|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: "Richard Dawkins has done us a big favour..."
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
So said Rev David Robertson, a minister from the Free Church of Scotland.
"I actually know of people who have been converted through reading The God Delusion and interacting with the discussion. Dawkins has opened the door. We now have to walk through it," said the Christian minister.
So has "the world's most famous atheist" been the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics?
I tend to think that Rev Robertson has a point. Has Dawkins' "in yer face" approach backfired?
[ 28. January 2013, 23:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think there is something in this, although I would not say it's the best thing to have happened.
It has energized various debates about theism, the nature of philosophy, the role of science, and so on. Surely, it has made some people think more about such things.
There is also the point that the various exposures of Prof Dawkins' short-comings in his arguments have been very interesting and useful. If you like, it has sharpened and focused the debates.
I also support Prof Dawkins in his rejection of creationism as a science-led discipline.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
David Robertson has made a career of opening his mouth and letting his stomach rumble so I would take anything he says with an extremely large pinch of salt.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive
David Robertson has made a career of opening his mouth and letting his stomach rumble so I would take anything he says with an extremely large pinch of salt.
So what else has he said that you feel calls his credibility into question?
And when he claims that certain people have been converted to Christianity after reading The God Delusion, is he lying, in your opinion?
And if we conclude that everything he says is completely dodgy (something I very much doubt), are you suggesting that there is no merit in this discussion concerning how aggressive atheism can be of benefit to Christian apologetics?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So said Rev David Robertson, a minister from the Free Church of Scotland.
"I actually know of people who have been converted through reading The God Delusion and interacting with the discussion. Dawkins has opened the door. We now have to walk through it," said the Christian minister.
So has "the world's most famous atheist" been the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics?
I tend to think that Rev Robertson has a point. Has Dawkins' "in yer face" approach backfired?
I don't like Dawkin's manner and I thought the God Delusion (the bit I read) was silly. However there are quite a lot of self-proclaimed religious writers who leave me equally cold (or hot under the collar).
It would be hard to find any view which hasn't been supported by boorish idiots. That doesn't the make the view true or false.
When I hear people spouting Ditchkins* speak, I find myself almost automatically defending what they are attacking. But that's because I think shooting paper tigers is counter productive.
However if he's the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics I'd look for some better apologists. You need someone to make a positive case.
* In his Gifford lectures, this was Terry Eagleton's name for the Hitchens-Dawkins combo.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
[tangent]
David Robertson first came to my attention when he dared to defend a book he wrote criticising TGD - and he did this on the vile echo chamber that was the richardawkins.net forum. A flurry of mean-spirited posts followed in the wake of Robertson's appearance, including some from Dawkins himself. But Robertson kept coming back, and from what I can tell, he stood his ground - firmly at times - without feeling the need to resort to the same level of insult. Indeed, his continued presence on the forum and his continued defence of his POV eventually had quite a profound impact on at least one regular RD.net contributor - more here.
If anyone is interested, the discussion that David Robertson mentioned having with comedian and atheist Marcus Bridgestock can be found here. Just scroll down to the show entitled Comedy & Christianity from the 27th October 2012. It was a fascinating show that was a credit to all involved because they talked with each other, rather than at each other. (His other shows on Unbelievable? are also worth checking out.)
[/tangent]
As for the topic of the tread - while there are, from a Christian perspective, some major downsides to the popularity of the New Atheists, I also happen to agree with Robertson when he says (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Dawkins and the New Atheists have, in part, done Christianity a favour by bring God talk back into places it otherwise wouldn't have featured. People are again interested in the topic and they are listening. And because the debate has become that much more prominent, it has forced Christian apologists to develop better defensive and positive arguments for their faith. It may also force churches to look at what they are, how they communicate their beliefs and how they can be of relevance to society.
It seems to me that the real challenge for Christian apologists (and in a sense this includes all Christians) is not specifically to refute Dawkins and his ilk. The challenge is to offer a post-Christian society a credible alternative to the worldview that is often - and without any justification - presupposed to be true (in the media etc) and provides people like Dawkins with a seedbed to propagate their ideas further.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
Sorry for the rapid double post, but I just wanted to post a quick response to que sais-je.
I don't think that Dawkins is the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics. However, New Atheism has given apologetics a voice outside of limited corners of the church.
Now all we need is a Christian apologist to get some credibility with the media to the point that they are willing to let them be heard making a positive case, rather than being the lone and all too brief dissenting voice in yet another Richard Dawkins series on Channel 4.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Your premier link doesn't seem to be working and I can't work out how to fix it - sorry.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
I suppose it is possible that some few people have been converted to Christianity through reading Dawkins. It seems equally possible that others have seen the light and left Christianity after reading him. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
For myself, I had given up my belief before reading Dawkins. I found his book arrogant nonsense in places. This had the effect of making me look for other books from the 'atheist' camp - which I found to be well-reasoned, readable and polite.
I seem to remember that Dawkins made a big point about people thinking through the issues for themselves (and, of course, helping them along the way), something that too few Christian preachers do in my experience.
