From the fourteenth century, there developed in Italy a new way of looking at the world which has come to be called humanism. Humanism can seem a difficult phenomenon to pin down and define, not least because no one used the word at the time. Early nineteenth-century historians newly coined it from words actually in use in the late fifteenth century, when it became common to talk about the liberal non-theological arts subjects in a university curriculum as 'humanae litterae' (literature human rather than divine in focus), while a scholar with a particular enthusiasm for these subjects was called a 'humanista.' A further complication is that 'humanist' has come to be used in modern times for someone who rejects the claims of revealed religion. This was not a feature of the movement we are considering. The vast majority of humanists were patently sincere Christians who wished to apply their enthusiasm to the exploration and proclamation of their faith. They were trying to restore a Christian perfection to humanity.Diarmaid MacCullough in his massive and excellent book titled Christianity: the First Three Thousand Years
The 'new atheists' claim 'humanism' and 'humanist' for their exclusive use, but the terms originated in a Christian context. Not only did Christians have the terms first, early humanists knew their theology, which is not the case with a good many of the new atheists of today, those who wish to stamp out religion as an all-around pernicious influence throughout the world.
'Know your enemy,' as Sun Tzu said in The Art of War.
"Know your enemy" - hope you're not going to turn into one of those sorry, twisted bigots who chew the carpet at the very mention of atheism or agnosticism.
ReplyDeleteNot only are we lumped together, but I've heard ANTI-theists say (in effect) "Religious moderates are actually the worst. They provide a patina of intellectual respectability for the Fundies. Their belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a BETRAYAL of (always secular) reason. They must be destroyed!" [Sadly, the last line is not a paraphrase. I've heard EXACTLY that threat.]
ReplyDeleteYes, JCF. What are we if we are not the enemy to the new atheists?
ReplyDeleteI don't lump all atheists and agnostics together. Some of them are amongst the finest people I know and have higher moral standards than many Christians.
I DID know the answer before I asked the question.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear it, Lapin.
ReplyDeleteI don't lump all atheists and agnostics together. Some of them are amongst the finest people I know and have higher moral standards than many Christians.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Mimi. I have some really fine atheist and agnostic friends, not to mention pagans who often get dumped on by Christians.
Thanks for the suggested reading. I just picked up a book in Austin by Christopher Hedges, "America's New Fundamentalists: When Atheism Becomes A Religion." It looks at the two extremes of the belief spectrum... and notes how absolute certainties in either God or reason leads people down rabbit trails. I'm using it as a supplement to Year Four of EfM.
SCG, yes. Extremists come in all stripes. I'll check out the book you mention.
ReplyDeleteMacCulloch's history is a wonderful read. He writes as a scholar, but his fine and accessible prose carries you right along.
This is uncharacteristically combative. Why should an atheist be expected to know theology? Theology is the study of religious texts in which atheists so not believe.How is this any differentthan the attacks on atheists by Christians?
ReplyDeleteYes, many atheists lump Christians together, but Christians do the same thing all the time against nonChristians. Look for example on the utter disdain expressed for the "secular but not religious" on blogs recently. The message that sends is pretty superior.
And at least atheists arent calling for Christians to be
denied marriage or imprisoned.
IT, the new atheists should know what it is they're trying to rid the world of, and they ought to be able to make distinctions and see nuance, but they don't. I may be, in your opinion, unnecessarily combative, but in their black or white world view, they appear to me as fundamentalist as the fundies.
ReplyDeleteAnd 'you do it, too,' is not a good argument. I don't do it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSt Paul Blog, I'm sorry you removed your comment. I was coming to respond. I don't claim special rights to the use of 'humanism', but I want to claim my right to use the term, along with the new atheists.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I know that they are fundamentalists, and indeed I have often argued that the "new atheism" is its own form of religion and just as annoying.
ReplyDeleteBUT even so, I don't see why you expect that people who have no belief in religion are nevertheless expected to be educated in Christian theology. That elevates Christian belief to a special place -- that one must be an expert in theology, in order to disbelieve in Christianity?
Moreover, you make argument that the "old" definition of "humanism" is a Christian invention. Well, sure. Much of western intellectual history comes from a Christin tradition--universities were explicitly religious, and even monastic institutions. Anybody who was part of that tradition, sure could toe the line (regardless of what they REALLY believed).
