responses-to-objection/main.tex

\documentclass{article}

\title{Responses to Objection}
\author{hmmstmachine}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

Over my short time in the \texttt{\#controversial} channel of the Arch Linux Community Discord server, I have articulated some beliefs that others have raised objection to.
The reason why I'm writing this document is to enumerate my counter-objections to these objections and to offer a further justification of my beliefs.
I have not been able to articulate them within my limited time on the channel, so this document serves as a sort of ``long message'' with which I will attempt to dispense with my defense.

Before I begin, I'd like to note the spirit in which I'm writing this document.
Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that I'm most certainly not writing this document in any sort of punitive manner or to prove I am superior in some way --- I am authoring this document in the hope that it will aid in the search for truth, whatever that is.
Secondly, I'd also like to make clear that this document represents my beliefs are the time this document was written.
If you're in the future (hi there!), this might not represent my complete beliefs.
I can only guarentee that this document represents the beliefs of myself, hmmstmachine, on \today.
% for those of you reading the source, \today resolves to 27 Jul 2024

And with that, onto the meat of the response.

\tableofcontents

\pagebreak

\section{On the Claims of Exclusivity of the Various Religions} \label{exclusivism}

\noindent \textbf{A note on format.}
Each section will contain the relevant chat log snippet that raised the relevant question.
I've used the underlying Discord usernames here instead of the display names; this is because some of the characters in these names don't render correctly, or at all, on my machine, so I don't really know how to read them.
As a result, I've just used the usernames, which are within the ASCII character set.

\begin{verbatim}
    @sneak2peak: which one
    @sneak2peak: muslims say they are the truest so do christians
                 and jews and hindus and every other religion
\end{verbatim}

Let's be clear here -- I'm a Christian, so I'm in the Christian camp.
However, when I read this statement, I precieve that the many answers to the question of ``Which religion?'' implies that the question is somehow less legitimate.
I don't think claims of exclusivity (which is what almost all these religions do; we'll talk about this later) immediately undermine the question itself.
I think this would be analogus to saying that the question ``What time is it in New York, New York?'' is less legitimate because it has a definate, correct answer.

But the second point of the statement --- that every religion is exclusive --- is also false.
If we consider the example of Hinduism, we see that the precepts of Hinduism open it up to being intrepreted as a universalist view of salvation --- the relevant concept in Hindiusm is the accumulation of good karma that, when over a certain threshold, triggers the reuniting of the universal soul with the individual soul upon death.
When we compare the criteria for the accumulation of good karma and the things Christians ought to do (which manifest in the Fruits of the Spirit), we see that a good Christian will also fufill those concepts as well.
By good Christian I mean one who is adhereant to the Bible.
Specifically, the Bible tells us to:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item Give to the poor (Luke 12:33),
    \item Love each other as Jesus has loved us (John 13:34)*, and
    \item Pray for our neighbors and our enemies (1 Timothy 2:1, Matthew 5:44-45)
\end{enumerate}

among other things.
If we consider the second bullet above, we must consider how Jesus lived his life.
Jesus, according to the Bible, gave up his life so we could have eternal life.
He made himself low so that others may rise.
If we are to love each other as Jesus has loved us, we are to do the same.
We are to live for the benefit of others and to put others before ourselves.

When we compare this with the Hindu ideal, we see a certain congruency.
One of the four major paths of Hinduism is service.
Any reasonable person would see that the Christian life is characterized by a certain service to others.
It is because of this that I would make the argument that the concept of salvation in Hinduism, the reuniting of the individual soul with the universal soul, could take place without the belief in Hinduism.

However, returning to the second point of the quote --- that that claims that claims of exclusivity are characteristic to religious belief --- I would also provide the example of the Unitary Universalists, a religious organization which is characterized by the polar opposite of exclusivism --- universalism. 

\section{On the Justification for Belief in the Bible}

\begin{verbatim}
    @sneak2peak: how can you base it off by a book written long
                 before everyone you knew existed? and also why
                 there are so many types of it
    @sneak2peak: and other variations tell the same thing
\end{verbatim}

If we look at this quote, we see the following conjectures being made here:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item How can you derive belief based on a book written so long ago? (before everyone I knew existed?)
    \item Why are there so many variations of the book of belief (The Bible, in this case)
    \item Other variations tell the same thing
\end{enumerate}

Addressing the first point: belief in an idea isn't predicated on how old the idea is.
For example, the idea of gravity first came from Issac Newton from his \textit{Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica}, or the \textit{Principle}, which was published in 1687.
Most people who you talk to would agree that the idea of gravity is correct --- even more so when you interrogate the population of scientists.
How can a book published 337 years ago be believeable?

It's because the concepts within stand the test of time.

\vspace{0.5cm}

The second point inquires as to why there are so many books of belief.
For this case, I'm going to assume the Bible because this was addressed to me.

When we talk about variations of the Bible, we talk about the different translations of it.
Unlike other major religions, whose central books are mostly homogenous in terms of language choice, the Bible is written in a plethora of different languages.
The Old Testament of the Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, as was the Torah, but it is also written in Greek, too.
This plurality of languages necessitates translation between them, or to the audience's target language.

As is the case when you are translating any work, there are some things that don't quite make sense in the target language.
If we were to consider the translation of the phrase ``Yo tengo quince años'' into English, the literal translation is ``I have fifteen years''.
However, if we consider the context in which the phrase is written, we would realize that when a Spanish speaker says that one ``has years'', they really mean that they are that many years old.
Thus, the correct translation for the above phrase would be ``I am fifteen years old.''
Imagine this change between three different languages, and your target language.
You could imagine that there would be some disagreement between scholars on what the appropiate translation is for concepts that don't quite match between langauges.

