DISQUS

His words are like intellectual honey, sweetly dripping from the honey-comb of wisdom into my eager mouth of learning!

Yes, I'm saying that it is a desire of mine. Not to change the system, but to foster a social alternative. I don't believe that the Church just happens...it involves organizing and various gifts and often challenging the powers. When does doing that become a movement? When did Jesus' ministry become a movement? How much do we resist movement-building?

Great story. I hope you share more with us, Paul.

I appreciate your response, Luke. I eagerly await your thoughts on desire utilitarianism.

Your analogy works in a very narrow way; it fails to recognize that most humans have always believed in the super-natural, that most societies have been based upon super-natural assumptions, etc. In other words, it makes sense in the abstract to challenge these beliefs, but you aren't being anthropologically or sociologically nuanced.

And some of your analogies break down (like the inter-racial and missionary stuff) because it could seem to imply that religious belief is the sole cause of racism and colonialism. We know, of course, that atheistic ways of thinking have also contributed to such thinking. And Marxists (who I am sympathetic to, in some important ways) have done atheistic evangelism around the world...often leading in a liberation that leads to oppression.

Futhermore, the analogy certainly breaks down when you imply that religious belief has slowed medicine, etc. This may be true in some ways, but it is also very important that we don't ignore the ways that religious conviction has actually encouraged medicine and progress. After all, religious people are indeed more charitable on average, have started hospitals, etc. Religious belief has informed directly and indirectly social innovation.

I usually reject arguments against religion based upon human badness. Why? Because saying religion is the cause of various bad things is, sociologically, historically, and anthroplogically ALMOST like saying that human culture is the cause of various bad things. Religions has, for most human at most times, been woven into the fabric of human culture. And you and I both know that atheistic attempts at culture haven't really fared much better.

Nevertheless, let us suppose that this fairy cult was the status quo and I woke up one day, realizing it is a sham. I would do exactly what I am doing now, because in truth, I did indeed wake up into a world where I realized that things like Empire, oppression, etc were part of a bad status quo. I realized that Christianity (and other faiths) have been largely complicit in these things. Of course, some religious expressions have challenged them. And so, though I have sometimes been called "condescending" by people, I have to assume that if I am patient, compassionate, and thoughtful, I can help them see the world as I do.

I assume that they have this invisible thing called "the holy spirit" that aids me in this quest.

YOU believe that there is this commonly held capacity called "reason" that aids YOU in your quest.

But the comparison between you and I breaks down. Because, it seems to me, that you are motivated by pragmatism, whereas I am motivated by spiritual (as well as socio-political) concerns.

Which leads me to a question I'd like you to explore:

1) If your atheistic perspective leads you to believe a certain set of future goals are preferable for human society than other goals

2) and f there was a way to foster these future goals through both promoting atheistic thought

3) but certain forms of religious belief were also, perhaps, more beneficial than not in achieving these goals

Wouldn't the sociological tendency towards belief lend you to conclude that it is more pragmatic to foster those future goals regardless of religious belief rather than to seek to convince everyone that "fairies" don't exist?

And wouldn't that lead you towards a more inviting, winsome posture?

Hey Luke, I think you need to think a bit more about condescension, the way language is perceived, and the role of rhetoric in discussion. You may literally think that belief in God is akin to belief in a mystical pink unicorn, but it seems somewhat obvious that to make such a comparison has the intended goal of making the former feel foolish when compared to the latter. You can chalk it up to being rational or being honest, but in the end it is condescending...obviously so.

To me, it detracts from respectful dialogue. It is one of the biggest reasons, it seems to me, that people of faith don't listen to popular atheists. People are drawn to religion because they believe religion will help make them compassionate, loving, or better. Few people have that perception of atheists. And that isn't because the religious thought police have made a caricature of atheists as buttholes. Rather, most popular atheists act like buttholes.

That isn't to say that you ARE a butthole. You indeed are not. But going out of one's way to use metaphors and rhetoric that respect the other is a helpful thing. It actually aids in discussion, and makes one's own argument more compelling.

One of my favorite atheists (or maybe agnostics) was Peter Kropotkin, the famous Russian anarchist. His gentleness, compassion, and winsomeness won over a lot of people. He was a beloved man even as he was trying to challenge political, economic, societal, and theological orthodoxies.

Thanks for that, Luke.

