Well, it's a puzzler for sure. I'm an atheist; I regard myself as what Richard Dawkins might call a "Cultural Christian", but I sorta prefer the term "Christian Atheist". Personally I do not go to church, but I don't rip the head off people who do, and indeed that group would include a lot of my closest friends and family (theists and atheists alike). I recognise the historical legacy left by Christianity, even if the historical basis for the resurrection (that sine qua non of the whole shebang, according to a certain Saul Paulus) has been shown to be non-existent.
Deep down - or not even that deep - I do not feel that theism and a scientific outlook are compatible. I recognise that many scientists are theists, but that simply shows us that people can internally tolerate a disconnect, and that is hardly Big News. The reason for the incompatibility is not that science "disproves god" - I accept that it doesn't and indeed cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a goddy thing - it is much simpler than that.
Science cannot tolerate authority.
As a scientist, if the bible tells me that such-and-such happened at such-and-such a point in history, it may or may not be telling the truth, but the status of any such statement is that of a claim. These claims may or may not have supporting or contradictory evidence. I am in no position to accept them as true, and indeed I must (as a scientist) be at liberty to reject them if they conflict with the evidence.
Which is a problem for the Theistic Christian, because if we apply proper methods of historical analysis to the biblical claims, the scientific methodology behind archaeology, and the rational approach demanded by science, we find that events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection do not only not stack up, they are refuted by evidence from within the bible itself.
So how should we handle things when someone gets up in a pulpit or other public platform, and sounds off about some matter or other (such as homosexuality, for instance), using the bible as "authority", when ALL of us atheists, whether Christian or otherwise, REJECT that authority? Should we make an issue of it, and contradict the speaker, thereby causing tremulousness among those who demand "Christian unity", or should we simply accept it, smile benignly, let it pass, and privately internally pity the poor sap who is so deluded.
Good cop or bad cop?
I'll admit to playing both roles from time to time, but then I can afford to do so, since I don't have a church to be kicked out of. Any experiences anyone would like to share?
[Cartoon from Shelley the Republican. Make of that what you will! ;-)]
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI'm new around here, just found your blog. I'm surprised this post didn't generate more discussion - this topic seems to get a lot of attention elsewhere.
I don't really have an answer except maybe eternal, mindful vigilance. It's more than just a picking-yer-battles sort of thing. Phil Plait and Neil Degrasse-Tyson have some great advice on how to measure sensitivity into such conversations. There is a good Plait video on this other blog -- http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=4329
The authority question has been an important focus for me. A lot of people have gravitated towards the polarized debates - eg. God vs no-God, religion is evil vs religion is necessary. But the real social problem has always been the unquestionable authority. If we removed unquestionable authority from religion (and from a lot of other things, too) then these institutions would become benign forces for compassion and wonder once again. In my opinion.
Oh, and by the way, awesome idea for a blog and for a way to change the church. We definitely need more "compatibility layers" today.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, the reason no-one comments here is that I think I am preaching at an empty church. Now that might be because I'm alienating folks, and they're clearing off elsewhere, or it might be because very few people know about it. Spread the word :-)
ReplyDeleteI think you have identified the key reason why I am an atheist - I simply cannot accept authority as a good enough explanation for anything. The life of Jesus, the origins of the universe, the perambulations of the Hebrews - these are all far too interesting to be left to a book like the bible to be the final arbiter on. Even the origins of the bible itself, and our ideas about "God" - if we can't unpack all that, what use is it?
I really like your website - a lot of fun ideas there. The way I see it, if there *is* a god, he/she *wants* there to be atheists and agnostics , simply to challenge the silly ideas of some theists. To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Amen brother!
ReplyDeleteI think I know what you mean about the empty church syndrome. And alienating folks, too.
It's so good to hear that some people are finally getting my website, so thank you so much for that.
And hey, I'll let you be in my theology if I can be in yours! :-)
[I'm actually kind of serious about that. I'll definitely start spreading the word -- no capitals though, of course...]
Thanks - what I'm trying to do in CJCA is bend over backwards to turn no-man's land into a football pitch. I don't think atheists need to give up any of the key principles (well, the single key principle) to self-identify as Christians, to participate in Christian activities, and to help steer Christianity in a more thoughtful and rational direction. So is this purely passive? Heck no! I would like to see change.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the statement "Science cannot tolerate authority", see R Joseph Hoffman's recent article entitled One God: Is Monotheism the problem with Religion?
ReplyDelete