![[cc-by-sa]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png){kind=small}
Warning:: There is no science whatsoever in this post. If that's going to annoy you, give this one a pass.
In a previous post, I said what role I thought religion and spirituality still could play in the modern, scientific world. All of that applied to any sort of religion or spirituality, and was not specific. However, I have claimed to be a Christian. A lot of people have been asking for me to explain just what I mean by that, since the things I have said seem to contradict most peoples' notions (Christians and non-Christians alike) of what it means to be Christian.
So why do I say that, and why do I not think I'm the dishonest liar I'm accused of being for saying that, given that I personally don't really see God as God the Creator? Indeed, if you look at my blog's former site, you can find a post where I say that I tend not to believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. How can I call myself a Christian after saying those things????
(By the way, if you're one of those who thought that my previous post on religion was silly, vacuous pablum, you aren't going to be any happier with this one. Save yourself a few minutes and skip it. Honestly, I'll be writing about astronomers' time machine shortly, so we'll be back to the hardcore science. Save your reading time for that if you're just going to think that this is a waste of time.)
The first, and most honest answer is, "because I was raised that way." I grew up in a liberal protestant denomination. This was in the days when the Moral Majority was neither-- certainly not a majority. This was before the Bush-electing fundie crowd turned the popular conception of Christianity into "all extremism, all the time." This was the time when there was such a thing as the "mainline protestant churches," and that was a place where you could go and be Christian, while still fully accepting things like evolution.
There's a lot of great stuff in the Christian tradition. You don't have to be religious at all to be moved by Bach's or Mozart's sacred music, for example; as a musician, it's the music I really like. The popular conception of the sermon is the fire-and-brimstone, all-sinners-are-damned sorts of things, but that is not the kind of sermon one heard in the churches I went to. Indeed, one minister would talk about Stephen Hawking every other month. Yes, it's about God, yes, it's about Jesus, yes, it's about faith, but it was an intellectual, thinking, probing, discussing sort of sermon. I've known some who go to church for the music, some for the sermons, some for the community, some for all of it. I personally lean a bit towards the music, although in the past the community may have been #1. (Indeed, it's significant that I met my wife at church.) But it's all important.
None of which has anything to do with theology. The question that gets asked is, "couldn't you find a way to build community of like-minded individuals without all that religious baggage attached to it? Yeah, probably, but church works real well because it's a long established institution in our society, despite how amazingly diverse it is.
So I'm a Christian because I've been raised that way, and I like the traditions. Had I been raised Hindu, I'd give you strong odds I'd still be a Hindu today.
Presumably, however, now that I'm an adult, I have had the time to think about my religion, and I've made the conscious decision to remain a Christian. Not just a "church-attending agnostic" (who exist -- I've even known atheistic Jews who attend temple and teach Sunday School, but who disbelieve in God), but somebody who really professes himself to be a Christian. So what is it about the Christian faith specifically that makes me want to stick with it rather than drifting off to some sort of personally defined vague deist spiritualism, getting my community from a Unitarian church?
There are really two answers to that. The first is that "Jesus is a cool dude whose message I like." The second is what I, personally, see as the core of the Christian faith. Let me start with the second.
In a previous post, I noted that in Christianity, God is often referred to as "Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer." In that post, I noted that I personally don't really see "Creator'" as an important role. If there is a role, it's not in a "In The Beginning" sort of way, but in an ongoing and complicated sort of way that I probably am not capable of adequately putting into words. (Not, at least, without opening myself up to the usual sort of ridicule.) In the previous post, I also gave some idea what I see the "Sustainer" role as being.)
The "Redeemer" role is not specific to Christianity -- although I don't know a lot about Hinduism, I know that Krishna is called the Redeemer -- it is one of the things that has kept me a Christian. To me, the role of God and Jesus as Redeemer is the essential core of the Christian faith. The idea is as follows. Humans are not perfect. We make mistakes. We "sin" -- and by that I don't just mean the Big Stuff like murder and theft, but also the little stuff like participating in flamewars and saying ill-advised things, ignoring the plight of the homeless while buying the latest hot comsumer good, turning the blind eye to the horribly sexist comment your colleague made, etc. We're not perfect; we're always doing things that, if pointed out, we probably shouldn't have done, or that we might regret later. The core message of Christianity, however, is that Christ died for our sins; that, in the end, none of us really are "worthy" in an absolute sense, none of us are perfect, but thanks to "grace," we will be forgiven. Nobody can ever really be righteous, but we don't have to, because there is a Redeemer there to help us along.
Now, yes, those who don't understand this, to whom this is a new concept. or who deliberately want to belittle what I've just written will say "it sounds like your religion is a free pass; you can do whatever the hell you want because somebody is going to forgive you." That's an interpretation some may take, but that's absolutely as extreme an interpretation as the interpretation that all atheists are amoral because they have no afterlife to fear. So, please, think a bit before you insist that logically that's what I've just claimed.
Of course we try to do good. Insofar as Jesus was fully and unmitigatedly righteous-- which, by the way, he wasn't, not according to the accounts in the Christian tradition (and I will get back to that)-- we should all strive to be as good as him; but we recognize that that is an unattainable goal. Unlike the examples that are set forward to pre-tenure facult as the levels of excellence that we are all supposed to exceed in order not to get fired, in Christianity we have a standard, a goal, that presumably we are all supposed to strive for, but also the message that God loves us and that God and/or Jesus the Redeemer will still accept us as OK even if we don't attain it.
This is part of what I find appealing about the Christian religion. And, yes, there have been versions of Christianity that don't seem to accept that it all-- the "hellfire and brimstone for anybody who isn't perfect" versions that seem to be ever more popular. To my mind, they're all missing the very core of the religion.
Notice that this core of the religion doesn't require anything about virgin births, bodily resurrection, God the Creator, etc. This is why I still think it's valid for me to call myself Christian despite not necessarily subscribing to all of those doctrines.
What about the other part? The "Jesus was a cool dude?" part?
In my previous post, I talked about how I was unhappy with replacing "God the Father" with "God the Creator" in the push to remove patriarchal language from the church service. Not because I think that God has a... um, Y-chromosome... but because "Creator" doesn't capture all of it. Similarly, I have seen some Christmas carols that seem to replace language about Jesus with gender-inspecific language, and that really offends me. Yeah, I guess I can see why they want to get rid of "King," since that's very medieval and authoritarian, and really misses the point (as I'll explain in a moment), but sheesh, can't we accept a little metaphor? But there are also the rewrites that take out reference to Jesus having had gender. I guess we're embarrassed that the core figure in our religion was male, now that we're trying to deny the patriarchy. But, to me, a big point of the Christian religion is that Jesus was human, and for the vast majority of us, to be human means to have one gender or the other. Second, there's the fact that Jesus is a historical figure, a person who really was, and trying to turn him into some sort of arbitrary "Christ" without any real human identity depersonalizes the religion and drains part of its most important core.
