I spend a lot of time in this blog writing about the Kingdom of God. As I've mentioned before, the Kingdom of God is a central concept in Christian thought. Unfortunately, most Christians don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Kingdom of God.
Most Christians, at least in America, assume that the phrase "Kingdom of God" simply refers to people who are Christian and/or the place where Christians will go when they die.
Evangelicals spend a lot of time talking about whether or not someone is "saved", "truly Christian", or less commonly, "in the Kingdom". They tend to use the terms interchangeably, as though they meant the same thing. I believe that the reality is more complex than most Christians realize.
First, let us consider what we mean when we say that someone is a Christian. Most people would agree that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he was crucified, that he was raised again, and that, through his death, he made peace between God and man.
That's the gist of it. Some people would define it a little differently, but at the end of the day Christianity is a belief system. Whether or not someone is a Christian is based on what they believe.
I've talked before about how religion relates to the Kingdom of God. I agree that religious beliefs do matter; that believing in Jesus and his work on the cross is an important piece of the puzzle. I just don't think it's the whole picture.
There is so much more to God's Kingdom than simply having the right beliefs. If we want to see God's Kingdom come, we must also concern ourselves with love, justice, mercy and forgiveness. There are many misguided Christians out there who actively work against God's Kingdom. At the same time many people who aren't Christian are, without being aware of it, actually helping to build God's Kingdom.
Next, I want to think about what we mean when we say that someone is "saved". Most Evangelicals use this term to refer to the final judgement. A person who is "saved" will not be condemned, but instead they will receive eternal life.
This idea is also related to the Kingdom of God, although in a different way. This question is concerned with who will inherit God's Kingdom.
In the present age, there are many people working to build God's Kingdom, but the work is far from finished. Most of the time our world can be a terribly cruel and unjust place. We try to make things better, but the task is so daunting that it can often seem overwhelming.
The Bible looks forward to a time when God's Kingdom will be fully established; when love, justice, mercy and forgiveness will be the rule rather than the exception; when everyone will be able to experience peace and joy in God's Holy presence.
The question is, who will inherit this Kingdom? Once the work is finished, who will be allowed in, to enjoy the blessings of the Kingdom? This is a difficult question, and not one that I am comfortable answering. It is not my place to say who will be let in and who will be kept out. That is for God to decide.
I feel confident saying that people who are Christian, and who are working to build God's Kingdom, will enter into God's Kingdom as long as they remain faithful till the end. Beyond that, I do not know. I suspect that God may decide to expand the guest list quite a bit, and I think that there will be more than a few surprises when the time comes.
So in the end I can't be certain what will happen, or who will be in or out, but I trust that God will judge fairly. I believe he will show mercy to everyone who asks him, and that he will be found by everyone who seeks him.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Living in Darkness
I try not to write about politics too much on this blog, but from what I've written it should be pretty clear that I lean pretty far to the left (at least, by American standards). I am one of the few liberal, evangelical Christians. Indeed we're so rare that most people consider the phrase "liberal evangelical" to be a contradiction in terms.
I am often frustrated by the prominence of the religious right in America, and the affect they have on how Christianity is perceived. When I found out that Barack Obama was going to run for President, I thought it would be a great thing. I knew that he was Christian, and deeply religious. If he were elected, I told myself, more people would see that there are Christians who care about poverty, the environment, healthcare, and other important issues that the religious right neglects.
What I didn't expect is that almost two years into his Presidency, 18% of the country would believe that he is actually a Muslim, and an even larger number would be unsure of the President's beliefs.
I've read several articles that try to understand how so many people could be so thoroughly mistaken about the President's beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people are simply misinformed. Conservative media and the religious right have put a lot of energy into spreading the lie that Obama is a Muslim.
I am convinced that this isn't simply a matter of ignorance and misinformation. I'm sure that most of the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim have heard him talk about his Christian faith. I'm sure that plenty of them remember the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. They're not ignorant about Obama's professed beliefs. They believe that he is lying about his religious beliefs in order to deceive the American public.
A year ago I wrote about this exact issue. I wrote that it is wrong to accuse people of lying about their religious beliefs. I stand by my original conviction, although I am worried that I didn't phrase my objection strongly enough.
The Apostle John wrote, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness." When Christians band together to slander our president, a fellow Christian and a brother in Christ, they are surely living in darkness.
The religious right shouldn't be using these kinds of tactics to smear Obama. They should be able to talk about the problems they have with Obama's policies without bringing his religious views into the picture. The fact that they feel the need to resort to these tactics reveals a lot about how many people within the religious right view their faith.
They don't view Christianity as a religion available to anyone, regardless of their culture, politics, ethnicity or nation of origin. Instead they treat Christianity as an exclusive club, where only people with the right credentials are allowed to join, where people all share the same beliefs and opinions.
This kind of exclusive mentality is dangerous. When we have this attitude toward others, it reveals that we don't understand the power of God's forgiveness. Exclusiveness and hatred of fellow believers is also toxic to the faith. It divides Christians against each other and drives people away from Christianity.
Personally, I would love it if more Christians understood the importance of social justice, and became more liberal as a result, but I understand that not every Christian shares my views. I only ask other believers to extend their liberal brothers and sisters the same courtesy.
I am often frustrated by the prominence of the religious right in America, and the affect they have on how Christianity is perceived. When I found out that Barack Obama was going to run for President, I thought it would be a great thing. I knew that he was Christian, and deeply religious. If he were elected, I told myself, more people would see that there are Christians who care about poverty, the environment, healthcare, and other important issues that the religious right neglects.
What I didn't expect is that almost two years into his Presidency, 18% of the country would believe that he is actually a Muslim, and an even larger number would be unsure of the President's beliefs.
I've read several articles that try to understand how so many people could be so thoroughly mistaken about the President's beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people are simply misinformed. Conservative media and the religious right have put a lot of energy into spreading the lie that Obama is a Muslim.
I am convinced that this isn't simply a matter of ignorance and misinformation. I'm sure that most of the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim have heard him talk about his Christian faith. I'm sure that plenty of them remember the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. They're not ignorant about Obama's professed beliefs. They believe that he is lying about his religious beliefs in order to deceive the American public.
A year ago I wrote about this exact issue. I wrote that it is wrong to accuse people of lying about their religious beliefs. I stand by my original conviction, although I am worried that I didn't phrase my objection strongly enough.
The Apostle John wrote, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness." When Christians band together to slander our president, a fellow Christian and a brother in Christ, they are surely living in darkness.
The religious right shouldn't be using these kinds of tactics to smear Obama. They should be able to talk about the problems they have with Obama's policies without bringing his religious views into the picture. The fact that they feel the need to resort to these tactics reveals a lot about how many people within the religious right view their faith.
They don't view Christianity as a religion available to anyone, regardless of their culture, politics, ethnicity or nation of origin. Instead they treat Christianity as an exclusive club, where only people with the right credentials are allowed to join, where people all share the same beliefs and opinions.
This kind of exclusive mentality is dangerous. When we have this attitude toward others, it reveals that we don't understand the power of God's forgiveness. Exclusiveness and hatred of fellow believers is also toxic to the faith. It divides Christians against each other and drives people away from Christianity.
Personally, I would love it if more Christians understood the importance of social justice, and became more liberal as a result, but I understand that not every Christian shares my views. I only ask other believers to extend their liberal brothers and sisters the same courtesy.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Science and Faith: Explanation vs. Justification
Since I've been reviewing The God Delusion I have been thinking quite a lot about the role of science and religion and how the two relate. It isn't always easy to separate scientific and religious truth claims. There isn't a simple bright line that neatly divides the two fields. Still, it is important to understand what divides the two fields, and how to reasonably draw a line between them.
The best way to do that is to look at the goals of science and religion. Although at times they both tackle the same subjects, both fields have very different goals. Simply put, the goal of science is to provide an explanation, and the goal of religion is to provide a justification.
What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, an explanation is a descriptive model. The goal of an explanation is to provide an understanding of what is happening in a given situation. If our understanding is very good, we should even be able to predict what will happen in certain situations.
Scientific explanations also tend to be reductionist in nature. They explain complex phenomena in relatively simple terms. For explanations, the goal is always to make things as simple as possible, so they can be more easily understood. If the explanation is more complex than the thing you're trying to explain, then it's not a very good explanation.
Justification, on the other hand, works differently. Instead of trying to understand the universe in terms of simpler things like particles and forces, a justification seeks to understand how the universe relates to more complex things, typically God. A justification is able to explain, not just how the universe operates, but how it came to exist, why it is the way it is, and what purpose it has.
Unsurprisingly, most atheists don't think the universe needs any justification. The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said, "The universe is just there." To put it another way, the atheist position is that the universe is self justifying. I have my issues with this, which I've been over many times before. For now I will just conclude with one of my favorite xkcd quotes, "If the question of what it all means doesn't mean anything, then why do I keep coming back to it?"
In any case, I hope this helps you to understand the difference between scientific and religious theories. It may also shed light on many of the conflicts between science and religion. I think it's also helpful for anyone who wants to try to separate out scientific ideas from religious ones. This is useful for anyone who struggles to see how scientific and religious ideas can operate together without one trampling all over the other.
The best way to do that is to look at the goals of science and religion. Although at times they both tackle the same subjects, both fields have very different goals. Simply put, the goal of science is to provide an explanation, and the goal of religion is to provide a justification.
What do I mean by that? Well, first of all, an explanation is a descriptive model. The goal of an explanation is to provide an understanding of what is happening in a given situation. If our understanding is very good, we should even be able to predict what will happen in certain situations.
Scientific explanations also tend to be reductionist in nature. They explain complex phenomena in relatively simple terms. For explanations, the goal is always to make things as simple as possible, so they can be more easily understood. If the explanation is more complex than the thing you're trying to explain, then it's not a very good explanation.
Justification, on the other hand, works differently. Instead of trying to understand the universe in terms of simpler things like particles and forces, a justification seeks to understand how the universe relates to more complex things, typically God. A justification is able to explain, not just how the universe operates, but how it came to exist, why it is the way it is, and what purpose it has.
Unsurprisingly, most atheists don't think the universe needs any justification. The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russel once said, "The universe is just there." To put it another way, the atheist position is that the universe is self justifying. I have my issues with this, which I've been over many times before. For now I will just conclude with one of my favorite xkcd quotes, "If the question of what it all means doesn't mean anything, then why do I keep coming back to it?"
In any case, I hope this helps you to understand the difference between scientific and religious theories. It may also shed light on many of the conflicts between science and religion. I think it's also helpful for anyone who wants to try to separate out scientific ideas from religious ones. This is useful for anyone who struggles to see how scientific and religious ideas can operate together without one trampling all over the other.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Science and the Miraculous
About a month ago I talked about miracles. I explained that miracles don't have to be big, flashy displays that defy the laws of science. As I explained a miracle is anything that reveals God's character to us.
This is why many bizarre phenomena, such as ball lightning, that defy scientific explanation aren't considered miraculous. They don't reveal anything about God's character.
Of course, there are some miracles that illustrate God's character as well as his power over nature. Things that seem impossible, or at least very improbable. Many people struggle to believe in Christianity because of the accounts miracles in scripture. They aren't sure how to reconcile a belief in supernatural miracles with a scientific worldview.
It is a problem. If we believe that scientific knowledge provides a complete and accurate understanding of the universe, then we have to concede that these kinds of miracles are impossible. Of course, our present scientific understanding is far from complete. More to the point, I don't believe that the scientific method can ever give us a complete understanding of the universe in which we live.
First and foremost, scientists can only study phenomena and events that are repeatable. Repeatable, in this case, meaning that the events can be reproduced in some sort of predictable fashion. If there are any events or phenomena that cannot be reproduced in this fashion, then science is unable to explain them. Supernatural miracles fall into this category, because God causes them when and where he choses. Since we cannot reproduce the event, we are unable to study it scientifically.
Some people might argue that, if supernatural miracles do occur, we should see more evidence of them. Specifically, one might argue that if such miracles were commonplace, then it would be difficult for scientists to produce such elegant theories that explain so much about our universe.
This only shows us that such miracles are rare, and that God prefers to work through natural laws, rather than against them. The only way we can conclude that supernatural miracles never occur is if we assume that the laws of nature are absolutely true at all times. We can accept scientific knowledge without coming to this conclusion.
This is why many bizarre phenomena, such as ball lightning, that defy scientific explanation aren't considered miraculous. They don't reveal anything about God's character.
Of course, there are some miracles that illustrate God's character as well as his power over nature. Things that seem impossible, or at least very improbable. Many people struggle to believe in Christianity because of the accounts miracles in scripture. They aren't sure how to reconcile a belief in supernatural miracles with a scientific worldview.
It is a problem. If we believe that scientific knowledge provides a complete and accurate understanding of the universe, then we have to concede that these kinds of miracles are impossible. Of course, our present scientific understanding is far from complete. More to the point, I don't believe that the scientific method can ever give us a complete understanding of the universe in which we live.
