Is it just me wanting to ask questions that Larry Moran doesn't consider interesting, or am I genuinely having trouble getting through? Here's what he wrote in a recent comment on his blog, in response to my response to his response to...The question that interests me is whether supernatural beings exist. If there are "religious believers" who are atheists then that's fine by me. Why would I want to have any further conversation with them?Maybe it is just that I'm butting in on a conversation that is exclusively focused on "supernatural beings". But that isn't terminology that I find helpful for expressing what I mean by "God", and I know the same would be true for other theologians and educated Christians of various descriptions.
This debate over "sophisticated" religion is always started by those who criticize atheists for not understanding modern religious thought. The clear implication is that the "sophisticated" believers are not atheists. Otherwise, why criticize the atheists?
James, I don't believe you would call yourself an atheist. What you are doing, I think, is quibbling over semantics. You want to define the word "supernatural being" in a way that permits you to believe in them while pretending that atheists like me don't understand your perception of reality.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I don't understand how you can believe in supernatural beings while pretending you don't. This is your chance to explain it to me. So far, you aren't doing a very good job.
So why is this communication going so badly? Any suggestions on how to make it go better?
Posts
27 comments:
After having observed, interacted with, argued against and otherwise gone 'round many a mulberry bush with Larry for something like a decade over at talk.origins, you don't "get through" to him. Don't get me wrong, Larry is neither stupid nor unreasonable. He has, however, long had (and, I suspect, revels in) a reputation as a curmudeon.
He is a person of strong opinion, whose opinion may seem even stronger due to his penchant for pushing people he disagrees with by taking aggressive, even outré, positions. He has said himself that he only respects people who stand up to him and fight back and he values those who do it well. The best you should hope to do is make him think ... but bring brass knuckles.
I admire your optimism in thinking that there might be a way to make the discussion go better, but he certainly comes across mostly as pompous and arrogant and not particularly interested in engaging others in a serious discussion. His modus operandi seems to be simply to attack, and attackers usually don't bother to listen.
The whole thing about supernatural beings is that he just doesn't seem to care what you are trying to tell him. When you pointed out that Tillich considered God to be Being Itself rather than a being, he just dismissed that as "obfuscation." What it boils down to is that he, and he alone, gets to define the terms of the discussion, and trying to redirect the terminology that he is using, he simply won't go there.
I have noticed that he keeps focusing on the "proof" angle. When you point out that there are theologies that he is unaware of and which his characterization of "supernatural beings" doesn't apply, he keeps changing the subject back to what "proofs" these theologies he knows nothing about have for the existence of "supernatural beings". You bring up these theologies in order to point out that the "supernatural beings" is a canard, but instead he just changes the subject back by asking what proofs these "sophisticated" theologians have for "supernatural beings."
But wait, you tell him, these theologians you know nothing about don't consider God to be a "supernatural being". He responds, okay, if these people I know nothing about are so sophisticated, what are their sophisticated arguments for the existence of supernatural beings? But wait, you say, I just told you that these theologians don't believe that God is a "supernatural being." Oh yeah, he says, well if they are so sophisticated, what is their proof that these "supernatural beings exist?" And around it goes. He refuses to listen, or at best he just retorts that these theologians are engaging in "obfuscation" and like a broken record he returns to his safe little dogmatic world.
Good luck in trying to get through to him, past his arrogant and pompous posturing. I should not be such a cynic about such things, but I don't have much patience for people like him. Maybe your patience will somehow pay off, and I wish you luck.
Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in god. Atheists either never bought into the concept in the first place (like me) or rejected it later on in life.
It's reasonable to extend the concept of "god" in order to avoid semantic disputes. The essence of atheism is the lack of belief in supernatural beings. In other words, atheists don't see any evidence for the existence of things that are outside of the natural world.
