I wish I could say I enjoy the ideological insulation of the yes men echo chamber that I’ve painstakingly assembled, but I don’t. You jerks still disagree with me--but that’s a good thing. The marketplace of ideas shouldn’t be one-stop shopping. For this reason, I’m shocking your system this week with a shot of Christianity courtesy of the last apologetic blogger I enjoy. Let me tell ya, I disagree with nearly everything this guy says, but I like how he says it. The Apologetic Professor is well spoken, seemingly sane, and has made me laugh on more than one occasion. I hope you don’t thoughtlessly dismiss what he has to say. Thoughtful dismissals only.
If you want more of me, the Apologetic Professor is posting the longest piece I’ve ever written on his site. Please comment here, there, everywhere and check back for our follow-up posts in which we will show that we’re in complete agreement on everything...I said sarcastically.
Do Not Wait on God
An atheist once gave the following advice about belief in God: “Wait and see. Or wait and don’t see.” The implication is that if you wait around long enough, you will finally decide that God does not exist…because He doesn’t. You cannot see a ghost.
It may surprise you, but there is a sense in which I completely agree with our unnamed atheist. Namely: I believe that if you wait around passively about the question of God, that you will likely not ever see Him.
You see, Jesus did not say “wait and you will find.” He said “seek and you will find.” Jesus openly encouraged you to explore the truth with an open mind.
Seeking is active; waiting is passive. If you just sit around on your hands, without ever truly exploring whether God actually exists with an open mind, you will be like someone who never sees Italy because you waited around in Montana.
Now, if you are the thinking person that I take you to be, you may reasonably say: Well, shoot, Mr. Christian-Pants (ok, please don’t call me that), God is God, right? I mean, if there is a God, why doesn’t He come to me? It’s all well and good to talk about not seeing Italy. But I have no reason to believe that Italy would come to me. Yet, I do wonder why the omnipotent Creator of the universe would make me seek Him to find Him? Shouldn’t I see Him anyway?
My answer to that perfectly reasonable question: I don’t know either. I could speculate (and indeed I have speculated about this question a bit on my blog). But the truth is: I did not design the universe. I certainly would not have allowed mosquitoes (or Michael Bolton or the Dallas Cowboys or 98 degree weather on Christmas day) if I had. I am not trying to claim I fully understand why the universe is what it is, exactly – though, as you’ll see, I think Christianity offers the best explanation that I know of. I am only trying to tell you that, until you have actively sought the truth about God with an open mind – and have not given up the pursuit until the day you die – you have not really followed the advice of Christ, and therefore should be cautious in claiming that it is invalid. I myself spent 4 years in a fuzzy state of half-Christian agnosticism – sometimes believing, always wondering – with apparent silence from Heaven before I became convinced of God’s existence. But during that time, I actively sought God. Granted, I sought God sporadically, imperfectly, stupidly…but I sought Him nonetheless.
So all I am asking of you is what I believe God is asking of you at this moment – I mean, this very
moment, the moment you are reading this, right now – and that is to honestly consider, with an open
mind, the legitimate possibility that He exists. With an open mind, I said. Not with the prejudice that
many of you have no doubt acquired. Maybe you’ve met religious hypocrites; well, I’ve met them, too. Many days, I no doubt am one of them. But stop thinking about them. They are irrelevant. Only the truth matters. If I’m right, then one day you will be standing, you alone, naked before the Creator of the universe…and you will have to answer for your life. The many dumb and mean hypocrites you and I have encountered will not be an excuse, in that moment, for our own choices. And deciding to simply close your mind to the possibility of the miraculous is a choice.
Now, it is in the spirit of open inquiry that I present three things for you to think about below. I do not present these as arguments designed to convince you of God’s existence. (If you read my blog, you will know that I do not believe there is such an argument). That would be ridiculous. Rather, I present these as things for you to ponder, openly and honestly, in the beginning or middle of an intellectual pursuit. Being in academia as I am, I have met many atheists, and indeed many of them I count among my best friends (ok, did I really just say that? Well, it’s true anyway). And many of them are open-minded, wonderful folk – and I have more in common with a seeking atheist than with some of the people that go to my church. I respect that kind of atheist. I am quite sure that many of my atheist friends will get into Heaven before I will. But I suspect that some of you have simply closed your mind to the issue because you have believed a lot of essentially myth-like statements about Christianity, or have never honestly challenged yourself to think hard about why people might actually reasonably believe in God. Maybe you are saying to God: OK, I’ll wait around and see, if you do something incredible, sure, I’ll believe then. But you aren’t seeking God like you mean it.
