Sophomoric Theologians
by Steve PetermannRecently there has been a rash of anti-religion books. One would think from all the rhetoric and broad public exposure of the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and other critics of religion that they are in the vanguard of those criticizing elements of irrationality and ill conceived dogma in religion. That could not be farther from the truth. These atheistic critics seem completely unaware of those within religion over many decades who have lodged many of the same criticisms they offer. Neither do they seem to know that many prominent thinkers in religion are just as serious about dispelling the superstitious and destructive elements in religion. The fact is that some of the best minds in religious thought have worked indefatigably to place religious thinking on a sounder footing within a modern world. These efforts have been an ongoing pursue of those who have been categorized as part of liberal theology.
This liberal movement perhaps found its footing in the historical critical method of biblical criticism that arose at least by the 19th century where scripture was found to be a very important but human document of faithing testaments that non-the-less had inconsistencies and various theologies. Then with theologians like Rudolf Bultmann who advocated the de-mythologizing of scripture and Paul Tillich who affirmed myth but said that it must be de-literalized, many theologians took up the task to embrace the best of all human thinking and experience while still affirming core intuitions about the fabric of the world and its relationship to God. This was also a movement that instead of shunning secular criticism of religion, welcomed it as an important data point for destroying the idolatries of religion. If history is any indicator of religious change it does not find its main traction from outside criticism but rather from criticism coming from within the theological circle.
To anyone who has immersed themselves in the work of these great liberal theologians, the criticisms and arguments offered by these non-theologians like Dawkins et al., while in some sense valid, are sophomoric and simplistic. As atheists or agnostics like Michael Ruse and Melvin Konner have pointed out these critics would do well to apply their own methodological standards and become familiar with religion, per se, and the best and brightest theology that is available. When they content themselves with attacking the "weak sister" of religious fundamentalism they lose all credibility among those who have some theological sophistication.
For those who would wish to know more about what is really going in liberal religious thought they can turn to the works of those who have and continue to address the pressing issues of religion in a contemporary age. Here are a few of the more recent names of those engaged in this liberal endeavor: Cobb, Griffin, Suchocki, Kaufman, McFague, Farley, Anderson, Borg, Burrow, Church, Clayton, Davaney, Johnson, Keller, Neville, Thandeka, Tracy, Rita Nakashima Brock, Lisa Cahill, Anna Case-Winters, Pam Couture, Mary Doak, Margaret Farley, Robert Franklin, Franklin Gamwell, David Hollenbach, Nancy Howell, Robin Lovin, Jennifer G. Jesse, Carol Johnston, Susan Nelson, June O'Connor, Samuel K. Roberts, Helene Russell, William Schweikert, Max Stackhouse, Linda Tessier, Emilie Townes, and Pamela Dickey Young.
For a short list check out the theologies of Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, Marcus Borg, John Welsey Spong, Langdon Gilkey, David Ray Griffin, and Philip Clayton. For good summary of what has been going on in liberal theology check this essay out.
Dawkins and his ilk are not in the vanguard of religious criticism. Although popularizers and in the public eye, their work, in fact, exposes them as extremists who lack the theological sophistication to be taken seriously.
November 24th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Your point that the criticisms of these so-called "new" atheists is "sophomoric" and "simplistic" is valid. However, I would take issue with you that the works of these liberal theologians has somehow advanced faith. I'm familiar with some of the works of some of the theologians you mention. If memory serves. some of them are represented in the "Jesus Seminar" group. However, there are many other BIblical and theological scholars who do not accept the arguments of these liberal theologians as valid. Luke Timothy Johsnon, William Lane Craig, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Craig Evans, Doug Geivett, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins, Alvin Plantinga, Neal Plantinga, Peter Kreeft, C.S. Lewis and many others could offer many solid arguments for rejecting this so-called liberal theology and upholding orthodoxy.
You're right, Dawkins and his ilk are not in the vanguard of religious criticism. Neither are many of the scholars you mention. The Jesus Seminar group, for example, hardly represents anything "mainstream' when it comes to Biblical scholarship. What they are are masters of media attention, which is exactly what Dawkins and Harris et.al. are getting good at. Publicity doesn't a valid argument make.
Comment by DonaldM — November 24, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Hi DonaldM,
I disgree. I don't see much of religious criticism in the authors you mentioned. Instead what I think you see is a theological nuancing or apologetics to dispell criticism. The liberal theologians are positing significant criticism.
Of course. Significant criticism rarely comes from the mainstream.
Masters of media? I doubt it. Are names like Tillich, Niebuhr, or Clayton recognizable among the populace? Marcus Borg may be the exception because his books find their way into seekers groups within the traditions. Why has Borg found popular acceptance? Because he provides a balance of tradition and criticism. Whether or not his approach is viable is an open question.
