This topic contains 40 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-rollins/dawkins-dennett-and-hitch_b_2830963.html
Peter Rollins asserts on above article that contrary to what institutional religions think, when someone say “I don’t believe in God” or “I don’t believe in Jesus”, they are actually saying they don’t believe in the tribal god that is mean and violent and they are rejecting the militant Jesus whose words have been taken literally and out of context by evangelical Christianity to condemn and control others with fear and manipulation. They are choosing to experience the beauty of universe and the sacredness of life and the love of freedom outside the four walls of church institutions and the theological boxes of various denominational doctrines.
“For wherever a concern of beauty, an embrace of life and a love of liberation are exhibited the sacred is proclaimed.”
What do you guys think?
I agree! It makes me what to stand up and laugh and say “yes yes yes!!!”
I would put it blunter: when people say “I don’t believe in God”, they usually mean “I don’t agree with what the organised church depicts as ‘God’.” Such people usually come across as what any modern mainstream church would proclaim, but since precious few people really understand how such beliefs are built on centuries of history, they are also, I would posit, rejecting even the earliest depictions of ‘God’ that is away from what Jesus himself taught.
People like that, I’ve observed, usually decide they are happy in the physical world and turn athiest.
But some want to keep their spirituality and dig in other directions.
AnonymousWell, I know with Dawkins he considers himself to be a “cultural Anglican” but does not ascribe to Anglicanism. He is clearly a very thoughtful man and has reasoned with various views to come to the conclusions he has which I can respect. Although he would say that a believe in the monthiestic God of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is like beliving in the tooth fairy and that what he proposes is believing in something that is evidential, that fiath is not evidential. A freind of mine David Robertson has debated with him and has siad that what Dawkins describes as faith is what in his expereinced and read has been evidenced.
I have to give it to Hitchins and Dawkins – they are masters at rhetoric. Dawkins has described David Roberstson as a
1024×768
“self-righteous narrow minded, up his own arse thick as pig shit moronic retard.” I remeber Hitchins saying something about someone in which he said “if he had an enema, what would be left of him would fit into a matchbox”.
Gotta hand that tho them they are amusing when they talk like that – I don’t know anyone that could come up with much better heckles
I think I’m keeping my spirituality and digging in different directions @staticsan. Thanks I like that.
@starfielder When you posted I realized my comment could be misunderstood. I originally meant when people want to stay spiritual and so seek other spiritual pursuits. That’s when you find people looking at other religions. This has fuelled a lot of the rise in Wicca, for example.
I love Peter Rollins, having attended one of his “Insurrection” bar lectures here, but I think the lede on that article is misleading at best, and flat out untruthful at worst. Dawkins and Hitchens, at least, are not just atheistic in the sense that they reject the traditional omnipotent concept of God (and the god-man concept of Jesus) but they are also anti-supernatural, period. In their view, anything that goes against scientific principles or cannot be explained by science didn’t happen, or isn’t attributable to the supernatural. There are no miracles, there are no “thin places”, and for them the concept of “the sacred” is merely a human feel-good concept meant to fill the void of scientific ignorance.
I got that Staticsan.
Vinny I’m jealous that you got to go to one of Rollins lectures.
I too love Rollins and I was lucky enough to catch him at a small church gathering here in Oz when he last visited. I have enjoyed reading his books and others recommended by him. I also keep up with him on line via FB and Twitter.
I went through a period while reading about the new atheists and the people that were critiquing them. I found myself being annoyed by some of the rhetoric flying around – some of Ditchkins’ retorts would make black adder proud. I guess what frustrated me was their own fundamentalist approach. Everything being so absolute and any notion of the spiritual or any concept of any ‘greater source’ were ludicrous and deserving of any and all ridicule.
