Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Diversity

  • Atheist-Christian Discussion

    I have noticed from time to time that Christians become very angry with atheists or other skeptics in debate simply for being and saying who they are. Many regard any questioning of their faith positions as impolite, and some even regard such discussion as a form of persecution. It has always seemed odd to me.

    When I discuss theology with an atheist, for example, I expect that he or she will:

    • Deny the existence of God
    • Deny the truth of substantial portions of the Bible
    • Find miracles vanishingly unlikely at best, and most certainly denying the virgin birth and the resurrection
    • Find the idea of the atonement fairly silly
    • . . . and many, many more obvious differences of opinion

    These seem so obvious to me, but I’ve encountered some Christians who become offended when a skeptic expressed each of those positions. I’m not sure how one can fail to be offended when someone says he’s an atheist, and yet suddenly become offended when he also mentions that he believes God’s existence is about as probable as that of the tooth fairy. It seems to me that one implies the other.

    So if I wish to have a conversation with such a person–and I’m pretty much interested in dialogue on philosophy and religion with most anyone–then I have to realize we will differ on these things, and accept that in order to dialogue, we will both have to express our differences. Since I believe in God, and an atheist by definition does not, he will have to tell me in one way or another that he thinks I’m wrong. He might use words like misguided, deluded, or something similar. He may well explain all my spiritual experiences as the result of physical causes, and call them delusional. He might point to the doctrine of hell (in the form in which many accept it) and describe God, were he to exist, as a mass murderer.

    To put it bluntly, I’m quite happy with any or all of those options. If that is what someone believes, that is what I’d like them to express to me. I’m not saying they don’t need to consider the public relations angle in general. But I would like to know what they actually think.

    This little post was inspired by Duane Smith’s post Thoughts on Richard Dawkins at Cal Tech. I have to confess that I really enjoy reading Richard Dawkins. He writes wonderfully well and explains difficult topics with great clarity. I can read and enjoy him, and appreciate his writing, and yet disagree profoundly. It sounds like I would have enjoyed his presentation as well, as I have enjoyed hearing him interviewed on TV. In fact, while he is often vilified as the true example of an over-the-top atheist, I have found him to be very careful and precise in stating what he does and does not belief. He’s not unaware of the nuances in theology, even though he doesn’t choose to give those of us who “practice” those nuances much room to maneuver.

    Having said all of that, I still should make clear that I disagree with Dawkins in a substantial way. I’m a theist, and he’s not. I’m in the crosshairs of some of his remarks. But why should I not be?

    It seems to me that in much of what passes for dialogue in the public forum we have gotten whimpy about ideas. I’m not talking about name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and diversionary tactics. Those detract from the issue. But I’d really like to know where it is that Richard Dawkins has behaved in this way. I can and do get somewhat heated about his comments about providing a religious education for children. But based on the remainder of his beliefs, I have a hard time seeing how he could avoid the conclusion that children would be better off without any form of religious indoctrination.

    In fact, I would ask my fellow Christians to look and see whether the shoe does not fit all too well. Often religious education is not education, but is really just indoctrination. I hear complaints from church leaders all the time about young adults leaving the church, but often those same church leaders are looking for teachers who will “teach the young adults the truth” and keep them from going astray. When I had the opportunity to plan curriculum for youth, I went out of my way to let them hear about other faiths. There was a field trip to a synagogue, I invited an Imam to come in and talk about Islam, we read materials about positions other than those of our own denomination.

    Do I still disagree with Dawkins on this point? From what I’ve read thus far, I very much do. But I don’t think he has stepped over any sort of line in saying so.

    If we, as Christians believe that there are things that are true and things that are false, and that it’s worthwhile to accept the truth and reject falsehood as much as we are able, perhaps we need to encourage each person to express his or her understanding of what is truth, and let’s test this in open discussion. If we are to do this, we have to drop the notion that a particular view is by nature impolite. And while I’m at it, for the same reason we can’t cut off discussion from the conservative side of the spectrum. If we try to shut up those who believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, or that all abortion is evil, rather than engaging in discussion, we will make it harder to find good policy positions.

