Ship of Fools: undercover atheists

Thread: undercover atheists Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028887

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

This is a really interesting description of atheists in the Orthodox Jewish community. Worth a read if you haven't already seen it.

Many things to discuss: but maybe first, how do you know that those around you in church are not also secret atheists?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
how do you know that those around you in church are not also secret atheists?

And so what if they are?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Most of us live in worlds where if someone is atheist they don't need to be secretly so. I know a few atheists who go to church to sing in the choir or for some such like reason, but most people I know don't go to church and aren't religious. There can safely be openly atheist.

On the other hand, I find it exceedingly appalling that in New York children of a divorce go to the more religious parent. What a way to trap people or encourage lying!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Going to Church in the UK is neither considered cool nor a good/desirable thing to do. Atheists most certainly wouldn't bother imo.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church in the UK is neither considered cool nor a good/desirable thing to do. Atheists most certainly wouldn't bother imo.

I sometimes go for the music or just to sit in "a serious house on serious ground". I sing the hymns and say the prayers inwardly translating them into something which makes sense to me. But that is, I guess, rather different since there never was a time I can remember when I did believe or thought myself a Christian.

I doubt my friends would consider it a cool thing to do - but then I doubt they ever though I was cool.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The article is interesting on several levels. Firstly in terms of the Hasidic Jews it speaks about, and secondly concerning the worldview and presuppositions of the Hasidic community, and the article writer.

I'm not sure how typical the community these examples are culled from is of the Hasidic community in general, but it sounds like they have been drinking deeply at the well of hyper literalism. Indeed they have discarded all else. The spirit of the age I guess, but it's turning out to be a depressingly long age. You would need to go back to the Medieval era to get behind it, I fear.

And on a related point, it shows how fundamentalist thinking is hard to throw off. You may be convinced that your fundamentalism is crock, but you still remain convinced it is the only true manifestation of whatever it was you believed in.

The second point to make is that Judaism is hardly just a disconnected belief system, such as one might be a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A Jew who becomes an atheist is not the same as a Christian who becomes an atheist.

I do know an atheist who regularly attends the church in the neighbouring village to mine. Indeed he also goes to bible classes. He is quite open (but not aggressive) about his atheism.

Though I suppose there must be a converse question to ask - "How many believers are there amongst groups where atheist discourse is normative?" I'm pretty sure I have been passively assumed to be an atheist, as a scientist who has spoken out against derelict forms of religion, (IMHO naturally).

I really have no idea what the answer to either question might be, save that it will be some. Probably it depends on the hegemonic discourse and societal norms. A Hasidic community in New York will be nothing like a general suburb in the UK.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Aren't we all "secret atheists" at some time or another? Don't we all struggle with doubt, with despair, with nihilism? Or, as Parker Palmer writes, exhibit signs of "functional atheism"-- where we verbally profess faith in God but in our actions demonstrate that we believe we're really all on our own.

My assumption is that we are all there at some time or another, so on any given Sunday, some percentage of the congregation will be "secret atheists". Sometimes I'm the hidden unbeliever, sometimes it's the person sitting next to me. That's what draws us into community in the first place. There's something about being surrounded by the community that helps us-- sometimes, if we're very lucky-- find our way home. At the very least, they are companions on the journey, and that in and of itself, is a precious thing.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aren't we all "secret atheists" at some time or another?

Yes, for sure. And I strongly identify with everything else you say - my church going habit is what keeps me from becoming a not-very-secret atheist all of the time.

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm pretty sure I have been passively assumed to be an atheist

Yes, me too.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aren't we all "secret atheists" at some time or another? Don't we all struggle with doubt, with despair, with nihilism? Or, as Parker Palmer writes, exhibit signs of "functional atheism"-- where we verbally profess faith in God but in our actions demonstrate that we believe we're really all on our own.

My assumption is that we are all there at some time or another, so on any given Sunday, some percentage of the congregation will be "secret atheists". Sometimes I'm the hidden unbeliever, sometimes it's the person sitting next to me. That's what draws us into community in the first place. There's something about being surrounded by the community that helps us-- sometimes, if we're very lucky-- find our way home. At the very least, they are companions on the journey, and that in and of itself, is a precious thing.