So I present these as food for thought – things to ponder as you decide the plausibility of God’s
existence or what Christianity is actually like. Many of these are issues I have elaborated upon in my own blog.
1. Religion is built into us. Let’s start with one of the few things that atheists and theists seem to agree on: People have religious instincts. Indeed, modern research (by atheists) in my own field suggests that people are, without higher-order thinking, by nature religious. Some other neuropsychology work with FMRIs suggests that religion is literally built into our brain. Other work in developmental psychology suggests that children, even children from secular homes, have something like an intuitive theism. Yet more work studying atheists suggests that most of them go through a kind of “religious” phase.
Now, I really don’t care about this research, because I find it unnecessary – it is obvious to me that people are primed in some form to believe in the supernatural. That’s kind of our unthinking default. We wanted Santa Claus to be real as children, whether we believed in him or not. The real question is: Is this some kind of primitive system that evolved by chance and does not correspond to anything real, or does it reflect some reality of religious truth? Does this intuitive system need to be overridden (as some claim) by higher-order processes, as when we cease to believe in Santa, or does it simply need to be understood by them and integrated into them? Is our religious instinct like our hunger instinct – does it exist because there is a real food to satisfy it? Or is it like our instinct that the sun moves around the earth – when in fact the opposite is true?
Well, I think both theories are plausible – both can account for the way we are. But that means that the theist theory is in fact plausible. That’s my point. I find many of the atheist arguments against what I believe intellectually as strange as you no doubt find many Christian arguments. Not because they are always bad, but because they are obviously false when stated as absolute proofs. I think probabilistically. Probabilistically speaking, I see no reason up front to choose between these two theories, if we are trying to explain why we have a religious instinct. Thus, contrary to what a lot of high-brow academics seem to think, theism certainly is a plausible theory of why our religious instinct exists. Indeed, it is clearly the straightforward, front-door answer to the question; much like a straightforward answer to the question of why we have hunger is because there is such a thing as food. That doesn’t make it true; but it ought to at least make blithe, unthinking dismissals of it the intellectually vapid things that they actually are.
2. Theism provides a more coherent view of morality than atheism. If you are an atheist, you are faced with the following intellectual problem that I, as a theist, do not have: Namely, you believe in a universe that has absolutely no moral will. Materialist atheism assumes that we are all atoms…and nothing but atoms. That universe cannot have a moral will. A chance physical process cannot, by definition, exist in order to produce morality. The materialist must assume that I have a moral will for the same set of reasons that I have blue eyes or a love of the Indigo Girls, or that the sky appears blue or rocks are solid substances – they are the result of a long chain of purely physical events guided by physical laws or chance or what-have-you. I presume none of you believe that, at the Big Bang (or whatever), the atoms there assembled in the way they did so that someday they could produce the thought I should not kill my neighbor for fun inside my head. Such a thought exists because of chance physical processes. And if those chance physical processes had happened to produce the thought killing for fun is cool in all our heads, then that’s what we’d believe, and that’s what morality would be…because there is no actual morality.
Indeed, that much is elementary – and certain. The atheist universe isn’t an immoral universe, as some have claimed. It’s an amoral universe. Morality isn’t bad in the atheist universe; morality doesn’t exist in the atheist universe. (Philosophically speaking, I mean – atheists themselves are typically highly moral people – indeed, that’s the reason for the dilemma. More on that in a second). Morality has no meaning in that world.
Now that would all be well and good, except for the other fact: Pretty much every atheist I know actually believes in morality (including all of the “new” atheists, e.g., Dawkins, Harris, etc.). And they don’t just believe in it in a “well, that’s nice” kind of way; they don’t believe that it’s wrong to kill people for fun is just a chance-y neuronal deal and they’d be fine if it had turned out the other way around. No; they really believe in it – like it matters that it turned out this way. In fact, they believe in it so much that they often use moral arguments against theism, as a reason to get rid of it.
But the atheist philosophy is not at all a comfortable fit with this practical atheistic moralism. Atheism actually provides no real reason to suppose morality has any meaning. It’s like trying to build a science without believing in the scientific method.
Well, my philosophy does not have this intellectual incoherence. My philosophy says that God built morality into the fabric of the universe; that the moral law that exists in my head to avoid killing my neighbor for fun exists because, well, it really is actually bad to kill my neighbor for fun. This intellectual coherence does not make my beliefs true – and Christianity has its own intellectual difficulties, to be sure – but I am not trying to provide a proof, only to open a door for sound thinking. Atheism may digest some facts about the universe more easily than Christianity; but this is not one of them. And the thinking person should consider all sides of the facts when deciding on the possibility of a theory being true or not.