[ 04. November 2012, 18:30: Message edited by: Mark Wuntoo ]
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Mostly I'm with Rowan Wlliams, who recently wearily referred to Dawkins as "the latest pub bore atheist" (or something like that). But it worries me that both sides of the Religion vs New Atheist debate have cast religion as a set of philosophical assertions to which adherents must assent. If that were true, Christ would have come for the clever and educated, not for the poor and oppressed. I think our collusion with this approach has not done us any favours.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Strange, isn't it that the atheist ramblings of a top scientist are easy to see through, but well thought out theories of an illusionist are much harder to answer.
The Atheists would be advised to ditch Dawkins and replace him with Penn Jillette as their spokesman.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Sorry for the rapid double post, but I just wanted to post a quick response to que sais-je.
I don't think that Dawkins is the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics. However, New Atheism has given apologetics a voice outside of limited corners of the church.
Now all we need is a Christian apologist to get some credibility with the media to the point that they are willing to let them be heard making a positive case, rather than being the lone and all too brief dissenting voice in yet another Richard Dawkins series on Channel 4.
I agree but I don't think atheists are your problem. The majority of people in this country describe themselves as believing in a 'higher power'. You seem to be setting the bar unreasonably high if you aim at the 20% of who have no such belief.
Your problem seems to be that despite having a large group who don't have a problem with the idea of God per se, you aren't making much progress with them. On the basis of my very partial experience of people I know, talking about religion some relevant problems are going to be:
1) The perception that the church is obsessed with sex (whether it be sex abuse, women priests, gay clergy, polygamous African priests). It is unfair I know but it's what papers print in this prurient age.
2) What is often an appropriately nuanced approach to difficult moral issues is taken by the press as prevarication, equivocation, or in the 'red-tops' as being wishy-washy on x (where x is whatever ethical issue is flavour of the day).
This is combined with the 'What would Jesus have done?' idea - that the church doesn't seem to be the sort of organisation Jesus would have approved of - or joined.
3) A sense that somehow science has already explained why we have religious beliefs.
4) A perception that the language of the church and its services is outdated.
5) A particular problem I've encountered with Buddhists (a Buddhist friend got me to come to meetings a couple of times). The version of Buddhism they learn is very sophisticated compared to that of the typical Tibetan peasant say, on the other hand the understanding they have of Christianity is often not much more than that of a peasant. I'm sure it isn't just Buddhist but for a lot of people the Christian God hasn't evolved much from a guy with a white beard sitting on a cloud. People just know very little of Christianity.
These are a random mixture but they reflect things which have been said to me on such occasions as religion comes up. Mostly these would be white, middle class graduates talking - but not all.
You also have very strong selling points - of which Christian ethics is one of the strongest (if you can persuade people that Christians and the churches follow them). You've got wonderful places where generations of believers have gone though the great 'transitions' of live: "a serious house on serious ground" is hard to find anywhere else.
Going on too long, sorry, none of my business really - but good luck.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
* In his Gifford lectures, this was Terry Eagleton's name for the Hitchens-Dawkins combo.
IIRC, one of Eagleton's themes in those lectures was the War on Terror. In that context, treating the views of Dawkins (anti Iraq War) and Hitchins (very much pro Iraq War) as interchangeable and complaining about their lack of sophisticated argument was not a particularly clever move.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
* In his Gifford lectures, this was Terry Eagleton's name for the Hitchens-Dawkins combo.
IIRC, one of Eagleton's themes in those lectures was the War on Terror. In that context, treating the views of Dawkins (anti Iraq War) and Hitchins (very much pro Iraq War) as interchangeable and complaining about their lack of sophisticated argument was not a particularly clever move.
I just liked the coinage 'Ditchkins' - I'm not claiming Eagleton as a guru or saying I agree with him.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your premier link doesn't seem to be working and I can't work out how to fix it - sorry.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
It's actually a link to the feed of all the shows going back to the beginning. For whatever reasons it is sometimes flaky. But hitting refresh a couple of times will sort out the issue and you can view the feed no problem.
Here is a direct link to the download of the show:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/1f421d58-138c-4015-adb2-59c735b7a79d.mp3
[ETA fix link, DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 04. November 2012, 22:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Being an Atheist before the "New Atheism" started, the only effect I see is that; in the US at least, previously isolated Atheists found a new sense of community. Combined with easier access to Atheist ideas on the Internet I suspect "de-conversions" due to the "New Atheists" probably outnumber conversions to Christianity due to them by a large amount.
If some Christian driven to re examine his faith by The God Delusion is motivated into a more thoughtful and fuller engagement with his faith I don't believe Dawkins would complain too much, as previously noted by Mark Wuntoo .
About Buddhist knowledge of Christianity goes it probably varies a lot, that said, Western Buddhists probably know a lot more on average about Christianity than Christians about Buddhism. For example this Buddhist went to catholic school and actually seriously considered the Priesthood at some point.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Mostly I'm with Rowan Wlliams, who recently wearily referred to Dawkins as "the latest pub bore atheist" (or something like that). But it worries me that both sides of the Religion vs New Atheist debate have cast religion as a set of philosophical assertions to which adherents must assent. If that were true, Christ would have come for the clever and educated, not for the poor and oppressed. I think our collusion with this approach has not done us any favours.