Extremely well put.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sometimes I'm the hidden unbeliever, sometimes it's the person sitting next to me. That's what draws us into community in the first place. There's something about being surrounded by the community that helps us-- sometimes, if we're very lucky-- find our way home. At the very least, they are companions on the journey, and that in and of itself, is a precious thing.

This kind of unbelief isn't hidden in most of our churches -- this is the kind of unbelief that the minister can discuss from the pulpit. The article describes not people "struggling with doubt" but people who are sure there is no God; one of them says he is "tormented by certainty." And expression of the kind of unbelief you describe doesn't mean you'll lose your spouse, your children, the rest of your family, your whole way of life, and poison the chances of your cousins making good marriages.

Are there real atheists in churches around us, people who are sure there is no God? Not a lot of them, probably.

The closest parallel between the people in the article and a Christian culture I can think of would be the Amish, who similarly don't provide their children with the tools they'd need to survive in the outside world if they wanted to leave the fold.

Like Honest Ron Bacardi, I think it's interesting that the article only describes people who move from Orthodox Jewish belief to atheism without reference to other branches of Judaism. I wonder if any Orthodox Jews struggling with doubt, not actual atheists, consider switching to a different school of Jewish thought. People who leave Amish communities don't all become atheists; some of them become Mennonites.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
People who leave Amish communities don't all become atheists; some of them become Mennonites.

To be fair, though, leaving the Amish and becoming a Mennonite is not as tough as leaving other exclusive groups - for example many Amish groups rely on ex-Amish or Mennonites to trade with the 'outside' world, work machines and drive vehicles.

Leaving the Hutterite, on the other hand, requires the kind of break with family associated with leaving the Orthodox - it seems.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sometimes I'm the hidden unbeliever, sometimes it's the person sitting next to me. That's what draws us into community in the first place. There's something about being surrounded by the community that helps us-- sometimes, if we're very lucky-- find our way home. At the very least, they are companions on the journey, and that in and of itself, is a precious thing.
This kind of unbelief isn't hidden in most of our churches -- this is the kind of unbelief that the minister can discuss from the pulpit.

Oh, I think most of it is quite hidden. Often it's hidden even to ourselves. Sometimes I know it's there, hidden under the surface, but I'm too afraid to turn over the rock and look at it. Sometimes we blindly follow the cultural norms of our particular religious setting-- ending every story, no matter how horrific, with a happy "lesson learned" so that everyone goes away smiling-- even when in reality we're just left with a lot of hollow questions about the "why?" of suffering. I think the "hiddenness" is quite real.

otoh:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The article describes not people "struggling with doubt" but people who are sure there is no God; one of them says he is "tormented by certainty." And expression of the kind of unbelief you describe doesn't mean you'll lose your spouse, your children, the rest of your family, your whole way of life, and poison the chances of your cousins making good marriages.

Good point. In this significant regard, my parallel falls quite short.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've come across a few references to Jewish atheists who nevertheless engage in Jewish rituals. Perhaps it's because they feel obliged to uphold a culture and heritage that's lasted so long and been subjected to so much attack. This may be emphasised for Orthodox Jews, who would have to give up a whole way of life if they publicly asserted their rejection of Jewish beliefs.

I don't think Western Christianity has an exact equivalent of this, since it's a much more personal religion anyway (especially Protestantism), and only in a few well-known instances do Christians live in the sorts of communities where the 'Christian way of life' structures everyone's daily existence. The social benefits of being a more or less confirmed atheist who pretends to be a believing Christian are fewer.

However, some commentators have designated the CofE as the natural home of agnostic or atheistic Englishmen who love ritual and ceremony, added to which you have the folk who feign belief in order to get their children into good church state schools. So there are still some agnostics/atheists in some situations who see advantages in being involved.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Is this closeted atheism any different from the other masks we wear?

