Thread: Christian Atheism 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=029649
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Elsewhere Martin60 implied that I was declaiming to Christian atheists.
I admit that my first reaction was that I was being wound up and I decided not to bite. Then curiosity persuaded me to search the web. It seems that such terminology is used and, like most things Christian, appears to be open to a wide variety of interpretation.
So, can anyone explain what they mean by Christian atheism and why should its finest incarnation not be considered an oxymoronic euphemism for "Humanism"?
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
I find Mark Sandin , founder of The Christian Left gets very close, although he defines himself as an 'agnostic Christian'
In this 'Heresies from a Southern Minister' article he explains his view that Jesus is not God and in the next one he decides he isn't Trinitarian either.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2014/08/jesus-is-not-my-god/
I suppose the full blown 'Christian Atheism' would be to decide that there is no God and Jesus isn't him either, but the ethical teachings of Jesus are worth following, in a purely Humanistic way.
[ 12. February 2016, 12:00: Message edited by: beatmenace ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I knew someone who described himself as an atheist because he didn't believe in a supernatural God. He called himself a Christian as he followed the teachings of Christ, particularly in the human 'love one another' sense rather than in the 'love God' sense, and he had a strong sense of 'the divine' which to him was something within people, something that could be 'tapped into'.
Perhaps too spiritual a philosophy to be humanist?
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
I think it's a term likely appeal to those who have moved from faith, to unbelief, but are reluctant/scared to leave some of the other trappings that the church/Christian community can offer. By having the world Christian in their own self definition they give themselves legitimacy to remain part of that community.
It is a position/label I would find hard to maintain, I don't really think it means a lot. I for instance like much of the philosophical and practical advice of the Stoics, but I don't go around calling myself a Stoical Atheist.
People can choose whatever title they like for themselves, but I would personally define a Christian Atheist as just 'an Atheist'.
Neil
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
There are a range of different beliefs that might fall under the title "Christian atheism" extending right up to Deconstructionalists like Robert Price - who believe that the whole religion is phoey that is a hodge-podge of different ancient beliefs glued together and then smoothed out by subsequent generations to make it sound coherent.
It seems to me that pretty much the only thing these people have in common is that their unbelief is couched in terms of Christianity - ie this, rather than anything else, is the faith they don't believe in.
Which sounds crazy, but I think just means that the religion has given them a worldview and a form of philosophical language to express their unbelief within.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Elsewhere Martin60 implied that I was declaiming to Christian atheists.
I admit that my first reaction was that I was being wound up and I decided not to bite. Then curiosity persuaded me to search the web. It seems that such terminology is used and, like most things Christian, appears to be open to a wide variety of interpretation.
So, can anyone explain what they mean by Christian atheism and why should its finest incarnation not be considered an oxymoronic euphemism for "Humanism"?
I do not know the answer. Atheism is so clear and straightforward to me, especially in stark contrast to my faith in God as a child because I heard no alternative,that terms like 'Christian atheist' are fudges to put up a smoke screen between a person and the total absence of any actual God/god/s. Very interesting topic for thought and discussion though!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I have no idea what the intent was in this context, but I have heard other authors use the term "functional atheism" to describe those who claim to believe in God but act as if they are entirely on their own (which could encompass a wide variety of things-- from conventional sins, to my constant anxiety and micromanaging of life as if it were up to me to make everything turn out right).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It certainly seems like having your cake and eating it, or rather not having your cake, and not eating it. Seems pointless to me. I think a ayahuasca church atheist sounds more fun, except for the vomiting.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
As I understand it, formal Christian Atheism is a theological framework related in some ways to Death of God theology, that holds that God as traditionally understood by theists (transcending the world and intervening in the world) either has never existed, is "dead" or is currently absent, and that holds that Jesus is the model for true humanity—that by following Jesus we learn to be truly human.
Some self-described Christian Atheists, such as Thomas J. J. Altizer, would say that Jesus was indeed divine, and that God, through a process of self-annihilation beginning at creation and culminating in the crucifixion, essentially emptied himself totally into the world.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Some self-described Christian Atheists, such as Thomas J. J. Altizer, would say that Jesus was indeed divine, and that God, through a process of self-annihilation beginning at creation and culminating in the crucifixion, essentially emptied himself totally into the world.
Interesting. Sounds a bit like Oneness Pentecostalism, with a generous dose of kenosis in the mix.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
Heard about this minister from the United Church Of Canada, a mainline protestant denomination. She decided to come out to her congregation as an atheist, and to her surprise she was not fired. Today she remains a minister in that church and openly atheist:
http://www.grettavosper.ca/about/
quote:
My congregation belongs to The United Church of Canada, probably the most progressive Christian denomination in the world. It ordained women over seventy years ago and has been ordaining openly LGBTQ leaders for decades. But theologically it remains in the closet about the human construction of religion and all its trapping. I couldn’t stay in that closet.
I came out as an atheist in 2001.* After I spontaneously preached a sermon in which I completely deconstructed the idea of a god named God, rather than fire me, the congregation chose to step out on an unmarked path. With them, I’ve laboured, lamented, lost, and loved. It’s hard road but a worthy one with no finish line in sight.