First and foremost, scientists can only study phenomena and events that are repeatable. Repeatable, in this case, meaning that the events can be reproduced in some sort of predictable fashion. If there are any events or phenomena that cannot be reproduced in this fashion, then science is unable to explain them. Supernatural miracles fall into this category, because God causes them when and where he choses. Since we cannot reproduce the event, we are unable to study it scientifically.
Some people might argue that, if supernatural miracles do occur, we should see more evidence of them. Specifically, one might argue that if such miracles were commonplace, then it would be difficult for scientists to produce such elegant theories that explain so much about our universe.
This only shows us that such miracles are rare, and that God prefers to work through natural laws, rather than against them. The only way we can conclude that supernatural miracles never occur is if we assume that the laws of nature are absolutely true at all times. We can accept scientific knowledge without coming to this conclusion.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Miracles and Signs
Most of the time, when people use the word "miracle" they're talking about an event that is clearly impossible. Something that violates the laws of physics. Something that defies everything we know about the world works.
Sometimes the term is used differently. Sometimes the word is used to describe an event that is entirely possible, even expected, that still manages to evoke a sense of awe and wonder in us. As an example, people often refer to the miracle of childbirth, even though giving birth to a child is the natural result of pregnancy.
The reason we have this second usage is because miracles don't merely refer to unlikely or impossible occurrences. It refers to events that reveal God to us. It refers to events that demonstrate God's power as well as his character.
Sometimes these events are called signs. That term is helpful because that's what these events are. They are signs that point us to God. They show us who God is and what he is like.
Everyone loves a flashy sign, an extravagant miracle that displays Gods power and majesty. Unfortunately the smaller, less visible signs are often overlooked. We don't always recognize or appreciate the smaller ways in which God reveals himself to us.
Partly this is because those smaller signs are so often lost in the noise and confusion that the world generates. However, I think a large part of the reason why this happens is because we learn to take those little signs for granted.
As wonderful as it can be to experience a truly incredible miracle, we must be careful not to lose sight of the less spectacular, but far more commonplace miracles. We should be mindful of all the little ways that God makes his goodness, his righteousness and his majesty known to us through everyday occurrences. If we can learn to do this we will never lack a reminder of who God is and what he has done for us.
Sometimes the term is used differently. Sometimes the word is used to describe an event that is entirely possible, even expected, that still manages to evoke a sense of awe and wonder in us. As an example, people often refer to the miracle of childbirth, even though giving birth to a child is the natural result of pregnancy.
The reason we have this second usage is because miracles don't merely refer to unlikely or impossible occurrences. It refers to events that reveal God to us. It refers to events that demonstrate God's power as well as his character.
Sometimes these events are called signs. That term is helpful because that's what these events are. They are signs that point us to God. They show us who God is and what he is like.
Everyone loves a flashy sign, an extravagant miracle that displays Gods power and majesty. Unfortunately the smaller, less visible signs are often overlooked. We don't always recognize or appreciate the smaller ways in which God reveals himself to us.
Partly this is because those smaller signs are so often lost in the noise and confusion that the world generates. However, I think a large part of the reason why this happens is because we learn to take those little signs for granted.
As wonderful as it can be to experience a truly incredible miracle, we must be careful not to lose sight of the less spectacular, but far more commonplace miracles. We should be mindful of all the little ways that God makes his goodness, his righteousness and his majesty known to us through everyday occurrences. If we can learn to do this we will never lack a reminder of who God is and what he has done for us.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Hardest Subject
Today I'm going to talk about something I've never talked about before despite the fact that it is a central aspect of the Christian religion. I'm going to talk about God's judgement. More to the point I'm going to talk about Hell, whether or not it exists, and who ends up there.
I've never talked about this subject before for two simple reasons. One, it's an incredibly sensitive topic for obvious reasons. Two, I don't have many strong convictions in this area. I have some strong opinions, but I'm not entirely sure of those opinions.
However, as long as I remain silent, most people will probably assume that I hold the traditional protestant view. Namely, that Hell is real and terrible and that anyone who doesn't confess their faith in Jesus during their life will spend eternity there. I may not be entirely sure that my beliefs are correct, but I strongly believe this view is wrong. If only for that reason, I should probably let you know what my beliefs concerning the final judgement actually are.
First of all, I have a hard time believing that every single adult* who isn't a Christian at the time of their death will be judged. Far too many people have lived and died having never even had an opportunity to become Christian. Many more people only know of Jesus through the message spread by crusaders and conquistadors, men whose actions contradict and pervert the message of Christ.
It seems far more reasonable to me to assume that they mercy God has shown through Jesus on the cross isn't meant only for Christians. I don't claim to know exactly how far God's mercy extends, but I am very uncomfortable putting limits on it. I am especially uncomfortably limiting it only to those people who hear about Jesus and believe in him while they are still alive.
As I write this, I know that many evangelicals who read this would probably cringe at this suggestion that God's mercy isn't reserved just for them. "If God's just going to let everyone into heaven anyway, then why bother evangelizing?" they would probably ask.
Simply put, I believe that being Christian is about more than merely reserving a seat in heaven. I think that following Jesus has something to do with participating in the Kingdom of God, which has begun and even now is growing silently and invisibly all around us, but I'll save that discussion for a future post.
Second, I have a hard time believing that God would send anyone to an actual, eternal Hell. I once had a discussion with a friend at church who said, bluntly, that the only reason anyone believes in Hell is because of Dante's inferno. This is an exaggeration, to be sure, but it's probably more true than we'd like to admit. I also think Pascal's notorious wager has something to do with why so many people continue to believe in Hell. For many people, fear of Hell is what convinced them to become Christian in the first place.
In addition, there are some deep philosophical reasons why many Christians believe in an eternal Hell. Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul. In fact, most Christians assume that this belief is a core part of the Christian faith, even though the Bible doesn't make that claim.
Because they have this assumption, when they read about God punishing the wicked, they assume that the punishment must be eternal. They don't consider the possibility that the person's soul could die, even though this punishment is referred to as, "The second death." They ignore the obvious interpretation because of their belief in the immortality of the soul.
A great book to read if you're interested in learning more about alternative views about Hell is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. It's written for a popular audience, which makes it an excellent antidote for The Inferno.
So, what do I believe concerning the final judgement? I believe that God is merciful and his judgments are just. I trust that God won't be harsh or unfair in his judgments. For that reason, I have hard time believing the traditional view. The traditional view may provide certainty, but if we really trust God then I think we can handle a little uncertainty.
* Most evangelicals believe that children under a certain age are exempt from judgment. This is called the "Age of accountability". There isn't much basis in scripture for this belief, but most people are uncomfortable with a theology that condemns infants to Hell just because they weren't baptized.
I've never talked about this subject before for two simple reasons. One, it's an incredibly sensitive topic for obvious reasons. Two, I don't have many strong convictions in this area. I have some strong opinions, but I'm not entirely sure of those opinions.
However, as long as I remain silent, most people will probably assume that I hold the traditional protestant view. Namely, that Hell is real and terrible and that anyone who doesn't confess their faith in Jesus during their life will spend eternity there. I may not be entirely sure that my beliefs are correct, but I strongly believe this view is wrong. If only for that reason, I should probably let you know what my beliefs concerning the final judgement actually are.
First of all, I have a hard time believing that every single adult* who isn't a Christian at the time of their death will be judged. Far too many people have lived and died having never even had an opportunity to become Christian. Many more people only know of Jesus through the message spread by crusaders and conquistadors, men whose actions contradict and pervert the message of Christ.
It seems far more reasonable to me to assume that they mercy God has shown through Jesus on the cross isn't meant only for Christians. I don't claim to know exactly how far God's mercy extends, but I am very uncomfortable putting limits on it. I am especially uncomfortably limiting it only to those people who hear about Jesus and believe in him while they are still alive.
As I write this, I know that many evangelicals who read this would probably cringe at this suggestion that God's mercy isn't reserved just for them. "If God's just going to let everyone into heaven anyway, then why bother evangelizing?" they would probably ask.
Simply put, I believe that being Christian is about more than merely reserving a seat in heaven. I think that following Jesus has something to do with participating in the Kingdom of God, which has begun and even now is growing silently and invisibly all around us, but I'll save that discussion for a future post.
Second, I have a hard time believing that God would send anyone to an actual, eternal Hell. I once had a discussion with a friend at church who said, bluntly, that the only reason anyone believes in Hell is because of Dante's inferno. This is an exaggeration, to be sure, but it's probably more true than we'd like to admit. I also think Pascal's notorious wager has something to do with why so many people continue to believe in Hell. For many people, fear of Hell is what convinced them to become Christian in the first place.
In addition, there are some deep philosophical reasons why many Christians believe in an eternal Hell. Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul. In fact, most Christians assume that this belief is a core part of the Christian faith, even though the Bible doesn't make that claim.
Because they have this assumption, when they read about God punishing the wicked, they assume that the punishment must be eternal. They don't consider the possibility that the person's soul could die, even though this punishment is referred to as, "The second death." They ignore the obvious interpretation because of their belief in the immortality of the soul.
A great book to read if you're interested in learning more about alternative views about Hell is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. It's written for a popular audience, which makes it an excellent antidote for The Inferno.
So, what do I believe concerning the final judgement? I believe that God is merciful and his judgments are just. I trust that God won't be harsh or unfair in his judgments. For that reason, I have hard time believing the traditional view. The traditional view may provide certainty, but if we really trust God then I think we can handle a little uncertainty.
* Most evangelicals believe that children under a certain age are exempt from judgment. This is called the "Age of accountability". There isn't much basis in scripture for this belief, but most people are uncomfortable with a theology that condemns infants to Hell just because they weren't baptized.
Monday, July 5, 2010
White Privilege and the Economic Meltdown
I recently read a fascinating article on Facebook. The article talks about the effects of white privilege and how it makes it harder for white Americans to cope with the current recession, at least psychologically. He also talks about why it's important to pursue racial equality, even during a recession.
The article is really good, and I don't have much to add. I recommend reading it first before you read my own reflections.
I wanted to say that the article captures something crucial about human nature. We have a hard time putting others first when our own well being is on the line. When we are under pressure the first thing we give up on is generosity. Kindness and goodwill are luxuries we indulge in only if we are absolutely sure we can afford it, and often times not even then.
Unfortunately, as Tim Wise points out, this selfishness is shortsighted. When we fail to take care of people in need, the whole economy suffers. If we fail to take care of those people who are in need, we will soon find ourselves in need and there might not be anyone to take care of us.
One of the greatest contributions that religion has made in Western civilization, is that it teaches us the importance of loving and caring for others. In particular, Christianity teaches us to value others more highly than ourselves; to love and care for even our enemies. Through religion, we have the belief that taking care of others is always worth the cost.
One of the great scandals of American Christianity is that it has largely abandoned this teaching, especially with regard to racial equality.
There are exceptions of course. The abolitionist movement was championed by Christian activists, as was the early Republican party (which ended slavery in America). The civil rights movement was also championed by African American churches. Still, the majority of American Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, have either ignored or actively supported racial inequality.
This is a tragedy. White evangelical churches are in the best position to deconstruct the mythology surrounding white privilege. Yet most of the time they help to build up the myth that whites are deserving of their privilege. At the same time they ignore the very real racial inequality that persists in this country.
This is one of the main reasons why I am so very out of step with Evangelicals, both socially and politically. I continue to pray that the church will repent, but more importantly, I pray that we, as a Nation, repent of this evil, and begin working to solve the deep injustices that plague our country.
The article is really good, and I don't have much to add. I recommend reading it first before you read my own reflections.
I wanted to say that the article captures something crucial about human nature. We have a hard time putting others first when our own well being is on the line. When we are under pressure the first thing we give up on is generosity. Kindness and goodwill are luxuries we indulge in only if we are absolutely sure we can afford it, and often times not even then.
Unfortunately, as Tim Wise points out, this selfishness is shortsighted. When we fail to take care of people in need, the whole economy suffers. If we fail to take care of those people who are in need, we will soon find ourselves in need and there might not be anyone to take care of us.
One of the greatest contributions that religion has made in Western civilization, is that it teaches us the importance of loving and caring for others. In particular, Christianity teaches us to value others more highly than ourselves; to love and care for even our enemies. Through religion, we have the belief that taking care of others is always worth the cost.
One of the great scandals of American Christianity is that it has largely abandoned this teaching, especially with regard to racial equality.
There are exceptions of course. The abolitionist movement was championed by Christian activists, as was the early Republican party (which ended slavery in America). The civil rights movement was also championed by African American churches. Still, the majority of American Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, have either ignored or actively supported racial inequality.
This is a tragedy. White evangelical churches are in the best position to deconstruct the mythology surrounding white privilege. Yet most of the time they help to build up the myth that whites are deserving of their privilege. At the same time they ignore the very real racial inequality that persists in this country.
This is one of the main reasons why I am so very out of step with Evangelicals, both socially and politically. I continue to pray that the church will repent, but more importantly, I pray that we, as a Nation, repent of this evil, and begin working to solve the deep injustices that plague our country.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Twisted Story
I'm sure that all of you have heard the gospel at some point. The story is very well known in the Western world. It is so commonly heard and so often repeated that it just becomes part of the background noise after awhile.