Jesus -- the son of God, an aspect of God, the Word Made Flesh, all of that-- was human, a person, just like the rest of us. Although Hamlet wasn't really talking about theology, allow me to interject this excerpt:
In my previous post, I danced around the notion that God is a human creation. One sentence I like to use is that "God is an integral property of sentient existence." If humans are made in God's image, it misses the point to insist that God is a humanoid; "in God's image" to me is like what Hamlet is talking about: capable of self-reflection, sentience, whatever you want to call it-- human consciousness, that not perfectly well understood thing we know that we have but that at least the lower animals do not. (Go talk to Shelley or Greta & Dave; it may well be that some apes and grey parrots are also made in God's image!)
And Jesus was flawed. According to the stories, he never gave into the temptations of Satan-- and, no, I personally don't view that as a historical account, but as a story that tells us something about who Jesus was. But what were his last words? "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Some Christian traditions hold that the only deadly sin is not having faith in God and faith in Jesus as Savior. And, yet, we have Jesus here saying the words of despair. Jesus, clearly, was human, flawed and all, even according to the stories and traditions of the religion that worships him.
So God as Human is important to me, and that's part of the core of the Christian religion. What about Jesus specifically? Let's look at another aspect of Christianity. Jesus was to come as the King to bring about God's reign on earth, etc. etc. etc. And, yet, what happened? Jesus was born to an unremarkable family. According to tradition, he was born in a stable. He never became a great leader, even in the way that Moses did. Yes, he preached to many. But he lived an errant life, eschewing the temporal power that monarchs would later claim was justified by the "divine right of kings," even eschewing extreme temporal influence. He preached the opposite of a lot of medieval social philosophy: the poor are not lesser humans and thus worthy of their lot, but if anything exalted. (Blessed are the poor, and all of that.) He spent his life tearing down traditional authority figures, and giving attention to those whom many thought beneath attention. He lived a live of service, of humility. And then he died.
Yes, you can find stuff that's not consistent with the above. Yes, you can find Bible quotes that are easily (and often) interpreted as Jesus' threats that you will be damned if you don't worship him. Accept, however, that the four gospels were written by four different people, and are not consistent. We don't have a perfect record of Jesus' life or of his character. But if you look at his life as a whole, the "king" of Christianity is one who, overall, lived a life of humility and service.
That's also powerful to me. We don't worship the exalted. We exalt the humble.
Incidentally, this is why a big chunk of Revelation is so awful. To me, that book reads like a bunch of Christians sitting around disappointed with the fact that when Jesus came, he wasn't the conquering hero who marched across the land, spreading our One True Religion with the sword, smiting the unbelievers and casting them all into utter torment as punishment for being different. So what do they do? Write a book that says, "Ah! But next time, Jesus WILL come with a sword, and then you'd better watch out!" Mind you, I really like Revelation in the same way I like Schwarzenegger movies. It's the most fun book of the Bible when it comes to colorful characters useful in subsequent fiction. But the whole Jesus as scouring, conquering, sword-bearing, flame-wielding image that shows up in there is completely at odds with the core message of Christianity evidenced by the stories of Jesus' actual life that have been passed down in our tradition.
To summarize, why am I a Christian? Mostly because it's how I was raised, and I'm happy and comfortable in that tradition. But why does the theology of Christianity still appeal to me as I've had some time to reflect upon it? Because what I see as the two core messages of Christianity really appeal to me. First, redemption; we don't have to be perfect, but there is somebody out there-- Jesus-- who has taken our punishment for us, who has the grace to help and forgive us despite our flaws. Second, Jesus was a cool dude. Not only is the core divine figure in the Christian religion fully human, but he is also a human who wasn't a conquering, ruling figure, but rather a figure who lived a live of service, and who preached acceptance and exalting those on the fringes of society.
Let me end with a few brass tacks. Most people seem to read "being Christian" as accepting some laundry list of doctrines. I've already explained that to me, there are just two core elements of the theology, and hopefully my verbiage has made clear that I don't see them as things that can meaningfully be expressed in a short list, but as things that require some thought and reflection to understand. Of the laundry list of "Christian litmus" tests, where do I stand on all of them?
God the Creator: been there. As I said, I'm not sure I even see that as a role (or at least an important role) of my conception of God.
The Virgin Birth: sorry, no. Yes, many of you Christian and non-Christian alike will claim that this invalidates my claim of being Christian, but read everything above.
Bodily Resurrection: I think I'll stay with probably not. I wrote about this at length earlier, as I've already referenced.
Afterlife: solid dunno here. It seems kind of implausible, but I really want it to be true. Mostly because I want to see what happens! I like the idea that after I die, I'll have the chance to learn all the things about fundamental physics that we haven't figured out during my lifetime.
Burning in Hell: literally in the afterlife, no. Jesus has enough grace to forgive anybody, even the worst criminals. Most days I don't believe that, but I strive to believe that. To me, "Burning in Hell" is best viewed similarly to those who interpret Revelation as an allegory of the early Christian church. We create hell on earth often enough, and sadly a lot of people burn in it. And, indeed, few of them deserve it.
The divinity of Christ: yes. (OMG! Magical thinking! He's an anti-scientist! the militant atheists now get to cry.) To some extent, I believe in the divinity of all of us. And by divinity, I mean something in that layer of reality that is orthogonal to the physical world. Some of us are more divine than others, none of us more so than Jesus. But it's a continuum, and for my version of Christianity to maintain what I see as it's power personally for me, Jesus needs to remain fully human.
Exclusivity: absolutely not. Yes, many Christians, even Christians who accept evolution and think that atheists are capable of moral behavior, believe that you are damned unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior-- but I do not. We've got John 3:18 that says:
which to many people is pretty clear. But I've already made clear that I don't believe that a literal reading of the Bible is reasonable or wise, and to anybody who's willing to be open to the concept it's bloody obvious that the Bible is self-contradictory in many places. So I reject this verse from John in light of the message of Jesus' entire life.
Of course, it's more than that. As I've said before, I don't even think that Hindus, Wiccans, Jews, etc., are wrong in their concept of God. Many just don't get this, since that way of thinking is inconsistent with a scientific way of thinking. Well, religion isn't science. But if you want an analogy, there are times when a photon is unambiguously a wave, there are times when a photon is unambiguously a particle, and it depends on how you look at it how much of which aspect you see. Religion, a search for God, is similar. Christianity has power for me, but I don't expect or demand it has power for everybody. Yes, I will say that Jesus has enough grace to forgive and accept everybody regardless of what they think about him, but I don't demand that you believe that, and what's more I will agree to the possibility that you can be just as right as I am if your view of the nature of the divine differs from mine. Or, if you're an atheist -- well, this thing I call the divine I'm always saying is orthogonal to physical reality. Anything that happens as real "miracle," as real divine intervention, happens through human agency, so there's no need to invoke the divine if you want to explain the mechanics of it, which is after all what science is all about. But the meaning of it -- well, that's not even a valid question often in science, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid question to people, and that's why we have humanities and theology and other forms of intellectual endeavors that aren't science.
(Note: I will respond to questions, but not to insults or flamebait.)
Comments
I can understand the "a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus's teachings, irrespective of his divinity" perspective, although many other Christians would disagree with it.
I am, however, still fuzzy on your stance on the "What is God?" issue. For instance, the traditional concept of God as some kind of transcendent being (creator or not) with supernatural knowledge or powers. It seems to me that you're leaning away from that idea, but I'm not sure.