But that's not what it means any more. Meanings of words change. Humanism is no longer linked to a Christian definition, let alone a religious one. So I disagree that the roots of the term "humanism" given Christians any special rights to the word in 21st century English.
Look,I'm ahve no remit for the new atheists, who annoy me a great deal for many of the same reasons. but your post, as written, nevertheless rubs my fur the same wrong way as the slagging off against the "spiritual but not religious" thing that was going on. What I take from both of these is a "we're superior because we're Christian" attitude and while that may not be what's MEANT, that's what I'm getting.
IT, it seems strange for scientists to argue against religion from a position of ignorance. It would be like me arguing against string theory.
ReplyDeleteAs I said to St Paul blog, who removed the comment, we'll share the use of the term. I'm not claiming exclusive use of humanism. I believe Christian humanism is a valid concept.
Interesting. So you do believe that one cannot be an atheist without a grounding in theology? Does that then mean one cannot believe in God without reading theology?
ReplyDeleteI'm combative particularly tonightas my 2 hour train ride is now 4 hours and still not over.
It's uncharacteristic of you, IT, to be so concerned with God! Take that in loving friendship, not rebuke.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I've admired about your atheism - it's true atheism. God's not an issue, is irrelevant; not out of defiance but true disbelief.
I'm not sure this is what Mimi is arguing, but I would say that it is NOT necessary to understand theology to believe or disbelieve, but it IS necessary to understand theology - or theological underpinnings - to criticize those who embrace belief. Without that, criticism becomes demonizing (ironically).
And, I agree with you completely about the smug superiority in the disdain for those who claim spiritual and not religious. I've lost a some respect for two otherwise decent and broad-minded clerics who felt that was a message to publicize and celebrate. That helps no one and hurts all involved.
Thanks, Mark. I'm not seeing this discussion as concerned with God per se, but with what measure of formal learning of the history of God-thought is necessary for belief or disbelief.
ReplyDeleteI don't think string theory is quite the analogy I'd use, Mimi. Belief, or faith rather is an individual experience, which not everyone has.
Take, for example, love. One who has never experienced love may dismiss it regardless of the experience of others. He may indeed lament the passions to which lovers are driven--some of them even to murder or violence!
But should he do so, should be blame love for these events, does he need to be an expert in the literature and history of love? Is that necessary for him to draw the conclusion (erroneous though it might be) that love is the cause of many ills and much pain?
back to the subject at hand, how does a knowledge of theology change our atheist's (dis)belief or disdain? At some level, what the theology says is irrelevant to him as he considers it so much historical fiction.
How does knowledge of theology, or not, change or justify his views? The implication is that he won't be so negative if he reads theology, but I'm not seeing how that follows, unless you argue that the theology somehow changes him.
And now, my trip is nearly over, 5 hours after I began it, with two trains and a bus with a car yet to come!
I think you can very easily be an atheist without knowing Christian theology or Islamic theology or Jewish theology. And if a comprehenshive theological knowledge (presumably of all major faith?) is required to truly understand the world then most Christians don't pass the test either.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that the word humanism now has a broader meaning than it used to, although I know plenty of Christian humanists and Islamic humanists and I would like to see it as a faith neutral term.
But I'm also with Mimi regarding New Atheists, because they have a tendency to tell Christians what they "know" we believe and that this belief is wrong. They have a tendency to attack the most fundamentalist literal expression of Christianity and refuse to engage with the mainstream, never mind the intellectually advanced end of our faith.
If you make it your life's work to attack something, then you should, indeed, know what it is you are attacking.
And at least atheists arent calling for Christians to be
ReplyDeletedenied marriage or imprisoned.
Well IT, when the commenter at Joe.My.God. called for Christians to be "destroyed", I kinda took my being denied marriage or being imprisoned for granted. ;-X
At some level, what the theology says is irrelevant to [them] as [they] consider it so much historical fiction.
Really? I would say that the "historical fiction", in this POV, is sacred scripture of divine revelation. Theology (i.e., Systematic Theology), on the other hand, is much more closely akin to philosophy and epistemology, of first causes/absolute principles/"ground of being". I would think it equally useful for theists and non-theists alike, as way to learn how to think, in dialogue w/ the Great Questions of Homo sapiens. My 2c.
