Some Christian apologists take the view that God is perfectly moral, and would never resort to the sort of evil that incorporates practices like slavery or genocide. The Old Testament fairly resounds with pretty horrible stuff, including the genocide of the Amalekites, including infants and small children. On other occasions we hear how everyone is to be killed except virgins of shaggable age (over 11 in the Ancient Near East), who can be taken as concubines. Such atrocities are committed with the express sanction and command of The Lord.
Now leaving aside the questionable historicity of many of these episodes, we're still left with a bit of a problem if we want to rescue God and Christianity from accusations of rather poor ethics. Theistic Apologist Paul Copan has written a book "Is God A Moral Monster?", and of course comes down on the point that no, God is very much not a moral monster, but is profoundly moral. The Amalekites deserved it, and anyway it wasn't as bad as all that. His points are refuted entirely (and laboriously) by the indefatigable Thomas Stark - quite a task!
But be that all as it may - how should Atheistic Christians respond to the horrible genocides, human trafficking, slavery and rape ordered by God? We can hardly make excuses for the behaviour, nor can we suggest with our modern ethical humanist heads on that this was anything other than appalling abuse. We are wiser now. We do have better ethical standards. But what can we do? How can we remain within the Christian tradition and condemn the god of our ancestors?
Well, there are a couple of points. First, it does have to be condemned. The God of the Old Testament (and indeed the New Testament) is indeed a "moral monster". The abstraction we created seems to be all too capable of getting out of control, and leading us into evil that we can somehow resolve into "good". The priest and the Levite walking past the injured man on the road to Jericho similarly can justify their actions based on their idea of divine command. But those options are not available to the Christian Atheist. We can't change the past, and we can't wash our hands of it either.
These episodes in our past and in our bibles serve to show what can happen if dogma is taken to be proscriptive. If we invest our energies in following divine or earthly authority, we are setting ourselves up to becoming moral monsters. We need to recognise the mistakes and evils of the past as mistakes and evils, and ensure that we really do practice the most important thing Jesus ever said: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Hello, we're Atheists. We come in peace. Prepare to surrender your Church.
 |
| Looks lovely. Let's take it. |
The reality is, of course, that secularists are really only doing the job that Jesus started. In the manner of prayer, Jesus (you can look this up in Matthew 6) was quite explicit - keep it private. Don't trumpet your religiosity. Keep your faith between you and your god, and love your neighbour as yourself, regardless of religion. That last bit is justified, for it is one of the core messages of that wonderful secular parable, the Good Samaritan.
Many Christians, of course, accept this, and it is something of an encouragement to those of us who are Atheistic Christians to see a degree of convergence - often from some of the more evangelical quarters. They know what it's like to be a Dissenter, kept on the outside by established modes and mores of officially-sanctioned religious display.
And then on the other hand we have the calls from respected atheists like Alain de Botton for us to recognise the deeply human needs that the churches have recognised and evolved to cater for - needs for nurturing, direction, inspiration, and even directive ethical guidance. De Botton feels we should incorporate these principles (including the medium of the Sermon) into secular life. He has written a brilliant book, and it's certainly thought-provoking, but is he trying to reinvent the wheel? How can atheists on the one hand decry the toxins of religion, and on the other seek to build a weird simulacrum of religion into our secular society? A conundrum.
Well, it's not a conundrum to Christian Atheists. Furthermore, I propose a Plan that can resolve both these thorny problems, and more besides. A Plan that seems daring and doomed to failure, but which, I would argue, is already well underway, and just needs a little push to take it over the line.
What is that Plan?
A full Atheist takeover of the Church of England. That's what.
Now I can hear the WTFs sounding out like the bells of Canterbury Cathedral, but think about it. We know there is no god - we don't have to fool anyone. What's more, we're quite explicit (at least in the CJCA) that we are seeking to remap a fine (and sometimes not-so-fine, but there are lessons there too) tradition to a modern understanding of science and ethics. We often feel that we are on the fringe, and many of us are trying to break away from churches. However, think about it. About 25% of Church of England clergy and about 15% of regular attendees are atheistic or agnostic anyway. And congregations are tiny - if a bunch of Christian Atheists turned up on a Sunday, we could easily make a majority. We could get those agnostic clergy to publicly identify as Atheistic Christians, and get the CJCA message out there.