    Courtesy is good, but when courtesy is interpreted as a demand to cut off expression, then it can easily become a danger.

  • Christian Carnival CXL

    Christian Carnival CXL has been posted at Lux Venit. There’s a good deal of good stuff to check out.

    Without prejudice to the whole list, I’d like to call special attention to the following:

    • Tight Theological Hatbands
      I’m not reformed in theology, but I have long thought one of the strengths of the reformed camp was in thinking about theology. I love to listen to them, but I often don’t like to dialogue with them, because they’re so sure of themselves. Well, here is a reformed Christian talking about dealing with disagreement, and he makes good points. Some people seem to think dialogue means giving up whatever you believe and assuming that all thoughts are equal, but I disagree. Good dialogue requires you to have a position, but you need the humility and confidence (yes, both together) to test that view in conversation with others. This one is an excellent post.
    • Madonna Commits Blasphemy (Yawn)
      OK, who might have guessed that Laura would have another outstanding entry? 🙂 This one supports what I call “off-switch censorship” aka “channel-changer censorship.” If you don’t like it, don’t watch. There’s some real garbage out there, and it doesn’t need any extra attention.
    • Diversities
      A Penitent Blogger talks about 1 Corinthians 12 and the diversity of gifts in the church. Personally I don’t think I can read 1 Corinthians 12 too often. It reminds us to be humble. It reminds us to celebrate the gifts of others. It reminds us to be under the one Spirit.

    Thanks to Leslie for a nice looking, easy to read carnival post.

  • Criticizing Religions

    I have long been an advocate of permitting criticism of Christianity, because I think allowing such criticism is good for my religion. I have friends who would regard my religion as a delusion, and I encourage them to speak directly about what they believe. This is not a matter of commitment to legal free speech, though I do believe that the first amendment should be protected. That is an area in which I might even be regarded as extreme. I say this from inside the Christian faith. If we try to use legal or forceful means to blunt or eliminate criticism, we will be the poorer for it, intellectually and spiritually.

    Now we have the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. I already commented briefly on those, noting that I’m not too much of a fan of the pope, but nonetheless I did not off hand see anything wrong with his remarks that would justify the kind of reaction they are receiving. Despite the Pope’s apology I have not changed my view.

    In an article I read yesterday, but from the September 25 issue of Newsweek, Jon Meacham said:

    Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love. Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

    The problem is with a quotation from Emperor Manuel II. As is usual, many people have brought up the crusades at this point. But one should consider the fact that Emperor Manuel’s situation was one of being invaded by Muslim conquerors. I deplore the religious justification of violence other than as self-defense, yet this emperor was defending himself. Again, I’m not an apologist for the crusades, but one must remember that Christian territories were being conquered by Muslim conquerors. I’m not an expert on the history of that period, but I am certain there were various justifications from both sides.

    The Christian actions in the crusades should not mean that we can no longer have dialogue. True dialogue is also impossible when one cannot criticize.

    Again, quoting from Meacham’s article:

    Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation

  • Muslim Protests of the Pope’s Remarks

    I have not been very excited about the vatican over the last few years, and I was not overjoyed when the current pope was elected, but in general since I’m not a catholic, it’s not something I get very excited about.

    But the current round of protests about the Pope’s quotation of a medieval text on Islam in a speech to college professors just emphasizes again that there is an element in modern Islam that simply cannot tolerate freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Now the words of a major Christian leader are different from the publication of one person’s cartoons, and the history of the crusades adds a negative element to the context, but nonetheless this kind of universal protest and anger in Islam is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

    I know that Christians also protest negative things said about them, and the Muslim world provides plenty of opportunities with a number of grossly irresponsible leaders who have serious mouth control problem. Still, I don’t think they should be forced to shut up. That’s freedom of expression. I’m not talking about the legal right of free speech, but of the concept of freedom of expression.