Moreover, the gospel, the Christian message, has been at the center of European culture for 1600 years now. The story is so widespread and has become so common that almost everyone has heard it, but we rarely stop to think about what a strange story it is. The story seems normal to us, because we've heard it so often in so many different forms. Though we've often heard it described as, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," it might be more accurate to say that it is the most twisted story ever told.
It is a story of the God who made everything. The God who made everything created people in his image to govern the earth for him. But people turned away from God. They lost their privileged status and fell under a curse. The world, which was once perfectly good, began to turn against them.
This is just the setup. This is the part people frequently object to, but this isn't the part that's twisted. The twisted part comes next.
God decided to set things right again. He sent a person who will be good, who won't turn away from him, to be his representative and to make peace between himself and humanity. This person led a good life. He gathered some followers and taught them how to lead a good life. Unfortunately, a lot of people with political and religious clout didn't like this person, so they conspired to have him killed.
Now, here comes the twisted part. God allowed it. He let the people in charge kill his representative. God's representative went along with this plan and even forgave the people who killed him.
Finally, it is revealed that this was God's plan all along, to allow his chosen representative to die, despite the fact that he did nothing wrong. His death acts as a sacrifice, the good person is punished instead of the people who actually deserve it. Then the good person is brought back to life, and he promises that the people who follow him will be brought back to life as well.
What do you think. Is the gospel story really as twisted as I've made it out to be? If it is, why do you think Christians made such a bizarre story central to their faith? Finally, how did such a bizarre story become the dominant story in the Western world?
Moreover, the gospel, the Christian message, has been at the center of European culture for 1600 years now. The story is so widespread and has become so common that almost everyone has heard it, but we rarely stop to think about what a strange story it is. The story seems normal to us, because we've heard it so often in so many different forms. Though we've often heard it described as, "The Greatest Story Ever Told," it might be more accurate to say that it is the most twisted story ever told.
It is a story of the God who made everything. The God who made everything created people in his image to govern the earth for him. But people turned away from God. They lost their privileged status and fell under a curse. The world, which was once perfectly good, began to turn against them.
This is just the setup. This is the part people frequently object to, but this isn't the part that's twisted. The twisted part comes next.
God decided to set things right again. He sent a person who will be good, who won't turn away from him, to be his representative and to make peace between himself and humanity. This person led a good life. He gathered some followers and taught them how to lead a good life. Unfortunately, a lot of people with political and religious clout didn't like this person, so they conspired to have him killed.
Now, here comes the twisted part. God allowed it. He let the people in charge kill his representative. God's representative went along with this plan and even forgave the people who killed him.
Finally, it is revealed that this was God's plan all along, to allow his chosen representative to die, despite the fact that he did nothing wrong. His death acts as a sacrifice, the good person is punished instead of the people who actually deserve it. Then the good person is brought back to life, and he promises that the people who follow him will be brought back to life as well.
What do you think. Is the gospel story really as twisted as I've made it out to be? If it is, why do you think Christians made such a bizarre story central to their faith? Finally, how did such a bizarre story become the dominant story in the Western world?
Friday, May 14, 2010
TGD: Imagine a World Without Religion
Before moving on to chapter three, I wanted to take a moment to talk about how Dawkins uses hypothetical scenarios to further his argument. In a few places he uses hypotheticals to paint a picture and support his argument. They are powerful illustrations, but they depend a number of questionable assumptions.
The hypothetical scenario I want to talk about appears in the preface. He describes an advertisement for a documentary he presented. The advertisement had the words, "Imagine a world without religion," beneath a picture of the Manhattan skyline; in which the twin towers were still standing.
As an American, I feel the impact of that argument. It feels like a blow to the solar plexus. I'm sure we all wish that those towers were still standing and I'm sure we all wish the 3,000 people who died when they collapsed were still with us.
It's also a damning argument. Everyone knows, on a deep level, that the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers was deeply perverse and destructive; and everyone knows that their ideology was undoubtedly religious.
Still, we need to take a step back and ask, is religion to blame for the attacks of 9/11? Certainly, religion was a factor, but was it the cause?
To give an example, what if the slogan had read, "Imagine a world without airplanes?" This message is far more accurate. The 9/11 attacks would have been impossible without commercial airlines, yet no one blames the Wright brothers or their infernal invention for destroying the world trade center.
Additionally, the first slogan ignores any other affects that religion has had on the Manhattan skyline. Like, for example, bringing European immigrants to the Manhattan island in the first place.
Religion has been a major factor throughout all of history. It is literally impossible to imagine what the world would be like today if religion had never existed. Instead, I'm going to stick to a very simple rule. I'm only going to consider those cases where religion has a direct role in the creation or destruction of individual buildings.
Obviously, all the religious buildings wouldn't exist, including the great cathedrals of Europe as well as most of Vatican city. The Wailing Wall wouldn't exist and neither would the Sacred Mosque or the Dome of the Rock.
So far we've lost all the places of worship, but since there's no religion, no one will miss those. We might miss the artwork that went into those buildings, especially the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Still, so far we haven't lost much.
But it doesn't stop there. Medieval universities, including the universities of Paris, Cambridge and Oxford, all started as Christian schools based out of cathedrals or monasteries. They received their official support from the Vatican. Additionally, all of the Ivy league schools, except Cornell, were founded during the colonial period by various Christian groups.
As an aside, Richard Dawkins graduated from the University of Oxford. One wonders where Dawkins would have received his education from in this hypothetical scenario, but, as I said earlier, we're only going to concern ourselves with the affects of religion on buildings, not people.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point (and allowed myself to make a cheap shot at Dawkins' expense). I've shown that these kinds of hypothetical situations are very contrived. One cannot surgically remove religion from human history and make a realistic estimate of whether humanity would be better or worse without it. Even if someone could produce such an estimate, we have no way of testing it.
I'm not going to deny that many terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of God, but we shouldn't forget about the massive amount of good that has also been done in God's name. Would the world would be better off without religion? That's a question that no human can answer, not even Richard Dawkins.
The hypothetical scenario I want to talk about appears in the preface. He describes an advertisement for a documentary he presented. The advertisement had the words, "Imagine a world without religion," beneath a picture of the Manhattan skyline; in which the twin towers were still standing.
As an American, I feel the impact of that argument. It feels like a blow to the solar plexus. I'm sure we all wish that those towers were still standing and I'm sure we all wish the 3,000 people who died when they collapsed were still with us.
It's also a damning argument. Everyone knows, on a deep level, that the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers was deeply perverse and destructive; and everyone knows that their ideology was undoubtedly religious.
Still, we need to take a step back and ask, is religion to blame for the attacks of 9/11? Certainly, religion was a factor, but was it the cause?
To give an example, what if the slogan had read, "Imagine a world without airplanes?" This message is far more accurate. The 9/11 attacks would have been impossible without commercial airlines, yet no one blames the Wright brothers or their infernal invention for destroying the world trade center.
Additionally, the first slogan ignores any other affects that religion has had on the Manhattan skyline. Like, for example, bringing European immigrants to the Manhattan island in the first place.
Religion has been a major factor throughout all of history. It is literally impossible to imagine what the world would be like today if religion had never existed. Instead, I'm going to stick to a very simple rule. I'm only going to consider those cases where religion has a direct role in the creation or destruction of individual buildings.
Obviously, all the religious buildings wouldn't exist, including the great cathedrals of Europe as well as most of Vatican city. The Wailing Wall wouldn't exist and neither would the Sacred Mosque or the Dome of the Rock.
So far we've lost all the places of worship, but since there's no religion, no one will miss those. We might miss the artwork that went into those buildings, especially the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Still, so far we haven't lost much.
But it doesn't stop there. Medieval universities, including the universities of Paris, Cambridge and Oxford, all started as Christian schools based out of cathedrals or monasteries. They received their official support from the Vatican. Additionally, all of the Ivy league schools, except Cornell, were founded during the colonial period by various Christian groups.
As an aside, Richard Dawkins graduated from the University of Oxford. One wonders where Dawkins would have received his education from in this hypothetical scenario, but, as I said earlier, we're only going to concern ourselves with the affects of religion on buildings, not people.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point (and allowed myself to make a cheap shot at Dawkins' expense). I've shown that these kinds of hypothetical situations are very contrived. One cannot surgically remove religion from human history and make a realistic estimate of whether humanity would be better or worse without it. Even if someone could produce such an estimate, we have no way of testing it.
I'm not going to deny that many terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of God, but we shouldn't forget about the massive amount of good that has also been done in God's name. Would the world would be better off without religion? That's a question that no human can answer, not even Richard Dawkins.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Upside-Down Cross
Lies have an interesting way of revealing the truth.
Confused? I'll explain.
When a lie spreads through a large group of people, it often reveals a lot about what those people really believe. As an example, I'll talk about a lie that is pervasive through large sections of the American evangelical church.
The lie is this: the peace sign is actually the sign of Nero; a broken, upside-down cross.
In actuality, the peace sign is based on the semaphore signals for N and D, which stand for "Nuclear Disarmament".
What does this lie reveal about the American evangelical church? First, the obvious, it reveals the conservative nature of American evangelicalism. It reveals how deeply rooted their opposition to liberal politics is. They have no problem believing that the peace sign, a common symbol of the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's, as actually the symbol of the most hated persecutor of Christianity in history.
But it also reveals something else. It reveals that they believe that the message of the cross is diametrically opposed to the message of peace.
So we see that the lie reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of the cross. The message of the cross is fundamentally a message of peace. Peace, first of all, between God and humanity, and secondarily, peace among men. (If you don't believe me, consider what Paul said about Jesus.)
Of course, the lie is even more revealing than that. Why would conservative evangelicals feel the need to slander peace activists like this?
The answer is simple, if they don't, then their congregations might consider the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." They might consider the fact that the call for nuclear disarmament sounds a lot like Jesus' call to turn the other cheek. In other words, they use this lie to make sure that their followers' eyes remain blind to the truth.
The truth is that there is another symbol, one that is easily recognizable, which more accurately fits the label of "upside-down cross". That symbol is the crusader's sword.
First of all, cruciform swords, when held upright, bear a clear resemblance to an upside-down cross. More importantly, however, the crusaders inverted the message of Christ. They took a message of peace of love and used it as a justification for violence and bloodshed. When they drew their swords, they turned the cross upside down, both literally and metaphorically.
This perversion is still alive and well in the church. Men spread the lie that the peace sign is an upside-down cross to obscure the fact that they themselves have turned the cross upside-down. In the words of Greg Boyd, they have fused the cross and the sword.
In my experience, nothing combats a lie more effectively than the truth. If you hear someone calling the peace sign an upside-down cross, please correct them. Also, consider telling people about the true upside-down cross.
Confused? I'll explain.
When a lie spreads through a large group of people, it often reveals a lot about what those people really believe. As an example, I'll talk about a lie that is pervasive through large sections of the American evangelical church.
The lie is this: the peace sign is actually the sign of Nero; a broken, upside-down cross.
In actuality, the peace sign is based on the semaphore signals for N and D, which stand for "Nuclear Disarmament".
What does this lie reveal about the American evangelical church? First, the obvious, it reveals the conservative nature of American evangelicalism. It reveals how deeply rooted their opposition to liberal politics is. They have no problem believing that the peace sign, a common symbol of the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's, as actually the symbol of the most hated persecutor of Christianity in history.
But it also reveals something else. It reveals that they believe that the message of the cross is diametrically opposed to the message of peace.
So we see that the lie reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of the cross. The message of the cross is fundamentally a message of peace. Peace, first of all, between God and humanity, and secondarily, peace among men. (If you don't believe me, consider what Paul said about Jesus.)
Of course, the lie is even more revealing than that. Why would conservative evangelicals feel the need to slander peace activists like this?
The answer is simple, if they don't, then their congregations might consider the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." They might consider the fact that the call for nuclear disarmament sounds a lot like Jesus' call to turn the other cheek. In other words, they use this lie to make sure that their followers' eyes remain blind to the truth.
The truth is that there is another symbol, one that is easily recognizable, which more accurately fits the label of "upside-down cross". That symbol is the crusader's sword.
First of all, cruciform swords, when held upright, bear a clear resemblance to an upside-down cross. More importantly, however, the crusaders inverted the message of Christ. They took a message of peace of love and used it as a justification for violence and bloodshed. When they drew their swords, they turned the cross upside down, both literally and metaphorically.
This perversion is still alive and well in the church. Men spread the lie that the peace sign is an upside-down cross to obscure the fact that they themselves have turned the cross upside-down. In the words of Greg Boyd, they have fused the cross and the sword.
In my experience, nothing combats a lie more effectively than the truth. If you hear someone calling the peace sign an upside-down cross, please correct them. Also, consider telling people about the true upside-down cross.
Friday, May 7, 2010
TGD: Chapter Two - Science, Religion and Little Green Men
Today I'm going to finish chapter two of "The God Delusion". Most of the rest of the chapter talks about the idea that theology and science represent two separate areas of study. Dawkins refers to this idea by the acronym NOMA, and that is the title of the next section.
NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria. The idea behind NOMA is that religion cannot speak on scientific matters and science cannot speak on religious matters. Dawkins rightly points out that this is a poorly thought out compromise that simply does not work in practice.
If you don't agree, consider this question, "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" This is the central truth claim of Christianity. It is a question about our physical universe. It is a question that, in principle at least, science should be able to answer. And Christianity isn't the only religion that makes such claims.
If you're a regular reader of this blog, you might be surprised that I agree with Dawkins on this point. After all, I don't believe, as Dawkins does, that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. I do believe that we can have a compromise between science and religion, I just don't think that NOMA is the way to go.
The reason I don't like NOMA is, ultimately, because I'm a monotheist and not a deist. If you're a deist, if you believe that God merely created the universe and doesn't interfere in its operation, then NOMA might seem like a good idea. However, as I said earlier, monotheists believe that God is actively in control of the whole universe. If God has control over everything, then every area of study is, in some sense, theological.
So why do I believe science works? Why do I allow scientific truths to influence theological beliefs? Why don't I insist that every scientific principle be related in theological terms?
The simple answer is, because science works. Science provides many useful explanations that help us make sense of the world around us. It provides truths that can be empirically verified.
So, even though science and religion clearly do overlap, religious people should respect science's ability to discover truths about nature. I would argue, as many theologians throughout history have argued, that if our theological opinions contradict observable facts about nature, then it is our theological opinions that are in error.
In the next section Dawkins talks about a study on the affects of prayer on patient health. Long story short, a recent double blind study on the affects of intercessory prayer on patient health and recovery found no connection. I will admit to being disappointed by the results of the study, but I'm not going to stop praying for people. I've seen a lot of good things happen in the course of prayer*.
In the next section, Dawkins suggests that the main reason why scientists espouse NOMA is to convince religious moderates that science isn't a threat to their faith. These religious moderates are valuable allies in the fight to teach evolution in public schools. Dawkins is very critical of this tactic. In his view, science's real enemy isn't creationism; it's religion.
It is unfortunate that Dawkins holds this view. There is a need, now more than ever, for a positive dialogue between scientists and theologians. I'm enjoying reading Dawkins' scathing critique of religion, but I'd prefer to read a book with fewer rhetorical attacks and more constructive criticisms.
The final section of chapter two is about extra-terrestrials, about the difference between super advanced aliens and gods, and about why he thinks the aliens are at least theoretically possible, whereas God is not. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until chapter four to discover why Dawkins thinks God can't possibly exist.
* This touches on the issue of the validity of personal experience vs. scientific fact. I'm not going to ignore this issue. I will address it when it comes up again in chapter three. For now I will just say that this is only a single study, which addressed a specific kind of prayer and looked for a particular affect. From this one study, we can't draw the conclusion that prayer never works.
NOMA stands for non-overlapping magisteria. The idea behind NOMA is that religion cannot speak on scientific matters and science cannot speak on religious matters. Dawkins rightly points out that this is a poorly thought out compromise that simply does not work in practice.
If you don't agree, consider this question, "Did Jesus of Nazareth rise from the dead?" This is the central truth claim of Christianity. It is a question about our physical universe. It is a question that, in principle at least, science should be able to answer. And Christianity isn't the only religion that makes such claims.
If you're a regular reader of this blog, you might be surprised that I agree with Dawkins on this point. After all, I don't believe, as Dawkins does, that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. I do believe that we can have a compromise between science and religion, I just don't think that NOMA is the way to go.
The reason I don't like NOMA is, ultimately, because I'm a monotheist and not a deist. If you're a deist, if you believe that God merely created the universe and doesn't interfere in its operation, then NOMA might seem like a good idea. However, as I said earlier, monotheists believe that God is actively in control of the whole universe. If God has control over everything, then every area of study is, in some sense, theological.
So why do I believe science works? Why do I allow scientific truths to influence theological beliefs? Why don't I insist that every scientific principle be related in theological terms?
The simple answer is, because science works. Science provides many useful explanations that help us make sense of the world around us. It provides truths that can be empirically verified.
So, even though science and religion clearly do overlap, religious people should respect science's ability to discover truths about nature. I would argue, as many theologians throughout history have argued, that if our theological opinions contradict observable facts about nature, then it is our theological opinions that are in error.
In the next section Dawkins talks about a study on the affects of prayer on patient health. Long story short, a recent double blind study on the affects of intercessory prayer on patient health and recovery found no connection. I will admit to being disappointed by the results of the study, but I'm not going to stop praying for people. I've seen a lot of good things happen in the course of prayer*.
In the next section, Dawkins suggests that the main reason why scientists espouse NOMA is to convince religious moderates that science isn't a threat to their faith. These religious moderates are valuable allies in the fight to teach evolution in public schools. Dawkins is very critical of this tactic. In his view, science's real enemy isn't creationism; it's religion.
It is unfortunate that Dawkins holds this view. There is a need, now more than ever, for a positive dialogue between scientists and theologians. I'm enjoying reading Dawkins' scathing critique of religion, but I'd prefer to read a book with fewer rhetorical attacks and more constructive criticisms.
The final section of chapter two is about extra-terrestrials, about the difference between super advanced aliens and gods, and about why he thinks the aliens are at least theoretically possible, whereas God is not. Unfortunately, we will have to wait until chapter four to discover why Dawkins thinks God can't possibly exist.
* This touches on the issue of the validity of personal experience vs. scientific fact. I'm not going to ignore this issue. I will address it when it comes up again in chapter three. For now I will just say that this is only a single study, which addressed a specific kind of prayer and looked for a particular affect. From this one study, we can't draw the conclusion that prayer never works.
Friday, April 30, 2010
TGD: Chapter Two - America, Religion and Ridicule
Last week we covered the section Mr. Dawkins wrote about monotheism. Today we pick up with a section titled, "Secularism, The Founding Fathers and the Religion of America."
I don't have much to say about this section. He argues that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, but as a secular nation. He notes the fact that, despite being the world's first secular country, today America is more religious than any other Western country.
I agree with Mr. Dawkins' assertion that America is a secular country, so I won't dispute it. In fact, I agree with Fred Clark that America's secularism is a good thing for everyone.
He gives a few reasons why America is so religious, despite its secular constitution. He has some good theories, but he neglects to mention the first and second great awakenings. If you really want to understand why modern-day America is so religious, you need to study those revivals.
The next section is titled, "The Poverty of Agnosticism." In this section he disagrees with people who argue that the truth about God's existence is forever unknowable. He argues that, while it might be impossible to prove God's existence, we can make an educated guess about the probability of God's existence.
The arguments presented here are the hallmark of new atheism. He makes the comparison with a small teapot orbiting the sun. He points out that, we can reasonably assume that such an object doesn't exist without making an exhaustive search of the solar system. He also points to 'fake' religions like the church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, claiming that such beings are just as plausible as God.
These arguments are both fairly similar. Both arguments assume that there is no credible evidence for God's existence and try to convince the hearer that believing in God is also very silly. Of course, the silliness of an idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true. If we had solid historical evidence that the Flying Spagetti Monster had raised a man from the dead, then I would take its church much more seriously. In any case, the belief in God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, Zeus, celestial teapots, or any other idea depends entirely on the evidence. Plenty of people think that quantum mechanics is a ridiculous theory, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Once again I want to stop and point out the kind of argument Dawkins is making. So far Dawkins hasn't addressed the classical proofs for God's existence, nor has he advanced his own "proof" for God's non existence. He hasn't engaged directly with the evidence for or against religion at all. Instead chapter two has been an extended appeal to ridicule.
Again we need to ask, why is Dawkins structuring the argument this way? If the appeal of atheism lies in its rationality, why start with a strong emotional argument? Why not start with the facts? The God hypothesis should stand or fall on its basis in fact, not on our subjective opinion that it is a silly idea.
Dawkins may consider himself a champion of rational thought, but he's not above using an emotional appeal if it serves his purposes.
I don't have much to say about this section. He argues that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, but as a secular nation. He notes the fact that, despite being the world's first secular country, today America is more religious than any other Western country.
I agree with Mr. Dawkins' assertion that America is a secular country, so I won't dispute it. In fact, I agree with Fred Clark that America's secularism is a good thing for everyone.
He gives a few reasons why America is so religious, despite its secular constitution. He has some good theories, but he neglects to mention the first and second great awakenings. If you really want to understand why modern-day America is so religious, you need to study those revivals.
The next section is titled, "The Poverty of Agnosticism." In this section he disagrees with people who argue that the truth about God's existence is forever unknowable. He argues that, while it might be impossible to prove God's existence, we can make an educated guess about the probability of God's existence.
The arguments presented here are the hallmark of new atheism. He makes the comparison with a small teapot orbiting the sun. He points out that, we can reasonably assume that such an object doesn't exist without making an exhaustive search of the solar system. He also points to 'fake' religions like the church of the Flying Spagetti Monster, claiming that such beings are just as plausible as God.
These arguments are both fairly similar. Both arguments assume that there is no credible evidence for God's existence and try to convince the hearer that believing in God is also very silly. Of course, the silliness of an idea has no bearing on whether or not the idea is true. If we had solid historical evidence that the Flying Spagetti Monster had raised a man from the dead, then I would take its church much more seriously. In any case, the belief in God, the Flying Spagetti Monster, Zeus, celestial teapots, or any other idea depends entirely on the evidence. Plenty of people think that quantum mechanics is a ridiculous theory, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Once again I want to stop and point out the kind of argument Dawkins is making. So far Dawkins hasn't addressed the classical proofs for God's existence, nor has he advanced his own "proof" for God's non existence. He hasn't engaged directly with the evidence for or against religion at all. Instead chapter two has been an extended appeal to ridicule.
Again we need to ask, why is Dawkins structuring the argument this way? If the appeal of atheism lies in its rationality, why start with a strong emotional argument? Why not start with the facts? The God hypothesis should stand or fall on its basis in fact, not on our subjective opinion that it is a silly idea.
Dawkins may consider himself a champion of rational thought, but he's not above using an emotional appeal if it serves his purposes.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Intelligence and Acceptance
I recently read something on internetMonk that really upset me. The post is entitled, "Are Liberals and Atheists Smarter?" and it upsets me for a few different reasons.
First of all, it's unclear what, if anything, IQ tests actually measure. Studies involving IQ tests and social science have a long and dubious history.
Secondly, the post goes with the assumption that Christianity and conservative politics belong together. This is unfortunate, but I've gotten used to it.
The thing that upset me the most was the way he wrapped it up. After making some very solid points about how we need to engage the broader culture academically, he falls back. He says that he supports this kind of engagement only up to a point. He concludes that we must be willing to be fools for Christ.
I have a problem with his use of scripture here, but for now I won't go into that. Instead I'm going to talk about why this post bothers me, personally.
For me this is about acceptance. It is about the kind of people who we think are welcome in church and the kind of people who, in our opinion, don't really belong.
The message that conservative evangelicals have been sending is clear. If you believe in evolution, you don't belong here. If you believe that the earth is more than a million years old, you don't belong here. If you vote democrat, you don't belong here. If you're gay, or your friends are gay, you don't belong here. If you ask the wrong questions, you don't belong here. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get the point.
Recently, Bruce Waltke, a renowned Old Testament scholar, had to resign from Reform Theological Seminary. The reason: he said, in an interview, that if evangelicals continue to deny evolution, we risk becoming a cult.
I think fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals should be more open to theological views that allow for an evolutionary model, but not because we might become a cult. I have family members who already think I'm in a cult. That's doesn't upset me.
What upsets me is the message it sends to outsiders. The message is, if you believe in evolution, you don't belong here.
I think churches often do a similar thing, not just with evolution, but with intelligence. People who ask difficult questions, people who think critically about their beliefs, people who can poke holes in the pastor's sermon, are made to feel unwelcome. They are told, either implicitly or explicitly, that they don't belong.
The question that I have had to ask, the question I have to keep asking myself is, does God accept me as I am? Would I be a better Christian if I were just a little stupider? If I didn't ask as many questions? If I learned to accept things as true without thought or critical examination?
When I ask these questions, the following words come to mind: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without affect." There I am reminded, again, that it is God who made me who I am. If God had wanted me to be stupid or thoughtless, he could have made me that way.
Going back to the scripture that was used on internetMonk, I will say that I have no problem being "a fool for Christ". I have no problem with appearing foolish in the eyes of others. As a geek, I've kind of gotten used to it.
However, if we equate being "a fool for Christ" with actual stupidity. If we equate it with not pursuing higher education, not asking hard questions, and ignoring any evidence that might contradict our understanding of the Bible, that I have a problem with. I have a problem with it, partly because it's obviously a bad idea, but mostly because it's going to force a lot of people out of the church, and prevent a lot of new people from joining the church.
First of all, it's unclear what, if anything, IQ tests actually measure. Studies involving IQ tests and social science have a long and dubious history.
Secondly, the post goes with the assumption that Christianity and conservative politics belong together. This is unfortunate, but I've gotten used to it.