It´s interesting how she refers to mainline churches as being "in the closet". It´s interesting how "progressive" views are also linked to the crypto-atheism of the denomination.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Some self-described Christian Atheists, such as Thomas J. J. Altizer, would say that Jesus was indeed divine, and that God, through a process of self-annihilation beginning at creation and culminating in the crucifixion, essentially emptied himself totally into the world.
Interesting. Sounds a bit like Oneness Pentecostalism, with a generous dose of kenosis in the mix.
With a huge dollop of process theology and a generous scoop of neoplatonism. To give credit where credit is due.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yes. A curious blend.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The problem with Christian atheism is that if one claims to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and not believe in a God, or not believe in a God intimately involved in creation, then one has to erase the huge role of God in Jesus's own teaching.
Jesus of Nazareth did not teach an ethical humanism. He believed and preached from the depths of his Jewish heritage, that the God of Israel was not only as real, as the reality of a father's soft embrace of his infant child, but that the God of Israel was at work in the redemption of the world. To erase God from Jesus of Nazareth would be akin to draining water from a fishbowl with a fish in it. Jesus of Nazareth's teaching was saturated and grounded in faith in God. To pretend not would require logical gymnastics.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s interesting how she refers to mainline churches as being "in the closet". It´s interesting how "progressive" views are also linked to the crypto-atheism of the denomination.
It's typical of a certain sort of atheist to think that those in a similar position to themselves but who have reached different conclusions about God must be simply pretending to have faith. I presume it's reassuring for them to not have to think that maybe they've rejected something real and important.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...formal Christian Atheism is a theological framework ...
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Christianity, by definition, requires a belief in a God who exists. The concept of a theological framework requires a God to exist. However, atheism requires there to not be any God.
I don't see any way to wrap your head around that.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
On this thread and the Church without God thread, there have been a lot of ideas that seem philosophically dubious. Posters have wondered about the existence of God as if it's something that might or might not be true. In traditional philosophical terms that makes it a contingent matter. Usually, God is thought to be above contingency. God's existence must be necessary, not contingent, that is, something required by God's nature, not a matter of fact that might turn out this way or that.
Indeed, existence may not be the best word here. Lions exist, unicorns do not, because there are examples of lions in the world, but no unicorns. When a dentist shoots the last lion then lions will no longer exist. Existence means, usually, 'there is an example of this in the world,' but that won't work for God who is not an object in the world.
Most modern atheists of the Dawkins variety are objecting to the existence of a supernatural being, by which they seem to mean something like the Loch Ness monster but spookier. They are objecting to a contingent God or god.
I think the Christian God is not a being whose existence can really be in question, because it isn't that sort of existence. It's more a question of the truth of God, whether we can speak of and address God in a way that leads us to want to worship.
Such a God is not likely to be falsified by some surprise discovery, but by the problem of suffering.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The truth of God clearly cannot be falsified by the question of suffering, as Christianity demonstrates. The resurrection of Christ illustrates the truth of God through suffering.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Posters have wondered about the existence of God as if it's something that might or might not be true. In traditional philosophical terms that makes it a contingent matter. Usually, God is thought to be above contingency. God's existence must be necessary, not contingent, that is, something required by God's nature, not a matter of fact that might turn out this way or that.
I think you're confusing de dicto might or might not and de re might or might not here.(*)
Whether there is or is not a rhinoceros in my room is a matter of de re contingency: there isn't, but there could have been, and it is only through observation that the question is settled.
By contrast: when we say that Goldbach's conjecture (that every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two prime numbers) might or might not be true, it is a matter of de dicto contingency but not de re contingency. That is, we don't know whether or not it's true; but if the statement is true it's necessarily true and if false necessarily false.
God might or might not exist de dicto, but the truth of the matter is a necessary truth de re.
(*) De dicto: according to the way we speak; de re: according to the thing itself.
Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
On this thread and the Church without God thread, there have been a lot of ideas that seem philosophically dubious. Posters have wondered about the existence of God as if it's something that might or might not be true. In traditional philosophical terms that makes it a contingent matter. Usually, God is thought to be above contingency. God's existence must be necessary, not contingent, that is, something required by God's nature, not a matter of fact that might turn out this way or that.
Hang on a second.
When people wonder about the existence of God they are wondering whether God *exists*, i.e. whether there is any entity conforming to the description you give. That has no bearing on the question of whether God exists necessarily or not. It's a question about whether certain human beliefs are justified, not a question about the nature of God.
Compare a mathematical question to which we don't know the answer. The answer to that question obtains necessarily, it's not "a matter of fact that might turn out to be this way or that". That doesn't mean mathematicians don't wonder what the answer is.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s interesting how she refers to mainline churches as being "in the closet". It´s interesting how "progressive" views are also linked to the crypto-atheism of the denomination.
It's typical of a certain sort of atheist to think that those in a similar position to themselves but who have reached different conclusions about God must be simply pretending to have faith. I presume it's reassuring for them to not have to think that maybe they've rejected something real and important.
Maybe she doesn´t just "think" others are pretending to have faith. As a member of the clergy, she certainly talks with other people in the clergy. And after all, if she manage to remain in ministry after "coming out" as an atheist, this clearly show that this is not an important subject for that denomination (United Church Of Canada).