Hey man, show a little less condescension here. Unless, of course, you thing gentleness is irrational. I'm not referring to how you respond to me (I can take it) but your general tone.

You keep equivocating religious beliefs as absurd on the level of flying spaghetti monsters. This is condescending. It is needlessly mocking belief. Even if you were right, it isn't a very helpful way of dialoging. I suggest you focus on exposing the reasonableness of particular beliefs rather than on using language that could easily make someone feel stupid for holding some beliefs (I am ok with you utterly disagreeing with my beliefs and believing that their untenable or unjustifiable, but I certainly would hope that you don't think I'm stupid). You're also being rather flippant about beliefs that many people hold dear.

Even if you believe a belief to be unfounded, it doesn't make it a light thing. It has power. If I believed that death is a generally ok thing that no one should care about, that wouldn't make it wise to make jokes with a widow at the funeral of her husband. When you dismiss ideas as inconsequential, it often has the opposite effect of re-entrenching one's ideas rather than opening them to possible alternatives.

Luke, your presuppositions are showing. You assume that lies, placebo, and hallucinations are more plausible explanations because of why? Evidence? Random "healings" happening because of an unknown un-God reason is more likely than a divine cause because why? One need not affirm an all-loving God to believe in divine healing either. I don't believe that John Piper believes in an all-loving God, but rather an all-knowing, all-powerful, God who makes choices based upon some unseen script. I don't like that picture very much, but it is at least consistent.

Quick somewhat unrelated question: why do you refer to yourself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic?

Jeff B...the comment never showed up...I'm not sure why that is.

Luke,

The issue of "Arrogant Puddles" raises some questions worth exploring. I'm wondering what you (and others here) think of these questions:

Does the nearly universal human thirst for meaning have any significance for human belief? In other words, is there a purely materialist reason for such longing? CS Lewis (and others) used this line of thinking to show that humans are ultimately transcendent. I'm sure atheists don't find much worthy in this logic, but it certainly bears deeper scrutiny.

What about our creative and aesthetic capacity? While lower animals make rude tools and might have a zen for symmetry, they can't compare to the human animal's strong artistic/aesthetic/self-reflective nature.

What about the emergence of religious belief? From an evolutionary perspective, religion must be advantageous...why would it no longer be advantageous?

Luke, just to clarify...and this is a theological clarification that doesn't actually challenge anything you just said...I do believe that Christian belief is externally verified/justified by the Church. However, that belief is not externally verifiable or justifiable by those outside of the church.

I don't believe I'm being brave (though I may be foolish) because, of course, I don't believe by faith is on the same footing as the "Pink Unicorn Cult." Christianity does have some things going for it that can be affirmed by all people, though that isn't to say that Christianity can be rationally justified externally.

I, of course, do apply some logic to this thing. There are some faiths that I would probably out and out reject: ones held by individuals rather than groups, ones not rooted in any historical reality, and other criteria. Just because I am claiming something like a sensus divinitatis does not mean that I don't have other senses or logic. In other words, the questions you raise are entirely valid, and I wholly encourage people to evaluate and judge belief systems on a number of criteria.

Hey Luke. Allow me to use an example to strengthen one of my points. It seems to me that you enjoy being right. I'm not saying this as a negative thing...the same could be said for me. This is an aesthetic quality that shapes the manner in which one pursues truth. Therefore, it conditions the way in which that truth is understood. I'm not saying that to somehow shift the attention away from the argument to something else, rather, it helps reinforce my position. If someone is driven by a desire to be right, it will affect their understanding of truth.

Regarding unicorns...equivocating pink unicorns with Jesus is silly. Jesus actually existed. I know a handful of "scholars" argue he did not. You can make the claim that it is better to follow another moral teacher, but equivocating mythological creatures with historical figures is kinda sloppy. It is also sloppy to interchange the hundreds of faith as all being on equal footing. That simply serves to say that belief of any sort is somewhat arbitrary.

I'm not 100% on board with Plantinga, but his position as I've laid out is consistent. And if there were a mystical pink unicorn that people claimed to have a real experience of because the unicorn touched their forehead with its horn and bestowed upon them special unicorn sensing powers, it would be nigh impossible to refute them. It couldn't be externally validated. But I honestly don't believe or need to externally validate my faith in the way that you seem to want to externally validate your own way of seeing the world.

After all, my special unicorn vision, as it were, makes sense to me. And though it isn't fool proof that millions of others claim a similar experience, it does tend to reinforce my belief--or at least give me some small comfort that I'm not insane.