The thing that upset me the most was the way he wrapped it up. After making some very solid points about how we need to engage the broader culture academically, he falls back. He says that he supports this kind of engagement only up to a point. He concludes that we must be willing to be fools for Christ.
I have a problem with his use of scripture here, but for now I won't go into that. Instead I'm going to talk about why this post bothers me, personally.
For me this is about acceptance. It is about the kind of people who we think are welcome in church and the kind of people who, in our opinion, don't really belong.
The message that conservative evangelicals have been sending is clear. If you believe in evolution, you don't belong here. If you believe that the earth is more than a million years old, you don't belong here. If you vote democrat, you don't belong here. If you're gay, or your friends are gay, you don't belong here. If you ask the wrong questions, you don't belong here. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get the point.
Recently, Bruce Waltke, a renowned Old Testament scholar, had to resign from Reform Theological Seminary. The reason: he said, in an interview, that if evangelicals continue to deny evolution, we risk becoming a cult.
I think fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals should be more open to theological views that allow for an evolutionary model, but not because we might become a cult. I have family members who already think I'm in a cult. That's doesn't upset me.
What upsets me is the message it sends to outsiders. The message is, if you believe in evolution, you don't belong here.
I think churches often do a similar thing, not just with evolution, but with intelligence. People who ask difficult questions, people who think critically about their beliefs, people who can poke holes in the pastor's sermon, are made to feel unwelcome. They are told, either implicitly or explicitly, that they don't belong.
The question that I have had to ask, the question I have to keep asking myself is, does God accept me as I am? Would I be a better Christian if I were just a little stupider? If I didn't ask as many questions? If I learned to accept things as true without thought or critical examination?
When I ask these questions, the following words come to mind: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without affect." There I am reminded, again, that it is God who made me who I am. If God had wanted me to be stupid or thoughtless, he could have made me that way.
Going back to the scripture that was used on internetMonk, I will say that I have no problem being "a fool for Christ". I have no problem with appearing foolish in the eyes of others. As a geek, I've kind of gotten used to it.
However, if we equate being "a fool for Christ" with actual stupidity. If we equate it with not pursuing higher education, not asking hard questions, and ignoring any evidence that might contradict our understanding of the Bible, that I have a problem with. I have a problem with it, partly because it's obviously a bad idea, but mostly because it's going to force a lot of people out of the church, and prevent a lot of new people from joining the church.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Forgiving Homosexuals
Background: On the internetMonk there was a discussion about whether or not the author should review "Jesus Freak: Feeding, Healing, Raising the Dead". The issue: the author of the book is in a same sex relationship. I commented that if we decide not to review this book, based only on the author's sexual orientation, then we're saying that Jesus' forgiveness only goes so far. In response someone asked the question, "Has she asked for forgiveness?" Below is my answer to that question.
Also, I wrote this post under the assumption that homosexuality is a sin. In fact I'm not entirely convinced that it is a sin, but I was hoping to convince Christians who do believe that it is a sin.
I assume she has asked for forgiveness, since she identifies as Christian. I imagine that she has confessed that she is a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, and that she has asked for God's forgiveness for her sins.
Obviously she is a practicing homosexual. I can think of a few ways these things can be reconciled.
First, she might not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Does this disqualify her? Does this mean she isn't saved? I don't believe so. I don't think we need to be fully aware of all our sins in order to be forgiven. The important thing is that she has asked for forgiveness.
As an example, Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a sin. I assume (based mainly on Paul's letters) that the law against eating shellfish does not apply to gentile believers. In fact, I'm a big fan of eating shellfish. However, even if I'm wrong I'm not worried. I believe that Jesus will forgive me for sinning in ignorance. I believe that Jesus has forgiven me for the sins that I have committed unawares.
Second, she might know that it is a sin, but be unwilling to repent. This is more complicated. I think of the words of Saint Augustine who prayed, "Lord, give me chastity and constancy, but not yet." I believe that a person in this situation is still saved, although they are deeply conflicted. There is a danger that someone in this position might give up the struggle. They might choose to reject Jesus' forgiveness. However, if they persist they will certainly be saved.
Third, she might accept that homosexuality is a sin and believe that Jesus forgives even unrepentant sinners. This position seems a little shaky, although, wasn't it Luther who said, "Sin boldly, believe more boldly still"? This is a tough question, and I'm not sure what I think about this position.
On the one hand, it seems like she should give up her sin in order to follow Jesus. On the other hand, she is being obedient to God in other ways. So we see her obedience clearly isn't perfect, but then we must ask ourselves, who is perfectly obedient? I can only think of Jesus, who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
In conclusion, I want to say that, as sins go, homosexuality is often unfairly targeted. Most men in the church struggle with an addiction to pornography. Many American Christians sin by bearing false witness. I personally struggle with anger, as do many other Christians. When Christians struggle with these sins, we rarely ask, "Is this person saved?" even if the person is clearly unrepentant. We have more patience for these sins than we do for homosexuality.
I wonder what would happen if we treated all these sins the same as we treated homosexuality? One thing is certain: we wouldn't have nearly as many sinners in church.
Also, I wrote this post under the assumption that homosexuality is a sin. In fact I'm not entirely convinced that it is a sin, but I was hoping to convince Christians who do believe that it is a sin.
I assume she has asked for forgiveness, since she identifies as Christian. I imagine that she has confessed that she is a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, and that she has asked for God's forgiveness for her sins.
Obviously she is a practicing homosexual. I can think of a few ways these things can be reconciled.
First, she might not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Does this disqualify her? Does this mean she isn't saved? I don't believe so. I don't think we need to be fully aware of all our sins in order to be forgiven. The important thing is that she has asked for forgiveness.
As an example, Leviticus says that eating shellfish is a sin. I assume (based mainly on Paul's letters) that the law against eating shellfish does not apply to gentile believers. In fact, I'm a big fan of eating shellfish. However, even if I'm wrong I'm not worried. I believe that Jesus will forgive me for sinning in ignorance. I believe that Jesus has forgiven me for the sins that I have committed unawares.
Second, she might know that it is a sin, but be unwilling to repent. This is more complicated. I think of the words of Saint Augustine who prayed, "Lord, give me chastity and constancy, but not yet." I believe that a person in this situation is still saved, although they are deeply conflicted. There is a danger that someone in this position might give up the struggle. They might choose to reject Jesus' forgiveness. However, if they persist they will certainly be saved.
Third, she might accept that homosexuality is a sin and believe that Jesus forgives even unrepentant sinners. This position seems a little shaky, although, wasn't it Luther who said, "Sin boldly, believe more boldly still"? This is a tough question, and I'm not sure what I think about this position.
On the one hand, it seems like she should give up her sin in order to follow Jesus. On the other hand, she is being obedient to God in other ways. So we see her obedience clearly isn't perfect, but then we must ask ourselves, who is perfectly obedient? I can only think of Jesus, who said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
In conclusion, I want to say that, as sins go, homosexuality is often unfairly targeted. Most men in the church struggle with an addiction to pornography. Many American Christians sin by bearing false witness. I personally struggle with anger, as do many other Christians. When Christians struggle with these sins, we rarely ask, "Is this person saved?" even if the person is clearly unrepentant. We have more patience for these sins than we do for homosexuality.
I wonder what would happen if we treated all these sins the same as we treated homosexuality? One thing is certain: we wouldn't have nearly as many sinners in church.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
TGD: Chapter Two - On Monotheism
I'm picking up my review of "The God Delusion" where I left off. This week we begin with the section on monotheism.
In this section Dawkins talks about the three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He then explains that Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism.
He writes that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus as a less exclusive, less 'ruthlessly monotheistic' form of Judaism.
Some of you might be confused. Wasn't Christianity founded by Jesus? Or at least by Peter, Jesus' chief disciple? His claim that Paul founded Christianity is probably based on the fact that Paul's letters are among the earliest Christian documents. That said, this claim has some serious problems.
In his early letters, Paul has to defend his position as a leader within the church. If Paul were the founder of the religion, he would have brought that up in his defense. Instead he freely admits that he joined the religion after Jesus' death and resurrection, and that the only reason he has the right to be a leader is because Jesus appeared to him after his resurrection.
Whatever we think about Paul's claim, the fact that he had to make this argument shows that he wasn't yet an established leader in the church.
Leaving that aside for now, Dawkins goes on to talk about Islam. He writes that Muhammad and his followers retained the uncompromising monotheism of Judaism and used military conquest to spread the faith. Then, as if to be fair, Dawkins points out that Christianity was also spread by the sword, first by Emperor Constantine, and later by crusaders and conquistadors.
Since I'm not Muslim, I won't respond to Dawkins' comments about Islam, but I will reply to his comments about Christianity.
In this section Dawkins gives the impression that Christianity was founded by Paul, and then popularized (and legitimized) by Constantine. The truth is, by the time Constantine conquered Rome and made Christianity the official religion, it had already grown quite popular. The religion survived more than two hundred and fifty years of Roman persecution, and had grown steadily during that time.
The question we must ask is, why did so many people convert to Christianity during an age when Christians were being persecuted? What was it about Christianity that people found so appealing that they were willing to risk being burned alive or being eaten by lions? This is the question that Dawkins needs to answer and it is the question that he is deliberately avoiding, for now at least.
Having said my piece, I will concede that Dawkins does have a point. Since the time of Constantine, Christians have been using violence to spread their beliefs. The idea that the message of God's love could be spread at the end of a sword or a gun is the single most destructive and perverse error that Christians have ever made. This is a topic I've touched on before, and it's something I plan to talk about more in the future. For now, let me just say that Dawkins has a good point here.
Dawkins briefly mentions Buddhism and Confucianism, only to say that he has nothing against those religions. He thinks they shouldn't be treated as religions, but as ethical systems. I know that in the West it is popular to think about Buddhism this way, but traditional Chinese Buddhism includes a belief in reincarnation. I doubt Dawkins would consider a belief in reincarnation to be more rational than a belief in resurrection from the dead. I can only conclude that he didn't do his research.
Dawkins finishes the section on monotheism by talking about deism. Deists believe in an impersonal God, who designed and created the universe and then let it run its course.
Even though he doesn't believe in it, Dawkins has a clear fondness for this idea of God, He writes, "The deist God of the eighteenth-century enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions."
The great hope of the Christian faith is that God we worship is not at all like the God Dawkins describes. Our God cares about humans; he knows our thoughts and hopes; he is concerned about our messy sins. The great joy of every Christian is that God has joined us, in our messy state, and one day we will join him, in his perfection.
I find this passage to be very revealing of Dawkins' beliefs. Most people who are angry with God are angry because he is apathetic and distant and he allows people to suffer. On the other hand, Dawkins seems to be offended by the idea that God might actually care about us.
Before I conclude this post, I want to add one last comment about deism. Deism may be a dead religion, but deist philosophy has had a lasting impact on how we think about God.
Most people, even people who believe in God, tend to think that the universe runs itself. They believe that if God disappeared tomorrow the universe would be largely unaffected. The sun would still shine and the grass would still grow. No physical or chemical or biological process would be affected in any way by God's departure.
This is not monotheism. Monotheism is the belief in one God, who created everything, and without whom, nothing could exist. God didn't just create everything, he sustains everything from moment to moment. If we take God out of the equation, then the universe would disappear along with him.
The difference between these two philosophical positions is striking, and it's part of the reason why conversations between people with different beliefs are so hard. At a basic level, theists and atheists aren't speaking the same language.
Despite that, I'm having fun reading through Dawkins' book. I hope you're enjoying it as well.
In this section Dawkins talks about the three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He then explains that Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism.
He writes that Christianity was founded by Paul of Tarsus as a less exclusive, less 'ruthlessly monotheistic' form of Judaism.
Some of you might be confused. Wasn't Christianity founded by Jesus? Or at least by Peter, Jesus' chief disciple? His claim that Paul founded Christianity is probably based on the fact that Paul's letters are among the earliest Christian documents. That said, this claim has some serious problems.
In his early letters, Paul has to defend his position as a leader within the church. If Paul were the founder of the religion, he would have brought that up in his defense. Instead he freely admits that he joined the religion after Jesus' death and resurrection, and that the only reason he has the right to be a leader is because Jesus appeared to him after his resurrection.
Whatever we think about Paul's claim, the fact that he had to make this argument shows that he wasn't yet an established leader in the church.
Leaving that aside for now, Dawkins goes on to talk about Islam. He writes that Muhammad and his followers retained the uncompromising monotheism of Judaism and used military conquest to spread the faith. Then, as if to be fair, Dawkins points out that Christianity was also spread by the sword, first by Emperor Constantine, and later by crusaders and conquistadors.
Since I'm not Muslim, I won't respond to Dawkins' comments about Islam, but I will reply to his comments about Christianity.
In this section Dawkins gives the impression that Christianity was founded by Paul, and then popularized (and legitimized) by Constantine. The truth is, by the time Constantine conquered Rome and made Christianity the official religion, it had already grown quite popular. The religion survived more than two hundred and fifty years of Roman persecution, and had grown steadily during that time.