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
We can be uncertain about a necessary truth, but it's not going to be overturned by some fact that someone announces one week. That would be a contingency.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I believe in Jesus, Son of God, Son of Man, as writ. Nowt else. Apart from all that follows from that, from Him. All I can make up in conjunction with all others making up GOOD news. Not making up magic. So I'm atheistic of the God of the Bible, including Jesus' PSA one, but not in Him and most, i.e. nearly all, Gods since.
So I'm a Christian atheist. And theist. Of the best case God that fits with, shares meaningless, contingent suffering of evolving complexity.
[ 12. February 2016, 22:34: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Martin, please take this not as an insult but as a bemused aside: I sometimes feel like you are playing a drinking game I'd really like to play but I don't know the rules.
And why isn't there a "drink a shot" emoji?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's the Mornington Crescent Drinking Game.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I feel that Dafyd has the logos edge, but hatless had the pathos one.
It's all about the justification of contingent suffering. De dicto there isn't any. De re there HAS to be.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
yeah, nup.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
Well how about this thought...
Someone who has grown up in India with all its particular history and culture might come to reject Hinduism and Hinduism's ideas about the divine and the spiritual. They will still be culturally Hindu and may even join in the festivities on some major religious holidays. They may not accept all of what the West sees as progressive and post modern but they don't believe in God or Gods plural. They are a Hindu Atheist.
I grew up in a (nominally) Christian country. My laws, politics and culture were shaped by Christianity. Our working week and our bank holidays are shaped by Christianity as were until quite recently many of our trading laws. I join in with the cultural trappings which surround Christianity's holy days. I accept the Humanism which arose out of the Christian West's Enlightenment but I reject the God and religious elements that go with that. I am a Christian Atheist.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...formal Christian Atheism is a theological framework ...
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Christianity, by definition, requires a belief in a God who exists.
Traditional, orthodox Christianity, yes. But clearly what we are talking about here is a reinterpretation of Christianity and of Christ. Traditional, orthodox Christians would likely say Christian Atheism is not true Christianity—just as they might say Christian Science is not Christian (nor science). But traditional, orthodox Christians do not have a trademark on the designation "Christian."
quote:
The concept of a theological framework requires a God to exist.
No, it doesn't really. At most, it requires concepts or understandings of God to study and consider. My dictionary includes the study of religious ideas as theology. Such study can certainly include critiques of various concepts of what is meant by "God," and whether such a God exists.
quote:
However, atheism requires there to not be any God.
While it may not matter in this context, I'm not sure about that either. As with most things, there are varieties of atheism, ranging from the strict denial of the existence of any deity or divinity of any kind whatsoever, to more particularized rejection of a particular (and likely familiar) concept of God—for example, "the Christian God," or a "personal god"—without necessarily rejecting all concepts of the divine. (Ietsism comes to mind.) Even with atheism, one has to ask exactly what is meant by "God."
[ 13. February 2016, 12:40: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Is it just me, or does Christian Atheism sound a bit like having your cake and eating it?
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But traditional, orthodox Christians do not have a trademark on the designation "Christian."
You are right, of course. Jesus, that is God incarnated, does. It is His name on the door. Any person or group who does not accept Jesus as God is not Christian, thus the term Christian Atheist is absurd.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Is it just me, or does Christian Atheism sound a bit like having your cake and eating it?
Cherry picking, perhaps. The Christianity that makes demands can be jettisoned, to leave those feel-good aspects.
Enlightenment is surely about finding God, not losing God.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Christianity that makes demands can be jettisoned, to leave those feel-good aspects.
I think that is unfair. Christians find ways to jettison the demands whatever their position on the theological spectrum.
Adherence to Christianity, or any religion, consists of intellectual assent, an aesthetic commitment to stories and symbols, a devotional practice, and an ethical practice. A Christian atheist has either ditched or more likely reinterpreted the intellectual assent component. But that doesn't mean they've also ditched the ethical practice. The link between the aesthetic commitment and devotional practice, and the ethical practice, may be what keeps them calling themselves Christian.
(Speaking as someone who doesn't personally find the position stable.)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think those I have known who describe themselves as Christian Atheist are best summed up be Raptor Eye
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I knew someone who described himself as an atheist because he didn't believe in a supernatural God. He called himself a Christian as he followed the teachings of Christ
So it is a position that rejects the supernatural aspects of faith, the belief in a Divine being. However they believe that Jesus was a teacher of truth, and seek to follow his teaching. As a whole they are people who have come from a more traditional Christian background, but have rejected some aspects of this, for all sorts of reasons.
Personally, I struggle with this. I understand why some people would want to describe themselves in this way, and (as a whole) I don't have a problem with them using the term Christian, because to a large extent, they are following Jesus teachings.
The problem is, I don't think you can take Jesus teachings without an acknowledgement of God. This doesn't mean you have to accept a particular, orthodox, view of this divine being, but that the reality of the spiritual realm and someone known as God exists seems to be core. I think they are probably kidding themselves, but I know that for many, this is just a stage in their journey, and it may take them somewhere else.