I found Rollins’ insights and language helpful. He provided good tools to unpack ideas like ways of belief, our drives toward certainty and how atheism can have a helpful function to approach ideas of God. I found his Lenten exercise of Atheism for Lent – basically the reading (a chapter a day) of Merold Westphal’s book Suspicion and Faith a helpful one. It rigorously interrogated my own ways of belief and gave me a keener insight into the atheist viewpoint and an appreciation for it. Being able to approach atheism and its arguments without fear of its implications is an important learning curve for me. Yes and I am always learning.
If you listen to Richard Dawkins carefully you will realize that he is agnostic to the idea of a god in general. He slants toward atheism because he has found no evidence for a god and from the evidence and reason he finds it improbable that there is a god. This does not mean that he is closed to the idea of a god or spirituality, but has yet to hear a reasonable test or way to determine if either is true. People often mistake Richard Dawkins preciseness for mean spirited and a lack of open mindedness.
He has very sophisticated arguments that are well thought out. He is also committed to a very high standard of truth. If you want to engage any atheist of his world view you need to understand this standard of truth. You have to know how to ask the right questions. So many statements by Christians presume untested claims. These claims need to pass his standard of truth otherwise you won’t be taken seriously. This is not arrogance. This is a commitment to intellectual honesty.
I believe there is a fuzzy line between arrogance and intellectual honesty. An Atheist will be honest with themselves in finding rationale for their being no God, but one can also find honesty with oneself in finding rationale for the existence of a God. The problem is, if an Atheist or vice versa attempts to ridicule or challenge a person of apposing belief based on their own understandings and world views, or based on their own standard of truth, then it does start become arrogance and the opposite of open-mindedness. People will cling to science as the only valid source of verification when there exists other forms of verification too, it also implies that avenues such as philosophy are obsolete until they can be quantified. I believe too much emphasis is put on science to provide all the answers, and many fall into a sort of science-of-the-gaps trap whereby all unknown aspects will eventually be given rational explanation via scientific study, and all those that don’t are simply a matter of fiction.
Shift, I have never heard the term of “science-of-the-gaps”. I have heard many speak of a faith based on a God of the gaps. This is where one attributes everything that is as of yet unknown as a sort of quasi proof of God. Of course the problem with such thinking is that much of what we don’t know will one day be known and if the unknown is what we base our concept of God on then eventually we will be forced to conclude that there is no God. My belief in the likely existence of God is in no way based on the present mysteries of the world around me. I actually embrace the logical approach promoted by Richard and see no arrogance in it whatsoever.
Its a term I’ve encountered before and I have actually seen used in debates, its basically a parallel to God of the Gaps, in that all the mysteries to science will eventually be given explanation and thus rendering God obsolete. And I by no means consider the logical approach to be arrogant, I’m just saying that there are people who take such an approach to arrogant levels, I’ve seen Atheists claim a logical higher ground on all those who believe differently to them, or automatically assume they have greater intelligence because they made the step to abandon the belief in a God. Vice versa, I have encountered Christians who are blindly arrogant of their own beliefs, hell the church is rife with arrogance at times… I just feel that some more patience and respect for both sides of the debate is needed at times, especially when you examine the hard-hitters such as Dawkins. I don’t feel anyone has the right to insult the intelligence of others based on their beliefs, people may well have been brainwashed into believing absurd things, but that doesn’t necessarily make them stupid, it makes them victims. I also feel people can be perhaps too assertive with their beliefs, perhaps speaking as if what they are saying is a fact and challenging anyone to disagree because their are completely assured of their method of truth without giving much attention to how others might think about the topic. I know I’ve fallen into that trap before and perhaps still do it sometimes!
@shift People will cling to science as the only valid source of verification when there exists other forms of verification too
I’d be interested in what these other forms of verification are.
I think science is not an accurate term for what atheists claim as the basis of knowledge. I think most atheists would claim that reason is the basis of knowledge. This would include deduction and avoiding fallacies in presenting arguments. Remember atheists don’t have a set of doctrines. They only thing they have in common is the non belief in gods. The reasons for this non belief are multitude and generally individual.