3. Christianity is a highly intellectual enterprise. One of the most curious things about much of the modern atheist attack on Christianity is its bold assertions of how stupid and unintellectual we all are. These sorts of things make me laugh, not just because I am an academic whose research has been featured in USA Today and the Washington Post...and who has been interviewed on BBC Radio and NPR…but also because they are so historically and comically indefensible. I gave a whole talk on this topic which the curious can access on my blog, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it in this already-too-long blog post. I will limit myself here to saying that (a) even secular historians credit Christianity with creating the very icon of intellectualism, the modern university system, (b) a large number of intellectual disciplines (e.g., chemistry, a lot of mathematics, genetics, existential philosophy) were founded (and understood by everyone to be founded) by Christians, (c) Christianity has spread literacy and education pretty much everywhere it has ever taken root, and (d) contrary to the idea that “faith” is unintellectual, all thinking people recognize that some elements of their most cherished beliefs require faith in something unseen that cannot be directly proven. (The primary difference between thinking and unthinking people is the thinking person recognizes their untestable assumptions and can defend them; the unthinking person is simply unaware of them).
All of this to say: Some of you may have the idea that you are smarter than Christians because you are atheists…as if that is enough. But that’s just a stereotype (one of the things I’ve studied in my career) – a stereotype with little basis in reality. Christians are a highly intellectual group as a whole, historically-speaking. It’s tough to argue that Christians are opposed to intellectualism when we created so many intellectual disciplines, and indeed created many of the very mechanisms by which intellectualism itself grows and advances (the university and the scientific method, to name a couple).
Now, I partially blame this rather bizarre view of Christianity on Pat Robertson and some truly anti-intellectual elements of the modern North American church…so don’t think I’m blaming you. There’s plenty of blame to go around here. Nor am I saying that I’m smarter than you because I’m a Christian. That would be ridiculous. Atheists as a group also have much to be proud of in terms of their intellectual contribution to the world’s body of knowledge – for example, a disproportionate number of Nobel Prize winners are atheists. This isn’t in any way intended to denigrate atheists…only to remove what I believe is a completely indefensible view – a view that in my experience, many atheists hide behind without facing the real intellectual issues head-on – a view that suggests Christians are just stupid, so why bother with them? Well, we aren’t stupid at all; having faith is not stupid; and there’s an end to that.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
An Interview with Thom Burkett
The following is an interview with Thom Burkett of A Hopeful Hero's View.
Since a requirement for priesthood is celibacy, atheists often think those who would choose to enter the clergy are less into women than the average population. In your experience, did you find that your fellow priests struggled with their abstinence? Could the prohibition of healthy sexual relationships be a contributing factor into the Church’s history of sex crimes and scandal?
Sexual orientation is certainly a controversial topic regarding a seminarian’s choice to be celibate or abstain. While I do believe based on my experience that many young men entering the seminary, at least whilst I attended were gay, I do not believe it was because of their sexual orientation they choose to be celibate. Rather celibacy, based on theological teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin/immoral, is an option in the Christian life. In fact Bishops have called for homosexuals to engage in abstaining from sexual activity as a way to continue to live a moral life within the catholic/Christian context of their community.
I did find that many priests struggled with celibacy and abstinence, but I would not say it was the majority. In fact I experienced that most priests are able to be celibate and abstain from sexual or intimate relationships. I think that seminarians – those studying to be priests – struggle with celibacy more than a parish priest. Partly because it is so new/foreign and partly because these young men are living in close quarters together and the temptation may be for some, overwhelming. However, I think that by the time these men are ordained priests (usually after 9 years of seminary) they are more capable of maintaining celibate lives. Though obviously not all the time, I included.
From psychological studies done, for example http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus, celibacy and in fact sexual abuse are NOT more prevalent among catholic priests or the catholic clergy. What is more disturbing is the hierarchy of the Church covering up abuse and moving sexual predators from one parish to another with no with regard for the safety of the children involved. I have observed that the scandal of “predatory priests” is more sensational and therefore finds more press than sexual scandals say among family members, teachers, or other professions (doctors, etc.).