I'm also not clear on what Jesus's death or forgiveness is supposed to do with the fact that human are not perfect. Sure, we're not perfect, but why do we need Jesus to "redeem" us for our mistakes through "grace"? (I'm asking for your opinion, not the opinion of particular denominations.) If Jesus is just a role model that we should all strive to emulate, that's one thing, but Jesus's role appears to go beyond that.
Posted by: Ambitwistor | March 15, 2007 9:53 AM
That's an interesting post with a fairly unique slant on christianity. Dunno if I'd agree with the assertion that you can be a christian while disregarding the virgin birth, resurrection, etc as to do so would be firmly against the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of christians. Anyway, don't want to start a fight about it!
My main question is about the redeemer part. I don't think I understand the role you are trying to describe or the need for the role in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly that humans generally fall far short of righteousness (whatever is meant by that) and that good people generally strive to be better. I just don't see what is gained by postulating some 'redeemer' figure to help with this, or whatever it is that you see it doing. Why can't human nature be human nature and leave it at that?
Posted by: Lazarou | March 15, 2007 9:54 AM
It seems *very* odd to believe in Jesus' teachings when the only source for those teachings is a set of texts that also claim various miracles were performed by Jesus - miracles that you reject.
So if you reject those texts as accurate sources, as far as the miracles were concerned (and that whole thing about deities incarnate, which is blatantly supernatural and thus rejected, right? Right?) then why would their claims about teachings be any more accurate?
If you think the texts aren't to be trusted, you might still agree with the things that the asserted Jesus is supposed to have said - but it wouldn't be the case that you could be said to be a follower of that fictious individual. The basic teachings are found in the ethical systems of almost every society, repeating themselves in a thousand forms. The "Golden Rule", for example, pops up in all kinds of religious and ethical teachings.
Science-free? I'd say logic- and reasoning-free.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2007 10:01 AM
So—and you're not going to like this—that doesn't sound all that "Christian." It sounds like taking the Nicene/Apostles' Creed and striking things out line-by-line. *shrug*.
I don't think many people (watch this not be the case) are going to argue with the, "Jesus was a cool dude" stance. But the way you've phrased the redemption argument seems mildly circular. If there were no teachings telling us what horrible people we all are and that we don't deserve to live, etc., then would we still have the need for redemption? The way you've phrased it, it sounds like someone set up a very clever guilt complex for the entire human race, and then been like, but oh wait! I can fix this! What does "God as Redeemer" have that some kind of cathartic-spiritual-but-not-religious process have (e.g., meditation)?
Posted by: mollishka | March 15, 2007 10:03 AM
Hey, mollishka, it's all about the music in the Christian tradition.
The music.
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2007 10:07 AM
Ambitwistor: regardless of whether or not there is a god, there is no such thing as "supernatural." It's a bit of by definition thing. If we observe something to happen in the natural world, then it happens in the natural world, and whatever "laws" govern the natural world have allowed it to happen. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't natural. For instance, if Jesus actually did walk on water, then there was some physical way in which the water could support his weight. So ... in the way you are thinking, I think, if there is a god, then this god (I guess this falls under "god the creator" anyhow) is not a "supernatural" being, but rather, has complete control over the natural world.
Posted by: mollishka | March 15, 2007 10:07 AM
I thought the sin that Jesus died for was Original Sin, you know, the stain on humanity caused by Adam and Eve eating fruit from the tree of knowledge (you might have thought that the tree of murder, the tree of torture, the tree of greed etc would have been the ones to avoid), at least that is how I was taught when I went to church.
Overall the belief system Rob has outlined is pretty difficult to attack for the simple reason that it is so confusing. Where is God in all this ? Shouldn't 'he' be the creator ? If Adam and Eve, and hence original sin, didnt exist, then what is there left for Jesus to redeem ?
Posted by: MartinC | March 15, 2007 10:09 AM
I was raised by grownups who had great fun lying to children, who enjoyed seeing the children suffer the consequences, who got a thrill out of betraying the trust of children, and who enjoyed decking children with knockout punches.
That's my family tradition.
Do you think I am wrong in rejecting my family tradition?
Posted by: Roy | March 15, 2007 10:12 AM
Rob,
I admire what you are doing. I followed the previous discussions with interest but didn't participate, partly so you wouldn't be tainted by my support.
But his time I can't resist. In reading your posts, especially this one, I have an observation. I have worked at national labs and large research universities. I know probably several hundred scientists.
You are very ordinary. I mean that in a good way, and I'm not referring to your science, which may be extraordinary as far as I know. What I mean is this: your religious views would be more or less mainstream--or rather representative--among the scientists I know.
Let me explain a bit more. Blogging, and especially book selling, tends to attract the extremes. And we who live in blogdom forget, at times, that we have immersed ourselves in a self-selected mostly extremist group. The militant atheists like PZ are an extreme minority in science departments, at least in physics departments. So are the conservative Christians like myself. Most of the scientists I know are either "appeaser" type agnostics or they have some spirituality, such as your own, that is a sort of syncretism between a classical theology and their scientific rationalism. Perhaps with a dash or more of deism.
I just wanted to make that point to the flamers that will surely descend upon you. I have met very few militant atheists (actually, none that I recall) in the real world of day-to-day science, only in this skewed blogo-verse and the shelves of the mega bookstores--and I was a scientist before I was a Christian so it cannot all be explained by assuming they already knew I was a lost cause. And I know only a handful like myself, who are "hardcore" biblical inerrancy type Christians. Everyone else, while not necessarily agreeing with your take, would nevertheless have no problem with it at all.
Posted by: David Heddle | March 15, 2007 10:17 AM
Knop: "in Christianity we have a standard, a goal, that presumably we are all supposed to strive for, but also the message that God loves us and that God and/or Jesus the Redeemer will still accept us as OK even if we don't attain it."
Ok, my turn for some tough questioning.
Here's what I don't get. Judging from your last post, you seemed to think that God was something in people's heads, not an external being. Yet you write as if this Redeemer existed in the outside world.
Indeed, your religion seems to be in a limbo of sorts. On the one hand, it shies away from
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 15, 2007 10:46 AM
I have to agree with mollishka - as an explanation of why you are a Christian this really sounds like 'well, I'm not.'
Oh, well, like the song has it: you say Carmina, I say Carmyna - let's Carl the whole thing Orff.
Posted by: outeast | March 15, 2007 10:55 AM
Rob,
First, thanks for writing about such a personal matter so forthrightly, and I hope you'll forgive the length of this comment. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to discuss core beliefs in an open, non-judgmental way. Thank you very much for sharing your experiences and thoughts, they're very interesting.
I did though want to touch briefly on this notion of "accepting a laundry list" of doctrines to qualify as being a Christian. I think C.S. Lewis had a very good point in his preface to "Mere Christianity" about this question (bolding is mine):
He gives the example of the word "gentleman", which used to have a very specific meaning of "one who had
a coat of arms and some landed property". It later became much more broadly used to mean a person of good moral standing and manners, but in so doing it lost its usefulness as a specific, discrete term. He warns against so "deepening" the word "Christian" that it too loses any virtue of being useful. As he later says:
I think that makes sense. So while I understand that your personal philosophy is in the spirit of Christ's teachings, that you believe Christ was divine and attend a church that so teaches, I would respectfully submit that it's neither accurate nor useful to say that you are a "Christian" if you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. That's one of those non-negotiables which, if included in the definition of "Christian", renders it useless as a discrete term. As Lewis says, it seems more that your use of the term would better be understood as "Someone who finds value and truth in the life of Christ".