If we are talking about Dawkins, not Hitchens, we are talking about a man who is quite precise in his statements. What I have observed is those who don’t really understand what a fallacy is mistake his commitment to reason as arrogance. To point out specifically where a person is mistaken is not arrogance. That is generally what I observe Richard Dawkins do. He generally doesn’t resort to name calling, much like Hitchens does. He does point out silly claims and when given enough time to explain himself, he gives rather precise reasoning. If you took a class with any professor with his credentials you would face the same type of teaching method on any particular topic.
Part of the ideals of higher education is the removal of ego in the pursuit of knowledge. This is an ideal that is not always perfectly expressed, but it is widely accepted as something one should strive for. If I want to learn, I have to let go of my ego so that I can allow myself to hear good ideas even if they aren’t expressed in the way I want.
It is a fallacy to imply that something is wrong because someone expresses it meanly.
It is a fallacy to suggest because a lot of people believe something that it must be true. The number of people believing has nothing to do with truth. I have heard people claim that the oldest religion or the newest religion must be true. All of these are fallacies. To use these as evidence is either a misunderstanding of the methods of rational truth or what we call intellectual dishonesty. These methods aren’t private interpretation. They are widely accepted and have demonstrated their ability to discern truth many many times. And until someone comes up with a better method, this is the best we have.
We are also human and consciousness brings about irrational experience. Consciousness also tends to demand meaning and that is a subjective experience. Historically when we take subjective experience and call it truth, oppression soon follows.
There is a memory of how it was to believe a god was looking down on me and would reward me with eternal life if lived a faithful life. There is definitely a comfort that comes from knowing that some super smart being is going to make sure everything works out in the end even though I can’t understand how that’s going to happen. There is absolutely no way to prove this rationally. For me, and I want to emphasize the For ME part, the awareness that I was holding on to this idea simply because I was afraid of losing security and eternal life told me of my own immaturity.
Now I have ways of looking at the world that provide me even greater meaning than I had being a Christian. To get where I am at now took a lot of effort and a commitment to rigorous honesty. The way I am made really wants my life to be based on authenticity. I’m not presenting this as a virtue, but a preference I have for my life. Facing uncertainty and eventually embracing it can be a rather dark road for a while. It is not something to be lightly taken on.
If I couldn’t have found a way of doing this without god, I probably would have developed some sort of liberal theism to carry me through life. I would have consciously chose this simply because of the lack of other methods. This would still be a rational choice. This would be a private truth, not a communal truth.
I hope this brings a better understanding of my inner life. I think ultimately we all want to be understood because it alleviates the loneliness. And I think we can understand each other and still choose to hold our own private methods for meaning.
@shift I believe there is a fuzzy line between arrogance and intellectual honesty. An Atheist will be honest with themselves in finding rationale for their being no God, but one can also find honesty with oneself in finding rationale for the existence of a God.
I think you are mixing two concepts here. Rationality is very well defined and is not the private realm of atheists. Once anyone puts an idea out there, it becomes accountable to the rules of reason. And the rules of reason state that as soon as you encounter even one false point, the whole rationale is false. I have not read one successful rationale for god. They all rely on the prior assumption that god exists and therefore become circular.
Now you may be completely honest with yourself and believe in god. This is not the same as intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty is accountable to the rules of reason. Preference or belief hold no weight what-so-ever.
It may be true that your life is better with a belief in god, but if you have one person who has a better life without god, then it no longer is a universal claim. If I was your friend and I observed your misery when I talked about my non-belief I may choose to try and understand you better and encourage those aspects of your belief that seem to motivate you to enjoy life more. If I noticed that your belief tended to make you judgmental or intolerant I might ask you if these are qualities you want in your life. Beliefs often provide a story which becomes a good framework for talking about values.
One of these concepts is subjective and the other is objective. They are separate truths and respond to different methods.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.