The Rev Klaas Hendrikse is a minister in the Dutch Protestant Church, and doesn't believe that God is a "thing" or a "being", but a word for human experience. While a lot of traditional believers will have some problems with this purely naturalistic view of Christianity, it strikes a major chord with the many Christians who have come to the realisation that God doesn't really exist in the sense we used to think.
Here is a BBC article on Rev Hendrikse and his church, while here is the Unitarian blogger @TimothyJMoore's take on the subject.
I suspect that there are many people within traditional "theist" congregations who share these views. Any thoughts?
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Letter to God
There is something heartwarming in this story from the Daily Telegraph in which a six year-old girl, being brought up in a secular household, although attending a church-affiliated school. The children in the school were asked to write a letter to God, asking "How did you get invented?" The little girl, Lulu, showed this to her parents; her dad emailed it to a number of church leaders, getting either no response or a pile of theobabble, but, bless him, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sent this reply:
Now I know I don't believe that there is a god, and nor do I indoctrinate my children either way - they will find out for themselves, and I'll answer their questions as best I can when they ask them. But for Archbishop Williams to write such a lovely non-in-your-face gentle letter gets him piles of credit in my view. There is no dogmatism there. There is no attempt to stifle the child's wonder or curiosity. There is of course a general assumption that god exists, but I don't expect the Archbishop to come from any other position.
So, Archbishop, thanks for this beautiful response; to me it demonstrates the meaning of a Christianity that people can engage with and use, whether or not they believe there is anyone there to actually write that letter. And well done Lulu!
Dear Lulu,
Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It’s a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –
‘Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected.
Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I’m really like.
But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!’
And then he’d send you lots of love and sign off.
I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.
+Archbishop Rowan
Now I know I don't believe that there is a god, and nor do I indoctrinate my children either way - they will find out for themselves, and I'll answer their questions as best I can when they ask them. But for Archbishop Williams to write such a lovely non-in-your-face gentle letter gets him piles of credit in my view. There is no dogmatism there. There is no attempt to stifle the child's wonder or curiosity. There is of course a general assumption that god exists, but I don't expect the Archbishop to come from any other position.
So, Archbishop, thanks for this beautiful response; to me it demonstrates the meaning of a Christianity that people can engage with and use, whether or not they believe there is anyone there to actually write that letter. And well done Lulu!
Anglican Atheism?
Interesting article from Nigel Farndale in the Telegraph back in March about being an Anglican Atheist. I don't know that I quite agree with everything he says there - much as I respect the Anglican tradition, and regard myself as an Atheistic Christian, all this pox about political correctness trying to stamp on Christians is really a load of old wet. Stop yapping, Archbishop! Grow some nuts. Whatever its history, the UK is a secular country, as it should be - you can't claim special privilege for one religion over another.
Where in the gospels is the verse: "Jesus whinged"? It's not there. Jesus NEVER yapped about feeling that his rights were being infringed; if we take an idealised version of the life of Jesus as a humanist hero (and let's set probable historical actualities gently to the side for a moment, because that's what we all do, theist or atheist), then Jesus stood up for people who were *really* being oppressed - the poor, the needy, the marginalised.
Yes, the wheels fell off the wagon pretty quickly after Jesus left the scene, but we have our model, and the scenes of whingeing archbishops and lamenting columnists are just a little bit embarrassing to those of us who like our Christianity real, meaningful and world-changing.
So, I delicately suggest, perhaps we should move away from this tedious moaning, and promote a Christianity that does not exclude people, be they Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Pagans or whatever. The Christianity of Jesus was about the here and now - the Kingdom of God is a metaphor for the establishment of a caring and altruistic society where we all take responsibility to help each other out, whatever their circumstances. Stop whitewashing the sepulchres, people. When you're dead, you're dead. The Kingdom of God is NOW.
And as an Atheist, I have no problem in saying that.
Any comments?
Where in the gospels is the verse: "Jesus whinged"? It's not there. Jesus NEVER yapped about feeling that his rights were being infringed; if we take an idealised version of the life of Jesus as a humanist hero (and let's set probable historical actualities gently to the side for a moment, because that's what we all do, theist or atheist), then Jesus stood up for people who were *really* being oppressed - the poor, the needy, the marginalised.
Yes, the wheels fell off the wagon pretty quickly after Jesus left the scene, but we have our model, and the scenes of whingeing archbishops and lamenting columnists are just a little bit embarrassing to those of us who like our Christianity real, meaningful and world-changing.
So, I delicately suggest, perhaps we should move away from this tedious moaning, and promote a Christianity that does not exclude people, be they Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Pagans or whatever. The Christianity of Jesus was about the here and now - the Kingdom of God is a metaphor for the establishment of a caring and altruistic society where we all take responsibility to help each other out, whatever their circumstances. Stop whitewashing the sepulchres, people. When you're dead, you're dead. The Kingdom of God is NOW.
And as an Atheist, I have no problem in saying that.
Any comments?