I think (OK, I don't know) that enough people would embrace this concept - and the vision behind it - to effect a real demographic change within the pews of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, if not the world. Yes, I know the Anglican church is split up across our nations and outside the UK, but the same principle holds.
What then? Well, we could be very open about our atheological project. Theology would cease to be the study of the non-existent, and a more practical remapping exercise, such as we've been doing (minimally) here at CJCA. We can keep Christianity, and seek a way forward, but using the humanistic principles that seem, as far as we can tell, to be close to the teachings of a Jesus who is a historical "Christ", but who also made mistakes, and could be a bit of a dick when he chose to be. A Jesus that we can actually identify with more!
We need explicitly atheistic sermons (sensitively delivered) ringing out from the pulpits. We need ethical humanistic guidance illustrated with examples, good and bad, from our rich biblical sourcebook and other historical sources. We need scholars to examine the bible and other ancient texts with a proper academic attitude. We need commentators from an Atheistic Christian perspective to go on TV, on radio, on the Internet and elsewhere. We can voice Church support for science, tolerance, inter-faith dialogue (with "faith" being specified as a faith in essential humanity), political activism and societal and intenational ethics.
And we need an institution that will allow us to do that. I suggest that the Anglican Church looks nice. Why don't we simply take it over? All it needs is that teensy push.
I'm only joking a little bit.
Guest book review: “Walking Without God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney
[This is a new (but hopefully to-be-repeated) feature from CJCA - a guest book review. This review is from Simon Clare, the author of the marvellous blog "Faithless Eye". Simon has blogged his experiences as an atheist attending an Alpha Course, and you'll be surprised and enlightened by how he got on.]
“Walking
Without God - In Search of a Humanist Spirituality” by Ben Whitney
 |
| Ben Whitney |
Review by Simon Clare Tw: @FaithlessEye : http://lookthroughmyfaithlesseye.blogspot.com/
Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists” is receiving a lot of
well-deserved attention in the mainstream media as he is a very
well-known writer and the cogs of the publisher’s promotional
machine are whirring away. His book - or at least the headlines it
has spawned - has also come under the scrutiny of surprisingly
indignant atheists who resent the very idea that someone can be
secure in their atheism at the same time as recognising the fact that
many aspects of religion are worth reclaiming for humanity.
Perhaps
de Botton’s book is too big a step for such atheists. To get
someone to move from a position where they see all religions as
fundamentally evil to one where they can objectively recognise their
positive qualities is a little like asking somebody whose life has
been ruined by alcoholism to try to appreciate the marvellous
flavours of fine whiskeys - and marvellous they truly are.
I
would recommend “Walking Without God” as a stepping-stone between
militant atheism and a more absorbent humanism. Specifically I would
suggest that grumpy, die-hard atheists read it just before they start
“Religion for Atheists”. One of the unique things about this book
is that it is also my first choice recommendation to Christians who
might want to understand how it is possible for non-believers to have
a sense of morality. I used to recommend A.C. Grayling’s “The
Meaning of Things” but Ben Whitney’s book would be far more
effective.
In “Walking Without
God” former Baptist minister Ben Whitney manages to describe - in
brilliantly simple language - a completely humanist basis for his own
morality and ethics, set against a background of the Christianity
that he was brought up in. Without renouncing his past or dismissing
the views of believers, he shows that you can move seamlessly from
being a Christian to being a non-religious, good person.
This book is
self-published by Ben Whitney so does not have a vast marketing
infrastructure working in the background to promote it. Many critics
of de Botton’s book have benefited from the publicity associated
with it, they just link their blog with the right hashtag and
thousands of de Botton supporters or detractors flow to their
websites. Such opportunist critics deserve none of this exposure and
writers such as Whitney deserve it all. Books like “Walking Without
God” are rare and they have paved the way for de Botton’s work;
supplying us atheists who do not dismiss every aspect of the church
out of hand with literature to fuel and inspire us.