Interesting point, but I think I have deepened my understanding that Christianity is not a set of philosophical propositions, partly through reading various arguments for and against Prof Dawkins' stuff.
At any rate, it began to strike me that the discussion around TGD might become too propositional; but I found that others agree with me.
Also, I began to notice the very poor understanding of Christianity that some have, including Dawkins and other atheists (but not all).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
However if he's the best thing to happen to Christian apologetics I'd look for some better apologists. You need someone to make a positive case.
I think Alister McGrath has done a good job there.
He's done a lot in dialogue with Dawkins and his ilk and has recently published a book called Mere Apologetics.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I think it's mostly that Dawkins has shown that atheists can be just as annoying as Christians. Leveled the playing field a bit...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think Alister McGrath has done a good job there.
He's done a lot in dialogue with Dawkins and his ilk and has recently published a book called Mere Apologetics.
Thanks for the link - I'll read more.
Richard Holloway makes a lot of sense to me but some Christians seem to see him as a traitor and worse than Prof Dawkins. I heard Holloway talk recently and he had an audience of, I'd guess, a couple of hundred. Judging by the questions it included both believers and non-believers.
The rationality of Christianity and apologetics for it are essential but as my earlier over-long post said, people I meet are anti- or uninterested in religion for a range of reasons which have little to do with theology. The perception that, in some sense, the church fails to be a 'really' Christian body being a common complaint. "What would Jesus have done?" becomes "Is the Church doing what Jesus would have done?" and among most people I know the answer is "No". Interestingly, atheists/agnostics often add "except the Quakers of course".
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moominpappa
Apprentice
# 12044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I think it's mostly that Dawkins has shown that atheists can be just as annoying as Christians. Leveled the playing field a bit...
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
[ 05. November 2012, 08:29: Message edited by: Moominpappa ]
--------------------
Abbot Anthony then asked Abbot Joseph 'How would you explain this saying from the scriptures?' and he replied 'I do not know.' Then Abbot Anthony said 'Indeed, Abbot Joseph has found the way, for he has said "I do not know."'
Posts: 16 | From: Hampshire, England. | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point, but I think I have deepened my understanding that Christianity is not a set of philosophical propositions, partly through reading various arguments for and against Prof Dawkins' stuff.
At any rate, it began to strike me that the discussion around TGD might become too propositional; but I found that others agree with me.
Also, I began to notice the very poor understanding of Christianity that some have, including Dawkins and other atheists (but not all).
It's intersting that the debate has moved you away from a propositional model of Christianity. Could you say anything more about that?
It's just that my perception has been that when the New Atheists say, "How can you believe that X?", they mean, "How can you give intellectual assent to X as a proposition?" My reply is, "I don't. That's not how I 'believe.' It's not what I think 'belief' is."
And I agree that the New (and some Old) Atheists show an appalling ignorance of Christianity. My reply to all but a handful (including Old Atheist Bertrand Russell, who really should have known better) is, "Well if that's what Christianity was, I wouldn't believe in it either."
[Edited becos my speling was rong.]
[ 05. November 2012, 08:47: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Adeodatus
I have tussled a few times with atheists in various ways and noticed that they were focusing a lot on the propositional approach. My own religious attitude is not like that, and I began to think about the differences. For example, that the Christian view is a personal response to the person of Jesus Christ; that when I go to the Eucharist, I don't go in order to sit there having beliefs; that I have an experiential attitude in many ways, and so on.
The 'set of propositions' approach is not without value, but it can become very arid, and in the hands of some atheists, turns into logic chopping.
Well, I could go on, but brekfast iz kalling.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think it is problematic to deny intellectual queries of one's faith, if one's faith makes identifiable truth claims. My own faith is not founded on propositions either. I'm moving mostly on a trajectory from Zen over Master Eckhart to more "juicy" Christian mysticism (well, I hope that statement made sense to someone...). But I have accepted a truckload of propositional statements along the way. Some of these I personally care about only as a kind of religious duty, some of these are big for me intellectually but do not speak much to my heart, and some are essential in that they shape not only my thought but also my practice and "feelings".
Anyhow, my point is that as long as I say that "X is true", an atheist is fully within his or her rights to query me on this statement. So when I read this:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's just that my perception has been that when the New Atheists say, "How can you believe that X?", they mean, "How can you give intellectual assent to X as a proposition?" My reply is, "I don't. That's not how I 'believe.' It's not what I think 'belief' is."
I can see only two possibilities: Either Adeodatus never asserts anything as actually true by his faith. I guess this is possible, though it is not a kind of faith that I personally would have an interest in. Even though I'm coming from a "mystic" background, I firmly believe that to go beyond truth in any sense one must be solidly based in truth. Or I would have to side with the atheists. If he makes any assertions about truth, then they are fair game for their intellectual scrutiny. It is then a cop-out to say that "believing in X" is incomparably different from "intellectually assenting to X as proposition". A belief that claims an identifiable truth is at least an intellectual assent in the sense that the intellect has proposed this as possible truth to the will. So at a minimum one should be able to defend intellectually that the claim is not contrary to reason.