I'm still with IT on this; I don't think you need to know theology at all to be an atheist, and a true and committed one. I know very little about Hindu cosmology or theology, yet I don't believe in Krishna. I find much of what Krishna stands for (as I understand it) and teaches to be allright, but I don't believe that Krishna exists. If forced to it, faced with aggressive demand that I talk about the subject, I would tell a true believer that no, I don't believe Krishna exists. That's not the same as outlawing or wanting to destroy Hinduism or even ISKCon.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I take it upon myself to go around decrying Hinduism and the belief in Krishna to be the central cause of all ills in society, then I would have to have a basis in that theological background. As it is, that theology is irrelevant to me because Krishna is irrelevant to me.
Theology follows belief, and the reason I am - frankly - contemptuous of theology as a pursuit and career is because it is not logic or reason, but begins with a position that is not provable and argues from that, but pretends at empiricism (thus, implicitly denying faith as a prime necessity!) I can give you my reasoning for believing that God exists, but the reasoning begins from the belief, which is neither logical nor provable.
It has been my occasional observation over the years that a predisposition on the part of one of the faithful to take offense at another's religious disbelief has been a reflex manifestation of that individual's unwillingness or inability to examine or assess his or her own religious doubts. Easier to slam the door shut than to tip-toe down the slippery slope of self-examination.
ReplyDeleteI second the Rabbit's comment.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, both sides are mirror images of each other. One form of arrogant fanaticism meets another. Perhaps the real issue is not the God vs. No God conflict, but the arrogant fanatic part that characterizes both sides of this fight.
These are matters too vast for the tiny confines of human certainty. Perhaps we would all be better off sliding headlong down that slippery slope of self-examination when confronted with ideas opposite to our own conclusions drawn from thought and experience. We might not change our minds, but our outlooks could be expanded, and we would learn a little humility and generosity, even with our sworn enemies.
And I can be just as hotheaded a partisan as anyone.
I third rabbit's comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I second Counterlight's.
So you do believe that one cannot be an atheist without a grounding in theology?
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no! The new atheists want religious folks to stop believing, to be disabused of their fantasies, but they don't know what we believe, and they lump us all together. To them, religion is bad, and the world would be a better place without ALL religious folks. If they take that position, they should know WTF they fight against, but ignorance abounds.
Anyone can believe whatever they want, so far as I'm concerned, knowing a lot or a little, but when you want to rid the world of religion, then you should know what you're talking about.
Erika, I don't know or care what atheists believe or disbelieve unless the person tells me. And I don't lump all atheists together and say atheism should be stamped out because it is evil. If the person wants to argue with me taking the position that my faith is evil, then they should have knowledge about my faith and not argue out of ignorance.
Mark, the new atheists have to know theology only if they want to rid the world of it.
Think of the evil the scientists did to Jews and gays under the Third Reich. It doesn't follow that I want to rid the world of scientists, because some scientists did evil things.
Lapin, I don't take offense at anyone's disbelief, and I never, ever said any such thing. Please understand me.
Counterlight, the extremists on both sides are mirror images.
Once more, with feeling, It matters not to me what anyone believes or disbelieves. If you want to tell me my faith is evil, then know whereof you speak. Know what you're talking about and don't attribute to me beliefs which are not mine.
Once more, with feeling, It matters not to me what anyone believes or disbelieves. If you want to tell me my faith is evil, then know whereof you speak. Know what you're talking about and don't attribute to me beliefs which are not mine.
ReplyDeleteWhen I had a pulpit, one of my favorite illustrations of a "true Christian" was the atheist neighbor I had: one of the kindest, most generous people I have ever known.
I am a theologian, as well as a philosopher (no cards needed to claim either role, fortunately), and my only complaint with atheism are the ones who tell me what I believe without knowing anything about theology or philosophy. As Mimi said, on the same basis I might as well critique string theory or "global warming."
Do you need to know theology to be a Christian? No, of course not. Do you need to know philosophy of religion to be an atheist? No, of course not. But if, like Sam Harris you are going to tell me who the "true" Christians are, or like Richard Dawkins you are going to tell me it's pointless to learn theology since all religion is fairy tales, I consider your critiques to be as valid as those who deny the reality of climate change or who challenge string theory because it doesn't sound like Creationism.