I think it is a little like Christian Anarchism, taking two apparently incompatible ideas and seeking to find what you can from them both. But it is a process, and having paradoxes can be a positive part of the process.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The Christianity that makes demands can be jettisoned, to leave those feel-good aspects.
I think that is unfair. Christians find ways to jettison the demands whatever their position on the theological spectrum.
Adherence to Christianity, or any religion, consists of intellectual assent, an aesthetic commitment to stories and symbols, a devotional practice, and an ethical practice. A Christian atheist has either ditched or more likely reinterpreted the intellectual assent component. But that doesn't mean they've also ditched the ethical practice. The link between the aesthetic commitment and devotional practice, and the ethical practice, may be what keeps them calling themselves Christian.
(Speaking as someone who doesn't personally find the position stable.)
Agree on all points. And I'd add that those who do subscribe to this way of seeing things might say that the reinterpretation of the intellectual aspect and devotional components is what enables the ethical and aesthetic components to make sense to them. Wouldn't work for me, but I'm not them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Adherence to Christianity, or any religion, consists of intellectual assent, an aesthetic commitment to stories and symbols, a devotional practice, and an ethical practice.
The chief word here is "consists." Christianity is all of those. Take out any one and you are left with something else.
A chair consists of something to sit on and something to hold it up. Take away the thing to sit on and you have vertical sticks (or the like). Take away the support and you have a floor mat (or the like).
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I knew someone who described himself as an atheist because he didn't believe in a supernatural God. He called himself a Christian as he followed the teachings of Christ
Or at least the ones he chose to follow. But not the ones that instruct us to love God, or to believe in Him who sent Jesus, or believe that Jesus is from God. Those teachings he didn't follow.
[ 13. February 2016, 18:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Adherence to Christianity, or any religion, consists of intellectual assent, an aesthetic commitment to stories and symbols, a devotional practice, and an ethical practice.
The chief word here is "consists." Christianity is all of those. Take out any one and you are left with something else.
A chair consists of something to sit on and something to hold it up. Take away the thing to sit on and you have vertical sticks (or the like). Take away the support and you have a floor mat (or the like).
If you take away one of four legs, the chair may still be able to stay up. Or you can replace the leg with a pile of bricks.
I think there are two intellectual routes available to Christian atheists. The first is to argue that religious language doesn't work in the way that factual descriptive language works. It has superficially the same grammatical form, but some other function. (It is actually expressive, or constitutes a way of life, or a metaphor for matters of 'ultimate concern' or for human love, or for the human being fully alive, or some such.) The second route is to press heavily upon the idea of apophatic theology, while probably throwing around the word 'kenosis' a lot.
I think both approaches are half-truths (as are most heresies). In this case, I'm not even sure they're the wrong half-truths.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
after a long absence I venture back with a brief exception to the topic.
Having left the church I find myself in a sort of self-imposed limbo. I do not want to be called an atheist (Christian or otherwise) since it seems that a lot of atheists are really "anti-theists" and militantly opposed toward any church. I regard all religions as being primarily a means of establishing a moral code with appropriate rewards (Heaven, eternal life) and punishments (Hell). And there is an authority (God, Allah etc.) to prosecute or reward the adherents. When practiced with reasonability, I find religions to be acceptable to the general good.
I have chosen to call myself a humanist and have made a few ventures into the Humanist Association in my former home and expect to meet with the local branch soon to see if they meet my needs for sociability.
Have any shipmates had contact with these associations?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
IconiumBound: I regard all religions as being primarily a means of establishing a moral code with appropriate rewards (Heaven, eternal life) and punishments (Hell).
That's a very narrow view of religion.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's a rather odd description of Christianity, at least--the uniqueness of Christianity starts with Christ and "your sins are forgiven" and goes on from there. The moral laws and punishments thing exists, but it's almost pre-Christian, if I can call it that--it's shared with tons of other religions and philosophies, and the Christian distinctive is what happens AFTER that--the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us, re-creating us as children of God who lives in us and does his work using us.
There are also quite a few religions where morality has very little to do with the gods at all. Take the ancient Greek gods (not the philosophers' conceptions, I'm talking Zeus, Aphrodite, Ares, etc. here). None of them have any concern for right and wrong as such. Everything is centered around personal advantage--even wisdom in the person of Athena. The goal seems to have been to keep the gods off your back/get them on your side so you can have a happier life. Sort of like bribing the local officials to get stuff done, or to keep them from harassing you.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A chair consists of something to sit on and something to hold it up. Take away the thing to sit on and you have vertical sticks (or the like). Take away the support and you have a floor mat (or the like).
If you take away one of four legs, the chair may still be able to stay up. Or you can replace the leg with a pile of bricks.
Did you read what I wrote? I didn't say "four legs" I said "something to hold it up." Which the other three legs, or the pile of bricks, in your examples neatly falls into.
[ 13. February 2016, 22:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But traditional, orthodox Christians do not have a trademark on the designation "Christian."
You are right, of course. Jesus, that is God incarnated, does. It is His name on the door. Any person or group who does not accept Jesus as God is not Christian, thus the term Christian Atheist is absurd.
Tell that to Jesus.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
after a long absence I venture back with a brief exception to the topic.
