I had a conversation with a friend that went like this:
I've been reading your blog
(me) Oh no - you haven't have you?
Yeah, why not?
(me) Well for a start you might get religion.
Yeah, well would that be so bad?
I was interested that I genuinely had no interest in converting my friend. I have had the same feelings when an atheist has started commenting on my posts, as I feel he assumes I will try to persuade him from his beliefs. My attitude seems counter to the 'go and make disciples of all nations' command that Jesus gave, doesn't it?
I believe that my primary call is to love others. In loving others I believe that it is highly arrogant for me to think of my beliefs as superior to others. Furthermore, how can I know that my faith is the best thing for another? That said, I enjoy the opportunity to talk about the faith that has become so life giving and helpful to me. Something that is also important to me is the belief that if I enter any discussion then I must be willing to exit the discussion changed. If I discuss something with an atheist, out of respect to the atheist, I must be willing to be persuaded, however unlikely I believe that to be.
I don't think I am trying to convert anyone else, but I am trying to enter a dialogue that will move all of us to the next part of our journey.
22 comments:
And out of interest, because I don't entirely disagree with you, what would be your take on the Great Commission? Not a commission and not that great?
I love running Alpha courses and find that in discussing Christ, remarkably, we are all moved - some to faith from no faith, some to deeper faith and some perhaps just have a better understanding of themselves.
So think presenting Christ and exploring faith is a big part of our call, but a person's decision in response to that is entirely theirs and I don't want to be coercive in any way.
Jesus told the disciples to move on if they are not received well and I sometime thing rather than respecting others views and moving on we bang on in a destructive and unloving way..
I think conversion happens through a natural outflowing of relationships rather coercive schemes.
I think if a church leader teaches his/her church well & the church supports each other people will be attracted to it & then to faith.
Hi TGC,
Does that allow for natural conversion in either direction?
Hi Lesley,
I'm with you on this, though it isn't always apparent when listening to an atheist.
But the basic similarities I see as this:
There are many possible hypotheses for how the universe came to be.
Theist - One teleological hypohtesis is the God hypothesis.
Atheist - A non-teleological hypothesis is it just happend.
Neither of us knows the details. Yours could be explained may many different sorts and numbers of gods, mine by many possible mathematical or physical origins (e.g. multiverse, etc.) neither hypothesis attempts to explain where these specific causes themselves came from.
You choose God, and make your way with that. I choose evidence and make my way with that.
We seem to be able to compare notes and agree to disagree. This is fine for an atheist, and apparently for some theists like yourself.
The only time an atheists wants to convert the theist is when the theist is saying their hypothesis dictates how the atheist lives their life. Then it's gloves off.
Thanks Ron, 2 way conversion occurs all the time, of course, hence Prof Dawkins' activities.
(I don't wear boxing gloves, personally. The gloves protect the punchers hands rather than the punched person's face. I'm more of an aikido man myself, let the attacker defeat himself.)
Mmm.. interesting comparison of our positions.
I suppose we can tell each other how to behave - you and I can tell the homophobes to be less prejudiced?
I am interested that you so often come back to creation.. is it because that is a primary interest of yours or because you feel it is the primary argument of theists for God?
Lesley, I think you've got to the key issue - most atheists think all theists are creationists.
When I was an atheist I loved to talk about the "Big Bang" with Christians. I was disturbed to find out later than atheists like the astronomer Fred Hoyle had argued that a universe with a fixed point of creation was a setback to their beliefs. (I don't beieve it actually is, but that's a different point altogether.)
Most actual scientists are not dogmatic - even geniuses like Newton were wrong occasionally, texts are reflected upon centuries later & the outsider who was treated as a pariah in his/her lifetime is proved right posthumously.
TGC - I used to do aikido years ago. Crunched a shoulder and I've also got a dodgy knee now, so I gave it up - I'm a whimp. I'd tried other MA's but that was my favourite
You are right that we atheists presume that most theists think God is the creator, even if a particular theist hasn't stated that. Some do say it's not a requirement, but i don't always spot that. So, could I ask each/any of you to say what you think of the origins of the universe and God's relation to that - or maybe point me to one of your posts that explains it.
Hi Ron
I am sorry - I didn't make myself clear. My question really is that in many discussions (which I find very helpful incidentally) you perhaps outline the difference between atheist and theist in terms of creation/evolution. I am merely interested in why - is that because you are particularly interested in that aspect or is it because you feel the theist is interested or that it is the theist's trump card argument etc.