Theology is a big tent. The point of this post is, however, that anyone who presumes to criticize religion and theology should do their homework and attack the best religion has to offer. These sophomoric theologians apparently have no inclinatin to do so.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 24, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Hi Steve
I guess that depends on what you mean. I see a lot of the ones I mentioned criticizing several of the ones you mentioned! I thnk the real difference lies with those who uphold orthodoxy and those who want to challenge it. You might be right that significant criticism rarely comes from the mainstream. But just because something is outside the mainstream doesn't mean it is significant. I would strongly disagree that all this criticism from the so-called liberal theologians is "significant", if by that you mean they pose a real challenge to orthodox theology. On the other hand, I would say what they are doing is significant in that they do provide opportunities for others to better explain biblical truth and so forth.
On this I agree with you. ( I assume the sophomoric "theologians" you refer to are Dawkins et.al.) If you think about it, this probably works in reverse, too. In other words, in attacking Dawkins, Harris and others like them, are we attacking the best that atheism has to offer? Compare a Dawkins with, say, Quentin Smith or Kai Nelson. While I certainly have several issues with many of Smith's or Nelson's arguments, I respect that they attempt to put forth thoughtful arguments and statements, rather than dealing with stereotypes and straw men. Or consider the many philosophical naturalists who responded to Alvin Plantinga in the volume Naturalism Defeated? (I can't recall names at the moment) They certainly were attacking one of the best that theology had to offer.
I think what bothers me about Dawkins and company isn't so much what they write — that's easily dealt with — but that they get so much media attention and so give the impression that they are the "official" spokespersons for science or for atheism or naturalism. I'd love to know what Kai Nelson or Quesntin Smith say in private about Dawkins and Harris. You'd think they'd be embarrassed a bit!
Comment by DonaldM — November 24, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Donald M and Steve Petermann,
The point is though you have significant theological differences, you are united in opposition to Dawkins, et al. Combine that with those in the scientific community who also oppose them, and you have the potential for a significant opposition party. I see the need for everyone to emphasize their unity rather than their differences to effectively oppose this movement which disrespects and demeans persons of faith.
Comment by bj — November 24, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I agree with you in principle, BJ. But, its been my observation that Darwinists hardly ever criticize one of thier own. However, since that doesn't seem to stop Dawkins, maybe that unwritten rule will be set aside and we'll a Ruse or a Smith or a Nelson call them on the carpet (or take them out the woodshed for an old fashion' whoopin'!)
Comment by DonaldM — November 24, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 1:27 am
Donald,
The challenge of liberal theology may not appear to be much of a challenge to orthodoxy in the grass roots but the more liberal theology is embraced by theologians in general and some of those at the grass roots level, the challenge may eventually become more prominent. For instance one of the most poplular Christian theologians in church study groups in moderate denominations has been Marcus Borg. All you have to do is read his latest book "The Heart of Christianity" where he metaphorizes what many consider literally essential to the faith (the divinity of Jesus, the soteriological uniqueness of Christianity, etc) to see that liberal ideas are making it into the mainstream.
Arguments from these types of atheists have always been taken seriously by prominent theologians. If nothing else they raise important existential questions that religion must answer. Atheists like Dawkins and Harris are not taken seriously for the very fact that they have no depth of thought in these matters. Their criticisms are so sophomoric they have no effect on the development of professional theology.
What I found really interesting about the Beyond Belief videos is that many staunch atheists were taking Dawkins and Harris to task for their simplistic approach. Critics like Dawkins and Harris are obviously ideologs who are so warped by their emotions they ignore pragmatics. What I saw in many of the other atheists was a genuine pragmaticism towards humanity. Although I certainly disagree with their final conclusions one can still appreciate their ultimate pragmatic concerns. I think they realize that those humanitarian concerns are being sabotaged by the militant atheists. Ruse has been very vocal about this. When Harris accuses pragmatic atheist Konner of being part of the problem, it becomes evident that there is a considerable divisiveness in their ranks. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 25, 2006 @ 1:27 am
November 25th, 2006 at 1:39 am
Hi bj,
I think there is a core unity among theists. However, theology is not a one-size-fits-all offering. While theists may agree on many issues, I think it is a strength that there can be divergent views within a big loving tent. It means that theism can meet the needs of many in a pluralistic society.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 25, 2006 @ 1:39 am
November 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
bj:
It'll never happen, bj. As Niebuhr pointed out mid-last century, the supreme irony of Christianity is that it tends to engender great pride far more often than it inspires humility before the Holy. I once suggested to a family member who is a Baptist minister that it was wrong to be promoting sectarian nastiness among Christians, when there were real issues that would be better addressed by a unified approach. He scoffed smugly (because Baptists, like everybody else, know for a fact that they're the only ones going to heaven).
There's no need for the old "divide and conquer" tactic. We're already divided.
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Joy,
Alas, I suspect you are correct. I continue to be surprised at the tendency in human nature which causes us to stress those matters on which we differ that those on which we agree.