The phrasing of the question itself, “healthy sexual relationships” implies those celibacy/abstinence are not healthy sexual practices. I would disagree, and remind readers that in fact many people are celibate, and not always for religious or faith based reasons. Being celibate/abstaining from sexual activity can be fruitful/healthy lifestyle choices, but they would need to be practiced by persons fully aware of their own sexual appetite and desires. Appropriate ways to reassign sexual urges in healthy activities would need to be discovered and practiced. All in all, celibacy/abstaining from sexual activity aren't bad – I believe it is in the context the Church applies them and the lack of providing seminarians and priests with the context for how to successfully live a celibate life that create issues and infidelity to celibacy and theological teachings of the context of celibacy in an active minister’s life.
How does the hierarchy of the Catholic Church compare to military chain of command? From an outsider, it seems like the authority of the Pope is nearly absolute. To what degree could you, as a priest, influence the higher-ups? To what degree did you have to follow your superiors?
The Church is indeed hierarchical; however I wouldn't compare it to a military structure. It’s more of a medieval feudal system. The pope while having some absolute authority only has it in matters that are solemn papal declarations (ex-cathedra). The doctrine and theological teachings of the church do not hold that the pope is infallible on all matters, and there are many instances of papal declarations made that have been reversed. It is extraordinarily rare that a pope make an infallible declaration in the manner required by their own theological institution. My experience of practical living as a priest was most certainly in a “hierarchical chain” – however I had complete autonomy regarding preaching, teaching, day to day operations of my parish and church. In larger context, disagreement with Church doctrine/theology would result in corrective action and would be met with swift retaliation and discipline. My influence as a priest of higher ups was nominal to non-existent.
As a priest you heard the confessions of members of your congregation. (As much as I'd like to ask what about the most outrageous confession you ever heard, I won't.) Do you feel the admission of guilt helped these people in anyway? Do you feel it helped you when you went to confession?
I think the practice of confession can be reconciliatory for some people who may be struggling with issues of morality or guilt from something that they have done/did to another person. However, my usual experience of confession was it was extraordinarily routine – for example, “I was angry at my husband”, “I lied to my wife”, “I stole a grape at the grocery store”, “I had impure thoughts.” I never personally enjoyed the experience of confession and felt it was an unnatural way to resolve issues of moral conflict in a theological context. Confession to a priest is a construct for believers to confess to the priest acting “in persona Christi”, as well as acting as a representative of the human family. It was a way to say “sorry” without taking accountability to the persons/person that wrong may have been inflicted upon. Often most of the “sins” confessed were day to day normal human emotions, anger, lust, greed, pettiness, and most people confessed such trivial things that it was a fruitless endeavor.
Is there a specific doctrine of the Church you found especially hard to accept? Did you feel pressure to preach on topics that you didn't believe were true?
Abortion was especially difficult. I do not oppose the legal right of woman to control their own bodies, and the absolute teaching of the church regarding abortion was impossible for me to accept. I also absolutely disagreed with the church on its stance regarding homosexual activity and gay rights (they still qualify homosexuality as a moral wrong). I disagreed with the church’s stance regarding woman and their role in the church (no woman priests for instance). I refused to preach or discuss these topics with my congregation.
Leaving a religion usually means leaving a primary social group. This must be doubly so for a man of the cloth. Did you experience difficulty maintaining friendships or finding new ones after leaving your church? Do you have any advice for others facing this problem?
I lost every friend I had as a priest and literally haven’t heard from a single person I knew as a priest, including a few who were my best friends. Additionally leaving the priesthood cost me relationships with most of my family and I maintain relationships only with my parents (I have two brothers and two sisters whom I have lost most contact with). I had no issue making new friends after ministry and discovered very quickly a close group of friends (all of whom are atheists) that have been my friends for nearly 15 years. My advice – make friends based on common interests, music, arts, sports, food drink. Get out, explore the world. There are almost 8 billion people here; there are other like-minded folks who don’t define themselves by their theological beliefs.
Have you found yourself taking up other more atheist-typical viewpoints since dropping Christianity? For example, are you more socially or fiscally liberal today? Why do you think certain values that aren't necessarily linked to belief or disbelief tend to fall in line with theists or atheists?
I am most certainly more liberal since leaving the church. The biggest difference now though is my lack of desire to ask others to conform to my way of thinking. I am an atypical atheist in that I hold no malice towards theists, nor do I describe their belief systems as inferior or wrong. I know from my own experience there is no divinity, god, spiritual being in charge or interacting with humanity, space or time. We are the result of a chaotic but glorious happenstance in the universe, a perfect collision of atoms and matter and anti-matter that resulted in life as we know it. The only divine force is that of the universe itself, the laws of physics and nature.