What is behind my question is that for me I very rarely think about the creation/evolution thing. My faith is much more about things like:
being at peace with God
being at peace with myself
being at peace with others
being at peace with the environment
becoming more loving
becoming more humble
becoming more still
transforming crap stuff that happens...
as you see I could go on and on and on.. and I suppose somewhere in the list would be a belief that God creates, redeems, transforms... but that would be a much more metaphoric thing than where I think the universe comes from, cos frankly, who cares?
In most of our discussions I've included evolution as a source of our moral values, as opposed to any divine source - some theists think the Bible is a source of moral codes because it is divinely inspired, others think our moral codes come directly from God. So in this respect I'm not offering evolution against creation.
When talking about the meaning and purpose in our lives many theists also think this comes from God in some way, or that God's very existence is enough to give life purpose in that he created us. So, when it's the case that God created us for a purpose then I am arguing against that creation itself, and therefore against that purpose as well. When it's the case that God gives purpose, whether he created us or not, then because I don't see evidence for God I'm also ruling out that source of purpose.
And, the general nature of the atheist argument in both cases, creation or not, is that there is no evidence for God, and there is no requirement for a purpose to life or a meaning in life of that sort; that the universe could simply be as it is with no teleology implied. And from there, with specifically human interest and given the mechanism of evolution, there is no inherent purpose or meaning to human life. It's quite sufficient that as complex organisms that recognise self and have consciousness, that we give purpose and meaning to our lives ourselves.
Of course, apart from these discussions or when reading the science I don't think about the origins of the universe either. Most times I don't think about morality either - I just do it. My reaction to many events is just "That's wrong." without analysing it; same as everyone else.
Of your eight points there's only the first one that's meaningless for me. All the others would be part of any Humanist agenda.
"I suppose somewhere in the list would be a belief that God creates, redeems, transforms...more metaphoric" - If it's metaphoric then in what sense is any of it real? When I'm exhausted an I say "I crashed into bed." I mean it metaphorically; I didn't crash in what would be considered the literal sense of the word. So if God doesn't literally transform you, is the meaning in the metaphor that you actually transform yourself? If so then why not skip all the God metaphor and just say by being thoughful we can transform ourselves?
"cos frankly, who cares?" - That's fair enough. But that is something I'm interested in, as are many atheists that are interested in science. And it's an interest that drove many early scientists, even when their motivation was to understand God and his works.
It's an inquisitiveness that coupled with scepticism causes us to question. Most times we're questioning science, trying to find out how stuff works. But sometimes we come across theists that have these bold claims for God, both as creator and a source for our morals, and we ask, "How do you know that?" Most of the answers we get are warm and fuzzy, super-metaphorical, but don't really give more information - in fact there so slippery they provide more misinformation, they obscure any answer they may contain.
In most of our discussions I've included evolution as a source of our moral values, as opposed to any divine source
So is evolution effectively the equivalent your God, explaining morality, and that is why you bring it into these discussions? Ok so you see humanity as purposeless but individuals can ascribe meaning. Fair enough. Does evolution have any bearing on that at all, I wonder..
All the others would be part of any Humanist agenda.
I respect humanism very much. I wish it didn't have to be so atheistic at time though, I've got a feeling the roots of humanism were Christian. I suppose I feel there are people who doubt, perhaps in the divinity of Jesus but not in the existence of God and humanism would be a great place for them to continue a journey.
I think I was mostly looking at the 'creates' bit - I am pretty strong on evolution too and shy of the word 'create' because some religious people use it with specific overtones. But there again I am shy of the word 'redeem' for the same reason. Sorry - I was being sloppy, I mean that I like phrases like 'God creates in me a new heart'.. it is metaphor, but I do believe that in meditating on God we are changed.
"cos frankly, who cares?" - That's fair enough. But that is something I'm interested in, as are many atheists that are interested in science.
My apologies.
But sometimes we come across theists that have these bold claims for God, both as creator and a source for our morals, and we ask, "How do you know that?" Most of the answers we get are warm and fuzzy, super-metaphorical, but don't really give more information - in fact there so slippery they provide more misinformation, they obscure any answer they may contain.
Ok I understand your frustration now and I didn't before so that is a step forward for me. Not sure how I can amend my behaviour though, realistically all I really do is warm fuzzies because I can't express myself any other way.
Hi Lesley,
"So is evolution effectively the equivalent your God" - No. Evolution is a theory that gives a good explanation of how all life on earth is connected; and it's supported by tons of data. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, love, worship, agency, morality (but see next). There is no atheist equivalent of God.