The development of the pride found in the fundamentalist sects is a strange thing. I suppose it happens naturally and inexorably when you believe that you have found the one true way. I don't see any way out of it. True humility comes when you realize just how much you don't know, and further realize that your chances of knowing the one true, Truth, are small. It comes from understanding that our hold on truth in this life is tenuous and fragile and being so very thankful for the little truths that we have discovered and live by.
Comment by bj — November 25, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
bj and Joy,
All too true. bj, yes, all our knowledge and understanding is, after all, a gift to us. And this gift, like all others, is limited, otherwise we would be God. And so, to recognize what shaky ground we stand on should cause us all to pause, and never to boast. Truly, spiritual pride is a scary thing to behold.
But then, pride in scepticism is as well. It says something along the lines of "all that spiritual superstition is below me, I am too intelligent, too strong to be in need of it. I do things my way, I am the captain of my ship. I bow to nothing and nobody!"
Yes, truly, pride goes before a fall, in whatever form we find it. That is why God instructs us to come before him with a broken and contrite spirit. Did not Jesus tell the story of the two men who came to the Temple. It was not the legal and proper man that found mercy, but the humble man begging for mercy who left freed from his faults.
Comment by Ekstasis — November 25, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Dawkins and Harris are often chastized (in this thread, also) for attacking an unsophisticated, straw man version of religion, and failing to acquaint themselves with the latest arcana from the departments of theology.
I would point out that both of them are primarily concerned with the effects of religion on society, and therefore they concentrate on religion as it is actually practiced, not as it is seen by a handful of modern theologians.
I'd be interested to hear about ways in which readers of this blog think that Dawkins and Harris have been unfair to religion as it is actually practiced by the population at large.
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 5:57 am
November 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Steve Petermann,
I see you list John Spong ("Bishop John Spong!") as one of those "significant" liberal theologians. And I see DonaldM has listed William Lane Craig in his list of "significant" conservative theologians. I have personal, face-to-face, experience with these two, and can say Dr. Craig is a far, far superior thinker and Biblical expositor than Dr. Spong - and I'm not just saying that because I happen to agree with Dr. Craig's views and disagree with Dr. Spong's views. I happen to say that in part because of the two former reasons [naturally], but primarily because Dr. Craig's views are at least coherent, Biblically defensible, and not subject to completely subjective and forced interpretations, which is not the case for many, many (if not all) of Dr. Spong's views regarding the Bible, Jesus, and God.
In fact, after attending a debate between the two in early 2005 (at Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana), I spoke, briefly and separately, with both Dr. Craig and Dr. Spong. I asked Dr. Spong how he reconciled some of his views with some particular New Testament passages (I don't recall the specific issue or the exact particulars), and after two or three questions which he could not answer (and he clearly became more and more flustered), he eventually responded by saying something about he had his views, and conservatives had their views. It was a clear admission on his part of an inability to Biblically support his own position, in my opinion.
I had a very similar experience recently with a "Theologian/Computer Scientist" from Germany by way of MIT who gave a speech at Goshen College (in Goshen, Indiana) - after her talk (which was about "personhood" and how "Embodied AI" and "Biblical wisdom" could shed light on the issue, and one of her primary claims was that "personhood" depended on relationship), I approached her and asked her if God was a person before He created "others". She said no, He wasn't. (If this doesn't reveal muddied thinking on her part, I don't know what would - how could a non-person, a Being without experience or knowledge of relating to "others", think up the idea of creating "others", and then know how to begin "relating" to them?) I proceeded to ask her how God could BE "love" (see I John 4:8) prior to being a "person" - she replied that God "changed" (once again directly contradicting a clear teaching of the Bible [see Malachi 3:6, "'For I am the Lord, I do not change'"] and also common sense [if God "changes", then maybe at one point He was a God of "hate", or perhaps this is what He might "evolve into"]). I then asked if God was a spirit, and she said she didn't believe in life after death or spirits. (Again, completely contrary to clear Biblical teachings, particularly in the New Testament [see John 4:24, where Jesus Himself says that "'God is Spirit...'".) Lastly, I asked her if Jesus had ever sinned - she said, "Of course"; and when I asked her for an example of Jesus sinning, she mentioned His treatment of the money-changers in the Temple, and said He was not following His Own teachings from the "Sermon on the Mount", which she said "required" Christians to be "nice" to others. (She apparently never thought about the issues of justice, holiness, or truth, and seemed to think that "niceness" trumped all other factors [I wonder if her concept of being "nice" includes being tolerant of the intolerant?].)
Anyway, the point is that there is a whole batch of highly trained "theologians" who haven't got a clue what the Bible teaches about many things. What they've done is succinctly described in both I Timothy 3:13,
and also in I Timothy 4:3,
Lastly, when judging the veracity of the claims of "liberal scholars", people should keep in mind I Corinthians 1:20-21,
Comment by Douglas — November 26, 2006 @ 9:35 am
November 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Hi Douglas,
I am not a big fan of Spong either. Although I agree with many of his criticisms of biblical literalism I don't think he offers a coherent alternative within Christianity. His theology is so radically different I question whether it can be considered Christian.