Having left the church I find myself in a sort of self-imposed limbo. I do not want to be called an atheist (Christian or otherwise) since it seems that a lot of atheists are really "anti-theists" and militantly opposed toward any church.
I think this is because, once an atheist, knowing that there are, nor ever were, any actual gods but only human ideas, you simply could not return to belief. I would say, though, that there is an acceptance that a greater move towards atheism will only happen gradually, frustrating though this is! I know how long it took me to erase the last vestige of belief, realising immediately then that I should have done it long ago.
Recent scientific discoveries, the knowledge being gained, available always to be challenged and either reinforced or updated, is doing an excellent job. Science will never run out of questions to ask but although they cannot explain yet in detail what dark matter is, they, and more and more people who are interested, do know that there is no heaven or hell there. quote:
I regard all religions as being primarily a means of establishing a moral code with appropriate rewards (Heaven, eternal life) and punishments (Hell). And there is an authority (God, Allah etc.) to prosecute or reward the adherents. When practiced with reasonability, I find religions to be acceptable to the general good.
Agreed! And things will, and must, only change slowly.
Since atheists know that all thoughts and acts of good progress and their opposites have, therefore, been entirely human,* this should much increase human confidence in humans and, perhaps, lessen the need** for any gods. quote:
I have chosen to call myself a humanist and have made a few ventures into the Humanist Association in my former home and expect to meet with the local branch soon to see if they meet my needs for sociability.
Have any shipmates had contact with these associations?
Yes! I joined the BHA and the local group about 20 years ago. I wish I lived nearer so that I could get to more meetings, but I keep up with what's going on. I do hope your local group have a good organising committee with interesting speakers. What we really need is a good strong song!
Atheists are far more vocal these days - viz. the increasing popularity of radio and TV programmes, Prof Brian Cox, the absence of a taboo about asking questions about religious beliefs; when I was young, it was the height of bad manners to do so.
*always remembering the obligation to allow for the possibility that a God might appear one day
**not sure that 'need' is the right word here
P.S. SoF is the only place I know where interesting discussions and opinions such as this appear.
[ 14. February 2016, 06:16: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think this is because, once an atheist, knowing that there are, nor ever were, any actual gods but only human ideas, you simply could not return to belief.
That's humbug, SusanDoris. Plenty of people who were atheists turn and return to being deists.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Back in the 1980s I knew a CofE priest who called himself a Feubachian Christian. he agreed with Ludwig Feurbach's view that God was just a prop which week people needed, with no objective existence outside the human mind. It seemed a bit odd, and rather 19th century, to me. But I guess that would count as Christian Atheism (though he didn't use that term for himself).
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: Prof Brian Cox
The one who said "There is naivety in just saying there's no God; it's bollocks"?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That's a rather odd description of Christianity, at least--the uniqueness of Christianity starts with Christ and "your sins are forgiven" and goes on from there. The moral laws and punishments thing exists, but it's almost pre-Christian, if I can call it that--it's shared with tons of other religions and philosophies, and the Christian distinctive is what happens AFTER that--the work of the Holy Spirit in and through us, re-creating us as children of God who lives in us and does his work using us.
There are also quite a few religions where morality has very little to do with the gods at all. Take the ancient Greek gods (not the philosophers' conceptions, I'm talking Zeus, Aphrodite, Ares, etc. here). None of them have any concern for right and wrong as such. Everything is centered around personal advantage--even wisdom in the person of Athena. The goal seems to have been to keep the gods off your back/get them on your side so you can have a happier life. Sort of like bribing the local officials to get stuff done, or to keep them from harassing you.
It starts with Jesus, but He doesn't start with your sins are forgiven:
Luke 4:16-21:
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:16–21, ESV)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think this is because, once an atheist, knowing that there are, nor ever were, any actual gods but only human ideas, you simply could not return to belief.
That's humbug, SusanDoris. Plenty of people who were atheists turn and return to being deists.
I have of course seen that argument presented often. However, when names are produced there are often much better explanations for their change of views than no belief in God to deism of one sort or another. And, no, I do not have names to put forward; do you?!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I got one name after 1 second on google and a second name in the next second.
Presumably these guys weren't true atheists otherwise they wouldn't have fallen away? Otherwise they would violate the once unsaved always unsaved rule?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
There are plenty of examples of former atheists who have come to accept the existence of God, SusanDoris. A simple online search finds many a testimony. What other reason would someone come to faith than to come to believe that God is real?
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So it is a position that rejects the supernatural aspects of faith, the belief in a Divine being. However they believe that Jesus was a teacher of truth, and seek to follow his teaching. As a whole they are people who have come from a more traditional Christian background, but have rejected some aspects of this, for all sorts of reasons.
Personally, I struggle with this. I understand why some people would want to describe themselves in this way, and (as a whole) I don't have a problem with them using the term Christian, because to a large extent, they are following Jesus teachings.
The problem is, I don't think you can take Jesus teachings without an acknowledgement of God. This doesn't mean you have to accept a particular, orthodox, view of this divine being, but that the reality of the spiritual realm and someone known as God exists seems to be core. I think they are probably kidding themselves, but I know that for many, this is just a stage in their journey, and it may take them somewhere else.