Over the years, there have been many arguments put forth in support of the existence of things that are outside of the natural world. In most cases, these "things" are supernatural beings of one sort or another and in almost all cases they are things that are worthy of worship, or fear, or at least awe—where "awe" refers to something mysterious that's beyond our ability to understand.
The so-called "new atheists" have addressed as many of these arguments as they can find. As far as I'm concerned their refutation of all those arguments is sufficient to give me confidence that I'm not missing any definitive argument for the existence of things outside of the natural world—especially things that are the basis for belonging to a religion.
From time to time, theologians mock the "new atheists" by pointing out that they are very unsophisticated. According to the sophisticated theologians, there are excellent arguments for the existence of things outside the natural world. Things that should be worshiped or revered.
When challenged to discuss these charges, the sophisticated theologians tend to do one of two things. Either they refuse to advance any new arguments for the existence of things that are non-natural (i.e. supernatural), or they argue that modern religious scholars no longer believe in such supernatural beings.
I'm perfectly happy to accept that there may be modern theologians (like McGrath?) who do not believe in the existence of things outside of the natural world. In fact, one such person is a good friend of mine. He is a Professor in the Faculty of Divinity at one of our colleges.
I'm having trouble distinguishing such a belief from atheism. (My friend is proud to call himself an atheist.) If such a position is indistinguishable from atheism then why make such a fuss about the "new atheists"?
If that belief isn't atheism, then what is it? It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to embrace religion while rejecting any substantive definition of God. At the same time, you want to reject atheism because it doesn't reflect your sophisticated theology.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I ask you to clarify your position. If your version of god is just "being itself" or the wonders of nature, then why call that a "theology" and why pretend that it's a sophisticated argument against atheism?
I read through it and Larry is making a categorical error to which I responded there and posted about in greater length.
I think you're having trouble "getting through." I understand what LM is saying. I don't understand what you are saying.
"So why is this communication going so badly? Any suggestions on how to make it go better?"
Yes. Don't speak in metaphors, analogies, etc. Speak plainly about what you mean. Saying things like "God is not a being but being itself" makes no sense. What the heck is 'being itself'? The best I can make of it is that God would be the quality of being real (as opposed to the quality of being imaginary). Why choose the word God, then, when just about no one else uses the word that way?
FWIW, I just finished the Haught book.
I think that a fair number of theologians would suggest that requesting that people try to describe God without using "metaphors, analogies, etc." is a rather tall order indeed. I would suggest that it is pretty much impossible to describe God except by using "metaphors, analogies, etc."
Some of the comments here really illustrate the problem with communication on this subject. I note, for example, the insistence that somehow atheists have the right to define for the rest of us what the word "God" means. "What, your concept of God doesn't conform to what I insist it must do? How dare you! I demand that you must choose between these two alternative categories that I have defined for you."
This despite the fact that Moran, for example, admits that he knows next to nothing about theology--but that's because, he assures us, he doesn't need to know anything about it, because he knows a priori everything he needs to know on a subject which he spends so much energy attacking--since the stereotypical concepts he holds about the nature of the God-concept and about religion don't need to be based on actual informed knowledge. (The world is full of concepts that I don't grasp or fully understand, but I usually don't invest my energies arrogantly attacking them before I at least know something about the subject. But hey, that's me.)
Included in this poorly informed know-it-all posturing is a lack of understanding about the variety of ways that God can be conceived (Moran, for example, gives the impression that he doesn't know the difference between pantheism and panentheism.) When confronted with people whose ideas don't conform to your paradigm, the knee-jerk response is to simply insist that someone else's theology must conform to one's own preconceptions. There is a lot of chutzpah in militant atheists telling people of faith what their concept of God should be, but there you have it.
Similarly, there seems to be a complete inability to process the idea that there might actually be people of faith who don't believe in divine intervention, miracles, or omnipotence. It just doesn't fit into that neat little binary division of the world into "those whose clearly false God-concept matches that which I don't believe in" and "atheists." And the fact that there are people of faith who may not conceive of God as simply another being just like the rest of us creatures in every way other than residing in some supernatural realm and maybe also having a lot of power or knowledge) is beyond comprehension, and therefore the atheist must insist that the person of faith conform to the paradigm that was set in stone by the atheists themselves. Thus we get this broken record, over and over again, about "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings".
