The God of Classical Theism vs Zeus?

Luke over at Common Sense Atheism has a post about whether there is a proof of the existence of the God of Classical Theism (hereinafter GOTC) that would *disprove* the existence of Zeus. He thinks that Zeus wouldn't have a look-in, but my point is that YHWH wouldn't have a look-in either, without the layers of theological reinterpretation that have been applied over the millennia.

Here's what I wrote:

Luke, your problem here is that this "God of classical theism" is actually incompatible with the god of (say) Genesis or Job. Classical theism presents a multiply worked-over god concept that in the Christian tradition has been superimposed on the biblical texts, but when we look at those texts without the "benefit" of millennia of interpretation and metaphorisation, there's no spitting distance between YHWH, Zeus, Amun-Re or even the FSM.

If the Greeks had bothered (and some evidently DID), they would have had no problem at all in identifying the GOCT as Zeus, and vice versa, just as Theistic Christians (as opposed to Atheistic Christians) have done, and just as could be done for Amun-Re (which would be really cool - I'd love to see Karnak re-open as a functional temple to Amun).

I would also argue, of course, that this means that Christianity doesn't actually require a god to exist for it to *work*, and the same may (arguably) be true for many other religions - we should encourage atheistic versions of them too (Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Islam, Hinduism, etc). God is like the gap under an arch - when you're standing atop it, you feel like there is something there, but the support is actually coming from elsewhere. And whichever arch you fancy, go for it.

A lot of Christian people know this already, but don't feel that they want to come "out" with it, for fear of upsetting their friends and family (in much the same way as you don't want to tell the kids about Santa, but let them work it out for themselves).

Any thoughts?

[Luke's blog, btw, is absolutely excellent, and a must-read for would-be philosophers of religion. He deserves to go far, and I predict you will be hearing a lot more of him in the future. Keep up the good work, Luke!]

Behold the mighty Sphinx!

Religion is a funny thing. Over 5000 years ago, long before Yahweh was invented, the people of Egypt developed a sophisticated (and oft-misunderstood) religious system that lasted far longer than Christianity, yet vanished without a trace.
Yes, elements of Egyptian religion became incorporated into the new religion of Christianity (the Trinity is one example; much of the Gnosticism that ended up making its way into *mainstream* Christianity is also traceable to concepts directly related to the old Egyptian religion), but by and large it was forgotten.

At Christmas time, let's celebrate what came before. Let's raise a toast to the Egyptians, and make our snow-sphinxes (weather permitting) with pride.

That old "God-shaped hole"

There is a popular theistic cliché that inside everyone there is a void - a "god-shaped hole".
The problem is: if you start out with a god-shaped hole, you end up with a hole-shaped god.

Christian Atheists grab this bull by the horns. We don't have a god-shaped hole. A god is like a piece of clothing; a style. We're not saying that Christianity is the Right Way - the Way, the Truth or the Life. It is simply the way we have chosen. Other atheists are Muslims, Jews and many others. Some are happy to remain within their religious tradition; others have grown beyond that.

Don't worry about a god-shaped hole. Typically what you really need are fulfilling human relationships and a direction to what you're doing with your life. Pay it forward. Don't be defined by what other people say you lack. Don't live by the hole.

What would Jesus do?

Turns out he would do whatever you think he would do. People create God in their own image - the Will of God turns out to be remarkably close to the Will of whoever thinks they're interpreting it. Which we have known all along of course. Here's more... http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/creating_god_in_ones_own_image.php

Secular Bible Scholarship

Debunking Christianity is one of my favourite blogs, run by the incomparable John Loftus. John has posted a call from himself, Hector Avalos, Jim Linville and Ken Pulliam for the establishment of a group to apply biblical scholarship from an explicitly non-religious perspective.

Yes, yes, I know the CJCA is trying to not rock the boat, but replace it plank-by-plank, while keeping it afloat (possibly a doomed enterprise, but who's to say it's not a fun experiment?), but this has got to be a good thing. Many Christian Atheists have come to their positions because they have studied the bible in considerable detail, and Christianity ultimately supports Atheism in the final analysis.

Of course, a corollary of what I'm saying is that Atheistic Judaism and Atheistic Islam etc. are perfectly valid positions to take, and people are developing atheistic compatibility layers for these religions too (possibly most advanced in Judaism - a fantastic model to follow in many respects). Atheistic Christianity is not exclusive - our atheism joins us to our colleagues in many other camps and disciplines. Keep it up, folks! Similar groupings for study of the Torah and Koran, anyone?

Christianity Compatibility Layer (CCL)

Perhaps it's time for a little glossary. Feel free to add items in the comments, and as time goes on I'll see if we can keep the list up to date.

God: A human conceptual creation; a notional creator of the universe, or creative principle, and the agent of human salvation from sin. In the CCL, "God" essentially maps to whatever general principle turns out to be behind the universe itself, as well as a cognitive tool for deflecting inappropriate feelings of guilt, or a concept to help us make it through difficult times. We may even "pray" to "God" and seek its "guidance", being aware that what we are really doing is making some use of our unconscious mind to resolve some of our problems. The human brain has evolved to be a funny thing. Thank "God" for that!

Jesus: A man who is said to have lived in the early first century of the common era. Known in his time as "Jesus the Nazarene", he was a Galilean preacher who initially followed the charismatic John the Baptist, but later seems to have set out on his own. After an act of violent disorder in the Temple, he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and this is where things get very odd. His body seems to have gone missing, and some of his followers suggested that he was risen from the dead, and was indeed the promised Messiah or Christ. There is zero evidence for this resurrection, and the stories that were told after his death are hopelessly contradictory. However, for the Christian Atheist, Jesus serves as an illustration or a secular parable - in that sense, the Jesus Christ of fiction can be as relevant as the real Jesus the Nazarene. The Christian Atheist has the advantage of being able to analyse the stories and reported sayings of Jesus, and recognise which are sensible, and which are a bit silly.

