our own, some thinkers have even argued that sin impairs the very ability to reason. This borders closely with the concept of total depravity. In this context it is called the “noetic” effects of sin, noetic meaning “having to do with the intellect.”

There’s another catch to the whole noetic effects of sin. When atheists use bad arguments, this can get used as an example of sin compromising reason. If you go to, for example, Tektonics.org, that’s a common subtext.

There is nothing wrong with self esteem, just remember who gave you the ability to have it. “Do not be anxious about anything but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to GOd.” When bad things happen we always ask why. Why not do the same for good things? DO we only pay attention to God when things do not happen the way we want them to? We want to address the cause of suffering. Why not address the cause of happiness? Why seek fault instead of worth? When you do that you will begin to appreciate God and people a lot more.

The word ‘islam’ means submission. Obviously submission to the will of Allah, as prescribed in the five pillars of faith. The big-3 monotheisms are alike in dismissing an individual’s will — “not my will but thy will done” as we’re shown in the poignant scene at Gethsemane in the NT. (But, the xian god-man is no hero.)

For the big-3 empire building monotheisms, self-assertion takes on the character not of honest questioning and personal growth, but of insubordination and rebellion. (Can’t be godly cannon fodder unless you obey orders, mister.)

>> One SicK danish strudel, to go!

With characteristic, combative verve, Kierkegaard condemns the doubter as insubordinate, a rebel against xian fideism:

“They would have us believe that objections against Christianity come from doubt. This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually [against] doubt, instead of fighting ethically [against] rebellion. . . .So it is not properly doubt but insubordination.” (Lowrie 122)

Thus, SK. Almost needless to say, but his rhetoric works equally “well” in the mouth of any fideist muslim or jew.

>> Got guilt? Well, why not, sinner?

Even attempting to leave a religious culture which demands ’subordination’ or ’submission’ to someone else’s interpretation of an alleged “will of god” adversely affects the psychological well-being of the “apostate.” Irrational anxiety feelings get induced. Guilt is the nonexistent elder brother of nonexistent “sin.”

Becoming-who-you-are or “individuation” (to use Jung’s terminology) is the goal of personal growth. It cannot occur without self-doubt or without doubting authority and authority figures. When you’ve made a “leap of faith” into hyper-religious space there is no return except by self-assertion, and doubt is just a form of it. You emulate not Jesus, but Odysseus. The hero labors, struggles, succeeds or dies trying; but throughout remains human.

>> Religious “commitment” is not a choice; it’s a moral cop-out

Irrational self-assertion characterizes our popular culture. Irrational fideism characterizes fundamentalism. One “commitment” to Christ and you drop into the womb of unknowing. “Rebirth” is a pale substitute for individuation.

Tolerance is that wide band of humane behavior, including rational self-assertion, lying between inhuman anarchy and inhuman puritanism. Trying to navigate there requires years of training and making a lot of very human mistakes.

bipolar2 © 2008

Bottom line: fundamentalism tries to dictate what you are supposed to *feel*, what your motives should be. But emotions are not under voluntary control. So we are set up to fail.

Makes me think of the line from that old movie Wargames: “The only way to win is not to play.”