As Marcus Borg likes to say, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in, and I probably don't believe in that God either." To which, the militant atheist apparently replies, "Yes you do believe in that God, and if you don't you must be an atheist. Nyah nyah nyah."
Yeah, that's definitely the path to serious communication.
James,
Can you give a clear and unambiguous definition of what you call God?
Every second religious person believes something different, we atheists surely cannot be expected to keep up with every individual's personal vaguery.
Mystical Guys says - "And the fact that there are people of faith who may not conceive of God as simply another being just like the rest of us creatures in every way other than residing in some supernatural realm and maybe also having a lot of power or knowledge) is beyond comprehension, and therefore the atheist must insist that the person of faith conform to the paradigm that was set in stone by the atheists themselves. Thus we get this broken record, over and over again, about "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings"."
What the heck does that mean? Some being resides in a supernatural realm with unnamed but great powers and it isn't a supernatural being. Dude, you just lost everybody that doesn't already believe in magic.
Don N.
What the heck does that mean? Some being resides in a supernatural realm with unnamed but great powers and it isn't a supernatural being. Dude, you just lost everybody that doesn't already believe in magic.
I probably didn't phrase it very well. What I meant to say is that there is a God-concept that says that God is a being like us in pretty much every way except for residing in a supernatural realm and having lots of power and knowledge; my point was that many people of faith reject this notion.
mystical seeker (?) says,
Similarly, there seems to be a complete inability to process the idea that there might actually be people of faith who don't believe in divine intervention, miracles, or omnipotence. It just doesn't fit into that neat little binary division of the world into "those whose clearly false God-concept matches that which I don't believe in" and "atheists."
Nonsense. I've been discussing this for years and I'm fully aware of the many differences. I know of deists, for example, in spite of whatever you might be thinking.
Desist may not believe in miracles etc. but they do believe in something and I'm interesed in knowing what that is and why they believe it.
Incidentally, I notice that you are very reluctant to tell me what you believe. Why is that?
And the fact that there are people of faith who may not conceive of God as simply another being just like the rest of us creatures in every way other than residing in some supernatural realm and maybe also having a lot of power or knowledge) is beyond comprehension, and therefore the atheist must insist that the person of faith conform to the paradigm that was set in stone by the atheists themselves.
Nonsense. I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone who wants to describe their particular version of God and explain why they believe in it.
On the other hand, I'm losing patience with those people who refuse to do so while whining about the fact that I don't understand them.
Thus we get this broken record, over and over again, about "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings", "supernatural beings".
Think of it as a metaphor. :-)
I'm willing to use whatever term you want me to use to describe your God as long as it is distinguishable from atheism. All you have to do is explain it so that I can understand it.
Then you should explain why you choose believe in that God.
When would you like to begin?
As Marcus Borg likes to say, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in, and I probably don't believe in that God either." To which, the militant atheist apparently replies, "Yes you do believe in that God, and if you don't you must be an atheist. Nyah nyah nyah."
Whatever.
Yeah, that's definitely the path to serious communication.
waiting ........
Hey James,
I read through the (many) comments on Larry's blog and I admit that I'm confused by your responses.
It sounds like you want to talk about morals and some mystical/awe experiences that you have, and which I'm sure many of us can relate to. You don't seem to believe in a personal god, a god that interacts with us in any meaningful sense, or a god that will punish or reward us based on our behaviour. Is that about right?
So what I don't understand is why you would label this experience "God". It sounds like you're begging for mistakes and confusion. If an super-endurance runner gets a high after running 50km then tries to discuss this by calling it "God", he's going to confuse everyone. I have no clue why you would use these words since it requires you basically draft your own language.
