Brit Hume

[fpb]

Like many American phenomena, the advice of veteran journalist Brit Hume to Tiger Woods, and its fierce by-products, have been heard well beyond the borders of the USA. I have not, however, read anyone, on either side, who actually pointed out what was really wrong, and indeed offensive about Hume's advice. Buddhism, he said, did not give the swift access to pardon and starting over again that Christianity does. But that is strictly beside the point. The only valid reason to preach, and indeed to believe, either Buddhism or Christianity or any other religion, is to take them to be true; you can only believe something if you believe that it is a true statement of fact (even a true statement of a falsehood, e.g. "it is absolutely false to say that kennahijja is talentless"). Anything else is groundless or worse. And Hume is not saying: go to this shop because its products are objectively better, he is saying: go to this shop because it will make life easier for you, because it supplies automatic forgiveness." REligion as a consumer product to be judged by how it makes you feel. Never mind that it does not; never mind that many people find the doctrine of Christianity - "die once, and be judged by an infinitely and dreadfully perfect Judge afterwards" - much more terrifying than that of Buddhism, which implies that it is possible, over infinite lifetimes, to become a Bodhisattva and even a Buddha by one's own efforts, and that one failed life can be just a stage for which you can atone. Never mind any of that; the point is - unless you believe a statement about truth to be true, and unless you are willing to argue from that position, keep your trap shut. Religion is not there for your consolation, let alone for your daily comfort.

Comments

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

"He’s said to be a Buddhist, I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith,"

It's possible that Hume meant that Christianity offers the subjective experience of feeling forgiven, but I don't see how that's required by the words. A more straightforward (and more charitable) interpretation is that he meant Christianity offers real forgiveness and real redemption, which is what sinners need.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It still says nothing whatsoever about its truth. A lie can be very comforting indeed, and that is exactly what atheists say about Christianity.

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

The quoted line doesn't say anything about comfort; it says "forgiveness" and "redemption." Those words refer to objective realities, and therefore to truth. While it is true that many moderns drain such words of real meaning, I don't see any reason to think Hume was doing so.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Heck no. All that he said is "it will make you feel forgiven, which Buddhism will not". There is not one word to say that any of these feelings have any objective correlation in reality.

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

The key to evangelism is meeting the person at his point of need: something modeled by Christ & St. Paul.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But neither Jesus nor Paul ever said "try this, it will make you feel better".

[notebuyer.livejournal.com]

The point is simpler. You start a dialog with someone where he is. You do not hit him over the head with something he's not interested in.

Something about leading horses to water instead of saying "you are objectively capable of leaping the fence if it was really important to you, so get your own damn water!"

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If that were something one only hears now, you would have a point. The trouble is that it is heard absolutely continuously, in a sequel of variations: e.g.: "Do you find strength in your faith?", "Your faith must be such a consolation", "A Christian is happier than an atheist"; all saying, accept Christianity not because it is true, but because of how it (supposedly) makes you feel.