More later!

Oops! Accommodationism rears its ugly head

Oh dear - it seems that we have confused and upset some folks with this early effort. We have been accused of "accommodationism" - a kow-towing to the religious status quo; an equivalisation of our position of principled atheism with the position of simple theistic "faith". Perhaps some more explanation is in order.

There isn't a god. Jesus wasn't his son. He didn't rise from the dead - those are things that we can be pretty sure about. Yes, you can never be precisely 100% sure about anything, but most atheists feel they are on pretty solid ground there. So we're not relaxing that position any.

Nor are we seeking to open the sort of "debate" between the "two sides" (as if there were only two!) in the spirit of enquiry into the fundamental nature of existence. There are plenty of resources for that, and where we impinge on that arena, we are more than happy to let the big guys slug it out.

No - on this site we are atheists, and we're happy with that. I keep returning to the Windows vs Linux analogy - we are not wanting to install a theistic mental operating system. Many of us have tried that in the past, and it so totally hasn't worked. For reasons as to why that should be the case, you can check out some of the many excellent atheist web resources (let's plug DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY and COMMON SENSE ATHEISM at this point - they're great).

What we are trying to do is help people who have come to an atheistic understanding of the world, but remain (or indeed *want* to remain) within their churches, doing good, "witnessing" for some of the good values that you *do* find in Christianity (they're humans after all, and most humans aren't all that bad), and who do not want to feel hypocritical or that they are dissembling when they stand up and sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" or some such.

Hence the Christianity Compatibility Layer (CCL). A cognitive module for atheists, to allow them to participate and interact with their Christian friends and family, and to show that "becoming an atheist" need not mean losing your values, what you've worked for, your social circle, your charitable leanings, your joy in life, or EVEN (if you're this way inclined) your church. You can be a force for good, for rationality, for science, for knowledge, and you can show people a new way to interpret the world around them - one that is positive, progressive, liberal, and pays due heed to history, culture, tradition, and the art of the possible.

So, no accommodationism here - at least, not for ideologies. Accommodation for people, and an easy route from theism to atheism, with the option to continue to be a Christian.

The Good Samaritan

The parable of The Good Samaritan is one of the most well-known and well-loved of the stories attributed to Jesus. It appears in the Gospel of Luke (and only there, which is a pity, because it's a winner), chapter 10:25-37. Seen as central to Christian ethics, it is also a shining example of core humanist ethics that make no call on a god for validation.

Our poor assault victim lies by the roadside, and is passed by by the religiously observant priest and Levite. They weren't simply ignoring this unfortunate chap because they couldn't be bothered - their religion explicitly forbade them touching a wounded man. They were doing what their god had commanded them to do! This aspect is frequently glossed over.

When Jesus told this story, the barb would not have been lost on his hearers - this is an *antireligious* story. It tells of religion's ability to get between a person and their ethical responsibilities. Who holds people to account? God? No. People? Yes.

The Samaritan, unencumbered by religious nonsense, and acting on pure basic humanistic principles, helps the injured man, and demonstrates the real value of humanistic ethics. Jesus could not have put it plainer than this. He could have told the story about a good Muslim, a good homosexual, a good atheist - all of the above. It is just one episode that justifies non-believers claiming Jesus as a fellow-traveller along that hazardous road to Jericho.

Welcome!

Welcome to the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist.

Jesus Christ was an Atheist?? You may be shocked, but don't be. Stick with us, and we'll explain where this is going.

There is no question that the man, Jesus the Nazarene, believed in God. However, the notions that have been attached to this man (a human like all of us) are largely fictional, and overlain with multiple layers of theistic interpretation, that they combined many elements of Jewish and Greek religious thought into a new religion, Christianity, in the centuries following the death of Jesus.

Nowadays, a large percentage of people in "Christian" countries do not believe in God; they do not believe (obviously) that Jesus was the "Son of God" (or divine - the two terms are not interchangeable). They do not believe that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, or rose from the dead.

However, many people still do believe these things, and they have set up remarkable organisations called churches to promote their worldview, and to bring their message to the community. Oddly enough, many members of these churches are themselves atheists or agnostics, but enjoy the community life of the church, and like the people that they meet on a Sunday. Yet deep down many such people feel a little bit hypocritical for standing up and singing hymns, while under it all, they don't believe.

Sound familiar? The CJCA may well be for you.

Are we a church? No - not in the normal sense. We don't (often) meet up in real life, separately from the usual churches. Our goal is to develop a compatibility layer, enabling free-thinking people - atheists, agnostics, humanists - to engage with Theistic Christians and to participate fully in the life of churches in an ethical and responsible way, without having to short-circuit their brains into "believing" what they know to be untrue.

It turns out that there are many elements of Christianity that reflect deep areas of human ethics; many parables and events from the bible and Christian history, many characteristics of Jesus the Nazarene that can be adapted and adopted by those who do not believe in god, and used as narratives to illuminate and enhance the human condition.

In doing so, it is we who confer the honour "Christ" on Jesus the Nazarene, and use his story, acknowledging its shortcomings, as both a parable and a paradigm for our lives and our self-examination. Not in dogma. Not as a short-circuit to science or reason. Not as a set of "beliefs", but as a scaffold upon which to tell our own stories, and to build a better world for all - theist and atheist alike.

If this strikes a chord, why not join with us - comment on this post, and follow the blog! Part of what we will be trying to do is reinterpret the bible in an atheistic way - not to change it or deny its history, but to learn lessons, and reclaim Jesus the Nazarene as an icon for Freethought.