But even if we grant you that your "God" has some characteristics in common with a god, I'm really confused by why you would call yourself a Christian.
And finally, and this is the one that just gob-smacks me, I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian and yet reject personal, miraculous ("supernatural") intervention in our lives. A Christian isn't someone who thinks that Jesus had some good ideas, surely a lot more is entailed yet you try to distance yourself from any of these supernatural beliefs.
All of this leaves one of two impressions, neither of them nice. I hope you'll clarify since you don't sound like you're intending either but I don't know what other alternatives there are.
First, you're using common English words with no concern for their accepted meaning or connotation. This sounds really delusional and anti-social, yet you act as if you genuinely want to communicate.
Or second, you really do share beliefs about God and Jesus involving miracles, divine intervention, and all the other "unsophisticated" things yet you either can't bring yourself to admit this or can't defend them and so are saying one thing but you really believe another. I have seen this in other Christians before, where they will engage in debates with atheists or scholars and dismiss supernatural events yet when they are with other Christians, they will happily teach children about Noah's Ark as if it were real, and talk about Jesus's miracles as if they we uncontested fact. Again, this isn't a flattering depiction as it is duplicitous, though perhaps unknowingly.
So that's the impression that I get after reading some of your blog and the comments on Larry's site. You seem evasive since you talk in poetic but nebulous or vacuous terms, like your especially wretched example, "God is not a being but Being itself", as if this meant anything at all. How many times have we heard that God is Truth, as if this explained anything?
Sorry if I'm coming across as a little harsh. I get quite frustrated by these dialogues sometimes. I prefer to say what I'm thinking as clearly and directly as possible and like it when people return the favour, and I get the feeling that you are using words to confuse rather than enlighten. If you do want to get through to me (and maybe I'm a proxy for other like-minded atheists), then I would suggest you explain what you believe using words in their commonly-accepted role and dropping words like "God" if they're causing confusion.
For a start, you could state clearly whether you think that there exists an omnipotent, sentient entity which created the universe (or our planet at least) and whether this entity has interacted with us at any point.
Mystical Man says "I probably didn't phrase it very well. What I meant to say is that there is a God-concept that says that God is a being like us in pretty much every way except for residing in a supernatural realm and having lots of power and knowledge; my point was that many people of faith reject this notion."
Look, I have read through all of Jame's comments. They really aren't understandable. I try to make sense of your comments and I still can't tell if you think there is a god or some supernatural forces at work in the universe or what. If you think not, than how are you not an atheist? If you think there are such forces, then what are they and what can they do? Saying God is Being and not a being really is pretty useless. I don't think Larry is the one being pompous in this discussion.
Don N.
I still can't tell if you think there is a god or some supernatural forces at work in the universe or what. If you think not, than how are you not an atheist? If you think there are such forces, then what are they and what can they do?
You have to define what you mean by "supernatural forces". If you assume that God must be defined in terms of what Marcus Borg refers to as a "supernaturally theistic" deity who intervenes by violating the laws of nature, then I would strongly disagree, as would a lot of theologians, including process theologians like Cobb and Griffin. So if you are suggesting that if one must believe in a God who has the power to act omnipotently or else they must be an atheist, then I would strongly disagree. If, on the other hand, you are saying that if one does not believe in God at all then one is an atheist, then I would agree. The real question has to do with what are the attributes that are assigned to God? (Deism, by the way, says that God doesn't intervene in the world now, but it still considers God to be omnipotent. There is a difference between believing in an omnipotent God who chooses not to act after omnipotently creating the world, and a God who is not omnipotent. I am not a Deist, and I personally don't know anyone who is, although Larry Moran says he has encountered his share.)