That doesn't mean I think you're wrong or foolish or bad or anything else, I simply mean it in the same sense that Lewis talked about, that it's so broadening the definition of a useful word so as to make it no longer useful.
Finally I think David Heddle has a good point that your religious philosophy is actually very mainstream, and far more representative of how the vast majority of people I have ever met feel about their religion.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | March 15, 2007 10:56 AM
Aaggh! Accidentally hit "Post". This is what I get for playing w/ a paper clip while typing.
Anyway, your religion seems to be in a limbo of sorts. On the one hand,it shies away from describing God as an actual being, or of having any tenets that make clear claims about the outside world. You write things like, "Without thinking and caring people, there would be no God," a sentiment that Dawkins would describe as "sexed-up atheism." On the other hand, statements like "Jesus the Redeemer will still accept us as OK" seem to be statements that describe Jesus as an external reality.
What is going on?
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 15, 2007 10:59 AM
Thanks, Rob, for your voice of reason and moderation! I think “atheism” must be a religion given the fervor and intolerance some use to voice their positions. It’s hard to tell them from the religious right.
Posted by: nerdwithabow | March 15, 2007 11:09 AM
David Heddle.
Your sample size of one is clearly statistically significant!
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 11:10 AM
Nerdwithabow
It really isn't hard at all to tell the difference.
Because this seems so appropriate I think I'll repeat this quote I saw someone, who if I drop their name will no doubt incite frothing at the mouth, post yesterday.
Fundamentalism is an issue in this case because it is a convenient stalking horse.
a) You can use accusations of fundamentalism against atheists! It doesn't matter that the term makes no sense in that context, but all of us here agree that fundamentalism is bad, so it's a handy insult.
b) When a liberal Christian is accused of holding silly beliefs, you can say, "Oh, dear, I think you were talking about Pat Robertson, not me!" It's an easy way to avoid difficult questions because, while it's true that we don't think highly of ol' Pat, we actually were addressing the silly beliefs of liberal Christians.
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 11:14 AM
Your sample size of one is clearly statistically significant!
Heddle wrote that he knows several hundred scientists. That is the population from which he draws his conclusion. Of course, there are more than a few hundred scientists in the population, but his observation (be it an anomaly or if it contains some truth) does not appear to be wild speculation or based on a single instance.
Posted by: ThomasHobbes | March 15, 2007 11:19 AM
Whatever inspires you, an' it harm none, is fine by me. I have never known you to evangelize your own beliefs, and I see no reason to try argue you out of them.
Does this make me a Neville Chamberlain atheist? I prefer to think of myself as an Adam Smith atheist.
Posted by: Melissa G | March 15, 2007 11:20 AM
I was referring the intolerance for different ideas shown by each side. …and the name calling!
Posted by: nerdwithabow | March 15, 2007 11:21 AM
I can sympathise with that, as an apostate from the RCC, i have some familiarity with the power of that upbringing in shaping a person's outlook, forming their preferences and desires... and what they recognise as 'religion'.
Although I'm not a believer, I do appreciate the description you gave of 'God as Redeemer'. Someone asked about the 'guilt complex' associated with the teachings of Christianity itself, and I can some familiarity with that, too. Throwing out conscious belief in God, or abandoning your tradition/rituals doesn't automatically erase the way you were raised. It's true that Christianity produces the sins it saves people from, but once the code is internalized it's a constant struggle to identify and reject its effects on your thinking, even for a 'post-religious' person. At least that's been my experience.
Finally, I liked your discussion of the importance of God as human. I just finished a discussion of Cyril of Jerusalem's 'ten dogmas' for an undergrad class, and they were surprised to learn about the fourth century wrangling over the nature of Jesus, and why the human element of God was so critical to early Christians and the original ransom theory of redemption.
Posted by: John B | March 15, 2007 11:22 AM
Speaking as a militant atheist, I can't say I'm interested in disagreeing with much of this, at least not beyond the level of quibbling over notation. So let me ask a somewhat different question: one important reason you said you wrote this series of posts is that the Dawkinses of the world alienate religious people from science. Do you in fact observe that religious non-scientists respond favorably to you? Specifically, have religious people *of a kind who wouldn't take science seriously anyway* responded favorably to hearing your views? I ask because naively it seems to me anyone who'd be put off by irreligion or anti-religion to the point of ignoring science would also find your heterodox views alienating. Do you in fact occupy a *useful* spot between say Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins?
Posted by: D | March 15, 2007 11:26 AM
Heddle wrote that he knows several hundred scientists. That is the population from which he draws his conclusion. Of course, there are more than a few hundred scientists in the population, but his observation (be it an anomaly or if it contains some truth) does not appear to be wild speculation or based on a single instance.
And maybe if all of those observations weren't linked with one self-avowed biblical literalist's selection bias that would mean something. But because those observations aren't independant, and all are linked through one self-reporting sample, it becomes a single instance of me and my army of as big as I say it is.
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 11:31 AM
Nerdwithabow, I propose substituting "ideologue" for "fundamentalist" when discussing the intolerant extremists of any creed. From Stalin to Falwell (and including lesser evils on all sides) it seems to fit.
Melissa, nice call with the "Adam Smith atheist" moniker. I've never been comfortable with the "Neville Chamberlain" designation.
Posted by: Decline and Fall | March 15, 2007 11:36 AM
Decline and Fall:
Point taken!
Posted by: nerdwithabow | March 15, 2007 11:39 AM
Nerdwithabow, I propose substituting "ideologue" for "fundamentalist" when discussing the intolerant extremists of any creed. From Stalin to Falwell (and including lesser evils on all sides) it seems to fit.
Annnnnnnd like clockwork, without fail.
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 11:39 AM
Now I get it, Rob: you are a Jeffersonian Christian
Posted by: boojieboy | March 15, 2007 11:45 AM
Rob, I was one of the people that asked for more details of your faith. I must say I was hoping for more after all this buildup. But instead of just repeating my request, let me ask you of some more:
You say that you are a Christian because you were raised that way. But I suspect your beliefs differ even from those of your liberal church. Am I right? How have you reached these different beliefs, if they depend so much on your upbringing? Please tell me something about the process. Can you understand that, for example, rejecting a literal hell and keeping a divine Jesus seems very much like cherrypicking to me?
You also describe how much you like the Christian beliefs, and that you'd like there to be an afterlife where you'd get to learn more about physics. What can you say about the difference of believing something to be true and wanting something to be true with regard to your faith?
To me it seems like you hold Christianity dear, because of your upbringing and the Christians you've met (and because there actually are decent and good things about some Christian ideas, even I can see that). You've let some things go, like the resurrection, but want to keep others. And you don't want to fess up to holding ungrounded beliefs. I'm sure you feel hurt and angry when your beliefs are bluntly rejected. So you lash out and call people arrogant. And you make this great motion which looks like it will lead to the actual base of your beliefs, but all that comes out of it that I can see is what you believe (with some things hidden, to avoid ridicule), and some slush about orthogonality and how appealing your beliefs are to you.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I've learned anything from this. And I'm afraid you mostly got upset with the responses. I think you need to rethink your approach to this matter, unless it was all about making a stand.