Additional, another axis to consider in terms of translation is that of translating different historical concepts that are not present or as well known today as they were then.
For example, in the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as a ``land flowing with milk and honey'' (Exodus 3:8).
This doesn't mean that Israel is flooded with milk and honey; rather, it indicates that the land is fertile and is of abundance.
This metaphor and others are sometimes lost on today's generation, and so part of the task of translating the Bible is updating it such that it makes sense to the person of today.

For more information on the challenges of translation of the Bible, refer to the Committee on Bible Translation's Preface to the New International Version.

\vspace{0.5cm}

Let's now move to the final point raised in this quote -- the position that other variations tell the same thing.
Now, I'm not quite sure what is meant here.
If by ``variations'' we mean the various translations of the Bible, I would agree!
The vast majority of translations of the Bible agree with each other and are not very different in meaning.
There are only a few translations that the majority don't agree with (Conservative Bible Project, etc.).

However, if we consider that claim that the variations are actually different religions, then I would disagree with you.
Firstly, we see that Chrsistianity is exclusive, as stated in Section \ref{exclusivism}.
If we compare Islam and Christianity, we see conflicting beliefs that cannot be reconciled.
For instance, Islam claims that Mohammad was the final prophet of the god Allah, whereas Christianity claims that Jesus was not only a prophet, but the Messiah foretold in the early Hebrew scriptures.
In response to this, some Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet, or a great man, but falls short of the title of Messiah.
This directly contravenes the Christian theological tradition, however.

There are many more cases of this occuring between every religion.
As a result, I don't think it's correct to say every religion is the same.

\section{On the Claim of Moral Relativism}

\begin{verbatim}
    @hmmstmachine: let's be clear -- Christianity (as with, really,
                   all religions) asserts a universal moral standard
                   to which we are all held, and if we fall short of
                   it, the moral standard degenerates
    @sneak2peak: bro there is no moral standart

    [...]

    @sneak2peak: if it was here then why we live in a ball where
                 poverty is bigger than wealth
\end{verbatim}

The claim outlined in the above is that of \emph{Moral Relativism}, or that morality is not absolute.
In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this is defined as Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR):

\begin{quotation}
    \emph{Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR)}. The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.
\end{quotation}

A simple critique of this idea is that MMR is self-contradicting.
The problem is that MMR is a moral truth that is universal, but states that no moral truth is universal.
Because of this, MMR contradicts itself.

Boiled down further, the two statements at the heart of MMR are as follows:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item There is a universal moral truth.
    \item There is no universal moral truth; it is relative to culture and circumstance.
\end{enumerate}

These two statements are contradictory, because they posit opposite beliefs.
If two statements are contradictory (A and B):

\begin{enumerate}
    \item A can be true,
    \item B can be true, or
    \item none of them can be true.
\end{enumerate}

Because there either is absolute or relative moral truth, we can discard the third possibility.
(What could possibly be the third option?)
We are left with two possibilities.
We can eliminate the possibility that there is no moral truth, because it is the statement that has caused this contradiction.
We are left with the conclusion that there is absolute moral truth.

To quote C.S. Lewis in his \textit{Mere Christianity},

\begin{quotation}
    It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong.
    People may sometimes be mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.
\end{quotation}

\hspace*{\fill} --- \textit{Mere Christianity}, page 7

\vspace{0.5cm}

We have established a universal moral standard, so why ``do we live in a ball where poverty is bigger than wealth''?
This is an answer the Christianity can explain.
Since the fall in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3), humanity has been characterized by sin.
We know that we are born with it, and so we are broken.
This is the reason why the world is as it is today --- we're broken creatures squabbling like little children.

But this pain and suffering points to a time in which Jesus returns again and makes all things right.
At this time, he redeems us and repairs us.
He makes us whole again.

\section{On Various Other Potpourri}

\begin{verbatim}
    @sneak2peak: there is no real meaning to the world you just
                 create yourself a one
    @sneak2peak: and religions are created for making masses obey
                 the proto governments

    [...]

    @sneak2peak: you are in the arch linux community you doesnt
                 accept the default do you?
\end{verbatim}

\noindent \textbf{On convention.} For this section only, we consider the statements made in order.
For instance, the first statement refers to the first one in the quotation; the same follows for the second and third.

As for the first statement, I would disagree.
Because of my belief in Christianity, I believe there is a meaning to this world --- to serve God and to bring Him glory.
This is specific to the Christian tradition, though, and I haven't really gone into the time to construct why I believe the Christian faith --- I've just used these pages to rebut some objections.
To enumerate why would take much longer. (And, at the moment, it's about 9 o'clock where I am, and I'm pretty tired.)

As for the second statement, I would disagree as well.
If we consider the idea that Christianity was created to make people obey, why did the Roman empire outlaw Christianity when it was first created?
That seems like a weird way of obeying to me.

We should also consider the case of the original Hagia Sophia.
During the tenure of St. John Crysostom, a Roman emperor attempted to put a statue of his wife inside the building built before the Hagia Sophia, but the Saint refused.
The emperor did so anyway, so the congregation of the church \emph{burned down the whole church} instead of complying.

There are many, many instances of deliberate non-compliance with authority all over the Christian faith, because Christianity is set apart from the world --- it turns power structures upside down and reorders the world for justice.

And finally, about ``choosing the default''.
I don't actually use Arch Linux, I use NixOS, but most people don't use NixOS.
The reason why I use NixOS is because it's technically superior in terms of package management then other distros.
I don't use NixOS because it's something different --- I use it because I've come to the conclusion it's the best option.

\end{document}