I believe humans are genetically basically the same and our evolutionary journey has been such that many of the same “beliefs” exist from place to place, practice to practice. On a very base view, humans are only able to survive because we are “pack” animals. Our evolution of culture and society are the reason we are the dominate species on earth, without these, individuals humans would not exist, we have neither the physical strength nor instincts to do so. Much like a solitary ant or bee, our success is gained by our hive. A point of this evolutionary growth is the practice of religion, much of that religious experience evolved as a way of understanding a universe so as to hold it in context for greater growth. The soaring cathedrals of Europe helped us develop and grow cities, language evolved as a way to preserve theological thought, science math all have roots in theological and religious context. Yet as we evolve our understanding of “divinity” has evolved and I see atheists as the next step of that evolution. We no longer need mythology to justify humanism, our own desire to grow as species naturally evolves from the need to support and tend to each other in a consistent respectful way. Our very nature dictates this, no moral code assigned by a theological system is necessary. There is no evidence of the divine, yet evidence is overwhelming for evolution, big bang, natural law and physics. I think theists cling to their beliefs because it makes a very complicated universe, which is inconceivable, a concept they can grasp. Think of it, when you look into the night sky there is no end to that which you see, yet because we are finite in mortality, our brains cannot truly grasp the infinite, and thus to make it understandable some folks turn to theology/theism, and that way when the look at the infinite sky they can define it in a finite way as part of a “god’s” plan. Thus their brain is capable of understanding that which truly is not understandable. I can acknowledge as an atheist that the universe is bigger than my understanding – and that is perfectly okay.
What do you see as the most beneficial aspect of religion? The most harmful?
The benefit of religion – its ability to move people to do good to one another, to care for, and tend to each other’s needs. The most harm? Religion’s exclusion of the possibility that they might be wrong about their belief is absolutely harmful. They are so afraid of being wrong they cannot admit it, and thus is born fundamentalism and from that so too hatred. Religion tends to be absolute, rigid – in most if not all theological systems, belief in god is fundamental.
Even as an atheist I’m not afraid to acknowledge I might be wrong about the universe – but so far everything about the world I experience has proven me right - in ways that are measurable by others outside of my own experience. Faith, religion cannot make that claim (why are there so many examples of divine in the world and its history).
Since a requirement for priesthood is celibacy, atheists often think those who would choose to enter the clergy are less into women than the average population. In your experience, did you find that your fellow priests struggled with their abstinence? Could the prohibition of healthy sexual relationships be a contributing factor into the Church’s history of sex crimes and scandal?
Sexual orientation is certainly a controversial topic regarding a seminarian’s choice to be celibate or abstain. While I do believe based on my experience that many young men entering the seminary, at least whilst I attended were gay, I do not believe it was because of their sexual orientation they choose to be celibate. Rather celibacy, based on theological teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin/immoral, is an option in the Christian life. In fact Bishops have called for homosexuals to engage in abstaining from sexual activity as a way to continue to live a moral life within the catholic/Christian context of their community.
I did find that many priests struggled with celibacy and abstinence, but I would not say it was the majority. In fact I experienced that most priests are able to be celibate and abstain from sexual or intimate relationships. I think that seminarians – those studying to be priests – struggle with celibacy more than a parish priest. Partly because it is so new/foreign and partly because these young men are living in close quarters together and the temptation may be for some, overwhelming. However, I think that by the time these men are ordained priests (usually after 9 years of seminary) they are more capable of maintaining celibate lives. Though obviously not all the time, I included.
From psychological studies done, for example http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus, celibacy and in fact sexual abuse are NOT more prevalent among catholic priests or the catholic clergy. What is more disturbing is the hierarchy of the Church covering up abuse and moving sexual predators from one parish to another with no with regard for the safety of the children involved. I have observed that the scandal of “predatory priests” is more sensational and therefore finds more press than sexual scandals say among family members, teachers, or other professions (doctors, etc.).
The phrasing of the question itself, “healthy sexual relationships” implies those celibacy/abstinence are not healthy sexual practices. I would disagree, and remind readers that in fact many people are celibate, and not always for religious or faith based reasons. Being celibate/abstaining from sexual activity can be fruitful/healthy lifestyle choices, but they would need to be practiced by persons fully aware of their own sexual appetite and desires. Appropriate ways to reassign sexual urges in healthy activities would need to be discovered and practiced. All in all, celibacy/abstaining from sexual activity aren't bad – I believe it is in the context the Church applies them and the lack of providing seminarians and priests with the context for how to successfully live a celibate life that create issues and infidelity to celibacy and theological teachings of the context of celibacy in an active minister’s life.