    But many Muslims are reserving to themselves the right to insult practically everyone else, while protesting any effort to respond. Let me be clear. There are moderate Muslims with whom I have no problem. In fact, I have no problem with any Muslim who is not planning to try to use force to impose their views on me or on my country. They can use as much peaceful persuasion as they wish. At the same time, I condemn every person who feels that they should be able to shut up their opponents by threats of violence. I would suggest that western leaders, religious or otherwise, refuse to apologize or respond in any way while angry crowds run around the streets protesting words and images.

    The behavior in these protests is stupid, and it should be condemned as such. The behavior of those who threaten death to westerners is evil, and it should be condemned as such. If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.

    Having said that, if westerners or Christians call for violence against civilian populations in the Muslim world, or any unjustified violence against anyone, they should also be condemned. At the same time, their right to express their view should be protected. The pope may have made less than the best choice of words, but thus far, I don’t even see that much of a problem in his speech.

    Freedom is threatened right now on every side, in our own government here in the United States through authorization of torture and indefinite incarceration, in Europe through the imposition of politically correct speech, and in the Muslim world by the advance of fundamentalist Islam. The only remedy is for those who love freedom to defend it by word and deed at all times.

    (OK, I’ll get off the soapbox!)

    Note: Actually let me note that as long as the protests are non-violent, the protesters also should be allowed their expression. I would certainly consider it hypocritical, however.

  • Nation Whose God is the LORD?

    Today while doing grocery shopping, I saw a T-Shirt with the slogan: My faith and my freedom are one. Underneath was the verse: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Psalm 33:12).

    I don’t know who provides such a shirt, but that slogan troubles me deeply. I think it reflects the problem that many Christians have with unhypocritical support of freedom of religion in this country and elsewhere in the world. Now there is a theological sense in which I can understand the claim that faith and freedom are one. There is a point of spiritual freedom, the freedom to make spiritual choices and to build a healthy relationship with God that comes, for me, through my faith. But a key element of that spiritual freedom comes from the fact that it was freely chosen. That faith is my faith, and even though I share a fellowship with Christians because it is also Christian faith, it bears a distinct stamp.

    But with the accompanying text (about which more below), I’m pretty sure that’s not the freedom we’re talking about. There are a number of groups that advocate a Christian nation, one built on Biblical principles and enforcing Biblical laws. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the incredible problems there are with simply producing a “Biblical” system of law. One’s hermeneutic is quite determinative of what one holds to be applicable, and even amongst people who advocate a Christian nation, there is considerable variety of interpretational principles.

    There are those who advocate a nation that lives a life of holiness. What this means, in practice, is that they want a single set of moral standards enforced on everyone, derived from the Bible in whatever way they derive things. This will mean marital fidelity in the strongest sense–not only no sex outside of marriage, but no premarital sex, no common-law marriages, and modest apparel and lifestyle. It will mean that homosexuality cannot be tolerated anywhere in the nation. Blasphemy, of course, cannot be allowed, because how can a “holy nation” allow such a thing? Thus freedom of speech will be prohibited. Of course, idolatry and worship of any other God but “the LORD” however defined, must be eventually forbidden.

    Now I’m not arguing against anyone’s advocacy of a particular code of morality for their lives and for those in their spiritual community. I do that myself, and my own code is actually quite conservative and restrictive–to me! But for various reasons, many groups of Christians have decided that somehow true freedom can only come with the practice of Christianity. At the moment, they will advocate permitting other groups, but they want them to exist in a Christian nation and live up to Christian principles.

    They do so often for quite contradictory reasons. One broad grouping believes that Christianity has replaced Israel in God’s scheme, and that America is a new Zion, a new promised land, in which all the promises of blessings will be fulfilled if only we will follow the laws and purify the land. If you encounter such a view, don’t let them claim moderation. That slope is a very slippery one, and unless you are 100% in agreement, eventually you’re going to find yourself on the outside.