You seem to be saying that in order to be a theologian one must subscribe to a literalist view of the Bible. To be a theologian, per se, this is not required. Quite to the contrary, in my view, a thoroughgoing theologian must first be a theologian, per se, and only then be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. theologian. Otherwise theology becomes a ready target for these atheistic pundits. If, however, the starting points of a theology are defended first without reference to a particular tradition then a true dialog with the secular community can proceed.
Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and others jump at the opportunity to offer their simplistic theologies because many traditional theologies do not provide something compelling to the disaffected "spiritual but not religioius" segment of the population. When they caricature religion by attacking only the conservative element of religion, they make it seem as if there are no other alternatives to being religious and that no religious alternatives exist that find a happy relationship with science. This is not the case. Whether or not one agrees with these liberal theologians many offer an alternative that can be compelling to those disaffect or agnostic because of science.
It is understandable that these militant ideologs would shy away from embracing and critiquing the full range of theological thought. That would take a lot of work and they would not be able to simplistically dismiss religion. Ideologs want simple, biased, and emotionally charged answers to very difficult complex issues. It's very ironic that these scientists who apply rigorous standards for doing science so easily dismiss that methodology when it comes to their pet ideologies.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am
November 26th, 2006 at 11:52 am
keiths:
Which is no doubt why they berate the oh-so many little civil wars Protestants are fighting against each other, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and 'Other' in every town in every state of this nation day in and day out. It's a regular bloodbath!
Is THAT the effect on modern society you're talking about? Ooops… it's not happening. Darn! That's okay. Well, we can always hit 'em with bad things done in the past and elsewhere. Scientifically, that PROVES there will be a theocracy in this country by next week if we don't stop it immediately!
C'mon, keiths. They're just more wannabe mind tyrants getting rich off their paranoia.
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 11:52 am
November 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
keiths,
Even in what Steve calls the "weak sister" of Christianity, the fundamentalists, things are not as Dawkins assumes. Dawkins is creating a strawman in the sense that what he condemns, the teaching of hell doctrine to children, is largely gone in today's conservative Christianity. Religions morph as time goes along, even in churches who think they are biblical literalists. You will rarely hear a sermon about hell in the church today. God, in the current climate, is a kind of loving grandfather who is there to meet the needs of the congregants. In the megachurches you will find every material need accomodated. There are critics of this seeker-friendly kind of approach but they are in the minority today. The harsh elements that you mention are largely absent. The Christian religion functions as an esteem producing philosophy built on a God who loves you and died for you. It aids in the production of moral character. It also provides a place of community in a fragmented society. It would be nice if critics would actually spend the time to understand just what is going on.
It's not that your don't have legitimate points to make, for instance the tendency toward pride that Joy mentioned earlier. But this issue concerning hell is a strawman. Most Christians today rarely think or teach about hell. It's really as if it doesn't exist for them. Out of sight, out of mind, out of existence. By the way, I'm not complaining about this, it's a positive development in my opinion.
Comment by bj — November 26, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
keiths,
This is exactly the problem with their caricature of religion. Dawkins et al. do not offer a fair representation of religion. They focus entirely on the negatives of religion that typically emerge from extremism.
In reality there are billions of religious adherents that go about their daily lives acting out the beneficial sentiments of their religion. Having been involved with various churches over the years I have seen the enormous amount of benevolence bestowed on people of their communities, charities, the suffering and homeless, just to mention a few. When Katrina hit New Orleans, where did the vast majority of people come from who stepped up to offer money, support, clothing, service, etc? It came from the churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. All you had to do was look at the charitable listings on the news web sites. Judging from the comments of Dawkins and Harris in the Beyond Belief conference they don't seem to even see what is actually going on, on the ground. Instead they focus on the evils that religion can incite. Sure there are bad things happening in the world because of religion. But these are even being fought from within religion itself. The small everyday benevolence of religious folk around the world doesn't make news but its impact is collectively enormous. Even many prominent atheists like Kronner and Ruse recognize this. To say as Dawkins does that we should just get rid of religion without really thinking about the consequence is incredibly cavalier for one who claims to be a scientist. Even Weinberg said that we would miss the "crazy old Aunt" (religion) when she is gone.
If these atheistic pundits want to be taken serious they should do the hard empirical work to see just how harmful or beneficial religion is. To only offer a caricature and then draw conclusions is irresponsible.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 26, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
The common person, no matter what church they attend, make their own decisions about their religious belief. Many are able, through common sense, to dismiss, ignore or reject those teachings which are going to cause harm. In other words, most folks don't believe every word preached to them. They evaluate and then go into their community and lives of quiet goodness. Like Steve says, you don't see this on the news, but it's cumulative effect in incalculable. This is the essence of beneficial religion.