How does the hierarchy of the Catholic Church compare to military chain of command? From an outsider, it seems like the authority of the Pope is nearly absolute. To what degree could you, as a priest, influence the higher-ups? To what degree did you have to follow your superiors?
The Church is indeed hierarchical; however I wouldn't compare it to a military structure. It’s more of a medieval feudal system. The pope while having some absolute authority only has it in matters that are solemn papal declarations (ex-cathedra). The doctrine and theological teachings of the church do not hold that the pope is infallible on all matters, and there are many instances of papal declarations made that have been reversed. It is extraordinarily rare that a pope make an infallible declaration in the manner required by their own theological institution. My experience of practical living as a priest was most certainly in a “hierarchical chain” – however I had complete autonomy regarding preaching, teaching, day to day operations of my parish and church. In larger context, disagreement with Church doctrine/theology would result in corrective action and would be met with swift retaliation and discipline. My influence as a priest of higher ups was nominal to non-existent.
As a priest you heard the confessions of members of your congregation. (As much as I'd like to ask what about the most outrageous confession you ever heard, I won't.) Do you feel the admission of guilt helped these people in anyway? Do you feel it helped you when you went to confession?
I think the practice of confession can be reconciliatory for some people who may be struggling with issues of morality or guilt from something that they have done/did to another person. However, my usual experience of confession was it was extraordinarily routine – for example, “I was angry at my husband”, “I lied to my wife”, “I stole a grape at the grocery store”, “I had impure thoughts.” I never personally enjoyed the experience of confession and felt it was an unnatural way to resolve issues of moral conflict in a theological context. Confession to a priest is a construct for believers to confess to the priest acting “in persona Christi”, as well as acting as a representative of the human family. It was a way to say “sorry” without taking accountability to the persons/person that wrong may have been inflicted upon. Often most of the “sins” confessed were day to day normal human emotions, anger, lust, greed, pettiness, and most people confessed such trivial things that it was a fruitless endeavor.
Is there a specific doctrine of the Church you found especially hard to accept? Did you feel pressure to preach on topics that you didn't believe were true?
Abortion was especially difficult. I do not oppose the legal right of woman to control their own bodies, and the absolute teaching of the church regarding abortion was impossible for me to accept. I also absolutely disagreed with the church on its stance regarding homosexual activity and gay rights (they still qualify homosexuality as a moral wrong). I disagreed with the church’s stance regarding woman and their role in the church (no woman priests for instance). I refused to preach or discuss these topics with my congregation.
Leaving a religion usually means leaving a primary social group. This must be doubly so for a man of the cloth. Did you experience difficulty maintaining friendships or finding new ones after leaving your church? Do you have any advice for others facing this problem?
I lost every friend I had as a priest and literally haven’t heard from a single person I knew as a priest, including a few who were my best friends. Additionally leaving the priesthood cost me relationships with most of my family and I maintain relationships only with my parents (I have two brothers and two sisters whom I have lost most contact with). I had no issue making new friends after ministry and discovered very quickly a close group of friends (all of whom are atheists) that have been my friends for nearly 15 years. My advice – make friends based on common interests, music, arts, sports, food drink. Get out, explore the world. There are almost 8 billion people here; there are other like-minded folks who don’t define themselves by their theological beliefs.
Have you found yourself taking up other more atheist-typical viewpoints since dropping Christianity? For example, are you more socially or fiscally liberal today? Why do you think certain values that aren't necessarily linked to belief or disbelief tend to fall in line with theists or atheists?
I am most certainly more liberal since leaving the church. The biggest difference now though is my lack of desire to ask others to conform to my way of thinking. I am an atypical atheist in that I hold no malice towards theists, nor do I describe their belief systems as inferior or wrong. I know from my own experience there is no divinity, god, spiritual being in charge or interacting with humanity, space or time. We are the result of a chaotic but glorious happenstance in the universe, a perfect collision of atoms and matter and anti-matter that resulted in life as we know it. The only divine force is that of the universe itself, the laws of physics and nature.