    Another broad group continues to believe that Israel is the benificiary of God’s promises to Israel, but they believe that those promises can be extended to our nation if we behave, as a nation, in the same way. This is a bit more logical on the first point–the promises after all were made to Israel, and there is nowhere in the Bible that might indicate a transfer to the United States of such blessings. But it is less logical on the second point, because we take random promises and random blessings and apply them on a national scale.

    Either of these groups needs to read the second half of the verse I quoted above: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Clearly the reference was to Israel, and “the LORD” is YHWH, the proper name of Israel’s God. God does promise blessings to other nations, but not on the same covenant basis as he does for Israel itself. Either transfer or extension of that covenant needs some serious theological undergirding, and none is forthcoming from advocates.

    Jesus never advocated establishment of a physical nation. What he did was advocate people, with the kingdom of God in them, living kingdom lives. I challenge you to find Jesus advocating anything similar to the seeking of blessing on a national scale through somehow forcing them all to agree to identical moral codes. In fact Jesus seemed to be against the imposition of any detailed sets of laws on people; he was a revolutionary advocating the spirit rather than the letter.

    Freedom will not survive in a Christian nation, not because Christianity is bad but because it is a spiritual faith offering a relationship with God to individuals. Christianity applied by force should be regarded as an oxymoron. In fact, Christianity applied by force has repeatedly resulted in persecution of opponents and dissenters, and in a faith that bears little relation to Jesus. Non-Christians should be very careful to guard against the type of Christian who says that his faith and his freedom are one. But Christians should be equally careful. We are commanded to make disciples from all nations, but that does not mean that we should try to make the nations themselves into disciples. Christianity does not work that way and was never intended to do so.

    Freedom is freedom and faith is faith, and neither will flourish unless faith is freely chosen or rejected. Because of this I am absolutely opposed to the notion of a Christian nation. A nation with lots of Christians in it, yes. But even if 100% of the population were to choose freely and without pressure to be Christians, I would advocate complete freedom of religion, because anything else would be destructive to faith (and of course to freedom).

  • Red State Rabble on Enemy Recognition

    I really appreciate the post Uniting Against the Common Enemy. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t expect others to back off about their positions on various issues. But we also don’t need to have those additional disagreements prevent us from cooperating on issues about which we do agree.

    I particularly like the following:

    RSR is fighting against those authoritarians who would impose their religious views on the rest of us. We don’t believe giving church-goers two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of their religious belief — or else — constitutes a workable strategy.

    We’re not interested in philosophical purity, either.

    Bravo! And as a religious person I’m with you 100% in preventing anyone from imposing religious views on anyone else. I know that there are some other Christians who do want to impose their beliefs through the law, and I will fight against them both inside the “large tent” of Christianity, and in the political arena.

    We want to work closely with activists like Ken Miller to defend science education in public schools. Moreover, we respect him for his many contributions to that struggle. In fact, it’s hard to think of many people who’ve done more. We frankly don’t care what his religious views are. It’s his actions that count in our book.

    Excellent point again. I just had to quote it to emphasize it.

    For our part, RSR is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with people of faith who want to defend America’s secular institutions from attacks by the radical right.

    And I’m happy to work with you on that. The radical right doesn’t like people like me any more than people like you. We can stand together to defend freedom.

    In the discussion of sides, I think we should consider two substanstial positions: Freedom–free inquiry, freedom from compulsion in religious and philosophical issues, and authoritarianism, especially of the religious sort. In that fight, those who are interested in freedom share a common interest that I think overpowers everything else, and we need to stick together on those points.

  • The Age of the Earth

    Through the Christian Blog Carnival I found this post by Amanda from Imago Dei blog. She has been working through videos by Kent Hovind, and came to the conclusion that the age of the earth was not that important, and that Kent Hovind’s tactics were not going to accomplish all that much.