Comment by bj — November 26, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Steve,
No, that wasn't what I was saying, precisely. And, what, to you, is a "literalist" view of the Bible, anyway? I contrasted "liberal" with "conservative", and the conservative view of the Bible is one which takes the following approach to Biblical interpretation: the Bible is intended to be understood literally except where it is obviously metaphoric, symbolic, or illlustrative. This approach is the most straightforward and "common sensical" among the various types of interpretation "available" - it is far more reasonable than, say, the "Jesus Seminar" approach, which seems to treat ionterpreting the Bible, particularly the Gospels, as some sort of exercise in detecting subjective probabilities.
Comment by Douglas — November 26, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
bj,
Not necessarily. The core truths of Christianity remain the same, so in that sense, the "Christian religion" has not "morphed" at all. One might, perhaps, compare genuine Christianity (that "Christianity" which has not changed the core truths of the Bible regarding God, Jesus, and the Gospel) with the shape of, say, dogs (or "Darwin's Finches") - dogs come in various sizes and minor variations of "form", but their overall shape remains the same ("topologically") (the same, of course, being true for "Darwin's Finches"). Dogs remain dogs; a finch by any other name is a finch; and genuine Christianity remains true to the core teachings of the Bible regarding God, Jesus, and the Gospel, regardless of minor variations which might occur such as whether women can be pastors (the Bible clearly teaches they are not allowed to be pastors) or whether the gifts of the Spirit are still given to the Church (they are).
Agreed. But this could be a function of a "Laodicean" Church culture. And, I imagine you are speaking of primarily Western churches - I wonder what the persecuted churches of, say, China or some Muslim countries are teaching. I would imagine they would be less inclined to "sugar-coat" what the Bible teaches.
Yes. The "megachurches" are almost always more about numbers and popularity than about teaching or preaching the truth. In fact, back around 1995 I called the pastor of a small, probably "dying", Nazarene church located in Elkhart, and asked him about his doctrines and views (I don't recall the reason for my call). In the course of our conversation, he mentioned that he was taking college courses on marketing, and was planning on using what he learned to "grow" his church. What he did was change the church name so that it no longer identified itself as "Nazarene" (a generally conservative denomination with roots in the "holiness movement"), start an aggressive fund-raising campaign, focus on "cultural relevance" and a "fun, family friendly church atmosphere", and forego "negative" sermons. Within what was I think 5 years, his church had grown into a "mini-megachurch", had bought a large plot of land in one of the prime locations in Elkhart (a booming area with lots of, and increasing, traffic), built a large, expensive, and attractive new church building there, and started a radio ministry (I think). I'm amazed that Jesus and the Apostles neglected to include marketing in their founding of the Church.
We members of the minority are not ashamed of our minority status. Solidarity, brothers!
There is a difference between being "harsh" and merely speaking the truth. Jesus spoke the truth about Hell (it exists, and is forever), but His doing so was motivated out of a desire to warn people to avoid it, not out of some kind of hatred for those who opposed Him or out of a twisted glee at the prospects of anyone ending up in Hell.
The twisted, watered-down, accommodating version popular in Western countries today, yes.
Even the untainted "Christian religion" which still teaches about Hell does these things. And what of Christianity in persecuting countries? Christianity there not only does those things, it grants courage in the face of persecution, even persecution unto death. And has done so throughout its history. (Although the "seeker-friendly" variety is probably too weak to offer such "benefits".)
Comment by Douglas — November 26, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
I can't make heads or tails of what you wrote.
If you disagree with Dawkins and/or Harris, how about quoting something they've written and explaining why you disagree?
I'm particularly interested, as I mentioned in my previous comment, in examples of where you think they have misrepresented religion as it is practiced by the public at large.
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Hi Douglas, you wrote:
I don't disagree with anything you said regarding the core truths of the gospel as taught in the New Testament. They remain the same throughout history. My only point was that the American version of Christianity has changed from that historical teaching.
Comment by bj — November 26, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
keiths:
I'm not going to go quote mining just so you can accuse me of quote mining, keiths. There's no point. Dawkins calls raising a child Catholic child abuse. I'm not that familiar with Harris other than the book blurbs and nasty hit pieces in some media outlets. The usual.
And I'm not all that up on religious practices by the at-large public either. I go to church (and it doesn't matter at all which one) for weddings and funerals. Or when I'm visiting relatives who go to church (whichever, there's a variety). But I know my family and friends who are religious, and not a one of 'em is a child-abuser.
Of course, "child abuse" is a broad term, depending mostly on who's writing policy these days. I was encouraged when my kids were in 2nd and 3rd grade to turn in any parents whose kids showed up at my house hungry and without a proper coat. As if 2nd and 3rd graders can be made to wear 'proper' coats any farther than the front porch, and kids don't raid refrigerators as a full-time job wherever they are (painted my fridge camouflage hoping they'd miss it, but that didn't work). Meanwhile, parents horribly abuse kids, and are inevitably given them back to kill because some agency hack decided they needed their "real parents" more than they needed half a chance to grow up.