I believe humans are genetically basically the same and our evolutionary journey has been such that many of the same “beliefs” exist from place to place, practice to practice. On a very base view, humans are only able to survive because we are “pack” animals. Our evolution of culture and society are the reason we are the dominate species on earth, without these, individuals humans would not exist, we have neither the physical strength nor instincts to do so. Much like a solitary ant or bee, our success is gained by our hive. A point of this evolutionary growth is the practice of religion, much of that religious experience evolved as a way of understanding a universe so as to hold it in context for greater growth. The soaring cathedrals of Europe helped us develop and grow cities, language evolved as a way to preserve theological thought, science math all have roots in theological and religious context. Yet as we evolve our understanding of “divinity” has evolved and I see atheists as the next step of that evolution. We no longer need mythology to justify humanism, our own desire to grow as species naturally evolves from the need to support and tend to each other in a consistent respectful way. Our very nature dictates this, no moral code assigned by a theological system is necessary. There is no evidence of the divine, yet evidence is overwhelming for evolution, big bang, natural law and physics. I think theists cling to their beliefs because it makes a very complicated universe, which is inconceivable, a concept they can grasp. Think of it, when you look into the night sky there is no end to that which you see, yet because we are finite in mortality, our brains cannot truly grasp the infinite, and thus to make it understandable some folks turn to theology/theism, and that way when the look at the infinite sky they can define it in a finite way as part of a “god’s” plan. Thus their brain is capable of understanding that which truly is not understandable. I can acknowledge as an atheist that the universe is bigger than my understanding – and that is perfectly okay.
What do you see as the most beneficial aspect of religion? The most harmful?
The benefit of religion – its ability to move people to do good to one another, to care for, and tend to each other’s needs. The most harm? Religion’s exclusion of the possibility that they might be wrong about their belief is absolutely harmful. They are so afraid of being wrong they cannot admit it, and thus is born fundamentalism and from that so too hatred. Religion tends to be absolute, rigid – in most if not all theological systems, belief in god is fundamental.
Even as an atheist I’m not afraid to acknowledge I might be wrong about the universe – but so far everything about the world I experience has proven me right - in ways that are measurable by others outside of my own experience. Faith, religion cannot make that claim (why are there so many examples of divine in the world and its history).
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Last Moral
I pose this unlikely scenario to ask this question: is morality relevant to Bob moving forward? Christian apologists argue that morality is an objective truth that transcends human experience. If this is accurate then hypothetical Bob still has valid morals to follow. Granted, most Biblical laws don’t apply to Bob’s situation. He can’t very well kill, steal from, or covet his neighbor’s wife, for example; he has no neighbor. However, Bob can surely violate some religious rules. He could masturbate, he could make a false idol, he could have any number of impure thoughts, or he could attempt to make love to an irradiated buffalo corpse (which, incidentally, is a great way for him to speed up the inevitable extinction of humanity.)
According to secular definitions of morality, Bob can do no wrong in his lonely existence. Morality as the right way to interact with others, is meaningless without others. As the last living creature with the capacity to define morality, Bob can do whatever he damn well pleases. It takes at least two minds for a code of conduct to be agreed upon or for morality to emerge. At least that's how I see it.
P.S. It’s worth noting that I declared “It takes at least two minds for morality to emerge” to an apologist during a standard “moral argument for God” debate--and he agreed with me! I was shocked until he counted God as one of the minds. Does that mean that we’ll have to agree to disagree to agree?
P.P.S. I imagine God’s Mind gets capitalized as with every divine trait. Maybe Divine should be capitalize as well, it’s unclear. I’m sure they’d go ahead a subscript words mocking God if they could.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Death and Penalties
So we have Dzhokhar Tsarneav in custody, a kid with a charge of “using a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death.” It’s an impressive crime, insofar as crimes can be impressive, but I kinda wished they tacked on a possession of marijuana charge for good measure. As it is, this kid either faces life in prison or the death penalty, which got me thinking more about the surviving Boston marathon bomber.
First, there’s way too much unneeded discussion on the guy. I know the 24 hour news cycle needs to fill time and I’m as tired of Justin Bieber stories as he next guy, but it’s already starting to sound like the bomber is a victim in the narrative. Frankly, I don’t care if the surviving bomber came from a culture where brothers stick together and was stuck with a manipulative extremist sibling. I don’t care if he came from a hostile environment, was indoctrinated or was born with a dusting of psychopathy. We are all victims of our brain chemistry, genes, upbringing and surroundings--that doesn’t lift responsibility off the guilty. If these topics matter, we need to address them with solutions in mind that can be applied to our future safety. If his culture is the problem, the culture should be changed. If Islam promotes extremism, then Muslims should fix that or the rest of us should judge them accordingly. I don’t know what parts of the story are true anymore, but it applies to all the acts of violence in the news from here to the dawn of man.
My second thought is this: how are Christians supportive of the death penalty? While not all Christians are conservative and not all conservatives approve of capital punishment, there’s no argument that there isn’t massive overlaps in this ideological Venn Diagram. Not only do Christians need to ignore everything their namesake preached from “turn the other cheek” to “love thy enemy,” they also are taking responsibility for hastening the criminals decent into hell without a fair shot at forgiveness. I don’t mean forgiveness from society, I mean forgiveness from the Almighty in which they believe.