I know, this has been beaten into the ground now, but it's morning and I needed to put in my 2 cents, too. Also. As well.
Aw, "INGST"!
Rmj, I was hoping you would weigh in on the discussion. :-)
ReplyDeleteMimi
ReplyDeleteIn your reply to me you say "If the person wants to argue with me taking the position that my faith is evil, then they should have knowledge about my faith and not argue out of ignorance."
I thought that was precisely what I also said?
"If you make it your life's work to attack something, then you should, indeed, know what it is you are attacking."
We don't disagree!
Mimi--
ReplyDeleteI have MacCullough's book on my nightstand, and keep meaning to start reading it. Eventually I will.
Right now I'm stuck teaching an Am lit class with a textbook I've never used before, so all my reading is taken up frantically trying to get ahead of my students so I can say something about what I've assigned them to read.
Such is the life of an accidental adjunct!
"Probar" indeed!
Blast! I meant to add: I like your comments on humanism and humanist. Lots of interesting issues swirl around Christology (was Jesus human? Divine? Both and a little bit of neither?) and what is the concern for the poor that is the heart of Xianity if not a humanism, a concern for human beings and the lives they lead?
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's the issue Lawrence O'Donnell raised last night against Rick Perry's support of the death penalty and his speech at Liberty University: that Jesus was executed by Rome as a criminal. Which is an historical, christological, and soteriological, issue. Not to mention a question of paying attention, again, to Jesus' humanity.
Oh, the questions you can raise! "Dersee," y'all!
My question is this (and I am being devil's advocate I know):
ReplyDeletehow is reading theology going to change Dawkins' viewpoint? If he believes all religion is fairy tales,as RMJ says, then he isn't going to care what the theologians have parsed about those fairy tales.
Is theological study necessary to know basic Christian doctrine about the identify of, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? To know the basics about "love thy neighbor" and "judge not..." ? No, of course not.
And if you were to insist they read theology, whose? Conservative or Liberal or both? Theologians themselves don't agree on many points. Or are you insisting they have the equivalent of a doctorate in theology, before they can presume to comment on religion?
If that's the case, I'd better take myself right off, because *I* presume to comment on religion *all the time* and I don't read much theology.
I can choose whether to disbelieve or believe climate change without a PhD in geology and without reading all the primary scientific literature on the subject. Why is religion to be uniquely privileged and its discussion to be uniquely restricted to experts?
Sure, they don't appreciate (or mark) the nuance between you and those other sorts of Christians, but you know what? You are all Christians. The fundies have just as much claim to theology and the title as you do.
Melissa McEwan wrote about this here:
I don't want the responsibility of deciding who's Christian and who isn't—and I can't imagine why any Christian would want to give that responsibility to an atheist in the first place. Yes, I have personal opinions about how closely self-identified Christians of all stripes hew to their own religious text, but it's flatly not my place to kick someone out of the Christian community, even semantically...
Christians have done great things, and not-so-great things—and anyone who makes the personal choice to carry the Christian mantle associates themselves with a history that includes all the good stuff and all the shitty stuff, too. One can't say, "I only associate with the good Christianity—not the inquisitions and the genocides and the warmongering and the colonialism and the institutional misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, anti-Semitism…"
That's all part of Christianity's legacy, too—and it just isn't intellectually honest to say, "Well, those weren't real Christians." Yes, they were. And so are the Christians who do shitty stuff today.
how is reading theology going to change Dawkins' viewpoint? If he believes all religion is fairy tales,as RMJ says, then he isn't going to care what the theologians have parsed about those fairy tales.
ReplyDeleteIt won't. But it's why I don't (and most clergy, etc., I know, don't either) consider Dawkins a serious critic of religion. No more than I would be a serious critic of physics if I said quantum mechanics doesn't sound like the Creation story, so I reject it (I don't, but just arguendo). Dawkins' criticism is based on his ignorance, which should embarass him but apparently, like a Creationist, he seems to revel in being a know-nothing.
So I don't even take him seriously. He's not worth it.
I can choose whether to disbelieve or believe climate change without a PhD in geology and without reading all the primary scientific literature on the subject. Why is religion to be uniquely privileged and its discussion to be uniquely restricted to experts?
