I guestimate that 15-20% of Christians do not really believe that the resurrection happened, or that Jesus was really the son of God. At least 10% of regular churchgoers (who will describe themselves as Christians) do not believe in god at all - you are probably one of them if you're reading this.
Now comes news of a study by Dan Dennett and Linda LaScola, interviewing current preaching ministers who do not believe in god. There is a lot to consider there. However, the ministers concerned regarded themselves as the tip of a much larger iceberg.
If that iceberg would like to make acquaintance with the Titanic that is CJCA, come right ahead - feel free to comment away (but do read the study!)
This "Christ" thing...
The way I see it, Christian Atheism is an entirely valid position. I don't believe in any gods, and I don't believe that Jesus the Nazarene was even that special. He is, however, the focus of a rather remarkable phenomenon that crystallised out of the supersaturated religious solution of the Roman Empire. Now, whether we accept that the "Impostle Paul" (Saul of Tarsus) made the most of this up or not, we are left with this concept of a "Christ" which has become attached to the story of a Galilean teacher in 1st Century CE Palestine. Jesus, in many ways, can be viewed as a retrospective Christ, not crowned by God, but by us.
And we're not even exclusive. A Christian Atheist won't say that Jesus is The Way (even if Jesus himself did say that, which is questionable). He's not even *A* way as such, because there isn't really any need for a way in the first place. What the Christian Atheist does (in my view) is simply adopt Christianity and the person of Jesus as a ready-made set of tools by which to explore human relationships. Some aspects of the stories of Jesus can be made to handle this better than others of course, but it is a fair enough start. Other religions have developed similar parable-packs, and there is even no real need to go to religion to get them - it is perfectly possible to either address the issues directly, or with entirely secular approaches that do not draw on religious metaphor.
So why choose Christianity as an atheist sandbox?
I think it's because a lot of the groundwork has already been done. A lot of entirely humanistic and atheistic ideas have already been incorporated fully into Christianity. There is also the huge infrastructure of Christianity - surely we can tap into that rich vein?
Of course, this approach is not without its difficulties. Some standard Christian hymns and bible stories are frankly silly, or even a little offensive to atheistic views. Can we maintain the heritage of Christianity, warts and all, yet still move forward with what is, essentially, the inescapable logical conclusion of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?
And we're not even exclusive. A Christian Atheist won't say that Jesus is The Way (even if Jesus himself did say that, which is questionable). He's not even *A* way as such, because there isn't really any need for a way in the first place. What the Christian Atheist does (in my view) is simply adopt Christianity and the person of Jesus as a ready-made set of tools by which to explore human relationships. Some aspects of the stories of Jesus can be made to handle this better than others of course, but it is a fair enough start. Other religions have developed similar parable-packs, and there is even no real need to go to religion to get them - it is perfectly possible to either address the issues directly, or with entirely secular approaches that do not draw on religious metaphor.
So why choose Christianity as an atheist sandbox?
I think it's because a lot of the groundwork has already been done. A lot of entirely humanistic and atheistic ideas have already been incorporated fully into Christianity. There is also the huge infrastructure of Christianity - surely we can tap into that rich vein?
Of course, this approach is not without its difficulties. Some standard Christian hymns and bible stories are frankly silly, or even a little offensive to atheistic views. Can we maintain the heritage of Christianity, warts and all, yet still move forward with what is, essentially, the inescapable logical conclusion of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)