I think it is a little like Christian Anarchism, taking two apparently incompatible ideas and seeking to find what you can from them both. But it is a process, and having paradoxes can be a positive part of the process.
Yes, this. Deep thought helps faith to grow - even if for a while we fall away. The mistake seems to be to stop thinking when we reach a comfortable place. The next precipice is ahead of us.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Certainly atheists do become theists of all sorts (and vice versa). However a certain percentage of converts seem to to exaggerate their former state into atheism to make a better conversion story.
BTW context is important. The fuller Brian Cox quote is
“Philosophers would rightly point out that physicists making bland and sweeping statements is naive. There is naivety in just saying there’s no God; it’s b----s,” he says. “People have thought about this. People like Leibniz and Kant. They’re not idiots. So you’ve got to at least address that.” (The Telegraph which did the interview kindly blotted out some letters)
You can read the entire Telegraph article
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Wikipedia has a list.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think this is because, once an atheist, knowing that there are, nor ever were, any actual gods but only human ideas, you simply could not return to belief.
You're building a No True Atheist argument on a false premise, Susan Doris. You say that no atheist, after "knowing" there is no God or gods, could "return to belief." But no atheist "knows" that there aren't or never were actual gods, any more than a theist "knows" there is a God. Both are beliefs, based on evidence or lack of evidence sufficient or insufficient to persuade an individual. Whether or not there are any gods cannot be proven or known, at least not in the sense you seem to be using "knowing."
The correct premise would be that once one is an atheist, believing that there are, nor ever were, any actual gods but only human ideas, one simply could not return to belief in a God or gods. But of course, this premise is not only illogical, but also demonstrably false.
[ 14. February 2016, 14:28: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I was an atheist once. I got over it.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
My thanks for above posts; yes, I knew it would be challenged, if not shot down, but went ahead anyway! quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Certainly atheists do become theists of all sorts (and vice versa). However a certain percentage of converts seem to to exaggerate their former state into atheism to make a better conversion story.
Well said!
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
It is a bit frustrating when all you do is acknowledge our challenges and answer "well said!" to whoever vaguely agrees with you.
You say you believe in the scientific method. You formulated a hypothesis: atheists cannot return to belief. You are confronted with evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. Are you going to ignore the evidence or are you going to do what a scientist should do: abandon your hypothesis in face of evidence to the contrary?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Le Roc
I really do apologise for not finding quotations and info, copying it, collating and writing a post to present my arguments, and find it reallyfrustrating not to be able to do so, but there are times when the blindness makes the task just too daunting.
[ 14. February 2016, 15:28: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My thanks for above posts; yes, I knew it would be challenged, if not shot down, but went ahead anyway! quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Certainly atheists do become theists of all sorts (and vice versa). However a certain percentage of converts seem to to exaggerate their former state into atheism to make a better conversion story.
Well said!
Hmmm. Kinda disagree. Yes, those people will exist. But if you are pretending that adamant atheists are less likely to become theists, you fail to understand human psychology. True-believers, or I suppose in this case true-unbelievers, have a higher likelihood of susceptibility to change than protection from change.
The openness to switch one's perspective for any one issue is greatly affected by many factors. The strength of conviction isn't the most important of those for most people.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I got one name after 1 second on google and a second name in the next second.
Presumably these guys weren't true atheists otherwise they wouldn't have fallen away? Otherwise they would violate the once unsaved always unsaved rule?
I used that exact line in a stand up routine one, sad to know I am just not original in my comedy!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I really do apologise for not finding quotations and info, copying it, collating and writing a post to present my arguments
You don't need to as one can't prove a negative with a collation of information. You simply need to acknowledge that a number of us provided information on atheists who became theists; including some serious, thoughtful people who left atheism for theism. There are plenty who made the opposite trip (including some on this board) so I don't offer that as proof of the superiority of the theist position - far from it. But you asserted that the direction of travel was one-way and it clearly isn't.
The lists have been collated and the information provided - no need for you to do any work at all.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
I used that exact line in a stand up routine one, sad to know I am just not original in my comedy!
Well its even sadder for me to note that I got there after you.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... But if you are pretending that adamant atheists are less likely to become theists, you fail to understand human psychology.
I have a vague remembrance of someone, maybe Wesley or Fox, saying that the scoffers would be converted but not the lukewarm. Scientifically I'm sure you are right (for a popular science discussion see Kathryn Schultz "Being Wrong"). Most of us seem to like a leap from one certainty to another and you can go both ways.
What appeals is certainty: "Atheism is so clear and straightforward to me, especially in stark contrast to my faith in God as a child" as SusanDoris says. Some things are clear but untrue, others are fuzzy and puzzling but true. Mostly I'm in the fuzzy zone: an atheist but I don't find atheism any more convincing than theism. I just happen to believe the former and not the latter. I have a feeling I would be hard to convert - why give up one uncertainty for another?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I got one name after 1 second on google and a second name in the next second.
Presumably these guys weren't true atheists otherwise they wouldn't have fallen away? Otherwise they would violate the once unsaved always unsaved rule?