Richard Dawkins cannot convince me the state can do a better job as parents than I or my relatives and friends did/can. When he's spent the time to do the research - by actually raising someone else's throw-away children and parsing actual data - he might have an ounce of credibility. He doesn't have it now.
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Douglas:
Does God sentence believers to hell for listening to the teachings of a woman? For speaking in tongues? If not, it's not likely to be impressive when some televangelist claims to know God sends tongue-talkers and women teachers/ministers to hell (along with everyone who hears them).
Yeah. If the state is oppressive, the tendency is to make God even more oppressive than the state. It doesn't work so well here.
Evangelism *IS* marketing. Always has been. There's just new communications tools around lately, so we call it "televangelism." That said, the issue is about money. It always boils down to money. My high school friend's mother used to send money every week to a radio preacher who claimed he could heal cancer if you just touched the radio (after sending in at least $25). She died at 42 from cancer, so it obviously didn't work. My Dad bought several gold bricks for Orel's cathedral when he thought they would get him and his loved ones into heaven. Orel's still got those gold bricks, Dad is dead. I'm betting he'd have made heaven (if there is one) without any gold bricks at all.
God either loves you or not. If not, you're SOL. If so, allowances will be made (we're all sinners). "Eternity" is an issue you've shown little grasp of, just like everybody else (along with the biblical contradictions pertinent to that subject). You can choose to believe as you will, and ignore all the contradictions in your worldview as you see fit. But you probably won't be earning any converts around here by claiming knowledge you don't own. Just so you know that…
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Douglas,
The passion you have for your beliefs can be commenable. However I think it is possible to be passionate about one's beliefs and still maintain a healthy dose of humility about their veracity. This is particularly pressing in the epistemic world we live in.
It is my view that in combating the destructive influences of materialism and addressing the criticisms of Dawkins et al. circular appeals to scriptural authority do not advance things and in fact may exacerbate
them.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 26, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Nice poke at 'circular appeals to scriptural authority,' Steve. Happy Thanksgiving! Actually, there was much more than that in Douglas' post, if you care to acknowledge it. The 'detecting subjective probabilities' barb was especially clarifying, given the 'side' or 'branch' of Christianity you've chosen to highlight as enlightening and 'modern' (read: better) in this thread.
If it's time to counter traditional Christianity and the sophmoric theologians you are criticizing with your 'new religion,' then it seems time to add the link to your personal site. Let the chips fall where they may.
~
Bj wrote: "the American version of Christianity has changed from that historical teaching."
Wow - this could start a whole new discussion (especially relevant to i+d, if not TT's)! Even the license Steve uses to promote his views (counter to) of Christianity is a function of 'the American version of Christianity' in which Steve was likely raised (e.g. does anywhere other than the USA call a second-year college/university student a 'sophmore'?). Leo Tolstoy would be proud of Steve's appeal to diversity, though orthodoxy (being orthodox) was also not one of Tolstoy's strong points.
Comment by g arago — November 26, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
joy,
"For God so loved the world…".
Agreed. But again, "For God so loved the world…".
"…that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM MIGHT NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE". Do I need to point out to you, joy, the direct implication regarding those who do and will not believe in Jesus that this passage makes?
Please provide evidence that I have shown "little grasp of" the issue of "Eternity". And also point out the supposed "Biblical contradictions pertinent to that subject". It's quite easy to make claims, joy, but a bit more difficult to justify them.
There are absolutely no contradictions in my worldview, joy. Regardless, it is YOU who show an unfortunate willingness to ignore clear Biblical teachings in order to hold to your worldview, while attempting to claim at least a bit of Biblical support.
I "own" whatever knowledge I've claimed, joy. And I know for a fact that I understand more of what the Bible teaches and implies than do you. At the very least, my worldview does not directly contradict any clear Biblical teachings.
For the record, though, I want it noted that it was joy who engaged me in this "Biblical debate", for my post was not directed to her. And I want it noted that it was joy who initiated a kind of "attacking" mode, in essence attacking my views by insinuating I was claiming knowledge that I "don't have", and that I have been ignoring "contradictions" in my worldview, and that I've shown "little grasp of" the issue of Eternity. So, lest anyone distort the facts and think I was the one to start this, let this paragraph serve as a reminder of what actually took place. Thank you.
Comment by Douglas — November 26, 2006 @ 9:15 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
bj wrote:
bj,
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, the belief in hell is still widespread among both conservative Christians and the population at large. A 2004 Gallup poll shows that 70% of all Americans (not just conservative Christians) believe in hell, with only 17% saying they don't believe in hell, and 13% unsure.
Dawkins is right to be concerned about this.
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
No thanks, Douglas. Take it to a religion forum.
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Steve Petermann wrote:
But are they benevolent because they are religious? And would their benevolence cease if the superstitious elements of their beliefs were excised?