Oh, piffle! Seriously? The degrees you would need would be in climatology, to begin with. And I can reject "global warming" if I choose to, but I won't sound very smart about it if I know nothing about the science behind it. I can also accept it without knowing the science behind it.
As I said, before, I don't need to know theology to be a believer, nor to be an atheist. Indeed, there's many an atheist comes out of seminary (seriously!). Knowledge is not the key. But when you pretend your ignorance is your strength, well, then I will call you on it, no matter the subject.
It's not a matter of privilege, it's a question of what you base your argument on. You want to reject religious belief? Fine with me. You want to tell me my religious belief is a foolishness and a lie. You'd better have an argument that's better than: "It's all fairy tales, after all."
The fundies have just as much claim to theology and the title as you do.
Well, of course they do. But it's funny nobody blames all scientists for the things done in the name of eugenics (forced sterilizations in America, Nazi horrors, etc.), or considers all scientists yahoos because some deny global warming or, like Edward Teller, champion nuclear war. There are fools and charlatans in all fields, and some are better at explaining the philosophy of science than others (how many scientists are versed in empricism, or fully understand the nature of Kuhn's paradigms?).
If some scientists are ignorant of the basic tenets of empiricism, would I be right to say they are not true scientists? Or would I be more correct to say the author of The Bell Curve had misused scientific reasoning, but science itself was still sound?
Erika, my love, my apologies. We agree! I read the comments too quickly and not carefully enough. Plus, I'm carrying on another conversation about my post on Facebook. Overload!
ReplyDeleteRmj, when you have time and get ahead of your students, do read the book. I'm making my way slowly through and am now past the half way point, but I read other stuff in between.
If that's the case, I'd better take myself right off, because *I* presume to comment on religion *all the time* and I don't read much theology.
ReplyDeleteIT, no indeed, because you don't wish to eradicate my faith from the face of the earth. Besides, you know a hell of a lot more about the Christian faith than Dawkins will ever trouble himself to learn. :-)
So I don't even take him (Dawkins) seriously. He's not worth it.
Rmj makes my point exactly. Dawkins is not worth my time or attention on the subject of religion, because of his ignorance.
IT,
ReplyDeletethe only argument I would make is that there is a great danger in our society on a whole when people increasingly make decisions and arguments based on not knowing and on distortion.
It's a fundamental problem that is affecting all parts of society and that results in a general dumbing down, ignorance, lack of respect for others, heartlessness and "me and my own mind only and never mind reality".
Taken too far, it leads to public conversations about letting people without health insurance die - because we no longer understand basic economics nor believe we ought to, because we no longer understand basic moral philosophy nor believe we ought to.
Every Dawins, Sarah Palin etc. on their own are harmless. Together, they all create a very very dangerous trend that will ultimately destroy us all.
Knowledge and understanding aren't elitist past times for the interested few, they are absolutely vital for society as a whole.
And every time someone uses mind numbingly stupid and manipulative arguments (knowingly!) to try and tear down something or other he happens to dislike, we should all be worried. Whether he's a scientist, a politician, a person of faith or whatever.
Ignorance is fine as long it's your own and as it only affects your own life. It's no longer fine when you claim an influential role in public life.
I sense we are talking past each other, RMJ. But I will try one more time.
ReplyDeleteOh, piffle! Seriously? The degrees you would need would be in climatology, to begin with. And I can reject "global warming" if I choose to, but I won't sound very smart about it if I know nothing about the science behind it. I can also accept it without knowing the science behind it.
that's not what I said. I said I needn't have a PhD in geology (or climatology or whatever--no need to be snarky) and read the primary literature, in order to be able to formulate an opinion. That doesn't mean that I can't learn something of the science behind it. Perhaps my reference to the "primary scientific literature" is unclear. I freely admit I do not read the primary scientific literature in that field (I have enough challenge keeping up with the literature in my own), yet I feel perfectly comfortable in drawing conclusions about climate change. Unless yours is a PhD in climatology, I warrant that you are not reading the primary scholarship in that area either--yet I'm sure you also feel informed enough to be justified in having an opinion.
You want to tell me my religious belief is a foolishness and a lie. You'd better have an argument that's better than: "It's all fairy tales, after all."
Okay, how about "there is no empirical evidence for God"? As in an external, measurable phenomenon. Now bear with me.