Though I mean this in a principle sense. I do not wish to attack "simple" faith that is not "technically" able to defend itself against the likes of Dawkins on the intellectual battlefield. That is fair enough. I for example have to bow out of historical discussions involving Christianity on a regular basis, since frankly I know too little to hold my own against those who claim to have great knowledge. And it is not just about knowledge. While I personally enjoy rhetorical battles, and have a fair degree of competence in them, many people don't. And again that is fair enough. I do not think at all that every Christian must be an apologist. However, two things are important if one bows out in this manner. First, that I am not able or willing to do something does not mean that it cannot or should not be done. A personal decision to not fight intellectual battles about Christianity says nothing about the possibility or value of such battles. Second, bowing out is an occasion for humility, not pride. If one thinks that one makes the better choice in bowing out, then in fact one is making a claim at the principle level. And that brings us back to the first point.
I think it is actually quite hard to humbly bow out of something. It is quite difficult to say "well, I'm afraid this is beyond me, for good or ill you will need to talk to others about this," without dropping some hints that one has somehow taken the higher road. Unfortunately, it is quite possible to be highly sophisticated and very prideful about being simple and humble. (And yes, I firmly point at myself in this.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
It's just that my perception has been that when the New Atheists say, "How can you believe that X?", they mean, "How can you give intellectual assent to X as a proposition?"
I totally agree with the concern of these atheists, if that is what they truly are saying (which I admit I have come to doubt at times). In fact, I don't regard atheists as champions of reason anyway, and if there is one thing that Dawkins has achieved, it is to create a situation at the popular level where the assumptions of atheism can be vigorously challenged, as they have been - and successfully in my view.
Concerning the propositional / intellectual in contrast to the experiential / personal approach to the Christian faith, it is not a matter of "either ... or", but "both ... and". I am not aware that we are supposed to make a choice! The two enrich each other, like a beneficial or virtuous circle.
As for 'belief' not involving intellectual assent or conviction, I find this bizarre in the extreme. In fact, I don't even know what the word means in practice, if I am supposed to 'believe' something for which there is not one shred of evidence, or even which the evidence appears to contradict. 'Belief' / 'faith' is a personal and committed response to truth. It describes active assent to intellectual conviction.
I tend to think that faith is to knowledge what eating is to food.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I just liked the coinage 'Ditchkins' - I'm not claiming Eagleton as a guru or saying I agree with him.
You "like the coinage". The coinage that makes Dawkins attack on Christianity look subtle. It's nothing more than an ad-hominem attack that can only be based in either ignorance or a desire to turn an already tricky dialogue into a mudslinging contest by conflating people with deep and profound disagreements. Either way at best 'Ditchkins' serves to demonstrate that Eagleton (and any other user of that term) is setting up a straw-Dawkins that is far more profound than anything Dawkins has done.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's just that my perception has been that when the New Atheists say, "How can you believe that X?", they mean, "How can you give intellectual assent to X as a proposition?" My reply is, "I don't. That's not how I 'believe.' It's not what I think 'belief' is."
And I agree that the New (and some Old) Atheists show an appalling ignorance of Christianity. My reply to all but a handful (including Old Atheist Bertrand Russell, who really should have known better) is, "Well if that's what Christianity was, I wouldn't believe in it either."
[Edited becos my speling was rong.]
The problem with this claim is that New Atheists show much less of an ignorance of Christianity than Christians themselves do. This is confirmed by Pew Research where atheists are the third highest scoring group in terms of knowledgeability about Christianity and the Bible. (Of course you take your surveys where you get them - I'm sure that on a different survey the results would have been different).
If Atheists show less of an ignorance about Christianity than Christians do (as the research seems to indicate) then why are you attacking them and not the examples your fellow Christians are setting, which is normally where the atheists get knowledge. Not from the Phelpses of this world that are generally decried by all. But from mainstream Christians such as Benedict XVI, George Carey, Rick Warren, Tim LaHaye, and other influential Christian leaders.
If your theology disagrees with the majority of the above then the accusation of ignorance on behalf of the atheists is ... dubious.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyhow, my point is that as long as I say that "X is true", an atheist is fully within his or her rights to query me on this statement.
One of the big differences between Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist traditions & Judao/Christian/Islamic ones seems to be the former focus on "spiritual development" to a greater extent than on "truths". This is obviously a gross simplification but it could be argued that, if it could be proved the Buddha never existed, it wouldn't necessarily be a death knell for the religion. Indeed the Zen "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is at least partially a pointer that Buddhism is about experience and behaviour not propositional facts.
A similar Way exists in Christianity (and maybe IngoB is following it). It just isn't the way usually Christianity presents itself to the general public - or the way many Christians see it.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So at a minimum one should be able to defend intellectually that the claim is not contrary to reason.
I'm not sure I've got much further than that on any claim.
But how about non-propositional atheism: my usual analogy is that I'm like a person who doesn't 'get' music in the way some do. I like a good tune but I don't fall about and try to tell every one it is the most important thing in life. I don't doubt it is to some and their lives are much enriched by it. I'm happy for them though maybe they miss out on things which enlarge my life.