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Hi keiths,
I am not surprised at the Gallup poll, but the poll just measures belief. Your concern was about practice. You can answer a Gallup poll stating that you believe something and then not practice what you say you believe. That is a problem with polls. It is "religiously correct" to answer the hell question in the affirmative. My point or belief is that in practice, the doctrine of hell is underemphasized or ignored in a significant portion of conservative Christianity and virtually gone in liberal Christianity in America. It's just not there in practice. Much of conservative Christianity is a kind of fuzzy, warm, self-help, God-help kind of thing these days. I think that Douglas knows his stuff in describing the orthodox or conservative community and he describes the active practice regarding the doctrine of hell as having minority status. As I said earlier, I think that unbelievers have legitimate concerns regarding some religious practices these days. I just don't think the doctrine of hell is one of them.
Comment by bj — November 26, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Time once again for Joy to duck out - uninvolved. 'No one here but us one-dimensional scientists!' - as her story goes. Damn Darwin (and especially his followers), she swoons, but its got nothing to do with damnation!
Plati-tudes, atti-tudes. If only Joy was as willing to discuss religion and theology as she is to engage in politicking and criticizing.
Comment by g arago — November 26, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
bj,
Your reply doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be arguing that while 70% of Americans believe in hell, few of them are "practicing" this belief.
What do you mean by "practicing" Do you mean that these people are not teaching their children about hell, despite the fact that they themselves believe in it?
I find that very implausible. If you honestly thought your children were in danger of going to hell, wouldn't you warn them about it?
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Hi again Keiths,
You wrote
That's exactly what I am suggesting. There is an ambivalent attitute toward this doctrine no matter what people state in polls. And there is some sophistication among parents in deciding just what they are going to tell their children. Some if not many parents will talk to their children about Jesus, the need for forgiveness thru him because we are sinners, the presence of God as a helper everyday, and heaven in the afterlife. The doctrine of hell is deemphasized. The positives are emphasized. I know this might not seem logical or plausible, but it's happening. If your not there or just viewing it from a distance, you can miss these things. You may not accept this, but just put it in the back of your mind for future reference if needed. This gets into the area of each side making caricatures of each other.
Comment by bj — November 26, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
November 27th, 2006 at 1:37 am
g arago:
There are religious forums to argue (endlessly) the interpretational vagaries of religion, Gregory. This isn't one of them. Nor is what Douglas believes versus what I believe the subject of this blog. Though you can argue theology with Douglas for as long as Steve allows it if you wish.
As usual, Douglas is more than willing to expound upon his own brand of dogmatic purity in challenge to Steve's generalized headings, per the subject of whether or not the religious should meet the EAs on this next field of [their] chosen battle as a unified front to defend everyone's right *TO* believe, or as warring factions. The EAs are betting on warring factions.
I can think of some hell. Hitler's ovens qualify as a whole level by themselves as do the mass death of innocents in every generation in every age. Darfur is right up there these days. The killing fields are endless, the cruelty and depravity outstanding. Humanity is and has always been quite accustomed to it - why, our own government sanctions torture now. I'm sure the CIA has clever tools of the trade (Negroponte's a real pro), and the insurgent militias in Iraq have apparently been borrowing some of 'em.
Eventually the threat loses its punch.
Besides, this argument was hashed out on ARN interminably, and will be again. Christian theology is all over the map on this, and my personal view is entirely irrelevant. So is Douglas', and so is yours.
"It is unwise for a Christian to claim too much knowledge of the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell."
- Reinhold Niebuhr
Comment by Joy — November 27, 2006 @ 1:37 am
November 27th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Douglas:
I attended that same debate, Douglas. It was too bad that Craig was actually fairly ill that night. (I think he was running a 101 degree fever the whole time!). Otherwise, I think he would have been even more formidable than he was. Spong came across as arrogant, in my judgement.
Comment by DonaldM — November 27, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
November 27th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Steve:
I agree with you on this point. Besides, to refute Dawkins and those of his ilk (I love that word — sounds like a disease "yuck, he's got 'ilk!!") — one need only appeal to logic and reason — the very things that Dawkins claims give his arguments primacy. You'd think that someone who appeals so strongly to the efficacy of science and reason would be a bit more careful in crafting arguments and at least attempt to avoid commiting such simplistic fallacies!! Sophomoric is just the right word!
Comment by DonaldM — November 27, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
November 27th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
joy,
Then why in the world did you bring it up, joy? Couldn't resist a little "jab and retreat"
Comment by Douglas — November 27, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 2:36 am
DonaldM wrote:
Donald,
Could you point to some actual arguments made by Dawkins and explain why you find them simplistic and sophomoric?
I re-read your comments on this thread and couldn't find any specific examples.
Thanks,
Keith S.
Comment by keiths — November 28, 2006 @ 2:36 am
November 28th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Douglas:
Because you decided to take issue with Steve's portrayal of the depth of Christian theology by asserting your own and claiming exclusive personal knowledge of Absolute Truth. We already know what the Dawkins [et al.] version looks like, so that's not the subject of this blog.