If you are drawing an explicit comparison between belief in religion and in science, which you clearly are by invoking belief in climate change as a metaphor for belief in God then you are putting religion up to the same standards of physical testability by his standards. God fails that test.
This is exactly--EXACTLY--what Dawkins and his ilk are doing.
But I'm sure you would agree that belief is not testable in that way. But because it fails, Dawkins denies that belief exists at all. That's why Dawkins is able to dismiss it so facilely. He does not allow for anything outside of that narrow paradigm. He doesnot endorse the potential for a transcendent individual experience that drives one to seek deeper meaning.
You want him to read theology to understand religion. But since faith fails his initial test, to one such as he,theology is simply a rationalization with a faulty premise--no different than the people who write books about the fictionalworld of Star Trek.
(I know people like Dawkins. Of course I do....I'm a professor of science. Perhaps you did not know that.)
I believe that the flaw in your argument (and your analogy) is to set up faith and theology as parallel to science. But it is not. They are different things. That does not mean they do not intersect in many places. But they are not the same.
I do not presume to tell you what you perceive as faith. As a non-believer, I may consider that it is a feature of neurobiology and how your brain is wired, but it really doesn't matter its source. Where I differ from Dawkins is that I recognize that you have such an experience. It isn't my place to presume to tell you what you perceive and how you make sense of it.
The flaw in Dawkins to my thinking is that he has no poetry. Like many of us in science, he may lack the "God gene", if you will, but he goes beyond that in assuming that therefore no "God gene" exists. That is presumptuous.
So, back to the original point: it would make no difference to make Dawkins read theology. Since he disregards the premise that faith exists, he will not be educated by learning more about it.
Importantly, however, as I noted in my recent series at Friends of Jake, Dawkins is atypical for scientists, a large number of whom identify as spiritual and/or religious. So this is not a science-vs-faith thing at all.
IT,
ReplyDeleteI think the other big mistake Dawkins makes is that he believes that any religious education is dangerous indoctrination, while any teaching that there is no God is not.
To conduct a public debate by putting your own view in the realm of objective truth and therefore neutral, and the other in the realm of fantasy and therefore dangerous, is unacceptable. And intellectually arrogant.
And immediately, the public debate is skewered in the direction of "Christians = immoral and stupid", "scientists = loving humanists and clever". And he gets away with it precisely because he picks the worst excesses of right wing Christianity, pretends they're standard and true for all Christians and a necessary function of a belief in a flying spaghetti monster God. It’s this, it’s where it becomes political, that I think we really need to take him on and expose his non sequiturs for what they are.
He uses his obvious scientific brilliance to wage a political war and he tries to silence people like me by publicly claiming that we’re all deluded and stupid. It’s only right that we use our own theology to argue back.
You're right, it's not about faith vs. science, it's about using faith and science in a dirty war for his own little social engineering project.
Okay, how about "there is no empirical evidence for God"? As in an external, measurable phenomenon. Now bear with me.
ReplyDeleteOf course there isn't. Now why do I assume empiricism is the only way I know the world?
Do I empirically know that I love my wife? (And btw, to regard that as merely a matter of neuro-biology is, IMHO, a reductio ad asburdum argument. It simply raises a whole host of new epistemological problems, anyway.)
So, back to the original point: it would make no difference to make Dawkins read theology. Since he disregards the premise that faith exists, he will not be educated by learning more about it.
Begging the question: my point is his ignorance precludes his complaint. No, reading theology will not educate him. But I don't want to.
I discard him.
Importantly, however, as I noted in my recent series at Friends of Jake, Dawkins is atypical for scientists, a large number of whom identify as spiritual and/or religious. So this is not a science-vs-faith thing at all.
No, of course it isn't. As I said ab initio, my former neighbor was more Xian than almost anyone I've ever met, and he was a sincere atheist. I quite sincerely presented him as a model for the Xians I preached to, if only to deflate any sense of superiority they might have. My neighbor and I used to have enjoyable discussions on the topic of religion and non-belief: I didn't try to convert him, he didn't try to dissuade me. I don't even put science in opposition to faith; neither do I consider them, with Stephen Gould, to be non-overlapping magisteria.