The question we must ask is, why did so many people convert to Christianity during an age when Christians were being persecuted? What was it about Christianity that people found so appealing that they were willing to risk being burned alive or being eaten by lions? This is the question that Dawkins needs to answer and it is the question that he is deliberately avoiding, for now at least.
Having said my piece, I will concede that Dawkins does have a point. Since the time of Constantine, Christians have been using violence to spread their beliefs. The idea that the message of God's love could be spread at the end of a sword or a gun is the single most destructive and perverse error that Christians have ever made. This is a topic I've touched on before, and it's something I plan to talk about more in the future. For now, let me just say that Dawkins has a good point here.
Dawkins briefly mentions Buddhism and Confucianism, only to say that he has nothing against those religions. He thinks they shouldn't be treated as religions, but as ethical systems. I know that in the West it is popular to think about Buddhism this way, but traditional Chinese Buddhism includes a belief in reincarnation. I doubt Dawkins would consider a belief in reincarnation to be more rational than a belief in resurrection from the dead. I can only conclude that he didn't do his research.
Dawkins finishes the section on monotheism by talking about deism. Deists believe in an impersonal God, who designed and created the universe and then let it run its course.
Even though he doesn't believe in it, Dawkins has a clear fondness for this idea of God, He writes, "The deist God of the eighteenth-century enlightenment is an altogether grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, loftily unconcerned with human affairs, sublimely aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions."
The great hope of the Christian faith is that God we worship is not at all like the God Dawkins describes. Our God cares about humans; he knows our thoughts and hopes; he is concerned about our messy sins. The great joy of every Christian is that God has joined us, in our messy state, and one day we will join him, in his perfection.
I find this passage to be very revealing of Dawkins' beliefs. Most people who are angry with God are angry because he is apathetic and distant and he allows people to suffer. On the other hand, Dawkins seems to be offended by the idea that God might actually care about us.
Before I conclude this post, I want to add one last comment about deism. Deism may be a dead religion, but deist philosophy has had a lasting impact on how we think about God.
Most people, even people who believe in God, tend to think that the universe runs itself. They believe that if God disappeared tomorrow the universe would be largely unaffected. The sun would still shine and the grass would still grow. No physical or chemical or biological process would be affected in any way by God's departure.
This is not monotheism. Monotheism is the belief in one God, who created everything, and without whom, nothing could exist. God didn't just create everything, he sustains everything from moment to moment. If we take God out of the equation, then the universe would disappear along with him.
The difference between these two philosophical positions is striking, and it's part of the reason why conversations between people with different beliefs are so hard. At a basic level, theists and atheists aren't speaking the same language.
Despite that, I'm having fun reading through Dawkins' book. I hope you're enjoying it as well.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
TGD: Chapter Two - On Theology, Taxes, the Trinity and Catholicism
In last week's post I was so busy responding to the opening sentence of chapter two I didn't have time to talk about what chapter two is actually about. Chapter two is about the God hypothesis, which Mr. Dawkins defines as, "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." He talks about some of the more common forms that this hypothesis takes. He spends some time offering specific critiques of various religions, but his main point is to argue that all religions are fundamentally similar and that they are all fundamentally wrong.
Considering that this chapter is written about religion and it is in a book about God, it is surprisingly light on theological content. Last week I had to spend a whole post explaining everything that was wrong with Mr. Dawkins' description of the God of the Old Testament. Mr. Dawkins wouldn't have had to study too hard to find out that his description was terribly inaccurate. Indeed, I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is aware that religious Jews believe that their God is a God of love and a God of justice. This fact alone should have caused Mr. Dawkins to wonder why his own view was so different from theirs. If he were a humble person he would have listened to what they have to say, because most religious Jews are far more familiar with the Old Testament* than he is. If he were an inquisitive person, he could have asked a Rabbi why the Jewish people believe what they do about God. Any Rabbi worth his salt could have easily corrected some of Mr. Dawkins' most egregious mistakes. Mr. Dawkins didn't do this (or, if he did, he left it out of the book) because it would ruin the argument that he is trying to make.
Many people have taken Mr. Dawkins to task for failing to engage with any serious theology. He mentions this in the preface to the paperback edition. He argues that he only needed to engage with theological arguments that seek to prove God's existence (which he does in chapter 3). If he can show that God most likely does not exist, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other what theologians have to say about God's character, or any of his other attributes.
If that's the case, then I have to ask the obvious question: why not start with chapter 3? Why waste time insulting a being that doesn't even exist? If the debate is really about God's existence, and not God's character, why not skip straight to the part where you prove that God doesn't exist?
That's something to think about as we go over this book. Now I'm going to pick up where I left off.
The first section of chapter 2 is titled, "Polytheism". You would think that I could safely ignore this passage since I'm not a polytheist. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It seems that Mr. Dawkins doesn't have a lot to say about polytheism, so instead he rambles. He ends up talking about Christianity quite a bit. I'm going to respond to a few of the points he makes along the way.
First of all, Mr. Dawkins writes that we shouldn't promote religious organizations by granting them tax-exempt status. He points out that society could benefit from the extra tax money, and that allowing televangelists to collect large amounts of money tax-free isn't exactly great for society.
I have to admit that when Mr. Dawkins describes it like that, it does sound like a good idea. There are some Christian ministries that abuse their tax exempt status. It is tempting to think that we could put those ministries out of business and reduce our National debt at the same time.
Realistically, though, if stopped giving churches tax-exempt status, then small community congregations would be hit the hardest. It would weed out a lot of smaller religious organizations that benefit the community around them, while allowing larger, more parasitic ministries to survive. Men like Oral Roberts or Joel Olsteen would continue to make boatloads of money; they would just have slightly less take home pay. The pros don't outweigh the cons.
Second, Mr. Dawkins writes about the doctrine of the trinity. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man has ever had a distinct idea of the trinity."
I would disagree with both Dawkins and Jefferson on this point. The authors of the Nicean creed clearly had a distinct idea of the trinity. It can be translated roughly as, "God exists as three persons of one substance." Saint Patrick used the analogy of a clover, which has three leaves, but is still only one clover. These explanations may not be as precise or as distinct as Dawkins or Jefferson would like them to be, but they are certainly distinct enough for reason to act upon.
The last thing I want to comment on for now is Mr. Dawkins' words about Catholicism. He writes, "But it is especially the Roman Catholic brand of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, 'Queen of Heaven', a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers. The pantheon is further swollen by an army of saints, whose intercessory power makes them, if not demigods, well worth approaching on their own specialist subjects."
That's a long quote, but he's just getting warmed up. He writes for several paragraphs about the polytheistic quality of Catholic worship. I'm not a Catholic myself, so I'm not going to argue with him about this, but I feel the need to point something out.
For a man who claims to not have any religious beliefs, a man who says that all religions are equally ridiculous, he seems to have a lot of contempt for the Catholic church. Since he has no religious feelings of his own, I would expect Dawkins not to care if Catholics worship one God or an army of saints. As it stands, the language used in this section sounds like it comes from Oliver Cromwell, not the avowed atheist Richard Dawkins.
I point this out because I fully expect to read, later in this book, about the advantages of a secular, atheist society. I expect to hear something about how a world without religion would be free from petty religious quarrels. If that's where he's going, he might want to tone down the anti-Catholic rhetoric here.
* Technically, the Tanakh, or the Hebrew Bible, is slightly different from the Christian Old Testament, but these differences are relatively minor. I hope my Jewish readers will forgive me for using the two terms interchangeably.
Considering that this chapter is written about religion and it is in a book about God, it is surprisingly light on theological content. Last week I had to spend a whole post explaining everything that was wrong with Mr. Dawkins' description of the God of the Old Testament. Mr. Dawkins wouldn't have had to study too hard to find out that his description was terribly inaccurate. Indeed, I'm sure Mr. Dawkins is aware that religious Jews believe that their God is a God of love and a God of justice. This fact alone should have caused Mr. Dawkins to wonder why his own view was so different from theirs. If he were a humble person he would have listened to what they have to say, because most religious Jews are far more familiar with the Old Testament* than he is. If he were an inquisitive person, he could have asked a Rabbi why the Jewish people believe what they do about God. Any Rabbi worth his salt could have easily corrected some of Mr. Dawkins' most egregious mistakes. Mr. Dawkins didn't do this (or, if he did, he left it out of the book) because it would ruin the argument that he is trying to make.
Many people have taken Mr. Dawkins to task for failing to engage with any serious theology. He mentions this in the preface to the paperback edition. He argues that he only needed to engage with theological arguments that seek to prove God's existence (which he does in chapter 3). If he can show that God most likely does not exist, then it shouldn't matter one way or the other what theologians have to say about God's character, or any of his other attributes.
If that's the case, then I have to ask the obvious question: why not start with chapter 3? Why waste time insulting a being that doesn't even exist? If the debate is really about God's existence, and not God's character, why not skip straight to the part where you prove that God doesn't exist?
That's something to think about as we go over this book. Now I'm going to pick up where I left off.
The first section of chapter 2 is titled, "Polytheism". You would think that I could safely ignore this passage since I'm not a polytheist. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It seems that Mr. Dawkins doesn't have a lot to say about polytheism, so instead he rambles. He ends up talking about Christianity quite a bit. I'm going to respond to a few of the points he makes along the way.
First of all, Mr. Dawkins writes that we shouldn't promote religious organizations by granting them tax-exempt status. He points out that society could benefit from the extra tax money, and that allowing televangelists to collect large amounts of money tax-free isn't exactly great for society.
I have to admit that when Mr. Dawkins describes it like that, it does sound like a good idea. There are some Christian ministries that abuse their tax exempt status. It is tempting to think that we could put those ministries out of business and reduce our National debt at the same time.
Realistically, though, if stopped giving churches tax-exempt status, then small community congregations would be hit the hardest. It would weed out a lot of smaller religious organizations that benefit the community around them, while allowing larger, more parasitic ministries to survive. Men like Oral Roberts or Joel Olsteen would continue to make boatloads of money; they would just have slightly less take home pay. The pros don't outweigh the cons.
Second, Mr. Dawkins writes about the doctrine of the trinity. He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man has ever had a distinct idea of the trinity."
I would disagree with both Dawkins and Jefferson on this point. The authors of the Nicean creed clearly had a distinct idea of the trinity. It can be translated roughly as, "God exists as three persons of one substance." Saint Patrick used the analogy of a clover, which has three leaves, but is still only one clover. These explanations may not be as precise or as distinct as Dawkins or Jefferson would like them to be, but they are certainly distinct enough for reason to act upon.
The last thing I want to comment on for now is Mr. Dawkins' words about Catholicism. He writes, "But it is especially the Roman Catholic brand of Christianity that pushes its recurrent flirtation with polytheism towards runaway inflation. The trinity is (are?) joined by Mary, 'Queen of Heaven', a goddess in all but name, who surely runs God himself a close second as a target of prayers. The pantheon is further swollen by an army of saints, whose intercessory power makes them, if not demigods, well worth approaching on their own specialist subjects."
That's a long quote, but he's just getting warmed up. He writes for several paragraphs about the polytheistic quality of Catholic worship. I'm not a Catholic myself, so I'm not going to argue with him about this, but I feel the need to point something out.
For a man who claims to not have any religious beliefs, a man who says that all religions are equally ridiculous, he seems to have a lot of contempt for the Catholic church. Since he has no religious feelings of his own, I would expect Dawkins not to care if Catholics worship one God or an army of saints. As it stands, the language used in this section sounds like it comes from Oliver Cromwell, not the avowed atheist Richard Dawkins.
I point this out because I fully expect to read, later in this book, about the advantages of a secular, atheist society. I expect to hear something about how a world without religion would be free from petty religious quarrels. If that's where he's going, he might want to tone down the anti-Catholic rhetoric here.
* Technically, the Tanakh, or the Hebrew Bible, is slightly different from the Christian Old Testament, but these differences are relatively minor. I hope my Jewish readers will forgive me for using the two terms interchangeably.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Religion and the Kingdom of God
I've mentioned before that I'm a fan of internetmonk.com. It is a blog that I would recommend to anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the gospel and the Christian faith. Sadly, this past Easter the author, Michael Spencer, passed away. I'm not going to write a tribute to him. Many other people have already written wonderful tributes to him. Still, today I'm going to be referring to a topic he wrote quite a lot about: the coming evangelical collapse. If you're interested in what I write about it here you might want to check out his posts on the subject.
A while back I wrote about the Kingdom of God. I explained that Christians have many different ideas about what the Kingdom of God actually is. One of the more common ideas is that the Kingdom of God is a specific religious group. Today I would like to talk about religion and how it relates to the Kingdom of God.
My thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. In his blog, which is subtitled, journeys through the post evangelical wilderness, he wrote about the coming evangelical collapse. He believed that American Evangelical Christianity was headed into a period of decline, and that it wouldn't be recovering anytime soon.
What is Evangelical Christianity? The best definition I can give is that an Evangelical Christian is someone who believes that the only thing that a person needs to enter God's Kingdom is to believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for their sins and that he rose again three days later. As a whole, I see the Evangelical movement as a poster-child for the idea that the Kingdom of God is purely a matter of having the correct religious beliefs.