Posted by: That guy | March 15, 2007 11:47 AM
Brad S,
Not that it matters, beyond pointing out the fact that you don't read carefully, but I am not a biblical literalist, self-avowed or otherwise. (Which can be demonstrated, for anyone who cares, which I suspect is nobody, by the corpus of anti-dispensationalist posts on my blog, dispensationalists being the biblical literalists of our era.
Of course, the game you are playing is: He is a Christian, therefore nothing he says is reliable. This is a variant of PZian logic I have seen many times:
1) No serious scientist believes that science and religion are compatible
2) What about Professor Miller?
3) He doesn't count, because he's a Christian
If someone comes along who says they know several hundred scientists, and at least fifty are militant atheists, would that, to you, constitute a sample size of one, or in that case would you apply a different statistics?
Posted by: David Heddle | March 15, 2007 11:48 AM
Annnnnnnd like clockwork, without fail.
Oh dear, did I just introduce the Argumentum ad Hitlerium? I think I might have, but that wasn't what I intended. Sorry about that.
What I was trying to get across is that there are observable similarities between the tactics and demands of orthodoxy of extremists on all sides, be they religious, moral, political or otherwise. Communists are as capable of purges as Christians.
Posted by: Decline and Fall | March 15, 2007 11:53 AM
Well, in my department (earth sciences - sample size 11), there are 3 people that I know to be Christians, with the rest atheist. I'm a proud Neville Chamberlain atheist, as are another 7. Only one member of staff do I know to be a strident atheist and he isn't overly forthcoming about it.
Most of us get on with our jobs, and don't really care about the religion wars type stories that get airplay on Scienceblogs. In this, I very much agree with David Heddle; the internet very much attracts extremes and the debates that often occupy people in the blogosphere are pretty far removed from those of us who are out there doing the science.
In some respects this isn't ideal; I think we need to pay more attention to creationism. However, where religion is concerned (provided it isn't of the creationist variety) I'd say that your average scientist cares much less about it than your average keyboard warrior in blogworld.
Posted by: SteveF | March 15, 2007 11:54 AM
(Forgot to add)
I'm hep to that, BTW. Seems to me like a perfectly acceptable re-formulation, and I say that as an atheist.
One more thing: it seems to me that a lot of folks around here require a person's beliefs to be self-consistent, non-contradictory. It is this apparent inconsistency that the rationalists find so annoying about your stated beliefs. This is the same habit in my wife that I find so annoying. Usually I trot out an old Whitman quote that serves well to parry that thrust:
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
IOW: a person's beliefs and actions are a complex system, and have multiple causes, and multiple effects, some of which will result in contradictions. It will require too much energy to ferret out the inconsistent ones, but why bother? Better to know your own contradictions, and make your peace with them. You'll be happier in the long run (except when you choose to expose them to the scrutiny of others, as you have done here).
Posted by: boojieboy | March 15, 2007 11:57 AM
David Heddle,
Consider using a different term then.
And I know only a handful like myself, who are "hardcore" biblical inerrancy type Christians.
From the wikipedia article on Biblical Inerrancy (which humorously enough is the first hit when you google "Inerrant").
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position [1] that in its original form, the Bible is without error; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." [2]
What the hell did you expect me to think? Maybe you should think ahead next time.
And your selection is still biased. You based your assumption that if there were militant atheists, you'd know about them, when clearly militant atheists are going to be precisely the types that steer away from you.
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 12:03 PM
Brad S,
Just one more comment to you Brad, then I'll stop, not wanting to hijack the post. But a tiny bit of thinking and a tiny bit of research would reveal that there is a vast, recognized difference between believing that the bible, in the original writing, was inerrant, and adopting a literal hermeneutic for interpreting it. The distinction is well-known and understood in theological circles--it's OK that you don't know it, but don't blame me for your ignorance.
What the hell did I expect you to think? Nothing beyond I expected you to think.
Posted by: David Heddle | March 15, 2007 12:14 PM
outeast:
There are parts of the world where puns of that degree are considered hanging offenses. Ugh! :-)
Posted by: David Williamson | March 15, 2007 12:14 PM
David Heddle,
The onus is on you to represent yourself correctly, I couldn't possibly have known that when someone identified themselves as a hardcore subscriber to Biblical Inerrancy, as in you're pretty much into the term (Biblical Not-in-error) that they instead meant that they weren't the hardcore hardcore Biblical Inerrants, but the Hardcore Milquetoast Biblical Inerrants.
Clearly we crossed wires. Now lets agree to be disagreeing e-pals.
Posted by: Brad S | March 15, 2007 12:18 PM
I just don't see what is gained by postulating some 'redeemer' figure to help with this, or whatever it is that you see it doing. Why can't human nature be human nature and leave it at that?
You could do it that way. I find it more appealing to have some explicit absolution, to have the notion that there is a Redeemer who will grant us grace in spite of our flawed nature. This post was about why *I*, specifically, am a Christian. It wasn't supposed to be trying to convince everybody that they need to think the same way.
You are very ordinary. I mean that in a good way, and I'm not referring to your science, which may be extraordinary as far as I know. What I mean is this: your religious views would be more or less mainstream--or rather representative--among the scientists I know.
This would be my guess, too.
My views also are at least somewhat similar to the views of some theologically liberal Christian pastors I've spoken with.
I thought the sin that Jesus died for was Original Sin, you know, the stain on humanity caused by Adam and Eve eating fruit from the tree of knowledge (you might have thought that the tree of murder, the tree of torture, the tree of greed etc would have been the ones to avoid), at least that is how I was taught when I went to church.
I don't buy the doctrine of Original Sin in its literal sense. The notion that Adam and Eve screwed up, so all of the rest of us are guilty as a result for all time. It's silly on a couple of levels. First, because it requires you to accept some form of the Genesis creation stories as literal history, which is absurd given our modern understanding of science. Second, because it condemns everybody forever more because of the sins of the fathers.
I prefer to read the Genesis creation myth as a story, a parable, about the intrinsically flawed nature of humanity. In that sense, "Original Sin" is just the fact that we aren't perfect-- which is what I was writing about above.
Do you in fact observe that religious non-scientists respond favorably to you? Specifically, have religious people *of a kind who wouldn't take science seriously anyway* responded favorably to hearing your views?
Nope. To them, I'm just one more of the liberal elite trying to destroy society by undermining Biblical literalism; if anything, I'm worse than the militant atheists, because I claim to be Christian. They view me the way we scientists view the Discovery Institute.
Where I do hope perhaps I might make some difference is with the fence sitters. With the people for whom their religion is important, but who aren't convinced that their religion requires strict adherence to some specific dogma. With people who are interested in and fascinated by science, people who are open to and ready to accept science, but don't want to completely throw out their religion in so doing. I'm that kind of person, and I've made peace with the apparent conflict. Very few have. If you read a lot, you *mostly* read either the militant atheists calling for an end to all religiosity in the name of supporting science, or you read religionists who view modern secular society as a threat to their traditional values.