I'm probably closer to Wittgenstein's explanation that it's all about language games, but I don't quite agree with him on that, either. If I had to nutshell it into a comment post, I'd go with Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
And why is that? Well, I'm not sure it's genetic, actually....;-)
As for this:
ReplyDeleteIt won't. But it's why I don't (and most clergy, etc., I know, don't either) consider Dawkins a serious critic of religion. .....Dawkins' criticism is based on his ignorance, which should embarass him but apparently, like a Creationist, he seems to revel in being a know-nothing.
He doesn't care, I'm sure, and probably considers you with the same disdain! But you as a religious professional are not his intended audience any more than I as a professional geneticist am the target of the equally annoying creationists.
Erika,he's not the only one using those sorts of arguments. The assaults on science from the other side are also horrific.
ReplyDeleteLet us take Michelle Bachmann and her claim that HPV vaccination causes retardation. There is no evidence for this at all. I was reading a study that said the leading cause of oral cancer now is HPV. It's a preventable cancer but because it is lined to sex the fundies have demonizeda life-saving vaccination. Anti-science with a vengeance.
It's a sad feature of our discourse that we let fundies on either side get away with it. I mean, we should be having this discussion Out There.
RMJ, even if the phenomenon is not genetic, it is entirely possible that the ability to perceive it, IS. ;-)
ReplyDeleteIT,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree! 100%!
So why does this happen? Is it that there is too much knowledge out there, that it is impossible to know much about most things and that people simply give up and just "believe" in this rubbish science or that rubbish religion or those rubbish ethics and these rubbish economics because of some kind of feeling about them?
How can people like me engage constructively "out there"?
The problem arises when one person or group pontificates and decrees what another person or another group should do. In doing so, the person or group opens themselves to criticism if they appear ignorant or irrational about what they wish to impose on others. I'm not saying that this sort of action shouldn't be undertaken, but you really should know what you're talking about and have thought your way through before you decide to proceed.
ReplyDeleteAnd no one has to tell me that religious folks proceed in ignorance and irrationality to do the very thing I mention above.
When Dawkins speaks on religion on the tee-vee, he puts me in mind of a smooth-talking flim-flam artist. Of course, that's just my opinion. :-)
Mimi, he's identical to the creationists. As counterlight said, fundamentalists all.
ReplyDeleteMimi, he's identical to the creationists.
ReplyDeleteIT!
We agree!
I knew we would, eventually.
ReplyDeleteMark, the new atheists have to know theology only if they want to rid the world of it.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I said.
But, as IT pointed out, knowing theology won't change their viewpoint, since it starts from a position they find untenable. We can't really approach theology - as the term is used now - as a proof. It isn't. Our theology is mostly sort of a mental exercise, and that's it. It's really less theology than philosophy about an unknowable Being. Philosophy is fine if it starts from observations about knowable phenomena, but we are starting from a position that an unknowable, invisible, inconceivably vast Being exists and then positing how and why that Being exists - surely that is not a helpful way to begin if you are to convince the New Humanists of anything.
I think it is more helpful to divorce them completely from the concept "atheist" and approach them as any other extremist group. The reality of their arguments is a call for destruction or violent suppression - that in and of itself is a sufficient cause to oppose them. Converting them is likely to be fruitless, because they are extremists.
Philosophy is fine if it starts from observations about knowable phenomena, but we are starting from a position that an unknowable, invisible, inconceivably vast Being exists and then positing how and why that Being exists - surely that is not a helpful way to begin if you are to convince the New Humanists of anything.
ReplyDeleteBack to language games, which is a matter of philosophy. First, as for observable phenomena, I give you the story from John's Gospel: Jesus says (from memory, mind): "Father, honor your name." God answers: "I have honored it, and will honor it." Some hear the voice of God. Some hear thunder.
So it goes. As Paul Simon said: "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." There are distinctions to be made between theology and philosophy, but these are not those distinctions. And no, theology is not apologetics, nor was it ever meant to be. But neither is it "philosophy about an unknowable Being." Well, mine isn't, anyway. It may incorporate the via negativa and encompass the cloud of unknowing, but my confession is not to the Unknown God.
That may be the God, as Paul said, but it is a God who is known. Not wholly, to be sure, but unknown? That goes too far.
The reality of their arguments is a call for destruction or violent suppression - that in and of itself is a sufficient cause to oppose them. Converting them is likely to be fruitless, because they are extremists.