    Though all know that I do not accept a young earth, as Amanda does, I agree that it is hardly an essential of the Christian faith. I’m not all that sensitive to accusations of ignorance from either side. Ignorance can be corrected, and bluntly if one takes a completely opposite view on a topic like the age of the earth, one has to find some explanation for the huge difference. I would be content if we could just keep the spiritual judgment out of it. It would be nice if those of us who are Christians could debate the when and how of God’s creation as details, not essentials, and thus do so without accusing one another of being outside the faith.

    It doesn’t disturb me to be called ignorant. It does disturb me to have a fellow Christian say that I’m “just like an atheist” because I’m a theistic evolutionist. I congratulate Amanda on the tone and quality of her post on this divisive topic.

    While I’m at it, let me again recommend Kurt Wise’s book Faith, Form, and Time to those who are looking for a more reasoned defense of the young earth position. I don’t agree with Wise, almost from the start, but he makes an excellent presentation.

  • Religion and Terror, Cause and Effect

    In an article titled The New Naysayers, Newsweek discusses some new books by atheist authors who blame many of the world’s ills on religion. It’s an interesting article, though not much of this material is particularly new. It seems to me that a good deal of writing about history or about the general state of the world is involved with an attempt to blame broad results on some general answer. Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire (it was such a solid structure before Constantine’s conversion), atheism caused communism, and more recently that the theory of evolution has caused just about every evil thing in the world, starting with Nazism.

    (more…)

  • Squaring the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

    One of the things that originally attracted me to the United Methodist Church was the quadrilateral, in the form in which it is presented in the discipline. Since becoming a member I have found out that most members of United Methodist congregations have no idea what this is, that some members use the quadrilateral to justify just about anything, and that others seem to want to eviscerate it or simply replace it with a more standard “sola scriptura” stance.

    First let me clarify a couple of points. I’m not here trying to figure out what Wesley meant by his comments on the elements of the quadrilateral; I’m simply looking at how I see them functioning today. Second, I’m using “sola scriptura” in the more popular sense that tends to cut the scriptures off from tradition and experience, and to downplay the role of reason in interpretation. I realize that more sophisticated theologians do not make these errors, but in the pews, “Bible alone” tends in this direction. I do believe that both the label and the attached rhetoric have tended toward this imbalance in the pews, so I don’t hold the theological sophisticates guiltless on this point.

    For those who don’t know, the quadrilateral supposes the use of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason in the formation of doctrine. Because many people have driven truckloads of manure through the supposed filter of this method and called it doctrine, others have tried to modify the quadrilateral. One particular explanation is that the quadrilateral is not an equilateral, but that scripture is the longer line. This is a well-intentioned effort to test more United Methodist doctrine by the standards of scripture, but I think it is neither precisely correct, nor is it adequate to the task. In effect, it pushes people toward a “sola scriptura” stance, but doesn’t clarify the position of the other three elements, other than to give them a smaller and subordinate role.

    (more…)

  • Book: God After Darwin

    In this wonderful little book (God After Darwin [ISBN: 0813338786]), theologian John Haught looks at our concepts of God in the light of evolutionary theory, and in relation to intelligent design. My notes are more of a response than a review.

    This book is not an examination of each movement in great detail, but rather a look at theology, and how it might need to adapt in the light of what evolutionary theory has shown us about the universe. Haught does not believe that metaphysical materialism is an adequate view, because it does not support, in his view, the novelty of creation. He rejects the views of philosophers like Dennett and Dawkins who claim that science has shown that there is no purpose in the universe and that everything can be explained by mechanistic natural causes.

    But he also rejects intelligent design, not on the usual grounds that it is not science–after all, he’s discussing theology–but because it too fails to adequately deal with novelty in the universe. Haught postively embraces evolution, moving God from the Alpha, the God who pushes from behind, to the Omega, the God of the future. God, as Haught sees him, does not coerce his creation, but rather continuously invites it into the future. God gives the gracious gift of new creation to the universe continuously.

    (more…)