There *are* people in the middle, people on the fence, people who really are religious but are open to the discoveries and knowledge of modern science. *They* are my real target audience. The convinced Biblical literalists-- I'm sure there's absolute nothing I can do to convert them.
But I *have* had religious people respond favorably to me in the past! In both an "outreach to science" context, and in a context of speaking at a theologically liberal church.
"Without thinking and caring people, there would be no God," a sentiment that Dawkins would describe as "sexed-up atheism." On the other hand, statements like "Jesus the Redeemer will still accept us as OK" seem to be statements that describe Jesus as an external reality.
What is going on?
What's going on is that I don't have all the answers. My thinking evolves, and even varies from day to day. I don't have a great answer to the question.
I've already quoted Hamlet. Let me quote another great work of Western Literature-- specifically, Babylon 5. In one episode, G'kar (a former war leader who has become a spiritual leader for his race) is challenged to define "What is Truth, and what is God?" He tells the student that they don't really want an answer to that question, but the student persists. So, he offers this answer:
If I take a lamp and shine toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. Too often we assume the light on the wall is God, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the revelation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, sees nothing. What we perceive as God is the by-product of our search for God. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished. Not understanding that it comes from us, sometimes, we stand in front of the light and assume we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do. Or we turn to look at our shadow and assume all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose - which is use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty and all it flaws, and in so doing, better understand the world around us.
Mind you, this is dialog from a popular science fiction TV show which was written by a convinced atheist (JMS). Yet, I really like this passage. JMS wrote more thoughtfully about religion and spirituality than almost anybody else I've seen on television.
In some respects this isn't ideal; I think we need to pay more attention to creationism. However, where religion is concerned (provided it isn't of the creationist variety) I'd say that your average scientist cares much less about it than your average keyboard warrior in blogworld.
All of this is very true -- including the part that we should all be more worried about creationism than many scientists seem to be at the moment.
One more thing: it seems to me that a lot of folks around here require a person's beliefs to be self-consistent, non-contradictory.
Or, even, evolving. It is only the most extreme of Biblical literalists who think that all understanding of faith is in the past, and that all that is left is for us to blindly follow it. Most theologians think that there is still a lot of work to do, and that there probably always will be work to do, in understanding faith, our relationship to it, and our its relationship to the world.
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Of course, "foolish" is a key qualifier there.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 15, 2007 12:18 PM
Behaviors matter.
I'm pleased to see some folks exploring the relationship of demonstrated behavior to credibility and to persuasiveness. It seems to me those folks see something important and helpful.
Thanks for that contribution, y'all.
Posted by: etbnc | March 15, 2007 12:22 PM
I was mildly wondering how long it'd take for there to be another B5 reference ...
Posted by: mollishka | March 15, 2007 12:22 PM
On Biblical literacy and Biblical inerrancy : I personally don't subscribe to either. But, it is possible for something to be true without being literally true.
A number of years ago I was the best man at a wedding between two friends of mine, Mike and Margo. Before the wedding, the minister (an episcopal minister) was speaking with the wedding party, and he told the following parable of truth vs. literal truth.
Suppose that one day Mike gets home from work before Margo. When he's at home, he watches the sunset, and is truly moved by the beautiful sight. Alas, the sunset has passed by the time that Margo gets home. In attempt to describe the sunset to Margo, does Mike say, "The greater scattering cross-section for shorter wavelength light by small particles in the atmosphere led to a preferential transmission of reddish light, thereby yielding a net reddening of the observed hue of the sky"? Or does he say, "The sky was on fire"? The latter is not strictly true; Mike is not trying to tell Margo that the atmosphere was undergoing combustion. But the latter does a far better job of conveying to Margo how he felt when observing the sunset.
Even Jesus taught in parables! I would think that that would be enough by itself for Christians who (unlike myself) want to maintain the Bible as the Word of God to realize that they don't have to read the whole thing as literal and unquestionable history!
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 15, 2007 12:23 PM
I was mildly wondering how long it'd take for there to be another B5 reference ...
When it's me we're talking about, one can never go long without a B5 or HHG2G reference....
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 15, 2007 12:25 PM
I can see how someone could feel grateful that Jesus paid for our sins. But only if you accept that what Jesus paid for are actually sins, i.e. there is a god who will judge you. Not sure how that jibes without a creator god.
Posted by: sean | March 15, 2007 12:27 PM
Again, thank you for being willing to share something of your personal Christianity.
Not everyone, of course, who professes a religion is actually trying to come to a personal understanding of who/what God is and what our relationship is to God. But I think that many of those of most or all religions are trying to do just that.
Human beings are creative thinkers, and so there are enormous variations in the stories we frame to describe that understanding. I too am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, partly because my familiarity with the Christian story makes it easier for me to use it, rather than another religion, as guidence and metaphor. I too find some concepts as virgin birth, resurrection of the body, etc. to be essentially irrelevant to my beliefs. I believe in God because of an experience I had that was so compelling that it is impossible for me not to believe, even though I have tried. In my efforts to formulate a concept of what that belief means in my daily life, I've found my best (though not only) guide to be Jesus, and therefore I am a Christian.
I've noticed how fundamentalists tend to refer to those who accept evolution as Darwinists. They then procede to state what they think Darwin said and meant, and declare that the final defining word on what those who accept evolution think. No amount of explanation changes the fundamentalists' minds about their belief that they know better than people who accept evolution what it means to accept evolution. Fundamentalists do the same thing with atheists. They tell atheists what atheists think ("you believe it's OK for people to do anything, no matter how awful," etc.), no matter how many atheists say, "No that isn't what I think."
I've discovered in the months I've been reading Science blogs, that some atheists tend to do the same thing in regard to Christians. I've several times seen statements like this, "You say you're a Christian. Well, then, no matter how many times you say otherwise, you DO believe in an invisible sky-daddy riding around on the clouds." Such people usually grasp that our understanding of science (say, of evolutionary theory since Darwin) evolves. But at the same time some seem to find it difficult to grasp that the religious views of a person who believes in God may evolve too.
I think you are clearly, by your posts, a follower (in some meaning of that word) of Jesus. As a thinking human being, it's not only your right, it's your duty, to figure out for yourself exactly what that means to you. I admire your willingness to make public some part of that very personal ongoing process.
Posted by: Julia | March 15, 2007 12:38 PM
Rob your other blog was deleted so im posting this here..
I’m not talking about false religion. What I have found is true religion and I can believe with 100 % surety.... Correct, people with false religion can’t say they have 100 % surety in there faith. ex(Thunder gods created thunder.)
Was an atheist there when the earth was formed? No. So what sources do they use to make them feel “Comforted”? They use the dirt around them. – How accurate is that?
Now, if I was born in a sand box and had No way out because I was caged in; would I know what was outside that sandbox? No, not unless I have a reliable source, or experienced being outside that sand box for myself.
Here’s the good stuff.-
Is my source a 100 % accurate? Have I ever been let down by my source?
No. So am I 100 % sure my source is accurate... yes. I’m getting my information from a source that was there. (GOD) Atheists guess what was there. How accurate is that?
Really good stuff-
So how can the bible be accurate…? If you interpret it the way it was meant for. What better source to ask then the one who created it? GOD.