I doubt if a philosophical argument about whether music is really "the Truth" would get us very far - still less arguments about whether Shostakovich is better than Robert Johnson.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The problem with this claim is that New Atheists show much less of an ignorance of Christianity than Christians themselves do. This is confirmed by Pew Research where atheists are the third highest scoring group in terms of knowledgeability about Christianity and the Bible. (Of course you take your surveys where you get them - I'm sure that on a different survey the results would have been different).
If Atheists show less of an ignorance about Christianity than Christians do (as the research seems to indicate) then why are you attacking them and not the examples your fellow Christians are setting, which is normally where the atheists get knowledge. Not from the Phelpses of this world that are generally decried by all. But from mainstream Christians such as Benedict XVI, George Carey, Rick Warren, Tim LaHaye, and other influential Christian leaders.
If your theology disagrees with the majority of the above then the accusation of ignorance on behalf of the atheists is ... dubious.
You make my point for me. It's probably true that some atheists know more of the philosophical assertions that go with Christianity. They probably know better than I how many books there are in the Bible. They probably know how many wives Solomon had, and which hand St Paul used to scratch his arse.
I don't care.
Those things are not Christianity. Christ did not come especially to save those who could do the intellectual gymnastics needed to argue the finer points of the Trinity. The gospels do not record that he ever said, "Blessed are the clever, and happy are those whose arguments are subtle and sophisticated." They do record that he said, "Blessed are you poor ... you who are hungry ... you who weep." And scripture does record the scorn of Paul (in one of his better moments) for "Greeks [who] look for wisdom".
I've done theology. I've more or less got a degree in it. I've spent twenty-odd years studying it. But the old woman who sat in our hospital chapel the other day wiping tears from her eyes as she prayed knows more of the heart of Christ than I ever will by means of my theology.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, it's striking that Justinian uses the 'about' word - knowledgeability about Christianity.
But what is it to have the mind of Christ? Is there an 'about' about this?
[ 05. November 2012, 11:58: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
One of the big differences between Hindu/Taoist/Buddhist traditions & Judao/Christian/Islamic ones seems to be the former focus on "spiritual development" to a greater extent than on "truths". This is obviously a gross simplification but it could be argued that, if it could be proved the Buddha never existed, it wouldn't necessarily be a death knell for the religion. Indeed the Zen "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is at least partially a pointer that Buddhism is about experience and behaviour not propositional facts.
This is not quite hitting the mark on several levels, at least as far as Buddhism is concerned (I don't know enough about Hinduism and Daoism to comment). First, Eastern Buddhism is quite stratified. In Eastern terms, most Westerners are laypeople trying to be (or pretending to be...) monks and nuns. It sure would make a difference to the religious practices of most Buddhists (namely, Eastern Buddhist laypeople), if Siddhartha Gautama never existed. That likely wouldn't be much different in practice from the impact of Jesus never existing on Christianity.
Second, Buddhism is a lot more "propositional" than Westerners usually give it credit for. Shakyamuni Buddha wasn't exactly coy about stating his insights in definitive claims (Three Marks of Existence, Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Twelvefold Chain, ...). And there is both ancient "scholastic" tradition, the Abhidharma, as well as ongoing "philosophical" reworking throughout the entire history of Buddhism. There's for example Nagarjuna as prominent later Buddhist philosopher, and in many ways Dogen Zenji is a proper philosophical counterpart to Thomas Aquinas. (By which I mean that modern philosophers rate both highly for their philosophy, even though neither would have claimed to be a philosopher.)
Third, one should take Zen statements as poetic, or one runs into trouble. All Zen students would have studied under a master whom they did consider as enlightened. Luckily they did not slaughter the Buddha they met in their teacher, or Zen would have committed suicide a long time ago. Instead, the traditional dependence of a Zen student on the master went far beyond what most Christians would now consider healthy. (It would not be far off to say that the Zen master was - and perhaps often still is - to the student what Jesus Christ would have been to the disciples.) Far from being anti-authoritarian, this is poetic but rather practical advice against getting "hung up" on doctrine to the point of affecting one's practice.
And that brings me to what I think is the real difference: Christianity is engineering, Buddhism is smithing. By which I mean that Buddhism is very practice-centred. It can be a science, but in the sense that a master smith has science. Knowing is mostly know-how there. The kind of "intellectual" knowledge that would be appreciated is the one that will make the practice immediately better, like knowing about alloys. Now, Christianity is not physics either. It's not floating in abstractions, it is seriously applied, as is engineering. But it is in my opinion much more open to, and appreciative of, "higher matters". Like an engineer, who would on occasion at least look to physics and applied mathematics to inform the work he does on more sophisticated projects. There is a more serious "theory" side to Christianity, however much some Christians like to deny that. Christians are more "engineers", they are building a kingdom. Buddhists are more "smiths", they are working on a piece of iron.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
A similar Way exists in Christianity (and maybe IngoB is following it). It just isn't the way usually Christianity presents itself to the general public - or the way many Christians see it.