Those are great articles. Especially about Flew, whom I was aware of in my Philosophy Major days. Thank you for posting those!
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
Thanks one and all for your comments.
I am reminded of the (apocryphal?) story of the journalist in Belfast during the Troubles who was shoved into the back of a car between two masked men. As the car sped away one of the men put a pistol to the journalists head and demanded to know if he was a Catholic or a Protestant. According to the story the journalist replied that he was an atheist.............................................. After a few minutes digesting this response the alleged comeback was “yeah, OK, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
...formal Christian Atheism is a theological framework ...
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Christianity, by definition, requires a belief in a God who exists. The concept of a theological framework requires a God to exist. However, atheism requires there to not be any God.
I don't see any way to wrap your head around that.
Technically atheism does not require that there not be any god(s); simply - atheism is the view that, due to our inability to discern either evidence or need for god(s), we are unable to believe in them. Most atheists will probably feel that the specific god(s) presented for their belief are rationally impossible – but that doesn’t exclude, for example, the existence of something with godlike powers which does not interact with our universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The truth of God clearly cannot be falsified by the question of suffering, as Christianity demonstrates. The resurrection of Christ illustrates the truth of God through suffering.
Surely this must depend upon your concept of “the truth of God”, your definition of “demonstrates” and your belief in the “resurrection of Christ”. Once one has sorted these problems to one’s satisfaction I suspect that belief becomes less of a problem.
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
after a long absence I venture back with a brief exception to the topic.
Having left the church I find myself in a sort of self-imposed limbo. I do not want to be called an atheist (Christian or otherwise) since it seems that a lot of atheists are really "anti-theists" and militantly opposed toward any church. I regard all religions as being primarily a means of establishing a moral code with appropriate rewards (Heaven, eternal life) and punishments (Hell). And there is an authority (God, Allah etc.) to prosecute or reward the adherents. When practiced with reasonability, I find religions to be acceptable to the general good.
I have chosen to call myself a humanist and have made a few ventures into the Humanist Association in my former home and expect to meet with the local branch soon to see if they meet my needs for sociability.
Have any shipmates had contact with these associations?
I am a member of the British Humanist Association – they have a website which was what led me to realise that I was one-of-them. HERE. I can’t help with humanism in the US – but I strongly suspect that you will find a conviction that a) moral codes are not religion dependant and that b) actions predicated on belief without evidence are, on balance, dangerous for individuals, the state and humanity. Thus, yes, many atheists are against organised religion on the grounds that it provides a baleful influence on the only life we know we have. Splitting hairs perhaps but we are not anti-god any more than we are anti tooth-fairy – it’s irrational to be anti something we don’t believe in. Perhaps it’s our equivalent of love the sinner hate the sin – but in our case it’s ignore the hypothesis but resist it’s effects.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The truth of God clearly cannot be falsified by the question of suffering, as Christianity demonstrates. The resurrection of Christ illustrates the truth of God through suffering.
Surely this must depend upon your concept of “the truth of God”, your definition of “demonstrates” and your belief in the “resurrection of Christ”. Once one has sorted these problems to one’s satisfaction I suspect that belief becomes less of a problem.
Without the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
^^ I used to read The Humanist magazine from the US, and The Humanist In Canada, at my local library. While much of it was what you would expect, they also had a strong tendency toward supporting population control, from the usual Malthusian angle, an agenda I am somewhat dubious about.
The Humanists in N. America seemed to have a bit of overlap with Unitarianism(again, going by their publications), but I haven't really noticed that since becoming re-involved with Unitarians a few years back. I'm actually not sure if I have ever met, in person, someone formally associated with Humanism.
[ 16. February 2016, 18:47: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Without the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
I don’t doubt your sincerity – I do doubt the accuracy of your conviction. Personal evidence is a potentially dangerous justification – much harm has been done by people convinced that they were doing the personally revealed will of their deity/deities. It seems to me that a caring God would act differently and prevent such damage.
You imply that the God in which you believe may, or may not, become evident to someone who sincerely follows his teaching. Are you suggesting that your God refuses to allow genuine seekers to find him? What would such a refusal say about your God?
Without changing your meaning I could rewrite your post as
Without the story of the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without the belief that I have personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, we may become convinced that consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
Are you OK with that, and if not, why not?
Stetson Unitarianism describes itself as an open-minded and welcoming approach to faith . The British Humanist Association describes Humanism as a Non-faith based worldview. Beyond the accommodation for faith there are a number of commonalities, but the faith thing seems, to me at least, to be a massive separator between the two.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
There are humanists as well as Christiana and pagans (also former members of a wide assortment of religions exploring their beliefs) in my local Unitarian Universalist church. Last week's service was relatively Christian (Amazing Grace was sung) though usually it tends to the more humanist side. I suspect some in the church might describe themselves as Christian atheists (one in particular who died a couple of years ago at 96 had been a Presbyterian minister and missionary before becoming a humanist but still had an interest in Jesus as a person).
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hugh wrote:
quote:
Stetson Unitarianism describes itself as an open-minded and welcoming approach to faith . The British Humanist Association describes Humanism as a Non-faith based worldview. Beyond the accommodation for faith there are a number of commonalities, but the faith thing seems, to me at least, to be a massive separator between the two.