It is true: some folks out there claim to have conflicting experiences. It is a real problem for objectively validating my faith that Muslims claim a similar line of thinking with Allah. I've seen Christian thinkers approach this issue in a couple of different ways:

1) They try to argue for the uniqueness of Christ. In this approach, they push the differences of each worldview and faith and encourage folks to judge each system internally. There is merit to this approach, I think.

2) They try to argue that Christianity is the only perspective that makes real sense of the world. I believe that it does indeed make sense, but not in a way that I could point to universally and say: "here...take a look at this, isn't it obvious?"

It comes down to this: God's existence cannot be clearly proven with scientific data, as you understand it. Nor can God's existence be unproven. You belief that atheism is the common sense starting point until proven otherwise. My experience has convinced me, but I can't show you the math on how I worked that out because of my unsatisfying claim to something like a sensus divinitatis. I believe I've had real experiences with a risen Jesus Christ and as I've followed him and been confronted with his being, I've begun to see the world differently in a way that makes sense of things as I understand them.

I'm content to separate the words "beauty" and "aesthetics" from words like "experience." There has been some shifts in philosophy (due to pomo thought) that gives aesthetics wider meaning.

My challenge, then, can be focused on matters of perception. When it comes to epistemology, I am particularly indebted to the Reformed tradition (a shock to some folks, I know) as articulated by Alvin Plantinga. He basically argues that humans were created by God to have sensory experience of God. Unfortunately, sin has damaged the "sensus divinitatis." As a result, the ability of an individual to have true knowledge of God has been terribly damaged or lost altogether. Plantinga puts forth his Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model to show how this sensus divinitatis is restored for the Christian and furthermore argues how it meets the criteria for a warranted belief, and therefore can produce knowledge.

Balthasar argues along the same lines: “If it is a matter of interpreting God’s supernatural revelation in history from the available signs, then the spirit searching for meaning requires a higher light of grace in order to synthesize the signs…The light of grace comes to the aid of this natural inability; it strengthens and deepens the power of sight. It does not provide new clues or compensate for the inadequacy of the ‘scientific’ arguments; rather, it bestows vision and makes the eye proportionate to what is being shown.”

So, to oversimplify things, I believe my spiritual perceptions are every bit as valid as my other perceptions. And this cannot be "proven" except by the way in which I embody what I understand to be true. But, again, what I believe to true is not only shaped by my experience and perception, but conditioned by my own desire and my imagination--that capacity that includes the ability to connect various data to determine meaning and value.

I think I can speak for everyone when I say that I earnestly hope that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Just a few noodles from a Flying Spaghetti Monster could alleviate the hunger of an entire village. Come, FSM, bless us with your saucy goodness! :)

Most satanists I've encountered are libertarians--which certainly has lots of overlap with anarchism and "christarchism" when it comes to the role of government. But all similarities soon disappear as each points towards their vision of community and life.

I think I'm using the word "beauty" in a heavier way than you are. I'm not talking about deciding what is true based upon my own mushy feelings. Rather, I am saying that it is impossible to know truth unmediated through perception. And when one talks about perception--how we understand the world, the way in which we imagine that it actually IS, we are talking about aesthetics. Our perception and understanding of all that is is unavoidably shaped by perception and desire. The world you seem to be trying to live in doesn't seem to come to terms with this. You can try to make my approach seem silly and sentimental (which is what it seems you have done in your last comment), but that just makes you seem like the naive one. Just because you wish your own quest for truth weren't driven by your own desire and subjectivity, doesn't make it objective or even rational.

If I may be permitted to direct this discussion towards one of the issues being raised in my interactions with Luke...

He seems to be driven by a search for Truth. He feels (if I can put words in his mouth) as though to base one's life on things other than what is True (as he arrives at it) is to betray one's self. Of course, I agree with that. The issue is how one arrives at truth.

In this my biggest push back is on that very matter. I don't believe that goodness flows from correct beliefs, and that aesthetics is "merely" personal. In other words, I don't privilege truth as an "objective" thing over goodness with is less objective over beauty which is almost entirely subjective.

Rather, I affirm the reality that aesthetics is the beginning, mediator, and end of all I know to be good, which in turn shapes and forms what I know to be true.