For example,
How can the Old Testament and New Testament be about the same God? The Old Testament talks about killing people, when they sin. Now, the New Testament talks about forgiveness and love when they sin. I ask the one who is telling me this…, (GOD) “God how can this be?”
He answers:
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. - Mathew 12:7(New Testament)
This is also found in the Old Testament several times. (Hosea 6:6)
From that God told me, he gave authority to those who were being sinned against. God said as punishment for you sin you can either be sacrificed or forgiven. Before you flip out read this statement--
--If you were paralyzed in a car accident from someone malfunctioning, then the judge would give you the opportunity to forgive them or press charges. The charges could be up to a million dollars or so, it’s all according to what the judge says. Or you can forgive that person who was malfunctioning which God desires much more.
Read this post carefully and don’t look just one way. If you only LOOK ONE WAY and never see what God is actually saying, then you will always interpret the bible WRONG.
I’ve done the same with all the other questions of the New and Old Testament.
God won’t talk to you until you listen to him. How do you listen to him? Follow his commands. The second time I ever heard God speak literally to me he said “follow my commands” Am I hearing voices, am I hallucinating? I obviously see something you Guys don’t. I’d advise you to print and study this, before accusing me I believe in a God that doesn’t exist.
- Child of God who cares for you.
Posted by: Josh | March 15, 2007 12:47 PM
Well, Julia, there is a difference in saying to people that they cannot call theselves Christians if they don't believe in a god, and that if they believe in a god they must think in a certain way.
Your example with the Christians telling atheists what they believe is similar to the second.
An similar situation to the first, would be to tell someone calling themselves atheists, that they are not atheists if they believe in a god.
It's a simple matter of definitions.
Of course, people are free to redefine the words, but it doesn't allow for very conductive conversation if you redefine words to mean the exact opposite of the original meaning.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 15, 2007 12:47 PM
thanks for sharing your thoughts. i really agree with your "divinity in all of us" perspective... very carl sagan-esque.
thanks for your courage.
Posted by: drcharles | March 15, 2007 12:51 PM
KNOP ??? Is someone paying for this? Or, are you craving attention that much? Get laid or something, for Zeus's sake!
Posted by: Hans | March 15, 2007 12:56 PM
a person's beliefs and actions are a complex system, and have multiple causes, and multiple effects, some of which will result in contradictions. It will require too much energy to ferret out the inconsistent ones, but why bother? Better to know your own contradictions, and make your peace with them. You'll be happier in the long run
Tell that those who oppose vaccination on religious grounds. Tell that to those who oppose blood transfusions on religious grounds. Tell that to those who engage in all sorts of destructive behaviour due to "inconsistent" beliefs.
Whitman's sentiments are fine if we're talking about food preferences, or the kind of clothes you like, or trivialities like that. But religious views have huge impacts on the lives of their believers and others. This isn't only true for "secular" concerns like politics -- many (if not most) Christian religions assert that holding only one set of proper beliefs are necessary to avoid a literal eternity of torment, and other religions avow that only specific beliefs will avert serious consequences (e.g., re-incarnation in a lower lifeform). I think you'll find that both the Pope and most imams are fairly adamant that "contradicting yourself" and "containing multitudes" on issues like homosexuality and abortion are simply not acceptable.
And Rob, count me among those who have carefully read this and your previous posts, and are still massively confused by your beliefs and the reasoning behind them. Here are few things I don't understand that I hope you can clarify:
- How does someone allowing themselves to be killed give the rest of us forgiveness for acting badly? Especially if you're not clear whether that someone has any special powers (since God doesn't act in the world), and that person didn't have any role in making us in the first place? How do they even how the power to grant us forgiveness? Isn't it usually the case that only the person you've offended can forgive you? If I declare that I am dying for the sins of the world, and throw myself in front of a bus, would that have the same effect? If not, why not?
(I personally find the whole notion that enduring torture and death somehow grants forgiveness to others to be not only incoherent, but phenomenally repugnant, and only a idea that a sadist could come up with. But perhaps that's just me.)
- If there is no exclusivity of "truth" for a particular religious belief, then how do you make sense of beliefs that say yours is literally (and "damnedably") wrong, that you are endangering your immortal soul to believe what you do? Are they "right" in some fashion? Surely, whatever equivocating you want to do about conflicting religious beliefs, it is an actual matter of fact whether you will spend an eternity in hell or not? Talk about waves and particles is all well and good, but it seems incoherent to think that your soul is like a photon whose final disposition depends on how you look at it -- surely it is either in an actual hell, or not (either because such a place doesn't exist, or you're someplace else, or you have no soul to begin with).
- On a similar point, if Jesus forgives us our imperfections (or sins), what exactly count as sins? Various religions have, at times, thought that killing unbelievers was a proper, even holy, act -- would that be a sin that needs to be forgiven? Or, because those particular religions don't view them as sins, are they actually not transgressions? If a psychopath doesn't think that they do anything wrong, do they need to be forgiven at all? In the past there have been various religious groups that have thought humans incapable of sin -- were they correct? If there is no privileged religious dogma, then how do you even know that there is such a thing as acts that need forgiveness from some supernatural being? Where does this apparent absolutist view of morality come from, if all beliefs are equally true (or at least if no belief is the "truest").
To be honest, Rob, I really don't see how you can consider yourself a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word given your beliefs. That doesn't mean your beliefs aren't valuable to you (they clearly are), but I think you are mislabelling them, and that is confusing. Not believing in the resurrection of Jesus, or an afterlife/immortal soul, or a creator God, pretty much runs counter to any Christian sect's beliefs. Although you seem to reject the label, I think it is more accurate to call yourself a "cultural Christian" -- you like the trappings (e.g., music, community, sense of tradition), but your actual beliefs are far more deist or Unitarian (to the extent that Unitarians have any single view). I think there are plenty of deists, or at least Unitarians, who would agree that Jesus was a righteous and cool dude, and pretty much hold many if not most of your other views. Certainly these traditions would be far more accepting of your views that practically any "Christian" sect.
Posted by: Tulse | March 15, 2007 12:58 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I'm following you.
It seems unlikely that you are saying that there is somewhere on record an "original meaning" of the word "Christian" that reads "believer in an invisible sky-daddy riding around on a cloud"? It also seems unlikely that you are claiming that words are somehow confined by "original meaning," as the meanings of word constantly evolve. In other words, I doubt that you are using the original meaning of "happy" when you say "silly."
So I'm probably missing your point.
Posted by: Julia | March 15, 2007 1:00 PM
I`m not trying to be rude, but I`m posting this twice because I feel God wants me to.
Rob your other blog was deleted so im posting this here..
I’m not talking about false religion. What I have found is true religion and I can believe with 100 % surety.... Correct, people with false religion can’t say they have 100 % surety in there faith. ex(Thunder gods created thunder.)
Was an atheist there when the earth was formed? No. So what sources do they use to make them feel “Comforted”? They use the dirt around them. – How accurate is that?
Now, if I was born in a sand box and had No way out because I was caged in; would I know what was outside that sandbox? No, not unless I have a reliable source, or experienced being outside that sand box for myself.