Ironically, atheists are generally liberal who are generally against capital punishment. I don’t have the hold up of breaking a divine law that transcends humanity. “Thou shalt not kill” is an awesome guideline, but I can waive it when taking a serial killer permanently off the board. Apparently Christians can waive it too, but only hypocritically. Not only do they endorse infinite torture for finite crimes by worshipping the God who instates it, they do their best to limit the chances of rehabilitation/confession/conversion/whatever they believe is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. It really boggles my mind that these types of Christians claim the moral high ground on anything.
First, there’s way too much unneeded discussion on the guy. I know the 24 hour news cycle needs to fill time and I’m as tired of Justin Bieber stories as he next guy, but it’s already starting to sound like the bomber is a victim in the narrative. Frankly, I don’t care if the surviving bomber came from a culture where brothers stick together and was stuck with a manipulative extremist sibling. I don’t care if he came from a hostile environment, was indoctrinated or was born with a dusting of psychopathy. We are all victims of our brain chemistry, genes, upbringing and surroundings--that doesn’t lift responsibility off the guilty. If these topics matter, we need to address them with solutions in mind that can be applied to our future safety. If his culture is the problem, the culture should be changed. If Islam promotes extremism, then Muslims should fix that or the rest of us should judge them accordingly. I don’t know what parts of the story are true anymore, but it applies to all the acts of violence in the news from here to the dawn of man.
Ironically, atheists are generally liberal who are generally against capital punishment. I don’t have the hold up of breaking a divine law that transcends humanity. “Thou shalt not kill” is an awesome guideline, but I can waive it when taking a serial killer permanently off the board. Apparently Christians can waive it too, but only hypocritically. Not only do they endorse infinite torture for finite crimes by worshipping the God who instates it, they do their best to limit the chances of rehabilitation/confession/conversion/whatever they believe is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. It really boggles my mind that these types of Christians claim the moral high ground on anything.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
The Hypothetical Progressive Pope
I’ve been trying out hypothetical as a way to show believers where their beliefs originate. The best example I’ve worked out is directed specifically toward Catholics. I ask:
Now, let’s look at what the possible answers mean. If a believer who opposes gay marriage answers in the affirmative, they show that their assessment of morality and their opinions of what is or isn’t discriminatory are based solely on authority. Whatever the Church thinks is how they think. The Pope is the Borg Queen in this scenario. If the believer instead says they would maintain their opposition of gay marriage against the Church, then we can know for sure that their belief is in fact a product of their own reasoning--at the cost of being a "bad Catholic."
Neither option is at all palatable to the believer, so if you pose the question, expect a refusal to answer. Most often I get, “the Church would never change their position so the question is moot.” That may be, but claiming certain knowledge of the future is a childish dodge for people with a distaste for hypothetical. Nevertheless we can’t force an answer out of them. This isn’t the Inquisition. (Speaking of which, poor Galileo would say that the Church sometimes, eventually, changes their position.) Simply posing the question is enough for the believer to formulate an answer, even if they see the trap set for verbalization. Consider the point made.
If a future Pope reversed the Church’s position on gay marriage, would you also reverse your position on gay marriage?The word Pope could be substituted for “religious leader” to make this less Catholicism-centric, but the Catholic Church is fairly unique in that it’s doctrine trumps even the Bible in the eyes of its congregation. Seeing how the Pope is the infallible spokesperson for the Church, his word matters immensely.
Now, let’s look at what the possible answers mean. If a believer who opposes gay marriage answers in the affirmative, they show that their assessment of morality and their opinions of what is or isn’t discriminatory are based solely on authority. Whatever the Church thinks is how they think. The Pope is the Borg Queen in this scenario. If the believer instead says they would maintain their opposition of gay marriage against the Church, then we can know for sure that their belief is in fact a product of their own reasoning--at the cost of being a "bad Catholic."
Neither option is at all palatable to the believer, so if you pose the question, expect a refusal to answer. Most often I get, “the Church would never change their position so the question is moot.” That may be, but claiming certain knowledge of the future is a childish dodge for people with a distaste for hypothetical. Nevertheless we can’t force an answer out of them. This isn’t the Inquisition. (Speaking of which, poor Galileo would say that the Church sometimes, eventually, changes their position.) Simply posing the question is enough for the believer to formulate an answer, even if they see the trap set for verbalization. Consider the point made.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)