"... explaining morality" - Yes. It isn't the cause of our morality as such. But the process of evolution has, through no design or agency, left some creatures with particular behaviours that are biased in favour of themselves and others close to them, and has left some creatures with a brain that is aware of self and others. Some of those creatures by this behaviour develop the concept of morality.
Because as humans we tend to anthropomorphise nearly everything there is the temptation to think evolution causes morality directly, maybe as part of it's processes, but it doesn't. Grasping this, being able to detach morality totally from the physical processes that result in the arbitrary organisms that go on to develop morality for themselves, is an important step in really understanding evolution and atheism.
"Does evolution have any bearing on that at all" - Only in that is the process that left us in this state, with our empathy and the brains that use in the construction of morals. It's mentioned to emphasise the absence of any underlying cosmic morality or God given morality.
"I respect humanism very much. I wish it didn't have to be so atheistic at time though" - But that's the point, to construct a system that doesn't contain God.
I've got a feeling the roots of humanism were Christian" - Historically, probably. But Jesus was a human and was particularly attuned to empathy. Moral people existed before the Biblical people.
"I do believe that in meditating on God we are changed" - Meditating on anything can cause physical changes in the brain, which can then change thoughts and behaviour. We know this because we study at school and we learn to ride bikes. London taxi drivers increase the size of their hippocampus by studying the Knowledge.
"Not sure how I can amend my behaviour though" - Why should you? Is all we can do is try to understand and ask for clarification, but mostly we're going to express what we think in the way that we are used to, and to some extent matches what it is we are explaining.
Hi Ron,
Just trying to understand why it is so important to you. Interested that you can categorically say there is no atheist equivalent to God. I wonder whether foe some atheists certain values are so important that they are the equivalent of God, or perhaps certain psychoses can be the equivalent of God, or certain fears or ambitions? Ok not a direct equivalent, but enough to produce the same hormones in a CAT scan?
so to summarise you are saying evolution may create empathy and empathy may create morality (btw I to think empathy is the single most important aspect of morality as well as community)
Interesting. I like evolution, however I believe in a God who is good and hence I believe the course of evolution that created organisms that love is what is meant by us being made in God's image.
Perhaps we need a humanism for agnostics. Or perhaps the CofE does that quite well in places :)
Yeah - mediating on anything we are changed.
I try to understand the position of others when having a debate. I would never quote the Bible to those who attribute no meaning to it. I feel like you and I are at cross purposes quite a lot but maybe you are right that it is inevitable.
"enough to produce the same hormones in a CAT scan" - Same regions of he brain lighting up, possibly, but I don't know. The other problem is that scans, CAT or MRI, only show brain activity - they are not specific, so they can't differentiate which neurotransmitters are being released. I don't know of any test that has scanned both theist and atheist, found the same regions active, and asked them what they are feeling. That would be interesting.
"you are saying evolution may create empathy" - Yes.
"and empathy may create morality" - No, our brains rationalise our feelings of empathy, and being creative, conceptual and abstract, we've created our morality to give meaning to those feelings. I guess this must have happened slowly, maybe developing along with the language that allowed us to construct concepts. This is all evolutionary psychology and evolutionary development and some of the ideas are controversial, but I get the feeling the general ideas are in agreement. Steven Pinker is a good source.
"what is meant by us being made in God's image" - I think God is made in our image, a bit like Plato's forms are made from real shapes. So, for a perfect circle: I think we consider all sorts of circles, and sometimes draw them, and when we conceptualise the idea of a circle and subtract all the squiggles and imperfections, we construct in our minds what is left that is still a circle, and this is one of Plato's forms. Similarly I think we try to think of all that is good in man and subtract all the bad stuff, all the physical stuff that isn't associated with goodness, and what we are left with is a conceptually perfect being. All the other baggage, like omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, saviour of the universe, where added later by rationalising how to meet objections, by the likes of Aquinas and Augustine.
"Or perhaps the CofE does that quite well in places" - I'm sure there are many atheists that would prefer some spirituality in their lives, and some theist that would like a little less theology. I could see the CofE (the best candidate) splitting in time to form something of an agnostic denomination that would give a home to many atheist Humanists.
Ok, thanks for explaining these things about empathy and morality from your world view. Sounds very interesting research, makes me wonder why I did engineering for all those years.
I understand that the concept of making god in our image. And I believe that mostly that is what has happened all over the world in our primitive and not-so-primitive religions. I would want to separate primitive religion from the spiritual experience of the Living God though, and the reasons are many, but particularly because when we experience God it is entirely other than we expect, moves us in a direction other than we were journeying on and gives us a sense of awe because it is more than we could imagine.