Many people assume that mysticism transcends religions. I'm not so sure. I think certain psychosomatic effects are similar and used in similar ways. Yet... A hammer is a hammer, and remains a hammer whosoever hammers with it. But many different things can be achieved with hammering, some good, some less good and some really bad. One cannot praise hammering without context.
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
But how about non-propositional atheism: my usual analogy is that I'm like a person who doesn't 'get' music in the way some do.
Yes. That's a very good point. However, I assume deaf people are not generally denying the value of music. There's a difference between saying "this is not for me" and "this is no good for anyone". Furthermore, a deaf person may well learn to appreciate the effect that music has on those who can hear (and for example play music at their own birthday party), and perhaps even appreciate music "theoretically" (by studying musical scores). Finally, if convinced of the value of what they are missing, they may well find unusual means to appreciate it. (I do not know any deaf people, but I seem to remember that many "listen" to the bass vibrations of music. And of course nowadays music visualisation is a standard on computers.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
.... In Eastern terms, most Westerners are laypeople trying to be (or pretending to be...) monks and nuns. It sure would make a difference to the religious practices of most Buddhists (namely, Eastern Buddhist laypeople), if Siddhartha Gautama never existed. That likely wouldn't be much different in practice from the impact of Jesus never existing on Christianity.
I'm sure you are correct as regards Buddhist laypeople. My point looked rather more extreme than I intended. It was in the context of why many people have rejected Christianity while retaining some sort of belief in a higher power as mentioned in earlier postings. Poor use of 'seems' on my part. Substitute 'many people seem to think'. Though I do think Jesus and his life and 'facts' about it are seen by many as more crucial to Christianity than analogous 'facts' about Siddharte Gautama (do you know anyone who really cares about the Buddha's mother's dream of a white elephant?). And I was assuming the koan was meant symbolically - partially to mean practice is more important than doctrine.
Yes, there's a great deal of philosophizing in both religions. It's a disease many of us suffer from.
And that brings me to what I think is the real difference: Christianity is engineering, Buddhism is smithing. By which I mean that Buddhism is very practice-centred.
I'm not sure how that squares with all the Buddhist philosphizing you mentioned earlier. Or whether a good smith might be enough for most of us. I don't think people are resisting a return to Christian churches because they think it will be too technical!
Christians are more "engineers", they are building a kingdom. Buddhists are more "smiths", they are working on a piece of iron.
I always feel a shiver go down my spine when I hear a phrase like 'building a kingdom'. Among the scariest words I know are "you'll thank us for this one day" which often goes with it. But isn't that what Narajuna & co were up to as well?
Many people assume that mysticism transcends religions. I'm not so sure. I think certain psychosomatic effects are similar and used in similar ways.
More apologies. I wasn't thinking about mysticism but just some sort of spiritual life. An old friend has twice asked me to attend Buddhist meditation courses and I've gone. What I noticed most clearly were some very silly statements about Christianity and it's shortcomings by those taking part. Statements like "Christian prayer is just about asking for stuff" or "The OT is full of murder and cruelty that God approved of" and so on. They are being offered a sophisticated model of Buddhism and comparing it with the folk Christianity they remember from school. As far as many non-Christians are concerned, that's all there is.
quote:
Yes. That's a very good point. However, I assume deaf people are not generally denying the value of music. There's a difference between saying "this is not for me" and "this is no good for anyone".
Atheists lack any organisation to assess what they 'generally' believe. I'm not denying the value of religion, Christian or otherwise. Several friends of mine have gained enormously from from it. I think it's A Good Thing. But not mine. And as for if convinced of the value of what they are missing, they may well find unusual means to appreciate it, I enjoy the bass vibrations from the Ship of Fools ensemble.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
que sais-je , thanks for the reply. I tend to agree with just about everything you say.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
IIRC, one of Eagleton's themes in those lectures was the War on Terror. In that context, treating the views of Dawkins (anti Iraq War) and Hitchins (very much pro Iraq War) as interchangeable and complaining about their lack of sophisticated argument was not a particularly clever move.
When you and I were discussing moral objectivity, you described my rejection of Bomber Harris as splitting. You're not on strong grounds therefore to insist on splitting when it suits you.
Anyway, Dawkins refused to criticise Hitchens on this point. There's not much merit in claiming that Dawkins and Hitchens have deep and profound disagreements when Dawkins has consistently minimised any disagreements that there are.
Dawkins notoriously described Hitchens as having 'unfailingly gracious courtesy'.
[ 05. November 2012, 18:07: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Bomber Dafyd, author of The End of Faith
Now you have a point.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I don't regard atheists as champions of reason anyway, and if there is one thing that Dawkins has achieved, it is to create a situation at the popular level where the assumptions of atheism can be vigorously challenged, as they have been - and successfully in my view.
I suppose there are some atheists who might have set themselves up as 'champions of reason'. Can you quote one?
What are the 'assumptions of atheism'? Can you give an example of a couple which have been successflly challenged? Atheism,as has been often said, is a lack of belief in god/god/s. Atheists have many views on all manner of things as have believers, but there are no 'rules' of atheism which direct those ideas.