Clive James on Jesus
There is a lot of sense in the article, and I think I broadly agree. I also think it can serve as a useful touch-point for those of us who don't believe in gods, demons, angels or messiahs to engage with those who still do in a meaningful, educational and collaborative way. After all, the question of belief (to the unbeliever) is spectacularly less important than setting the basis for an ethical and mutually-beneficial society and global outlook. Indeed, if you look at the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels, you see a picture of a man opposed to religious dogmatism, antithetical to religious belief as the admission card to "The Kingdom". I've mentioned before that this is the somewhat lost meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan - belief is unimportant. It is how you interact with your fellow humans that counts, and your relationship with whatever metaphysics you find to your taste is your own business.
Where I would perhaps depart marginally from Clive is over the implication that this "Jesus the man" is necessarily cognate with "the historical Jesus" - we simply do not have enough evidence to judge, and to be realistic, there is every evidence that Jesus was a fairly observant Jew, and did of course believe in God. He was not just a teacher of ethics; he had a religious axe to grind too - and these are separate things. However, the important thing is that we have been left with a series of stories that we can use, expand upon, midrashise, fill out, crop, mix and match as we like (hey, that is what Christians have been doing for millennia!), and just because we atheists have realised that there is no God behind all this, that should not disqualify us from adopting it if we wish, and parsing it through our Christianity Compatibility Layer.
Jesus the Nazarene presents a rich narrative resource, backed up by centuries of infrastructural investment (much of it with a rather unattractive history, but we are where we are) and a wide cultural familiarity. If we are honest and open, there is no reason why Atheists cannot be Christians too. I suggest...
Atheists for Jesus
Any comments?
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com
This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."
I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.
Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.
The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.
But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com
This from Ken Schei:
"I will utilize information from the Bible, the writings of the original Jewish followers of Jesus, the Didache, the so-called "Q Document," and the insights of great minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Carl Sagan, to show how the original compassionate religion OF Jesus of Nazareth was distorted almost beyond recognition (by the "self-appointed" apostle, Paul, and his followers) into a "me-oriented" religion ABOUT Jesus the Christ (a caricature made up of bits of Jesus, that were combined with and corrupted by the addition of material from the mythologies of Dionysus, Mithras, and other Greco/Roman Deities). Moderate and Liberal Christians, who wish to actually honor the life and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, need to weed out and totally discard all of the misinformation that Paul, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have added to the original message of love and compassion that was at the heart of Jesus' teachings. Thomas Jefferson (who called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus") did most of the work for us already."
I'm reminded a bit about Richard Dawkins' statement that he is a Christian, albeit a "cultural Christian". Is there a distinction here? I think there perhaps is some difference between these positions and also between these positions and the scenario I'm sketching out with the CJCA. I have a great deal of sympathy for these other positions, but in Dawkins' case, Cultural Christianity is merely that - a cultural wrapping. This does have the advantage that it doesn't become seen as constricting, and since culture evolves, Cultural Christianity is free to evolve also.
Schei seems to present a "back to basics" view that Jesus really was (i.e. the historical Jesus) presenting us with something of value that has since become corrupted. I think where I might differ is that I think the real historical Jesus (insofar as we can say anything about him) seems to have made a lot of mistakes too, and it might be an error to regard him as authoritative. Besides, freethinkers tend to reject authority anyway - we're evidence junkies, and adherence to a "true teaching" will never satisfy. That said, finding out about the history of early Christianity really is a fascinating intellectual pursuit, and can teach us lessons for the future.
The CJCA approach is more to take what we've got right now, where we happen to be, and running with that. Trimming and polishing where necessary, bridging gaps as needed, and even frankly decrying some of the morally unacceptable facets of "Christianity". Effectively, religion forms a narrative. It can't be a strait-jacket, nor do we need to keep the same old rubbish once it is past its sell-by date.
But these views are (I think) not mutually incompatible - I find myself wandering between them (as well as outright anti-religion thinking!) frequently. As ever, dear reader, your thoughts are most welcome.
Atheist Ministers
John Loftus shared an interesting link over at Debunking Christianity on the topic of ministers who are atheists, yet find themselves in the position of leading a church.
Here is the actual link to the ABC News story. I think a lot of the regular readers here can empathise with "Jack" and "Adam" - certainly I do. And I'm not even sure that they are in the wrong job - perhaps they are very much in the right job, and if the Central Thesis of CJCA is correct, many of their congregation probably feel the same way.
Here is the actual link to the ABC News story. I think a lot of the regular readers here can empathise with "Jack" and "Adam" - certainly I do. And I'm not even sure that they are in the wrong job - perhaps they are very much in the right job, and if the Central Thesis of CJCA is correct, many of their congregation probably feel the same way.
Belief is dead; long live orientation!
It's not just Christians who don't believe in God any more - check out Rabbi Jeffrey Falick's intriguing blog: http://www.theatheistrabbi.com
The "orientation model" of religion appears to be growing; fewer and fewer people adhere to the "belief model" (OK, they are still a majority). Perhaps this is due to better education. Perhaps it is a consequence of people being exposed to other viewpoints, and realising that what they previously held as "truth" is really just a societal custom, open to change.
The "orientation model" of religion appears to be growing; fewer and fewer people adhere to the "belief model" (OK, they are still a majority). Perhaps this is due to better education. Perhaps it is a consequence of people being exposed to other viewpoints, and realising that what they previously held as "truth" is really just a societal custom, open to change.
Good cop or bad cop?
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! ;-)]
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?
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)