I haven't made any effort to describe my own views because this discussion isn't about me but about people of faith in general can and do believe about God. For what it's worth, I happen to be a panentheist who believes in God but not in omnipotence as a divine attribute. My views are strongly influenced by process theology. However, I can't speak for James or anybody else, which is kind of the point here. There is a lot of diversity of belief about God among those who believe. Atheists don't get to decide for the rest of us what are the attributes of a God that they don't even believe in. Just because someone's concept of God doesn't conform to someone else's paradigm, that doesn't make them an atheist.
There is also a lot of diversity of thinking among Christians about God's nature and whether God engages in supernatural acts. Thus when another commenter says, I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian and yet reject personal, miraculous ("supernatural") intervention in our lives., this also illustrates a point I have frequently made, which is that a lot of atheists seem to share a lot of the assumptions that fundamentalist Christians have about who gets to be called a Christian and who doesn't. This I find rather ironic.
Within the broad category of "progressive theology" there are a lot of different streams of thought about God. One reason I don't want to get bogged down in what I believe or (for that matter) what James believes (not that I can speak for him, and I don't know his views well enough to do so anyway) is that this isn't about any single theology. I suspect that one reason that James may seem vague to some of the atheists in these discussions is that he is trying to avoid claiming to speak for all faithful people of a progressive bent and he is trying to honor the diversity of thinking that exists within the broad stream of progressive theology--and instead focus on the general question at hand. Spong's theology isn't the same as Borg's, Borg's isn't the same as Cobb's, and Cobb isn't the same as Hick's. (All those theologies share a certain commitment to exploring certain kinds of questions in certain ways, but progressive Christianity is not a dogmatic homogeneous front but more like a diverse collection of theologies that share a commitment to exploring questions in certain ways.) This discussion is more general in nature--it isn't about what he specifically believes, but rather about what it means in general to believe in God or to be an an atheist.
As for the idea that God is "Being itself", my impression was that James was offering that as an example--I have no idea whether he himself is a devotee of Paul Tillich. If you or someone else doesn't understand Tillich's ideas, you would not be the first one. He can be a difficult and complex thinker and his writing tends to be dense (his book "Love, Power, and Justice" is ostensibly a work of theology but is more a work of philosophy, in my view, and it makes for dense reading.) Summarizing Tillich with a single sentence like "God is Being Itself" probably doesn't do him justice, although this expression does get used a lot to capture one of his important ideas. Sometimes theology is hard; that's the nature of the beast. The first time I tried to read "I and Thou" by Martin Buber, I also found it difficult reading, but it was rewarding in the end.
In any case, James did not pull Tillich as an example out of the blue. The atheists in this discussion may be unfamiliar with Tillich, but he is hardly an obscure thinker in the world of theology and philosophy. When presented with an unfamiliar idea, it is possible to try to engage the idea more than a mere four-sentence summary can capture. Yet, when Tillich was brought into the discussion, the charge was immediately leveled that this was "obfuscation", this by someone who has also claimed that he is just trying to understand what other people believe.
I've tried (again) to give a short explanation of where I'm coming from in my latest blog post. Let me know whether this clarifies things.
Mystical Man says"You have to define what you mean by "supernatural forces". If you assume that God must be defined in terms of what Marcus Borg refers to as a "supernaturally theistic" deity who intervenes by violating the laws of nature, then I would strongly disagree, as would a lot of theologians, including process theologians like Cobb and Griffin. So if you are suggesting that if one must believe in a God who has the power to act omnipotently or else they must be an atheist, then I would strongly disagree"
I am familiar with Griffin's work and he is both a kook in political matters, and even less clear than you or James on supernatural matters. Rather than appeal to such slim authority tell us what you think. Griffin thinks the US was involved in 9/11. He also thinks God is a supernatural being and then tries to hide that belief using all sorts of silliness. If Griffin is a sophisticated approach to arguing for god I am sorry for even engaging in this discussion.
Don N.
Rather than appeal to such slim authority tell us what you think.
Why are you so interested in what I believe? This discussion isn't about me. I already told you what my theological position was.