I also believe that the movement is headed towards collapse. Even though I'm an Evangelical myself (as is Michael Spencer) I don't have much hope for the movement.
Why is that? I think there's a lesson from church history that will help us to understand.
In the middle of the first Century, Jesus' followers faced a crisis related to religion. All of Jesus' early followers were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish and during his life he preached almost exclusively to Jews. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven a funny thing began to happen. Through the work of the Holy Spirit a large number of gentiles (i.e. non Jews) began to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. By about 55 A.D. the gentile believers began to outnumber the Jewish believers.
Early on people asked the question, do these gentiles need to convert to Judaism? At first the answer seemed obvious, of course they do. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. His first followers were all Jewish. Obviously anyone else who wanted to follow Jesus would have to be Jewish as well. Specifically, the would have to be circumcised, keep the sabbath and eat kosher foods.
However, as the movement expanded, and more and more gentiles joined in, the answer started to change. People began to notice that God's Spirit was at work among the gentiles just as it was among the Jews. Many people clung to the idea that the gentile believers should convert to Judaism, but others noticed that God didn't seem to care. They thought to themselves, if God doesn't discriminate between Jews and gentiles, why should we? If God accepts these people as they are, who are we to push them away?
In the end it was decided that gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This decision blew open the doors of the church. For the first time, God's Kingdom was available to anybody.
It's easy to say that that was a different time. One could claim that the first century was a unique period in Christian history, but I disagree. In fact, I think that twenty-first century Evangelicals could learn a lesson from these first century followers of Jesus. I think we need to learn a lesson about how to accept people who are different: people from different cultures and backgrounds, people of different ethnicities, people who speak different languages, and even people with different religious beliefs. None of these things can prevent people from entering the Kingdom of God.
Does this mean I'm abandoning the gospel? Am I saying that it doesn't matter that Jesus died for us, or that he was resurrected? Of course not. In fact, it is because of Jesus' death and resurrection that I can say, with confidence, that no one is excluded.
When Paul was explaining the gospel to the Ephesians he told them that when Jesus was crucified he put to death the wall of hostility between Jews and gentiles. Did Jesus give his life to put an end to the barrier between Jews and gentiles, only to create a new barrier between Christians and non-Christians? Did Jesus' death on the cross bring reconciliation for all humanity, or did it merely move the goal posts?
The problem with the Evangelical church isn't that they focus on the gospel. The problem is in how they preach the gospel. The Evangelical gospel is somewhat limited. Most Evangelicals only talk about how Jesus forgave our sins. They don't talk about how Jesus reconciled us with God and with each other. They don't talk about how Jesus frees us from oppression. They don't talk about how Jesus heals our disease and gives us victory over death. If they do talk about those things, it is always secondary to the forgiveness of sins.
This focus on sin creates a barrier. Since the focus is on the forgiveness of sins, they usually start out by telling people that they're sinners. Most of the time, this drives people away.
Some Evangelicals realize that this is poor salesmanship, so they try to spin the message so that it doesn't sound so bad, but the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that they're preaching a message of exclusion and the gospel is a message of inclusion. The gospel is an invitation, not a threat. If the Evangelical church can wrap its head around that idea, then it will realize that the coming collapse isn't such a bad thing after all. If it takes this idea to heart, the collapse might be avoided altogether.
A while back I wrote about the Kingdom of God. I explained that Christians have many different ideas about what the Kingdom of God actually is. One of the more common ideas is that the Kingdom of God is a specific religious group. Today I would like to talk about religion and how it relates to the Kingdom of God.
My thoughts in this area are strongly influenced by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. In his blog, which is subtitled, journeys through the post evangelical wilderness, he wrote about the coming evangelical collapse. He believed that American Evangelical Christianity was headed into a period of decline, and that it wouldn't be recovering anytime soon.
What is Evangelical Christianity? The best definition I can give is that an Evangelical Christian is someone who believes that the only thing that a person needs to enter God's Kingdom is to believe that Jesus Christ died to pay for their sins and that he rose again three days later. As a whole, I see the Evangelical movement as a poster-child for the idea that the Kingdom of God is purely a matter of having the correct religious beliefs.
I also believe that the movement is headed towards collapse. Even though I'm an Evangelical myself (as is Michael Spencer) I don't have much hope for the movement.
Why is that? I think there's a lesson from church history that will help us to understand.
In the middle of the first Century, Jesus' followers faced a crisis related to religion. All of Jesus' early followers were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish and during his life he preached almost exclusively to Jews. However, after Jesus ascended into heaven a funny thing began to happen. Through the work of the Holy Spirit a large number of gentiles (i.e. non Jews) began to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. By about 55 A.D. the gentile believers began to outnumber the Jewish believers.
Early on people asked the question, do these gentiles need to convert to Judaism? At first the answer seemed obvious, of course they do. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. His first followers were all Jewish. Obviously anyone else who wanted to follow Jesus would have to be Jewish as well. Specifically, the would have to be circumcised, keep the sabbath and eat kosher foods.
However, as the movement expanded, and more and more gentiles joined in, the answer started to change. People began to notice that God's Spirit was at work among the gentiles just as it was among the Jews. Many people clung to the idea that the gentile believers should convert to Judaism, but others noticed that God didn't seem to care. They thought to themselves, if God doesn't discriminate between Jews and gentiles, why should we? If God accepts these people as they are, who are we to push them away?
In the end it was decided that gentiles didn't have to convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. This decision blew open the doors of the church. For the first time, God's Kingdom was available to anybody.
It's easy to say that that was a different time. One could claim that the first century was a unique period in Christian history, but I disagree. In fact, I think that twenty-first century Evangelicals could learn a lesson from these first century followers of Jesus. I think we need to learn a lesson about how to accept people who are different: people from different cultures and backgrounds, people of different ethnicities, people who speak different languages, and even people with different religious beliefs. None of these things can prevent people from entering the Kingdom of God.
Does this mean I'm abandoning the gospel? Am I saying that it doesn't matter that Jesus died for us, or that he was resurrected? Of course not. In fact, it is because of Jesus' death and resurrection that I can say, with confidence, that no one is excluded.
When Paul was explaining the gospel to the Ephesians he told them that when Jesus was crucified he put to death the wall of hostility between Jews and gentiles. Did Jesus give his life to put an end to the barrier between Jews and gentiles, only to create a new barrier between Christians and non-Christians? Did Jesus' death on the cross bring reconciliation for all humanity, or did it merely move the goal posts?
The problem with the Evangelical church isn't that they focus on the gospel. The problem is in how they preach the gospel. The Evangelical gospel is somewhat limited. Most Evangelicals only talk about how Jesus forgave our sins. They don't talk about how Jesus reconciled us with God and with each other. They don't talk about how Jesus frees us from oppression. They don't talk about how Jesus heals our disease and gives us victory over death. If they do talk about those things, it is always secondary to the forgiveness of sins.
This focus on sin creates a barrier. Since the focus is on the forgiveness of sins, they usually start out by telling people that they're sinners. Most of the time, this drives people away.
Some Evangelicals realize that this is poor salesmanship, so they try to spin the message so that it doesn't sound so bad, but the problem is more fundamental than that. The problem is that they're preaching a message of exclusion and the gospel is a message of inclusion. The gospel is an invitation, not a threat. If the Evangelical church can wrap its head around that idea, then it will realize that the coming collapse isn't such a bad thing after all. If it takes this idea to heart, the collapse might be avoided altogether.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
TGD: Chapter Two - On the Character of God
Chapter Two of "The God Delusion" begins with the following sentence: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Today's post is going to be a response to this one sentence. Now, I don't pan on walking through the rest of the book one sentence at a time, however, since I worship the God whom Dawkins is slandering, it seems only fair that I should offer a rebuttal.
I'll start by responding to the most egregiously false accusations.
On the top of that list would be the claim that the God of the Old Testament is unforgiving. This is simply not true. Throughout the Old Testament we see God forgiving people. He repeatedly forgives the nations of Israel and Judah, in the book of Jonah he forgave the entire city of Nineveh, which was the capital of one of the most notoriously bloodthirsty empires in the ancient world, and he famously forgave King David when he committed both murder and adultery. Those are just a few examples.
What's more, whenever God does punish people, it's almost always after he has been patient and forgiving over an extended period of time. He waited four hundred years to punish the Amorites for, among other things, ritually sacrificing infants. If anything, the God of the Old Testament is forgiving to a fault.
Then there's the accusation that God is filicidal. I will freely admit that I had to look this one up. Filicide is the act of killing one's own son or daughter. Presumably this refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. That doesn't happen in the Old Testament, but we'll ignore that for now.
First of all, Jesus was a grown adult who went willingly to his death. More importantly, God wasn't the one who killed him. Finally, as John Cleese might say, he got better.
(If we assume he's sticking to the Old Testament, this could be referring to the book of Exodus, in which God calls the Jewish people his firstborn son. The main problem with this theory is that the Jewish people are still alive and well.)
The accusation that God is megalomaniacal is more humorous than anything else. The God of the Old Testament made the whole universe out of nothing and Dawkins is accusing him of having delusions of grandeur. To what great heights could a delusional, omnipotent deity aspire to? Does he take a break from ruling the heavens and the earth so he can pretend to be the King of Scotland? Does the one who formed a human being out of dirt like to pretend that he invented the sandwich? In the preface to the paperback edition, Dawkins said that he wanted this sentence to come across as humorous*. This is one place where I think he succeeded admirably, although not as he intended.
The claim that God is racist presumably refers to how God treats the Jewish people compared with everyone else. It's true that God had a special arrangement with the nation of Israel, but that arrangement does not include special treatment. The Old Testament makes it clear that God cares for the nations surrounding Israel, just like he cares for Israel. In fact, as part of their special arrangement, the Israelites have an obligation to be a blessing to the nations around them. God's treaty with Israel isn't about God loving Israel more than everyone else. It's about God wanting Israel to be a blessing to everyone else, which is more like the opposite of racism.
Of all the accusations that Mr. Dawkins makes against God, the one that is the most accurate is that God is jealous. God is jealously protective of the Jewish people. He wants them to stay faithful to the promise that they had made to serve him. Even though they repeatedly break that promise, God keeps his promise and remains faithful to them. God becomes jealous, but he does not abandon him. In my mind, that is one of God's best qualities. He stays faithful to his people, even when they cause him pain.
The last accusation that I'm going to address directly is that God is unjust. In many ways that one word sums up the whole sentence. The central point being made is that God's reign of the earth, as described in the Old Testament, is unjust.
The question is to big for me to provide anything close to a thorough answer. Instead I will do my best to present, in brief, what the Old Testament has to say on the subject.
In the beginning, God made everything good. Humanity lived in paradise with God and God provided them with everything they would ever need. God gave them only one rule and it was easy to obey. Things fell apart when humanity broke that law. God punishes humanity in order to restore justice, and God promises to fix what is broken.
This is the basic pattern of Genesis 1-3, and it forms a template that recurs over and over again throughout scripture. The template goes something like this: 1) God does something good for an individual or a group of people, 2) sooner or later that individual or group does something evil, 3) God responds to the evil that has been done and 4) God promises to one day get rid of evil and replace it with good. Of all these steps, step 3 is the most flexible. In some cases it seems to be missing (in these cases God is being patient and forgiving). In other cases, God asks the person to make a sacrifice before forgiving the sin. Very rarely, God refuses to forgive the sin and punishes the person for what they have done. As I said above that last option almost always happens after God has already shown an incredible amount of patience and forgiveness.
When people question God's justice they concentrate on steps 2 and 3. They question why God regards certain actions as evil; they question whether or not the people who committed evil were truly responsible for their actions; they question the methods God uses to punish people; they question God's decision to forgive in some cases and not in other cases.
But the claim that God is just does not depend primarily on steps 2 and 3. The books of Ecclesiastes and Job openly acknowledge that how God punishes evil, or fails to punish evil, can seem very unjust at times. Instead, the claim that God is just depends on steps 1 and 4. God is just because in the beginning he made everything good and in the end he will make everything good again. Moreover he has promised us that we will be included in that future where everything is restored, even though we sometimes do evil. That is why I can say with confidence that God is, indeed, just.
This was a bit of a dense post. If there's something you don't agree with, or something that doesn't make sense, feel free to post it in the comments. I look forward to reading them. Thank you.
* In the preface, Dawkins was responding to critics who complained that his writing was too shrill. The above sentence was the example most often given. Dawkins wrote, "It is not for me to say whether I succeeded, but my intention was closer to robust but humorous broadside than shrill polemic." I will say that I think the sentence failed to be humorous, if only because the idea is so unoriginal. As for the broadside, I think it missed its mark. Most of the shots are wildly off course, as I have already shown.
I'll start by responding to the most egregiously false accusations.
On the top of that list would be the claim that the God of the Old Testament is unforgiving. This is simply not true. Throughout the Old Testament we see God forgiving people. He repeatedly forgives the nations of Israel and Judah, in the book of Jonah he forgave the entire city of Nineveh, which was the capital of one of the most notoriously bloodthirsty empires in the ancient world, and he famously forgave King David when he committed both murder and adultery. Those are just a few examples.