Atheist and agnostic Unitarian Universalists
Those are N. American UUs. I believe the British Unitarians might generally be more theistic in their orientation. No time for googling now, I'll be back later.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(LOL, for a moment I wondered whether Stetson Unitarianism was a thing )
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hugh wrote:
quote:
Stetson Unitarianism describes itself as an open-minded and welcoming approach to faith . The British Humanist Association describes Humanism as a Non-faith based worldview. Beyond the accommodation for faith there are a number of commonalities, but the faith thing seems, to me at least, to be a massive separator between the two.
Atheist and agnostic Unitarian Universalists
Those are N. American UUs. I believe the British Unitarians might generally be more theistic in their orientation. No time for googling now, I'll be back later.
Humanist Unitarian Universalists
Haven't had time to read that. (Too busy with the Stetson variety!)
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
]Without the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
That might be a fair description of your own profession, but does not mean that you have unique dibs on the term, nor that your beliefs can be used as a measure for everyone else who has ever used the title.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Without the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
I don’t doubt your sincerity – I do doubt the accuracy of your conviction. Personal evidence is a potentially dangerous justification – much harm has been done by people convinced that they were doing the personally revealed will of their deity/deities. It seems to me that a caring God would act differently and prevent such damage.
You imply that the God in which you believe may, or may not, become evident to someone who sincerely follows his teaching. Are you suggesting that your God refuses to allow genuine seekers to find him? What would such a refusal say about your God?
Without changing your meaning I could rewrite your post as
Without the story of the resurrection, the cross would be the end of the story of Jesus. Without the belief that I have personal evidence of the living Christ, I would not be a Christian. If we follow Christ, in every aspect of his teaching, we may become convinced that consciousness of and belief in God, and experience of the indwelling Holy Spirit may become evident too.
Are you OK with that, and if not, why not?
It's true to say that some people cannot discern between imagination and reality, and it is of course dangerous if we don't use discernment and if we do harmful things thinking that they are good. This applies to everybody. It does not mean that there is no God, nor that people who believe are imagining that there is.
The caring God will not be manipulated by us. God is not a human puppet. The effort must be on our side to seek and to continue to seek for the next glimpse of God, to continue to invite him into our lives as he invites us into his. Our human frailties are fully understood by God, who may bless us with more knowledge of his presence the further we travel the road. I acknowledge that some say that they have not known this blessing, which is why I use 'may'. I don't know why that is the case, it has been discussed on other threads.
What we know, we are convinced of, we believe to be the truth. Your revision of the words I used may be the way you see it, but I stand by my original words.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
For the first time in ... forever the mystery of existence didn't demand God for me as I walked across the park to the car gone 7 tonight. As I told Him at the time.
There is just NO argument for God. No Presence. I asked Him how He perceives that which He sustains. I.e. infinite everything. What His Point of View is. The integral of the infinite points of view of all - infinite views - of and from all infinite points.
How intense He is, how present at each point.
It's infinitely, aleph aleph ... aleph simpler that He is not.
But He is.
The universe is ... ever so big - infinite - and complex. And just one infinitesimal perturbation. In an infinity.
And God is greater.
The ONLY and still sufficient external evidence to me being the Jesus story. In which we all have eternal life. As have the infinite denizens of eternity before us. In their infinite Jesus stories.
Frit the missus with that up the Tissington Trail Valentine's Day. I suggested a squid Jesus.
In trans-infinite/eternal, meta-infinite/eternal God.
And that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
This morning I got "Yeah, I'm transcendent and then some. And immanent.".
Last night I hypnagogically envisaged myself as a point with a thread umbilically mapping to a me shaped hole, shadow on an infinite womb surface: MY God.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A few weeks back I watched a sketch featuring unborn twins in a womb, speculating on whether there was life after birth.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Is that different to the one about them debating that there's a Mother?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ah, it's both: The conversation of a set of twins in the womb of their mother ...
“Say, do you actually believe in life after birth?” the one twin asks.
“Yes, definitely! Inside we grow and are prepared for what will come outside,” answered the other twin.
“I believe that’s nonsense!” says the first. “There can’t be life after birth—what is that supposed to look like?”
“I don’t exactly know either. But there will certainly be much more light than in here. And maybe we will be walking about and eat with our mouths?”
“I’ve never heard such nonsense! Eating with the mouth? What a crazy idea. There is the umbilical cord that nourishes us. And how do you want to walk about? The umbilical cord is much too short.”Unborn twins
“I am sure it is possible. It’s just that everything will be a little bit different.”
“You are crazy! Nobody ever came back after birth. Life is over with birth. That’s it.”
“I admit that nobody knows what life after birth will look like. But I do know that we will see our mother then, and that she will take care of us.”
“Mother???? But you don’t believe in a mother, do you? Where is she?”
“She is here, all around us. We are and we live within her and through her. Without her we couldn’t exist at all!”
“Nonsense! I’ve never sensed a mother, consequently she doesn’t exist.”
“Yes, sometimes, when we are very quiet you can hear her sing, or feel how she caresses our world.”
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
My Muslim boss loved it.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0