Some of the most devout believers I know would be a lot more sympathetic to people who've lost their faith than to those who cheat on their taxes, post abusive messages under a cloak of anonymity, cut people up in traffic, or any other voluntary wrongdoing. In fact, they've urged people in that situation to keep going to church.

Orthodox Christianity, obsessed with "right" belief, has a harder time with this than other faiths, which emphasize practice over doctrine. Judaism in particular has a long tradition of doubt. There's Reconstructionism, which can tip over into Jewish atheism.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church in the UK is neither considered cool nor a good/desirable thing to do. Atheists most certainly wouldn't bother imo.

Well I do, although much less often these days. Church buildings themselves are often very interesting places, and so are the services and occasionally the sermons. Also, I don't think you can credibly claim to be a strong atheist unless you know a little bit about the God you don't believe in, any more than you can claim to dislike liver and onions if you've never tasted it.

Posted by Amika (# 15785) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church in the UK is neither considered cool nor a good/desirable thing to do. Atheists most certainly wouldn't bother imo.
Well I do, although much less often these days. Church buildings themselves are often very interesting places, and so are the services and occasionally the sermons. Also, I don't think you can credibly claim to be a strong atheist unless you know a little bit about the God you don't believe in, any more than you can claim to dislike liver and onions if you've never tasted it.

I do too - or I did, before there was a lengthy interregnum and now a new rector who appears to have removed the BCP readings I used to like and gone for the standard lectionary. Still, I miss it despite being as 'sure' as anyone can be that there is no god as described by human religions.

I wasn't a completely secret atheist though - the rector knew I didn't believe. I'm currently trying to work up the nerve to go again with the all-new rector and 'Year B' readings.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:

Some of the most devout believers I know would be a lot more sympathetic to people who've lost their faith than to those who cheat on their taxes, post abusive messages under a cloak of anonymity, cut people up in traffic, or any other voluntary wrongdoing. In fact, they've urged people in that situation to keep going to church.

I think the idea is that some wrongdoers are aware that they've done wrong, and so can be put right if they allow God's power to work in them, with the help of the church. But if someone is convinced that there's no God, then that theology is pointless; although its accompanying hymnody, liturgy and social interaction might be very attractive!

quote:

Orthodox Christianity, obsessed with "right" belief, has a harder time with this than other faiths, which emphasize practice over doctrine.

The answer to this problem is 'unorthodox Christianity', which is available to anyone who wants it. For some reason, though, people seem more willing to criticise orthodox churches than to support (or indeed, to create) unorthodox churches.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the idea is that some wrongdoers are aware that they've done wrong, and so can be put right if they allow God's power to work in them, with the help of the church. But if someone is convinced that there's no God, then that theology is pointless; although its accompanying hymnody, liturgy and social interaction might be very attractive!

I think those who urged doubters to keep on churchin' it were heavy into grace. Skipping past the Calvinism/Armenianism minutiae (which, like fixating on comicbook continuity, is fine for those who like that kinda thing), a regular God fix seemed to be viewed as the best chance to have 'em see the light.

quote:
The answer to this problem is 'unorthodox Christianity', which is available to anyone who wants it. For some reason, though, people seem more willing to criticise orthodox churches than to support (or indeed, to create) unorthodox churches.

Well the orthodox have all the best tunes!

I only half-jest. The bigger churches have, of necessity, become tolerant of diverse POVs. Once you start down that road, it's hard to call a stop, and say, "This far, but no farther."

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

A similar phenomenon - or maybe something for another post - are the supposedly atheist serving clergy in the Clergy Project.

x

AV

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
A similar phenomenon - or maybe something for another post - are the supposedly atheist serving clergy.

Atheist clergy were discussed in the Eighth Day a while back.

The paid clergy have a thoroughly practical reason for sticking around - they need a salary, and they may have family reasons for remaining in the same area, or in the same property.

Most other churchgoers are volunteers, so the fulfilment of their spiritual needs may be a more significant factor in their continued involvement in church life than it is for the clergy. Unless the fine music and wonderful social programmes make it worthwhile to hang around after losing one's faith, the laity don't really have much reason to remain if their faith (and hence their level of spiritual satisfaction) has declined past a certain point.