And by the way, Griffin's views on 9/11 have nothing whatsoever to do with his theology. That would be like judging Chomsky's theories about language based on his views on politics. Irrelevant.
He also thinks God is a supernatural being and then tries to hide that belief using all sorts of silliness.
Thanks for sharing that sophisticated analysis of process theology.
You don't have to agree with process theology if you don't want to. Whether you agree with it or not, I was trying to clarify the question of omnipotence, since you brought up but did not explain what you meant by "supernatural forces". If you believe that God must by definition intervene omnipotently in the world against the laws of nature, then this is just not necessary to the definition of God, and process theology (which is where I tend to place myself) does not define God in that way. One process theologian, Charles Hartshorne, for example, once even wrote a book called "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes." This is, as I pointed out, different from Deism (and process theology differs from Deism in a lot of ways.)
You can consider process theology nonsense if you want. But it is important to clarify that there are many conceptions of God, not just those that militant atheists happen to be aware of. That includes conceptions that do not consider God to be omnipotent.
The problem is that the person you're trying to talk to is both a materialist and a literalist. He can't understand metaphor as it applies to his world, so he decides that anyone using metaphor is speaking in circles or refusing to answer him.
When you combine literalism with religion, you get a fundy. When you combine it with materalism, you get an atheist who can't understand why people who experience something outside the material world use metaphors to describe it.
When you combine it with materalism, you get an atheist who can't understand why people who experience something outside the material world use metaphors to describe it.
I like poetry and metaphors and the world would be a poorer place without them.
But there is a place and a time for them. How would you feel if the criminal code was written using solely metaphors and how would anyone establish whether they were right or wrong? If Newton had only used metaphors and no specifics, would anyone believe he actually understood gravity and more importantly, could he convey that understanding to others?
James may have some insight, but his inability to deal with specifics means he will never be able to share that insight with others. Readers are forced to fill in the interpretations, which means we are reading ourselves and not James.
Tyro, I am not sure what "specifics" you are referring to. I have tried to respond to questions that have been asked. I have not tried to state again all of my views on every subject that I blog about regularly.
How about if I link to some of my lengthy posts about subjects I think you might want to ask me about? God as a pointer to our experience or a symbol of a way of life and as mystery, morality, genocide, moral absolutism, Noah's ark, 'acts of God', Easter, afterlife, Progressive Christianity and the need to rethink Christianity, theology, atheism and its contribution, Carl Sagan, Antony Flew, disenchantment, faith, the soul, incarnation, religious language, the meanings of life, certainty and uncertainty, natural explanations, prayer and why I am a Christian plus what it would take to make me lose my faith. Which of these topics have you read my posts on and feel I have not gone into sufficient detail? Or are you tossing about accusations of not being up-front and clear because of the obvious fact that neither I nor any other participant in this conversation has said in their most recent posts everything they think about all relevant subjects?
James,
Tyro, I am not sure what "specifics" you are referring to.
Your discussions about God and Christianity seem most relevant here since that was how the conversation started, and it was to those topics that I was referring.
Which of these topics have you read my posts on and feel I have not gone into sufficient detail? Or are you tossing about accusations of not being up-front and clear because of the obvious fact that neither I nor any other participant in this conversation has said in their most recent posts everything they think about all relevant subjects?
This started with the discussion about "sophisticated religion" and the existence of gods, not Noah's Ark or other topics.
I did read some of your other blog entries, such as "Why I am a Christian" and the "four questions", which just reinforce Larry's original points. In particular, your descriptions of "God" seem to be carefully calculated to avoid conveying any information of any sort. The only impression I get is that your beliefs match those of deists or pantheists and you consider yourself a cultural Christian only. And yet you still act like there is sufficiently good evidence for gods that atheists are mistaken or misguided. (This when, if we take you at your word, you reject the personal gods that 90% of the world worship.)
When you start the series of posts with the explicit intent to clear up misunderstandings about "sophisticated" theology and your beliefs about God, I think you should be justly criticized for your total lack of specificity.