I like your analogy of the circle, and I think that sort of 'faith' is fantastic, and furthermore I think it is the sort of faith that 99 out of 100 days we all have. But then on the 1 day in 100, or perhaps for frequently if I am lucky, I get 'nudged' into seeing something completely differently, or a new understanding about God crashes in from nowhere, and I am in total awe.
I think spiritual experience is often like this - St Paul gets knocked of his horse when he wants to persecute the Christians and realises that he wants to be a Christian. Moses sees a burning bush and realises he needs to go back to set the Hebrew people free. Sarah overhears that she is going to have a baby and laughs in contempt.. Spiritual experiences often are outside our expectations.
I'm sure there are many atheists that would prefer some spirituality in their lives, and some theist that would like a little less theology. I could see the CofE (the best candidate) splitting in time to form something of an agnostic denomination that would give a home to many atheist Humanists.
Ah well.. maybe a new calling for me at some time, perhaps we could lead it together if we could stop arguing for 10 mins. Why would atheists want some more spirituality btw?
"I would want to separate primitive religion from the spiritual experience of the Living God though" - How, when, where would that separation occur? Is OT primative, for example? And what of the many Christians who take he Bible seriously, is that primitive belief?
I'm not persuaded by claims made in the Bible because it is a book that has an agenda. Any testaments in there cannot be considered reliable evidence that the incidents took place, or took place in the manner described, or that at the time they had the same meaning attributed to them later. For example, I can accept Paul had some experience which he interpreted as a spiritual one, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything spiritual.
If you are convinced, then how do you judge that? And, how do you similarly judge the claims made of Mohammed, or Joseph Smith?
If in some way you accept that the claims of the Bible might not be literal, of factual as we understand every day occurrences, but rather are stories, then what validity do they have that can't be found in any literature. Shakespeare contains lots of profound messages, but nobody treats his work in the same divine category as the Bible.
When you describe your experience of God it appears to me you could be describing natural feelings, but which in your case you attribute to God. I've not understood yet how you can be sure that they are attributable to God, rather than you being particularly sensitive to spiritual sensations that simply appear within you from a biological source.
Déjà vu, feeling out of body, spooky coincidence - these are experiences outside our expectations. If a person's brain is prone to spiritual feelings and these sometimes invoke the notion of God, then there could still be natural biological explanations. If you're having the experiences and you're convinced they are related to God then I guess it would be difficult to convince you of that.
Some atheist accept the evidence of what science tells them about the world, and see no evidence of God, but still have the feelings that are associated with spirituality. Carl Sagan is a prime example.
John Wesley writes this in his journal:
In the evening I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.
From that moment his life took a different course. However he had already been a clergy person for 12 years. That for me is the difference between religion and a living faith. Not all religion is bad, but some of it can be about control, suppression and fear. That has nothing to do with the God of Love imho.
How do you judge being convinced? And how do you judge the claims of Mohammed, or Joseph Smith? I am assuming you and I use similar bases?
Yes. I wrote about myth here:
http://revdlesley.blogspot.com/2010/04/myth.html
The truth is that initially I didn't treat the Bible as any different, it is just that so often that 'tuning fork' ring of truth or 'penny dropping' feeling happened that it became a must read for me. However, I do accept that such feelings also occur for me in any literature. You will find that for some Christians the Bible is a book with some writings some of which are helpful. For others the Bible is the very word of God and must be obeyed. There is a scale. The first thing we did on ordination training was to put a cross on the scale to find out where we were. I was surprised that many of the Christians had the 'helpful book' approach. Today I am much more comfortable with that than the other.
Yes, good questions and of course I cannot be sure either. This is a helpful discussion for me to ask the questions of myself. I do get deja vu occasionally, and I do find it bizarre and uncanny (thought the Matrix was ace on this btw), but those feelings never lead anywhere - they don't lead to forgiveness or great love or greater wholeness for me. They also never seem to connect with anything profound in others, whereas my spiritual experiences do. Deja vu leaves me confused, spiritual experiences leave me enlightened. It is like Rob Bell's video on today's post - I feel like I am tuning into ancient mysteries (and I am not a tree hugging la-la land type of person).
That is interesting.. Is it Jung that didn't believe in God per se but believed in a collective unconscious that was in a way like a spiritual being.. is it similar to that? Do you have any spiritual feelings?
I gave my thoughts on what the Bible is here: http://revdalan.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-is-bible.html
Post a Comment