What's more, whenever God does punish people, it's almost always after he has been patient and forgiving over an extended period of time. He waited four hundred years to punish the Amorites for, among other things, ritually sacrificing infants. If anything, the God of the Old Testament is forgiving to a fault.
Then there's the accusation that God is filicidal. I will freely admit that I had to look this one up. Filicide is the act of killing one's own son or daughter. Presumably this refers to the crucifixion of Jesus. That doesn't happen in the Old Testament, but we'll ignore that for now.
First of all, Jesus was a grown adult who went willingly to his death. More importantly, God wasn't the one who killed him. Finally, as John Cleese might say, he got better.
(If we assume he's sticking to the Old Testament, this could be referring to the book of Exodus, in which God calls the Jewish people his firstborn son. The main problem with this theory is that the Jewish people are still alive and well.)
The accusation that God is megalomaniacal is more humorous than anything else. The God of the Old Testament made the whole universe out of nothing and Dawkins is accusing him of having delusions of grandeur. To what great heights could a delusional, omnipotent deity aspire to? Does he take a break from ruling the heavens and the earth so he can pretend to be the King of Scotland? Does the one who formed a human being out of dirt like to pretend that he invented the sandwich? In the preface to the paperback edition, Dawkins said that he wanted this sentence to come across as humorous*. This is one place where I think he succeeded admirably, although not as he intended.
The claim that God is racist presumably refers to how God treats the Jewish people compared with everyone else. It's true that God had a special arrangement with the nation of Israel, but that arrangement does not include special treatment. The Old Testament makes it clear that God cares for the nations surrounding Israel, just like he cares for Israel. In fact, as part of their special arrangement, the Israelites have an obligation to be a blessing to the nations around them. God's treaty with Israel isn't about God loving Israel more than everyone else. It's about God wanting Israel to be a blessing to everyone else, which is more like the opposite of racism.
Of all the accusations that Mr. Dawkins makes against God, the one that is the most accurate is that God is jealous. God is jealously protective of the Jewish people. He wants them to stay faithful to the promise that they had made to serve him. Even though they repeatedly break that promise, God keeps his promise and remains faithful to them. God becomes jealous, but he does not abandon him. In my mind, that is one of God's best qualities. He stays faithful to his people, even when they cause him pain.
The last accusation that I'm going to address directly is that God is unjust. In many ways that one word sums up the whole sentence. The central point being made is that God's reign of the earth, as described in the Old Testament, is unjust.
The question is to big for me to provide anything close to a thorough answer. Instead I will do my best to present, in brief, what the Old Testament has to say on the subject.
In the beginning, God made everything good. Humanity lived in paradise with God and God provided them with everything they would ever need. God gave them only one rule and it was easy to obey. Things fell apart when humanity broke that law. God punishes humanity in order to restore justice, and God promises to fix what is broken.
This is the basic pattern of Genesis 1-3, and it forms a template that recurs over and over again throughout scripture. The template goes something like this: 1) God does something good for an individual or a group of people, 2) sooner or later that individual or group does something evil, 3) God responds to the evil that has been done and 4) God promises to one day get rid of evil and replace it with good. Of all these steps, step 3 is the most flexible. In some cases it seems to be missing (in these cases God is being patient and forgiving). In other cases, God asks the person to make a sacrifice before forgiving the sin. Very rarely, God refuses to forgive the sin and punishes the person for what they have done. As I said above that last option almost always happens after God has already shown an incredible amount of patience and forgiveness.
When people question God's justice they concentrate on steps 2 and 3. They question why God regards certain actions as evil; they question whether or not the people who committed evil were truly responsible for their actions; they question the methods God uses to punish people; they question God's decision to forgive in some cases and not in other cases.
But the claim that God is just does not depend primarily on steps 2 and 3. The books of Ecclesiastes and Job openly acknowledge that how God punishes evil, or fails to punish evil, can seem very unjust at times. Instead, the claim that God is just depends on steps 1 and 4. God is just because in the beginning he made everything good and in the end he will make everything good again. Moreover he has promised us that we will be included in that future where everything is restored, even though we sometimes do evil. That is why I can say with confidence that God is, indeed, just.
This was a bit of a dense post. If there's something you don't agree with, or something that doesn't make sense, feel free to post it in the comments. I look forward to reading them. Thank you.
* In the preface, Dawkins was responding to critics who complained that his writing was too shrill. The above sentence was the example most often given. Dawkins wrote, "It is not for me to say whether I succeeded, but my intention was closer to robust but humorous broadside than shrill polemic." I will say that I think the sentence failed to be humorous, if only because the idea is so unoriginal. As for the broadside, I think it missed its mark. Most of the shots are wildly off course, as I have already shown.
Monday, April 5, 2010
What's the Meaning of Grace?
Grace is an odd word. Unless you've spent some time in churches, you're not very likely to know what Christians mean when they use the word "grace". In fact, I'm guessing that more than a few people who are raised Christian don't really understand what is meant by the word.
The word "grace" in the New Testament refers to God's unmerited favor. It describes the love that God has given to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. When we say that we have received God's grace, we are saying that God has blessed us, not because we are so awesome, but because God is so loving.
I've seen many people who don't understand this. They've heard people talk about grace, but they still believe that we must work to earn God's love. They believe that the people receive God's favor because, in some sense, they deserve it.
This is not what what we mean when we talk about grace. If we say that we have received something by grace, then we are insisting that we did not do anything special to deserve it.
I understand why there's so much confusion about this topic. We want to believe that God is kind to us because, for some reason or another, we deserve it. We don't like the idea that God can show his love to us even when we don't deserve it.
Still, we need to grasp this fundamental truth. This basic idea that the love that God has shown us is given, and not earned, is essential to our faith. It reminds us that we are not special people who have been given God's special blessing, which is only for the truly enlightened. It reminds us that the love that we have received isn't for us.
The love that we have received is for the whole world, for every last person who needs God's love, whether they deserve it or not. So we are free to share God's love with everyone. We know that they don't need to say or do anything special to deserve it.
If anyone's interested in hearing more about what God has done for us, I'd recommend this post on She Laughs at the Days.
The word "grace" in the New Testament refers to God's unmerited favor. It describes the love that God has given to everyone, whether they deserve it or not. When we say that we have received God's grace, we are saying that God has blessed us, not because we are so awesome, but because God is so loving.
I've seen many people who don't understand this. They've heard people talk about grace, but they still believe that we must work to earn God's love. They believe that the people receive God's favor because, in some sense, they deserve it.
This is not what what we mean when we talk about grace. If we say that we have received something by grace, then we are insisting that we did not do anything special to deserve it.
I understand why there's so much confusion about this topic. We want to believe that God is kind to us because, for some reason or another, we deserve it. We don't like the idea that God can show his love to us even when we don't deserve it.
Still, we need to grasp this fundamental truth. This basic idea that the love that God has shown us is given, and not earned, is essential to our faith. It reminds us that we are not special people who have been given God's special blessing, which is only for the truly enlightened. It reminds us that the love that we have received isn't for us.
The love that we have received is for the whole world, for every last person who needs God's love, whether they deserve it or not. So we are free to share God's love with everyone. We know that they don't need to say or do anything special to deserve it.
If anyone's interested in hearing more about what God has done for us, I'd recommend this post on She Laughs at the Days.
Friday, April 2, 2010
TGD: Chapter One - Religion and Respect
This post covers the entire first chapter of "The God Delusion". The first chapter is really just an introduction, so I can breeze through it. Starting with chapter two we get into the meat of his argument and I'll slow down so I can deal with it in more detail.
In "The God Delusion", Mr. Dawkins is making the case against religious belief in general. It's a sizable task and we'll see how good a job Mr. Dawkins does with it. He uses the first chapter to set the terms of the debate; to explain exactly what he's arguing for and what he's arguing against.
This chapter is broken up into two parts. The first part deals with what Dawkins refers to as "Einsteinian religion".
"Einsteinian religion" refers to any belief system that equates the natural universe, or the laws that govern it, with God. Such belief systems don't have a supernatural component. Mr. Dawkins has no problem with this sort of religion; he considers it another form of atheism. His only problem is that when people with this sort of belief system use words like God and religion they confuse the debate. He wants the reader to know that this isn't what he has in mind when he's making the case against religion.
As you might have guessed, Albert Einstein believed in this sort of God, although he was hardly the first person to think along these lines. That honor belongs to Baruch Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism.
Personally, I wonder what Einstein would think about someone lumping his beliefs in with atheism. I suspect that Einstein's use of the word God was intentional. I suspect that Einstein understood that his belief system, like all belief systems, depended on certain metaphysical (i.e. non-scientific) claims. I'm not sure that Mr. Dawkins grasps that fact.
However, since I'm not a pantheist myself, I won't argue the point any further.
The second part of this chapter deals with the amount of respect that (supernatural) religious beliefs are given in modern, secular countries, especially America. He argues that, in general, we give religious beliefs far more respect than they deserve. He points out that it is generally considered rude to criticize another person's religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are. He also gives several examples where countries will grant privileges to people based on their religious beliefs.
I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins about this, but I think he does make some good points. Specifically, there does need to be room for people to be able to speak critically about other people's religious beliefs. No ideas should ever be considered completely exempt from scrutiny. Personally, I welcome Mr. Dawkins' criticisms of my beliefs and I have no problem speaking critically about his beliefs. In the proper context, critical discussions like this can be beneficial to both parties.
The thing is, you really, really need to have the proper context for a conversation like this. For a person with deeply held religious beliefs, those beliefs are often part of their core identity. For this reason, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that people will get offended when you mock their religious beliefs. This is why criticizing people's religious beliefs is often considered off limits, at least in the public sphere. This is why governments will, at times, bend over backwards to respect people with different religious beliefs.
In my mind, the solution isn't to show less tolerance to people's unusual religious beliefs, but to extend that tolerance to cover nonreligious people. Just as wise governments go out of their way not to offend people's religious beliefs, they should be equally respectful toward people without religious beliefs. (For example, the government shouldn't erect a large cross on the land they own on top of a giant hill in the middle of the city, but that's another post).
Having said that, I'm glad that Mr. Dawkins feels free to mock religious beliefs. This series would be much less interesting if he felt the need to be polite and deferential whenever the topic of God came up.
In "The God Delusion", Mr. Dawkins is making the case against religious belief in general. It's a sizable task and we'll see how good a job Mr. Dawkins does with it. He uses the first chapter to set the terms of the debate; to explain exactly what he's arguing for and what he's arguing against.
This chapter is broken up into two parts. The first part deals with what Dawkins refers to as "Einsteinian religion".
"Einsteinian religion" refers to any belief system that equates the natural universe, or the laws that govern it, with God. Such belief systems don't have a supernatural component. Mr. Dawkins has no problem with this sort of religion; he considers it another form of atheism. His only problem is that when people with this sort of belief system use words like God and religion they confuse the debate. He wants the reader to know that this isn't what he has in mind when he's making the case against religion.
As you might have guessed, Albert Einstein believed in this sort of God, although he was hardly the first person to think along these lines. That honor belongs to Baruch Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism.
Personally, I wonder what Einstein would think about someone lumping his beliefs in with atheism. I suspect that Einstein's use of the word God was intentional. I suspect that Einstein understood that his belief system, like all belief systems, depended on certain metaphysical (i.e. non-scientific) claims. I'm not sure that Mr. Dawkins grasps that fact.
However, since I'm not a pantheist myself, I won't argue the point any further.
The second part of this chapter deals with the amount of respect that (supernatural) religious beliefs are given in modern, secular countries, especially America. He argues that, in general, we give religious beliefs far more respect than they deserve. He points out that it is generally considered rude to criticize another person's religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are. He also gives several examples where countries will grant privileges to people based on their religious beliefs.
I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins about this, but I think he does make some good points. Specifically, there does need to be room for people to be able to speak critically about other people's religious beliefs. No ideas should ever be considered completely exempt from scrutiny. Personally, I welcome Mr. Dawkins' criticisms of my beliefs and I have no problem speaking critically about his beliefs. In the proper context, critical discussions like this can be beneficial to both parties.
The thing is, you really, really need to have the proper context for a conversation like this. For a person with deeply held religious beliefs, those beliefs are often part of their core identity. For this reason, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that people will get offended when you mock their religious beliefs. This is why criticizing people's religious beliefs is often considered off limits, at least in the public sphere. This is why governments will, at times, bend over backwards to respect people with different religious beliefs.
In my mind, the solution isn't to show less tolerance to people's unusual religious beliefs, but to extend that tolerance to cover nonreligious people. Just as wise governments go out of their way not to offend people's religious beliefs, they should be equally respectful toward people without religious beliefs. (For example, the government shouldn't erect a large cross on the land they own on top of a giant hill in the middle of the city, but that's another post).
Having said that, I'm glad that Mr. Dawkins feels free to mock religious beliefs. This series would be much less interesting if he felt the need to be polite and deferential whenever the topic of God came up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