OK, so let me get this straight: you treat deism, pantheism and cultural Christianity as though they are the same viewpoint and apparently the same as atheism, and then accuse me of lack of specificity?
you treat deism, pantheism and cultural Christianity as though they are the same viewpoint and apparently the same as atheism, and then accuse me of lack of specificity?
Not only that, but panentheism once again doesn't even get mentioned! And to think that I'm pretty you even talked about panentheism over in Larry Moran's blog. :) Since
atheists are ironically going around telling large numbers of theologians, churchgoers, and various people of faith that they are not using the word "God" correctly, maybe all those distinctions between deism and pantheism and panentheism don't really matter anyway. :)
I do think that comparing religion with Newton illustrates a problem in this discussion. Religion isn't science, and it really isn't the business of religion to go around making scientific assertions about observable phenomena; and yet it is judged by some as if it were a science, according to standards that are appropriate for science. The suggestion that there is a time and a place for metaphor and poetry is correct; and metaphor and poetry are not only appropriate for religion, it could be argued that they lie at the very heart of it. Perhaps I am mistaken, James, but I believe that this is the point you have been trying to make.
Appropriately, April DeConick just highlighted the plurality within Christianity from the very beginning, even if we're still trying to figure out what to call it...
There's absolutely no question that early Christianity was characterized by diversity from the beginning. Some of the serious theological disputes were serious enough that they could not be whitewashed out of the Bible (consider what Paul has to say about Peter in his account of their meeting in Antioch).
One of the interesting questions that scholars have to deal with is what to call these various strains of thought. Bart Ehrman, for example, who wrote an entire book about various disputes in the first centuries of the faith refers to the "proto-orthodox" views as being those views which eventually won out and got called "orthodox" by the winning side. The problem with the term "proto-orthodox" is that it is anachronistic even if it strives not to be; something only becomes "orthodox" after the fact, and even putting "proto-" in front of it gives a certain authority to what was essentially just one strain of thought among many. I like the fact that April Deconick is trying to address this problem, and I think her concept of plurodoxy is a step in the right direction.
OK, so let me get this straight: you treat deism, pantheism and cultural Christianity as though they are the same viewpoint and apparently the same as atheism, and then accuse me of lack of specificity?
And, gasp, I also treat cultural English as atheists, deists or pantheists if that's what they are. Oooh, look at the narrow-minded atheist, unable to acknowledge that England has a state religion so all English must be Christians! What a philistine!
I get the increasingly forceful impression that you're less interested in the original question in your blog of how to reach out and why two sides aren't communicating and you're more interested in slinging accusations of narrow-mindedness. I'm doing nothing worse that using English and trying to learn what is real rather than what is wished for. If you're intent on ripping apart words so that you can use culturally accepted words to describe your mystic beliefs, that's your business. Don't put on your "gosh, why can't people understand me" ingénue attitude when you can't communicate with others (and this "stupid atheist" schtick is even less funny). Maybe you better stick with talking to theologians where obscurantism is strongly encouraged.
You want to know how to get your points across? Drop the metaphors, speak clearly, define your terms explicitly, use conventional definitions.
Simple and obvious, I know, yet you don't seem to get it and show no interest in changing. I'm sorry I thought you were interested in gaining an understanding.
Your rant in response merely confirmed what I said - these "cultural Christians" are atheists, panentheists, deists, pantheists, whatever. The distinctions don't matter, according to you. Presumably that's why every time I say that I am a progressive Christian panentheist, you say "drop the metaphors and say what you really think". I thought that was what I was doing.
Maybe we're taking this too fast and taking in too broad terms. Maybe if you ask a specific question that can be given a short, specific answer, the communication between us will improve. If someone asks "What do you think about God?" obviously there's going to be a complexity to the answer, attempts at nuancing, and so on.
I really do think this can go better...
Post a Comment