I don't know what 'lesson' we think churches should learn from this....

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
A similar phenomenon - or maybe something for another post - are the supposedly atheist serving clergy in the Clergy Project.

x

AV

A shame that "religion" seems to've become synonymous with "supernatural." I guess many who would've been theological liberals in times past are now nonbelievers. Their loss makes churches more hardline, which can ghettoize 'em.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Writer Michael Arditti in The Enemy of the Good has a character who is a Bishop who has lost his faith in God but retained his faith in the Church. Bishop Edwin sees it as an institution which has lovely architecture, art, music, liturgy/ritual, etc. These things help people in their search for God but have value in themselves apart from their purpose being untenable - cultural and asthetic but also social (societal?).
Does it matter if you don't believe in God when our religion has given us these wonderful spaces to "be" in ?

I feel like that some days.
(Not many though)

[ 12. February 2015, 06:15: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Point the second...

The Quakers also have an ortho-practic attitude too - we don't mind so much what you actually believe as long as you "do things" according to our process.

Judaism is the ultimate orthopraxis. (IME)
You do things in this way and not that way and you do it every time and you are always looking for more Jewish ways to do things.
Almost all the Jewish converts I know are at least borderline OCD to start with.

There is an "underground" of these Jews in Israel and a very hard life they have of it too. This article is not exaggerating at all.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

I agree with a number of atheists. We share the gods we don't believe in. Some religious groupings are so tight and dogmatic that the detail obscures the divine. So were they theists in the first place? As a young man I made considerable spiritual progress while I was calling myself an atheist.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A shame that "religion" seems to've become synonymous with "supernatural." I guess many who would've been theological liberals in times past are now nonbelievers. Their loss makes churches more hardline, which can ghettoize 'em.

Christianity does tend to suggest 'supernatural', though.... There's Buddhism if you don't want that sort of thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Writer Michael Arditti in The Enemy of the Good has a character who is a Bishop who has lost his faith in God but retained his faith in the Church. Bishop Edwin sees it as an institution which has lovely architecture, art, music, liturgy/ritual, etc. These things help people in their search for God but have value in themselves apart from their purpose being untenable - cultural and asthetic but also social (societal?).
Does it matter if you don't believe in God when our religion has given us these wonderful spaces to "be" in ?

The problem is that traditional 'CofE' aesthetics only appeal to a fairly small cohort these days. I think quite a few people feel nostalgic about the CofE's treasures, but only a small number are willing to give their time, money and effort to keep that culture going consistently. That's the impression I get.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

I have moved from a believer into atheism and for the past few years have felt like a stranger in a familiar land. I call myself a humanist rather than theist because most of those atheists I know are really more anti-theist than atheist. They seem to lose no opportunity to condemn any religious belief in most abrasive terms.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Christianity does tend to suggest 'supernatural', though.... There's Buddhism if you don't want that sort of thing.

Buddhism's packed with the stuff we label supernatural! Spirits, gods, reincarnation, levels of heaven, etc.

Without rehashing previous threads, Christianity just employed the worldview of its time. The concept of the "supernatural" only appeared when we developed an idea of a natural universe operating as a closed system. There's no reason Christianity can't update itself, which is what Christian modernists went after.

quote:
The problem is that traditional 'CofE' aesthetics only appeal to a fairly small cohort these days. I think quite a few people feel nostalgic about the CofE's treasures, but only a small number are willing to give their time, money and effort to keep that culture going consistently. That's the impression I get.

Yes, I'd agree with that, mainline churches all over, from Scandinavia to the U.S., see declining numbers. Fewer people are raised in a faith, I guess, and adult converts seem to go for the full-on evangelical brand (at least, for a time). With the end of Christendom, it may well be that liberal Christianity's time has passed.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I have moved from a believer into atheism and for the past few years have felt like a stranger in a familiar land. I call myself a humanist rather than theist because most of those atheists I know are really more anti-theist than atheist. They seem to lose no opportunity to condemn any religious belief in most abrasive terms.