Agreement with more liberal, non-literalist Christian theology is not required. Thus to argue exclusivity of your own theology is off topic and a distraction.
No, you don't. Literalists are famous for sentencing most of humanity (and a majority of their fellow Christians) to hell on a daily basis. Most of humanity doesn't believe there is such a place. Thus there are lots of people who are not impressed with the threat. I'm one of 'em.
I do not recall claiming biblical support for my worldview, though I've probably quoted a verse here and there. I quote Einstein, Pauli, Monty Python, Will Rogers, Bill the Clown and Yogi Berra occasionally too.
In case you missed it, this blog is not about you or your exclusive theology. It's about a lack of depth in the simplistic theologies of Dawkins, Harris, Myers, et al. and their strong tendency to overgeneralize their shallow stereotypes to all religious people.
Literalists and their evil twins account for no more than 20% of the human population, and that's being very generous because the world's most populous regions are strongly Hindu, Buddhist and animist amalgams. That means at least 80% of us are not frightened by the assertions coming from either side of that looking glass.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2006 @ 11:37 am
November 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Keiths:
Sure. I didn't just refer to Dawkins, but to him and Harris and others. Here's an example of what I mean. In The God Delusion (and even the title gives a clue about being sophomoric, imho) RD says that 'a universe superintended by a diety would look much differeint from that isn't" This claim comes on the heels of his proclaiming the power of science and scientific reasoning and that it trumps irrational faith, etc etc. And just prior he attempts to make the case that he sees no reason why God should not be an hypothesis like any other. In other words, he thinks God ought to be subject to the scientific method. LEaving all that aside, it is the claim I quoted above that needs considering. RD is the one who is effusive about the high road of reason and science. But, he offers not one whit of either to back up his claim that a universe superintiended by a diety would look much different from one that isn't.
How does he know that? Its mere assertion. He offers no reasearch studies that either he or anyone else has done to back that up. What makes this simplistic, in my opinioin, is that this is a breach of logic and reasoning that a first year logic student could see through. He wants to subject any and all religious presuppositions to scientific testing and reasoning, but apparently not his own philosophical presuppositions.
The sophmoric part is the over-all tone. He is clearly hostile to religion and religious ideas of any kind. But he basis his "analysis" on stereoptypes and half truths.
Harris does the same thing in both his books and interviews. For a good example, see this comment I made over at Teleological Blog.
Dawkins, Harris, et.al., set themselves up at the grand protectors and advocators of the high road of science and scientific reasoning. You'd think they'd be a bit more careful in applying the rules of sciencie and reason to ttheir own arguments.
Comment by DonaldM — November 28, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
keiths,
Since I first made this claim I'll comment as well. When I began seminary after an engineering profession my views were sophoric and simplistic as well. I was unaware of the vast diversity in theology and religion in general. It was only after studying the theology that was available in both Christianity and other religions that I was able to really understand and compare religious sentiment. Dawkins and Harris continually envoke conservative religious frameworks to support their views that religion is irrational and silly. In being so narrow either their understanding of religion at large is extremely limited (like beginning religion students) or they are ignoring the many rational and systematic theologies available.
It's not just me who has made that observation both Konner, Ruse and others at the Beyond Belief conference accuse them of the same thing.
In order make a valid criticism of religion they would have to look at the actual beliefs of a broad spectrum of believers and also the best theology that is available. They do neither.
Comment by Steve Petermann — November 28, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
joy,
Good.
I'm impressed. But I don't see where castigating Jesus as a "literalist" for making the statement I quoted amounts to advancing your position, joy.
Comment by Douglas — November 28, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
DonaldM,
Huh. I thought you seemed familiar. However, I had to sit in one of the "extra seating" arenas, and not in the actual auditorium where Dr. Spong and Dr. Craig debated. I had to watch the debate via a wide-screen projector type set-up.
Yes, Dr. Spong seemed arrogant, but rather unustifiably so, based on my impression of him in person. And, if I'd known Dr. Craig was ill, I'd have stood a bit further away from him when I met him after the debate. (I can see that his formidability that night, while I was in his presence, wasn't just due to his knowledge, intelligence, and career.)
Comment by Douglas — November 28, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Steve:
Excellent point Steve, and one I should have mentioned myself. To go just a tad further with this thought… it's bit like the back alley bully who lies in wait for the easy prey to come by, but carefully avoids an equal or greater foe. Then, they break their arms from patting themselves on the back for their cleverness and prowess! Can you imagine how a formal debate between Dawkins and, say, Alvin Plantinga would go?
As a side note, I've always thought that Dawkins's excuse for never debating an IDP was a bit lame. He claims he doesn't want to give them intellectual respectability by appearing on the same platform, let alone pretending there's anything to acutally discuss.
Comment by DonaldM — November 28, 2006 @ 7:30 pm