h/t John
Pete Rollins reflects my faith because I have a deep belief that God is True, the most true thing that has ever happened to me. A searing white light of truth and love that made everything in my life that I thought was true or lovely before look rather grey in comparison. I find it hard to speak of God because I don't have any vocabulary to describe the feelings I have, nor do I have any experience that comes remotely close to the experience of God. I have witnessed things that I can only attribute to God, but these I find hard to speak of because I don't want to 'prove' God, it is for God to prove me. When the Bible says 'don't test God' I am delighted, nothing within me wants to test God, how can I, weak, partial, broken, and grasping at the wonder of God ever test God?
18 comments:
beautifully written Lesley x
Hi Lesley,
You wanted me to respond to this.
"Atheism is such a difficult perspective to grasp." - What crock! It's simply the refusal to believe in any God for which there is no evidence.
The whole red herring about which God don't you believe in comes about not because of the limitation of the atheist, but because of the incapability of any theist to say what God is (while at the same time saying what he is).
"Only the Christian can be an atheist." - Pure nonsense. The Christian Rollins describes doesn't not believe in God, his Christian believes in a God he simply finds difficult to describe, because he doesn't really know what he believes in. This is pure conceptual art at work, spinning words into ever more meaningless nonsense.
"... atheist... what God do you not believe in...you'll be rejecting an image of God." - Yes. Any image of God he wishes to provide that still meets some conceptual understanding that it is God, using any common understanding or even uncommon understanding.
"It's the rejection of an idea of God." - Yes, any idea of God we've met so far.
"God is beyond all conception." - How do you know this? This is paradoxical to say the least.
"God can't be grasped by language." - Then how is he grasped? What is there to believe in?
...
...
"Theological discourse is a dis-course" - Note the play on words to pick up on the 'dis' as a means of associating this with a-theism as in a word association game; when really it's just a cheap pun.
"sends you off-course" - Further play on words. But does theology really send you off course, if you're never on course in the first place? After all, God is beyond all knowing, so you weren't even on-course in the first place.
"Christians are atheist in the sense that no conception of God can do justice" - This isn't atheism by any stretch of the imagination. It's just muddle headed thinking. Note that in this, and in what follows, Rollins never suggests that God is anything less than he imagines. Always more. How does he know this? If God is inconceivable, how can it be conceived that he is greater than what we do conceive? Why not less?
"Every time we say, God is love, but not like I understand love..." - But because it's not the same love it doesn't make it non-love. How does he know God loves at all? How does he know God is a loving God? It's no use looking to The Lord's Prayer or any religious text, because they were written by men with the same misconceptions.
"God the father, but no like your father, much bigger and better than your father." - This sounds like a playground tiff between kids - my dad's bigger than yours. But again, how does he know bigger and better - this is actually making claims about God when God is an unknown.
I can't be sure, because I'm not that well up on early Christian history - but weren't early Christians considered atheist because they rejected all other gods, and in a Jewish context they effectively rejected the Jewish God in following Christ? They didn't reject their own God - they were not atheists to themselves. "Every time they affirmed God..." see, they're not atheists, "...you are greater and bigger that" - if there's any sense to any of this video then this bit shows they were even more theistic, not less, and not even close to being atheists.
"Every time I say 'God', it's less than you" - i.e. more God than god, more theistic, not less.
"Every time I think I've got you in my theology you blow my theology apart." - This is a failing of the specifics of the theology, not a declaration of atheism.
"So in a sense there is a radical way we are atheists..." - Only if you're radical enough to completely misconstrue the meaning of the word atheist to the point that it means the opposite of what it does mean. But, that's the religious mind for you.
:) I think the Irish love paradox.
So do you hate this more than Rob Bell?
Rollins (and Bell) provide many examples of what Dennett calls a 'Deepity':
- A proposition that seems to be profound because it is logically ill-formed.
- It has (at least) two meanings, and balances precariously between them.
- On one reading it is true but trivial.
- On the other reading it's false, but would be earth-shattering if true.
Try this Dennett video*, which will explain a lot about what's wrong with Rollins, Bell, and much more.
(*Not the same as the one here, despite some similar references.)
Mmm.. think that is the wrong video - it is about ministers who have lost their faith?
It's the right one. He gets to the other points later. But it's all relevant to this notion of language misuse in describing God. It also covers where the conflict begins for many, at seminary college, where the first notions of the vanishing God appear. It's all pertinent.
Mmmm.. just so dull I lost the will to live.. or perhaps I am tired. Still sleepy after the op!
Hi Lesley,
I realise it isn't as happy-clappy feely-goody fake-profundity as Rollins and Bell, but it is informative, and well worth a view when you're feeling better.
It makes some serious points; but they are obviously from an atheist's perspective, so I'd be interested in any criticism of any of the points it makes, from a theistic perspective.
Hi Ron,
Look I am Generation-X, I don't understand anything unless you put stripy colours behind the speaker, change the camera angle every 20 seconds, add strange music and throw the odd word on the screen to help me.. oh and keep it to under 5mins..