(This has probably been discussed many times, but I'm no good at finding such past discussions. Apologies!)
[ 05. November 2012, 18:40: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Quetz
At any rate, it began to strike me that the discussion around TGD might become too propositional; but I found that others agree with me.
Also, I began to notice the very poor understanding of Christianity that some have, including Dawkins and other atheists (but not all).
Well, gnu atheism began as a response to certain propositions - the proposition that it is good to fly planes into buildings at the imagined behest of a god, that a literal reading of an ancient book should be taught to children as science, that science should be redefined to allow for supernatural explanations, and so on.
Also, in TGD, Dawkins is very specific about the type of god he is talking about. It's not a theologically sophisticated ground of all being, or an Einstein style pantheistic entity, nor yet some sort of Spinozan affair. It's a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who demands to be worshipped and is apparently interested in who we sleep with. If that's not your god, then the gnus are not that interested in you, but their contention is that there are plenty of people for whom that god is real, that this is not an unalloyed blessing for the world and that they will jolly well get all militant and write books and blog posts about it if they want to. The bastards.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I don't regard atheists as champions of reason anyway, and if there is one thing that Dawkins has achieved, it is to create a situation at the popular level where the assumptions of atheism can be vigorously challenged, as they have been - and successfully in my view.
I suppose there are some atheists who might have set themselves up as 'champions of reason'. Can you quote one?
What are the 'assumptions of atheism'? Can you give an example of a couple which have been successflly challenged? Atheism,as has been often said, is a lack of belief in god/god/s. Atheists have many views on all manner of things as have believers, but there are no 'rules' of atheism which direct those ideas.
(This has probably been discussed many times, but I'm no good at finding such past discussions. Apologies!)
Well there's Prof Dawkins' assumption that God can't exist because someone or something must have "made God". At a popular level, which is the level EE is referring to, this is quite a common view amongst atheists. This facile argument (repudiated by serious atheist philosophers as well as theist) has provided an opportunity for Christians to explain the nature of God, his relationship to the universe, and to bring more to the fore scientific evidence to support premises which form the bases for arguments in favour of God's existence.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
gnu atheism
GNU atheism? Learn something new everyday, apparently New Atheism has now seen fit to invade the hallowed grounds of free software, like the GNU Compiler Collection and GNU Octave. Just when I thought that I could not possibly think lower of these people, they add injury to insult...
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It's a personal God who is the creator of the universe, who demands to be worshipped and is apparently interested in who we sleep with. If that's not your god, then the gnus are not that interested in you
How refreshingly honest... Indeed, the "gnus" are more anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish (anti-Hindu? anti-Baha'i?) than pro anything.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
.... You "like the coinage". The coinage that makes Dawkins attack on Christianity look subtle. It's nothing more than an ad-hominem attack that can only be based in either ignorance or a desire to turn an already tricky dialogue into a mudslinging contest by conflating people with deep and profound disagreements. Either way at best 'Ditchkins' serves to demonstrate that Eagleton (and any other user of that term) is setting up a straw-Dawkins that is far more profound than anything Dawkins has done.
Err, sorry. Alas the heights of my flippancy sometimes exceeds the depths of my commitment to philosophical charity. I assume you'll be contacting Rowan Williams separately about his reference to Prof Dawkins as an 'atheist pub bore'?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
GNU atheism? Learn something new everyday, apparently New Atheism has now seen fit to invade the hallowed grounds of free software...
Not forgetting 1960s comic song. We like to G-nash our teeth at you.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I assume you'll be contacting Rowan Williams separately about his reference to Prof Dawkins as an 'atheist pub bore'?
It isn't mean if it's true.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
How refreshingly honest... Indeed, the "gnus" are more anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish (anti-Hindu? anti-Baha'i?) than pro anything.
Come on, get with the proper hymn sheet. Everybody knows its all about the scientisticism.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I assume you'll be contacting Rowan Williams separately about his reference to Prof Dawkins as an 'atheist pub bore'?
It isn't mean if it's true.
It's still ad hominem to quote characteristics which aren't germane to the philosophical positions in question.
But I'm sorry about my jokey response to you. I shouldn't have referred to the Prof as Ditchkins. My flippancy does often get the better of me.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If that's not your god, then the gnus are not that interested in you
That odd given that they have published titles such as The End of Faith, a rant against all religious faith.
And it not just that Dawkins is concerned with the god that both of you so delightfully caricature. He also spent a number of pages utterly demolishing the God of classical theism. The problem is that he never understood Aquinas to begin and consequently refutes a series of arguments borne of his own ignorance.
Sorry to say, but some the more passionate New Atheists out there aren't content to demolish faith in the god you describe. Some very much want an end to all supernatural belief, and this often starts with an attack on God as revealed in the Old and New testaments (or various caricatures of him).
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If that's not your god, then the gnus are not that interested in you
That odd given that they have published titles such as The End of Faith, a rant against all religious faith.
And it not just that Dawkins is concerned with the god that both of you so delightfully caricature. He also spent a number of pages utterly demolishing the God of classical theism. The problem is that he never understood Aquinas to begin and consequently refutes a series of arguments borne of his own ignorance.