Here’s the good stuff.-
Is my source a 100 % accurate? Have I ever been let down by my source?
No. So am I 100 % sure my source is accurate... yes. I’m getting my information from a source that was there. (GOD) Atheists guess what was there. How accurate is that?
Really good stuff-
So how can the bible be accurate…? If you interpret it the way it was meant for. What better source to ask then the one who created it? GOD.
For example,
How can the Old Testament and New Testament be about the same God? The Old Testament talks about killing people, when they sin. Now, the New Testament talks about forgiveness and love when they sin. I ask the one who is telling me this…, (GOD) “God how can this be?”
He answers:
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. - Mathew 12:7(New Testament)
This is also found in the Old Testament several times. (Hosea 6:6)
From that God told me, he gave authority to those who were being sinned against. God said as punishment for you sin you can either be sacrificed or forgiven. Before you flip out read this statement--
--If you were paralyzed in a car accident from someone malfunctioning, then the judge would give you the opportunity to forgive them or press charges. The charges could be up to a million dollars or so, it’s all according to what the judge says. Or you can forgive that person who was malfunctioning which God desires much more.
Read this post carefully and don’t look just one way. If you only LOOK ONE WAY and never see what God is actually saying, then you will always interpret the bible WRONG.
I’ve done the same with all the other questions of the New and Old Testament.
God won’t talk to you until you listen to him. How do you listen to him? Follow his commands. The second time I ever heard God speak literally to me he said “follow my commands” Am I hearing voices, am I hallucinating? I obviously see something you Guys don’t. I’d advise you to print and study this, before accusing me I believe in a God that doesn’t exist.
- Child of God who cares for you.
Posted by: Josh | March 15, 2007 1:00 PM
Rob, what would you think of the hypothesis that (something like) "emotional attachment to supernatural explanations" (despite the logical implausibility of God) and "emotional attachment to inductive method" (despite Hume) are both attributes with a genetic substrate, and that you are towards one end of the spectrum in relation to both?
With the PZ crowd being hi-inductive lo-spiritual?
Posted by: potentilla | March 15, 2007 1:00 PM
Rob,
So, you are Christian essentially because you were raised as that way and like being a Christian. I respect your view and I'm glad that you are aware that the reason you are a Christian has a lot to do with the environment you grew up and not because you think it is the One True Religion. And that is exactly why I'm not a Christian.
One reason that atheism appeals to me, besides that I think it is the most rational position, is that it is the fairest position. Anyone from any part of the world can be an atheist. The same is not true with Christianity. A Christian may argue that the church is open to anyone. But the reality is that Christianity is such a foreign religion to a Japanese guy like me, despite the efforts of missionaries and all the good things Jesus taught, or the fact that my grandparents were among the 1% or so of Japanese population who are Christians. It may not be as difficult as non-Japanese to believe in Shintoism, but is close. The struggle to be Christian was an important theme that made the Japanese Christian writer Shusaku Endo fascinating to read. But I think the most elegant solution is to be an atheist. Everyone is born as an atheist after all. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you have to reject what Jesus taught or what Buddha taught.
Posted by: HI | March 15, 2007 1:11 PM
As an ex-Christian now-atheist with an interest in the science/religion interface, I've been following this whole thing with some interest (not that I've had time to read the entirety of all the comment threads -- good grief, even Pharyngula seldom gets threads this voluminous!). A few randomly-ordered thoughts:
First: are you a Christian? Definitions are inevitably arbitrary and fuzzy-bordered, but I say that anyone who self-identifies as such, who affiliates with a Christian church, and whose beliefs ultimately trace to the Christ of the Gospels in some way, is a Christian, however heterodox his take may be on the tradition. So: Yes.
As for the nature of your Christianity: With respect, you've arbitrarily picked out the bits of Christian scripture and tradition that appeal to you and tossed the rest[1]. Not that I disapprove particularly -- I did it myself for a while, and IMNSHO, fundamentalists also cherry-pick outrageously, much though they would deny it. It is to your credit that you have picked out the "nice" bits and ditched the more obnoxious ones. It has long seemed to me that religious people create God in their own image -- and the deity they wind up with tells us much about the person.
Is your religion consistent with science? As far as I can tell, you've eliminated all concept of an interventionist God from your theology, so I think the answer is "yes", in the sense that it does not conflict with science -- it exists conceptually alongside and independent of science. Of course, there seem to be some folks (PZ and Moran?) who argue that science (ie. the scientific way of thinking about things) should permeate one's life, and be applied to everything. In that sense, your non-rational feel-good theology, being based neither in empirically-verifiable evidence nor in self-evident logic, is not compatible. Being neither a professional scientist nor a philosopher thereof, I really couldn't say what science is "supposed to be". These days, I tend to try to run my life along the latter lines (the NOMA approach turned out not to be psychologically stable for me), but I see that as a personal choice, not as a universal truth.
As for whether this belongs on SB: Sheesh, it belongs here at least as much as PZ's rantings (my reaction to which varies widely from day to day), or Brayton's "Dispatches", or the intra-SB sniping between the churchills and the chamberlains. The interaction between science and everything around it in human culture is certainly "on topic". (Hell, a lot of posts on many blogs here are almost purely political, with scant connection to science). There's gotta be, what, a couple of dozen blogs here; I don't read more than a few regularly. Anyone who threatens to abandon SB altogether because one astronomer gives an occasional sermon is being silly.
[1] Flawed though it is, the infamous "Lord/Liar/Lunatic" trilemma (at least as originally formulated by Lewis, before McDowell got ahold of it) does point up the inconsistency of accepting the "Good Teacher" aspect of the Gospel Jesus while arbitrarily tossing out the supernaturalism. As I understand it, the Jesus Seminar represents an attempt to provide a consistent rationale for recovery of an historical and natural Christ from the text. But I've never read any of their stuff, so I don't really know.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 15, 2007 1:12 PM
Rob:
Answering: "Why can't human nature be human nature and leave it at that?" you said: "You could do it that way. I find it more appealing to have some explicit absolution, to have the notion that there is a Redeemer who will grant us grace in spite of our flawed nature."
I think that what many commenters find puzzling about your stance here and in other parts of your posts is that you seem to choose your beliefs according to what you would like to be true. You find it more appealing to have explicit absolution, therefore you think there is. You would like to have an afterlife, therefore you believe you might have one even if you admit the evidence weighs against it. And so on.
I find it a bit less puzzling because I have read fideists defend their faith before (my favourite, and best counterexample to "if you are religious you are anti-science", is Martin Gardner) but is still find it mildly puzzling. Believing something is just thinking that this something is true, true independent of your beliefs. And believing that something is true, is, to my mind, inseparably connected to finding, by one's best lights, that there are good reasons to think that it is true. You have addressed many "reasons for believing" in the sense of the goodness that believing does to your life, but no "reasons to believe that "God exists" is true". And you have come close to admitting that there are no such reasons. Don't you think there is something paradoxical in this?
(The reasons to believe that "God exists" is true don't have to be scientific, you have agreeed that there are not. They can be philosophical, in various senses of the word. But I, at least, would find it difficult to keep a belief that I don't have any reason at all to think corresponds to an independent reality.)
Posted by: Alejandro | March 15, 2007 1:19 PM