However, being as you asked so nicely I'll watch the rest of it.. but can I say it is galling and almost ridiculous to watch someone who clearly has no understanding of faith talking about it. I feel like a black person having a white person tell me what it is like to be black..
All the more reason to set us atheists straight. Just as I give the atheist angle on Rollins and Bell. We can't go on just listening to our own side.
Ron,
I have watched the video and I am honestly appalled, I can't remember ever watching something so sickeningly prejudiced, and I am shocked that Richard Dawkins says he seeks counsel from him, I find it hard to relate that to what I know of Richard Dawkins as a person. Also, you are better than this, I can't believe you can stomach it?
Seeing as I have spent an hour watching it (and only out of respect for you because I never normally watch anything racist or anti-gay or politically obnoxious) I will dignify it by explaining why I find it distasteful.
Firstly, he is called a philosopher, but he adds practically nothing, it is just someone ridiculing something. Richard Dawkins calls it intellectual exercise, but most of it seemed at the level of the Sun newspaper to me.. doesn't it to you?
Secondly, why does everything always revolve around the most extreme form of American evangelicalism? Richard Dawkins is British.. if I am being cynical it is because that is the easiest to set up as something bad.
In my training at college (seminary to use the American term) I was eager to learn and so were many others, there was no sense of not believing what we were taught because it challenged preconceived ideas.. we were encouraged to question and did so, and grew through it. Furthermore no one rejected Textual Criticism.. what is Dan on about?
He regularly uses the words subversive, willful, cunning, trick, liars etc. It is just appalling. If he said these things about black people you would be rightly outraged and liken his propaganda to Hitler. I know no such religious people who are any of these vile things.
He suggests that those who lose their faith at college 'get out while the going is good'... as far as I know vicars are among the happiest and most satisfied people, and they live longest too. What does he mean?
He suggests that we learn spin when interpreting the Bible. Not true.
He suggests that theology is to answer 'awkward questions'.. not true.
He suggests that we try to stop people having inquiring minds.. not true.
And he says that either you believe God has existence or you are an atheist.. why?
At times his argument relies purely on puerile ridicule - for instance the 'History of God' book rant. And he relates God to the Easter Bunny.. I think that is similar to racists equating black people to apes..
The example he uses for his deepism is lousy 'Love is just a word'.. he seems to ignore the word 'just', and that just makes him look stupid when he is presenting himself as a philosopher.
He rejects the idea of metaphorical truth, which seems to me ignorant.
I hope he is a one off and there are very few atheists as unpleasant as him. He represents for me the worst sort of bigotry.
Hi lesley,
I'll cover each of your specific points, starting with this one...
"he is called a philosopher, but he adds practically nothing"
Reverse engineering - seeing how thinks fail in order to understand them. Standard scientific process, used in his case in understanding the brain, psychology, etc. Dennett does know a lot about how the brain works, and how it fails to work. And much of this is about how it fails to work when applied to religious belief.
There is the assumption in the religious community that theologians who think about human behaviour in the context of a religious belief have a real grasp of the human condition, as if they have an insight that religious thought and belief brings to their understanding. Dennett's purpose here is to point out that they don't. Rollins and Bell are prime examples of believers who maybe don't appreciate how their stories and their methods are pure snake oil salesmen tricks. Dennett probably finds it hard to believe that many serious intelligent theologians really believe some of the stuff they come out with; and added to that the experiences he's had with religious believers you yourself might classify as 'nutters', simply because their belief is more literal than yours; then this is why Dennett is appears not to address your position on many of the pints he makes.
The part of the video that's about non-believing preachers is a genuine attempt to understand what is happening. It's a real psychological investigation. As someone interested in psychology I assume you can appreciate this. Even in this small initial study he classifies then as three liberals and three literals - so already he's naturally covering a range of beliefs.
Hi Lesley,
My response was too long, so I've posted it here.
Mmm.. I think what made me so angry was his disrespect and hypocrisy. He was accusing others of spin whilst doing himself, accusing others of ignorance whilst being ignorant himself, accusing others of manipulating whilst manipulating himself.
I am also confused by his agenda. One of the first rules of psychology is that you respect the boundaries of another. He is entitled to his ideas and beliefs, but inciting ridicule or other's ideas and beliefs is behaviour that is unacceptable. Do you know what his agenda is?
Anyway - read this this morning:
"Your way of acting should be different from the world's way; the love of Christ must come before all else. You are not to act in anger or nurse a grudge. Rid your heart of all deceit."
So I had better stop being angry with him!
Hi Lesley,
I'll respond about Dennett on my blog.
I'd be interested to hear what you think about my response to Rollins.
I don't hate him or Bell by the way. I don't know them. I'm just criticising their message and the way it's delivered.
Hi Ron
Think I failed to tick the box so can you tweet me when you do?
Yeah - I think Rollins has some good ideas and some not so good ones. I think his book Orthodox Heretic is truly excellent and worth a read. This is not a good example of his work.
I know you don't hate them - I was being sloppy with language - sorry :)
Lesley
Post a Comment