The
book consists of nine chapters; each one a response to one of the
psalms. When I first saw the list of chapters, I admit that I feared
I had been suckered into buying a Christian book that was
masquerading as humanist one. I was not used to seeing atheists
dallying this closely with the enemy - with scripture. However, my
fears were shown up as the petty prejudices they were within a few
pages, when Whitney assured me that he no longer believes in a
supernatural ‘God’. “It just does not make any sense to me.”
Whitney
writes with a secure, humble certainty that there is no God but does
not labour this point. He does not mince his words and says that the
idea of
“..salvation through Jesus to secure our eternal future, but
only for those who believe certain things about him, is particularly
impossible to believe.”
He
states clearly what he doesn’t believe without then making
inferences about the mental abilities of those who do believe such
things, which is what so often happens when atheists write about
their beliefs. Whitney demonstrates that there is simply no need to
do that.
One
of the refreshing characteristics of Whitney’s approach is that he
writes only of his own thoughts and conclusions. At no point does he
suggest that this is what we ought to think, or that the way he
thinks is the best way. He has no need to call attention to his own
authority on any matter either, as he is not trying to change the
reader’s mind. This is an essential part of why this book is such a
joy to read and to read again.
Whether a writer is
atheist or Christian, when they attempt to bring us around to their
way of thinking they can’t help but be coercive to some degree. Ben
Whitney simply lays his thoughts out in plain view and the reader is
free to take them or leave them, to agree or to disagree. The mind of
the reader is left to do its own thinking in its own way. In reading
this review, you will have noticed that I am trying to convince you
that my thoughts about this book are the right thoughts and that you
ought to have this opinion too. You may well resent this, and maybe
you should. My point is that there is a very subtle distinction
between a writer who is only writing about their own thoughts and a
writer who is also trying to influence the reader’s mind on some
level. Perhaps it was a reaction to having read a couple of
evangelical Christian books prior to reading this, but I really
appreciated someone talking to me without trying to subliminally
change my mind.
One of many fine
examples of Whitney’s ability to convey fundamental and powerful
concepts is in Chapter 7, where Whitney talks about the existence of
evil in the world and how it is often seen as an external force. In
typically straightforward language he mentions the idea of life being
a battle between the forces of good (God) and evil (the Devil) and
how this is the way the existence of evil in the world is
characterised by many. He then reminds us that this is not what the
bible says at all - the serpent was part of the creation too, so
whether you believe in God or not, evil is just part of reality. The
manifestation of evil, he says, is something that we are responsible
for. Blaming the devil for it or trying to hide from it will simply
not make it go away and neither will belief in God. Evil is happening
to real people right now and only us humans have the power to stop
it. God might be content with having set up a planet where evil
happens, but Whitney wants it to stop, here and now.
This
book is short and concise. You can read it all on a Saturday morning
if you like and I’d bet that for the rest of the day you would be a
slightly more excellent human being for having done so. You might
even be inspired to read the psalms, secure in the knowledge that
they won’t infect you with faith because you will know you can just
read them as critically as you would any other literature, free to
discard the silly bits, but free also to indulge fully in the parts
that resonate with your own perspective on the universe.
“Walking
With God” shows us what it actually looks like when humanity
outshines the religions it created.
-Simon Clare
-Simon Clare
More good stuff from Alain de Botton
It seems people are determined to either misunderstand or misrepresent Alain de Botton's latest offerings about religion, but I think that he's Alain de Spot-on. From the Christian Atheist (or Atheistic Christian) perspective, a lot of what he has to say makes eminent sense. In some ways secularism has abandoned moral engagement, and left the field wide open to religions. Religions have over the years managed to accrete a number of ways of dealing with the sorts of things that plague this species of sentient ape during daily life, and despite the underlying untruth of their dogmas and beliefs, there is a lot of good there. Perhaps we should throw out the baby Jesus, but keep the bathwater.
Here's the video: http://vimeo.com/35701336
Enjoy, and please leave a comment here and at the main Vimeo site. Your ideas about how to integrate this with Christian Atheism would be most welcome.
Here's the video: http://vimeo.com/35701336
Enjoy, and please leave a comment here and at the main Vimeo site. Your ideas about how to integrate this with Christian Atheism would be most welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)