Sorry to say, but some the more passionate New Atheists out there aren't content to demolish faith in the god you describe. Some very much want an end to all supernatural belief, and this often starts with an attack on God as revealed in the Old and New testaments (or various caricatures of him).
Dawkins is concerned with the personal God of abrahamic religions because more "sophisticated" concepts of a non-personal god in the west are usually just a soft transition from christianity to secularism. And it doesn´t make any difference to believe there is no god and to believe "god" is an impersonal abstract entity, since that is pretty much a wording game.
In fact, I remember reading somewhere that Dawkins have said this type of liberal theologians are worse then the sincere fundamentalist type.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the odd things I've noticed in many discussions with atheists, is that many of them focus on Protestant ideas. The first 1500 years of Christianity seem to have bypassed them. I don't know whether this is because some of them were Protestant Christians, or whether they are just used to knocking over fundamentalist Protestants, or some other reason.
It has odd consequences - I recall explaining to some that Catholic moral theology was not just a Biblical commentary.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Dawkins is concerned with the personal God of abrahamic religions because more "sophisticated" concepts of a non-personal god in the west are usually just a soft transition from christianity to secularism. And it doesn´t make any difference to believe there is no god and to believe "god" is an impersonal abstract entity, since that is pretty much a wording game.
Two comments:
a.) There is almost certainly a difference for people who do believe in a purely impersonal god. And telling them that what they 'really' believe is secularism shows the same level of arrogance as the preacher who thinks atheists 'really' know that Jesus wants to save them but reject the belief because they're too sinful and prideful. And it's just as unhelpful.
b.) More pertinently, I think it misunderstands what's actually going on.
(This next paragraph is following C.S. Lewis: I have mixed feelings about Lewis but he undoubtedly represents where many Christians are.)
The contention for many Christians isn't that God is personal or impersonal but that he is 'beyond' personality. There are two ways to proceed from here: i.) God can be expressed in personal terms 'by analogy', in the same way that you'd describe a hypercube using cubes, or ii.) God can only be described negatively, in terms of what he isn't (so-called via negativa or apophatic theology, both of which have a long Christian pedigree).
The overall effect is that Christianity as it is taught contains elements of both a personal and impersonal God (corresponding to i. and ii. above); that people who describe God in apparently personal terms may be more 'sophisticated' (to use your term) than they appear; and that people who describe God in impersonal terms may not be as 'liberal' as they sound.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think also the soft transition to secularism idea should refer to atheism? There are lots of Christian secularists - we are not all theocrats.
I detest the conflation of secularism and atheism, since they are entirely different ideas. One is a political position on the role of the state, the other is a metaphysical position.
[ 06. November 2012, 10:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The overall effect is that Christianity as it is taught contains elements of both a personal and impersonal God (corresponding to i. and ii. above); that people who describe God in apparently personal terms may be more 'sophisticated' (to use your term) than they appear; and that people who describe God in impersonal terms may not be as 'liberal' as they sound.
Indeed. In fact, the "personalist" God is of course a Christian heresy, in spite of its contemporary ubiquity, and has little to do with traditional conceptions. As Brian Davies points out in
quote:
The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, pp. 59-60:
The formula ‘God is a person’ is (given the history of theistic thinking and writing) a relatively recent one. I believe that its first occurrence in English comes in the report of a trial of someone called John Biddle (b. 1615), who in 1644 was brought before the magistrates of Gloucester, England, on a charge of heresy. His ‘heresy’ was claiming that God is a person. Biddle was explicitly defending Unitarian beliefs about God, already in evidence among Socinians outside England.
In other words, Biddle’s ‘God is a person’ was intended as a rejection of the orthodox Christian claim that God is three persons in one substance (the doctrine of the Trinity). One can hardly take it to be a traditional Christian answer to the question ‘What is God?’ According to the doctrine of the Trinity, God is certainly not three persons in one person. And when orthodox exponents of the doctrine speak of Father, Son, and Spirit as ‘persons,’ they certainly do not take ‘person’ to mean what it seems to mean for [Richard] Swinburne and those who agree with him. They do not, for example, think of the persons of the Trinity as distinct centres of consciousness, or as three members of a kind.
(Tip of the hat to Edward Feser for this quotation, though I actually have read Davies' book myself. Feser has quite some blog posts on the traditional vs. personalist God, see here.) The Trinitarian God cannot be anything like a human person, since He is three Persons in one substance, whereas a human person is invariably its own substance. Divine simplicity, immutability, eternity, ... these really destroy all improper sense of commonality with the human state. Rather one will have arrived at "quantum theology", the ability of making accurate predictions from concepts that one can manipulate rationally and consistently, but doesn't comprehend. Of course, Christian theology got there more than a millennium before modern physics.
Mind you, none of this is necessary for "simple" faith. But it is necessary for an intellectual understanding of God, and hence for a defence against intellectual attacks from atheists. Not that this really helps, i.e., few atheists will be cured of their atheism by intellectual argument. Their atheism is foolish, but they are not generally atheists because they are fools.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