Lots of "new atheists" are ex-fundies who got burned and attack the creed responsible. I can't blame 'em.

I tend to go with "humanist" too, although I'd undoubtedly be classed as an atheist if we're using the standard models of a personal god. Part of me still runs with the abstract, Tillich model, but a larger part has come to think, "Why bother, it's old news."

We seem to have realigned around atheism and a reinvented orthodoxy, without much in-between. Whatever my reservations about that binary choice, if that's where we now stand, so be it.

[ 12. February 2015, 21:04: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Buddhism's packed with the stuff we label supernatural! Spirits, gods, reincarnation, levels of heaven, etc.

Ah. I was under the misapprehension that it was the absence of gods that made Buddhism attractive to Westernisers. I'm vaguely aware that there are different types of Buddhism, though.

quote:

There's no reason Christianity can't update itself, which is what Christian modernists went after.
[...]
With the end of Christendom, it may well be that liberal Christianity's time has passed.

These two sentences above seem to be contradicting each other.....

Anyway, as I've said above, for those who want them we already have denominations that attempt to de-emphasise the supernatural. In the USA some of these churches (e.g. Unitarian Universalist) have a certain following, I understand.

The problem is that these churches have rarely captured the public imagination, and they seem unable or unwilling to lead the public debate about religion. There are simply fewer of them than there are theistic churches. In the UK their decline seems to have predated the decline of the other historical denominations.

On a purely pragmatic level I really don't think you're going to convince the RCC or the Pentecostals, or the majority of other denominations that post-supernaturalism is the way to go until it can be shown that the churches that have developed in that direction have benefited in terms of membership levels, outreach work and public presence. At the moment this would be an embarrassingly unequal contest. These churches have their niche, but there's no sign whatsoever that every other denomination would benefit from following in their footsteps.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
The problem is that these churches have rarely captured the public imagination, and they seem unable or unwilling to lead the public debate about religion.

Interesting phrase: 'capture the public imagination'. My atheist point of view thought immediately: well, if they had any verifiable (etc etc) evidence/information, imagination would not be needed. They would present facts.
I think that is why science programmes are so popular, both on TV and radio. There have been several good ones on Radio 4 this week for example.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A shame that "religion" seems to've become synonymous with "supernatural."

It's the God thing, isn't it? That and the resurrection and stuffs. We are trapped by our past.

[code]

[ 13. February 2015, 13:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

I think that is why science programmes are so popular, both on TV and radio.

In fact, I would say such programmes are taking over from the 'awe and wonder' aspects of religion.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
The problem is that these churches have rarely captured the public imagination, and they seem unable or unwilling to lead the public debate about religion.
Interesting phrase: 'capture the public imagination'. My atheist point of view thought immediately: well, if they had any verifiable (etc etc) evidence/information, imagination would not be needed. They would present facts.
I think that is why science programmes are so popular, both on TV and radio. There have been several good ones on Radio 4 this week for example.

I think the point is that the post-theistic or theistically neutral congregations exist to offer religious community and affirmation to people who don't necessarily feel bound to the idea of a god, or to the Judeo-Christian God. These churches don't offer scientific information - for that you need to go to the scientists, as you say.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
The problem is that these churches have rarely captured the public imagination, and they seem unable or unwilling to lead the public debate about religion.
Interesting phrase: 'capture the public imagination'. My atheist point of view thought immediately: well, if they had any verifiable (etc etc) evidence/information, imagination would not be needed. They would present facts.
I think that is why science programmes are so popular, both on TV and radio. There have been several good ones on Radio 4 this week for example.
I think the point is that the post-theistic or theistically neutral congregations exist to offer religious community and affirmation to people who don't necessarily feel bound to the idea of a god, or to the Judeo-Christian God. These churches don't offer scientific information - for that you need to go to the scientists, as you say.

Yes. The notion that science is a replacement for religion seems to be a very modernist one. In a postmodern culture the replacement for religion seems rather to be a generic, unfocused, inclusive spirituality (i.e. the "spiritual but not religious" crowd).