Well, I suppose they call for destruction of violent suppression. But as a Xian, that in and of itself is sufficient cause to love them, not to oppose them. I can disagree with them, but I am not going to set my confession and its value on my willingness to obliterate them. If I do, I obliterate my theology, and my philosophy of religion, and my confession of faith.
And then what do I have? Proof that I don't know God at all?
I don't care what Paul said. If you can tell me that you know God, you're lying. That's all. Whether to self or other is of no import.
ReplyDeleteAnd while the lovely Pollyanna sentiment of "just give 'em a hug, man!" sounds wonderful, it isn't anything to do with Christ who made opposition quite clear.
Theology as our little mind games and wordplay loves to call itself, is utter nonsense, and quite as useless to believer as atheist.
The only pragmatic question would be: would knowing theology change their view of religion?
ReplyDeleteBut if they were genuinely open to the diversity of Christians and how they live their lives and of what faith can mean, they wouldn't be so extreme to start with.
So I think yes, in an ideal world, learning more about what you dislike can help to change your mind.
But in this particular battle, the hatred to the point of wanting to abolish is purely emotional and any rational engagement with what Christians really think and how many of us really live could only destroy that view, so it's not going to happen.
People who need a side of goodies and a side of baddies aren't going to try for a balanced view because it would bring their whole philsophical framework tumbling down.
As always, the conversation "with" the other side is actually a means of talking "at" the silent observers of this who will eventually be the ones who move to either this or that side.
It's what's happening in public sexuality debate and it's also what's happening here.
I completely agree with Erika, especially with this:
ReplyDeletePeople who need a side of goodies and a side of baddies aren't going to try for a balanced view because it would bring their whole philsophical framework tumbling down.
"Converting them is likely to be fruitless, because they are extremists."
ReplyDeleteGot a mirror handy?
As I said in my post, I want to take back the term 'humanism' from the new atheists. I don't want to convert them. In fact, I generally don't pay attention to them at all, but as I was reading MacCulloch's book, the paragraph I quoted jumped out at me.
ReplyDeleteAnd what an interesting comment thread came from the post. I like when that happens.
Interesting but occasionally a bit sharper than we're accustomed to in this herbiverous grove. Not that i can cast stones.
ReplyDeleteThe term "secular humanism" is more specific generally preferred, isn't it?
["Ginger Laharpe"]
'Secular humanism' is fine with me. I consider myself a Christian humanist.
ReplyDeleteYes, the suggestion must have been about the street you lived on as a child. The street I lived on as an infant was Royal - Ginger Royal - and the next would have made my porn name Ginger Bell. They're all better than my present street name.
For those of you who don't know what Lapin and I are talking about, there's a game on at Facebook.
Mine was Trixie Royal. The thread is here and well worth revisiting.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. Lots of laughs there, Lapin.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting article from the New Yorker on secularism . I think these are the sorts of non-believers whom you would allow the term "humanist", Mimi.
ReplyDeleteIn any case the original point stands: considering Dawkins and HItchens representatives of all atheists is like considering Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps representatives of all Christians. It doesn't forward the discussion in a meaningful way, as it just sets extremist off against extremist.
IT, I'd read the article in the New Yorker when it came out, and it's very much worth a read. Thanks for the link. The author, James Wood, says:
ReplyDeleteI have a friend, an analytic philosopher and convinced atheist, who told me that she sometimes wakes in the middle of the night, anxiously turning over a series of ultimate questions: “How can it be that this world is the result of an accidental big bang? How could there be no design, no metaphysical purpose? Can it be that every life—beginning with my own, my husband’s, my child’s, and spreading outward—is cosmically irrelevant?” In the current intellectual climate, atheists are not supposed to have such thoughts. We are locked into our rival certainties—religiosity on one side, secularism on the other—and to confess to weakness on this order is like a registered Democrat wondering if she is really a Republican, or vice versa.
These are theological questions without theological answers, and, if the atheist is not supposed to entertain them, then, for slightly different reasons, neither is the religious believer. Religion assumes that they are not valid questions because it has already answered them; atheism assumes that they are not valid questions because it cannot answer them.
Religious folks like me do entertain the questions. Under the title of my blog, I have the words: 'Faith is not certainty so much as it is acting-as-if in great hope.' Not all of us religious folks are mindlessly accepting of our faith.