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Going to Church in the UK is neither considered cool nor a good/desirable thing to do. Atheists most certainly wouldn't bother imo.

Unless they want to get their kids into the local church school.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

On the other hand, I find it exceedingly appalling that in New York children of a divorce go to the more religious parent. What a way to trap people or encourage lying!

This probably refers to the get, which is a religious divorce proceeding held in front of a panel of rabbis, rather than civil divorce.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Who gets the kids would be a legal question though.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

I think that is why science programmes are so popular, both onTV and radio.
In fact, I would say such programmes are taking over from the 'awe and wonder' aspects of religion.

I certainly hope so! They are, however, supplying factual, evidenced, and much more lasting, , as well as being objective, updatable, reasons for awe and wonder.

[ 14. February 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Ah. I was under the misapprehension that it was the absence of gods that made Buddhism attractive to Westernisers. I'm vaguely aware that there are different types of Buddhism, though.

Oh, I agree, that is the attraction for many. It just skims over the supernatural foundation to Buddhism, although since Buddhism has no magisterium, I guess this cherry picking's A-OK on Buddhist terms.

quote:

quote:
There's no reason Christianity can't update itself, which is what Christian modernists went after.
[...]
With the end of Christendom, it may well be that liberal Christianity's time has passed.
These two sentences above seem to be contradicting each other.....

Yes, I can see that: the first is speaking theoretically; the second, the reality on the ground. Most who'd be attracted to liberal theology seem to be leaving the church altogether.

quote:
Anyway, as I've said above, for those who want them we already have denominations that attempt to de-emphasise the supernatural. In the USA some of these churches (e.g. Unitarian Universalist) have a certain following, I understand.

The problem is that these churches have rarely captured the public imagination, and they seem unable or unwilling to lead the public debate about religion. There are simply fewer of them than there are theistic churches. In the UK their decline seems to have predated the decline of the other historical denominations.

On a purely pragmatic level I really don't think you're going to convince the RCC or the Pentecostals, or the majority of other denominations that post-supernaturalism is the way to go until it can be shown that the churches that have developed in that direction have benefited in terms of membership levels, outreach work and public presence. At the moment this would be an embarrassingly unequal contest. These churches have their niche, but there's no sign whatsoever that every other denomination would benefit from following in their footsteps.

On a practical level, I agree. I expect we'll see the Catholic Church make moderate reforms like gender-blind ordination and equal marriage before the 22nd century hits (although who knows, maybe we'll have warp drive before that happens), but the supernatural basis remains.

[ 14. February 2015, 10:00: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Byron wrote:

quote:
Most who'd be attracted to liberal theology seem to be leaving the church altogether.

Isn't that more an inevitable point of logic? Liberal anything must ultimately eat itself. (As opposed to liberality, an attitude to which I like to think we are all called.)

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

What is the detrimental effect of these stealth atheists?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
What is the detrimental effect of these stealth atheists?

A practical problem could arise if they became too numerous in an orthodox denomination or congregation.

They're likely to represent a highly educated social elite that other members (or potential members) might find it hard to relate to. They would have few children, and then be unlikely to pass on their church commitment to the children they did have. They would have less inclination to evangelise than 'believing' Christians.

Almost all Western churches face similar challenges, but I think the above elements combined would make decline more likely than growth - except in particularly sophisticated social contexts.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

The problem with atheism is that you have to define what it is you don’t believe in. That leave open an infinite number of other possible understandings of what we mean by “God”. I don’t believe in any of the gods Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe in, but I am not sure that I believe in God in the same way as, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The strength of the Church of England is that we welcome anybody as a member without first subjecting them to cross-examination about what they actually believe in. I know sincere members of the C of E whose beliefs are very far from mainstream Christianity.

I recommend Brian Mountford’s book “Christian Atheist: Belonging without Believing” for a fascinating insight into atheists in church.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The problem with atheism is that you have to define what it is you don’t believe in.

Well, no. There are atheists who just don't believe in any god. As in the simple statement that there is nothing supernatural.
To be fair, some do seem to be atheists of a particular religion, but it is not a requirement.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0