Again, I realize that this is hard for someone with a more modernist perspective to accept. But then, I'm not convinced at proving anything. Rather, I am of the opinion that beauty-->goodness-->truth is the way ALL human beings live their lives and that if I live a life that reflects what I hold through thought and action to be beautiful, that others may be wooed. Certainly logic has its place, but pure logic is illusory once you get further from pure mathematics.

So, is it foolish to begin with beauty/aesthetics?

I'm glad you liked it. :)

Wow. We're two comments in, and already we've chewed up a lot of screen real estate. I think I'll let others weigh in before I respond in full. For now, let me just say this: my logic isn't fuzzy, but perhaps (from your perspective) my first principles or assumptions are. Also, I do indeed believe that truth is of the utmost importance...it just follows beauty and goodness (not in order of importance, but rather in order of "being." We ARE before we DO before we UNDERSTAND. And in encountering the BEING or EXISTENCE of Christ as mediated through his people, one is drawn into the way of Jesus, and from there understands the Truth. I realize how absurd that may seem, especially to someone who rejects postmodernism, but it is only ridiculous externally. ;)

Hey Luke, thanks for being willing to share your story here. Just to clarify a few things from your story:

1) Most folks at Missio Dei aren't well-educated, at least in the academic sense. I only bring that up because (as you know) I'm not a huge believer in the academy.

2) To give folks a better idea of what I mean by "aesthetics of belief" it might be helpful if I elaborated.

I affirm the general argument that Hans Urs von Balthasar makes. He writes: “Instead of possessing a ‘proof,’ [Christians]‘are’ a reflection of it in their lives. As they respond to the glory of God and reflect it, it shines forth not only for them but for others." So, Balthasar argues that the non-believer aesthetically perceives the “glory of God” in the life of a holy person. This serves as the best “proof” for the non-believer.

Balthasar argues that it is impossible to have any knowledge of God or verify the truth of revelation apart from actually living within a Christian faith-stance. The individual outside of this faith-stance (the non-believer) is unable to come to the Christian faith of his or her own accord. In order to perceive revelation, "eyes are needed that are able to perceive the spiritual form.” Non-believers are unable to have knowledge of God. The non-believer is struck by the reflection of the Glory of the Lord in the life of the holy person, and as the non-believer is attracted by the holiness of the Christian, s/he is drawn into living a similar life. As this person engages in “Christian experience,” the reality of God begins to take shape. In other words, a person must first participate in Christian experience before one can have knowledge of God.

And so, we have beauty leading to goodness leading to truth. This approach stands against the modernist approach.

Jesus has no need of apologetics. He shines through. He shines upon everyone who comes into the world and does not deliberately look away. It is my conviction that the Church should not pursue any apologetics for itself, but should instead make Jesus visible--embody Christ.

3) Regarding my mystical experiences with Jesus: I realize that one's own mystical encounters do not provide anything for anyone else to go on. But they have been very potent to me. So much so, that I've often remarked that I would disbelieve in God before I disbelieved in Jesus and, if it were to be shown that there was no God, I would still be left with the desire to worship Christ. My experience with Jesus is deep and lasting.

And so, I am left with this strong desire for Christ. It is based upon experience of a mystical sort, but this aesthetic encounter has led to goodness in my life, which has led to an ever-deeping understanding of the truth of the world. And so, beauty has led to goodness has led to truth.

I'm ok with the influence of Greek thought. It is when the Greek way of thinking became privileged over other ways. In some ways, I still affirm what was done when the church "fathers" canonized Scripture and wrote the Nicene Creed. There was something important done there...but the fact that these things are sacrosanct--that we can't push back in the least and still be dubbed faithful and Orthodox--is part of the problem.

So, that is a round about way of saying I mostly agree. I don't think these things should have been made "official" in that they became markers of who is "in" and who is "out." Rather, they should have been understood as declarations of what they deemed faithful. If they would have been able to do that without labeling Arius and Pelagius as "heretics" and then later seek to kill off their heretical kind, things would have been much, much better.

I've taken my recent comment, gussied it up a bit, and am publishing it as an article...

The other day I was in a leftist bookshop and found a book claiming that nonviolence is a tool of Empire. In other words, they believed that pacifism and nonviolence simply allow aggressors to keep on aggressing. Whereas folks like Mark Kurlansky (who wrote a book called Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea that is a MUST READ for those that feel nonviolence is impotent) claim that nonviolence is a very powerful and dangerous force.

Who's right? Does embracing nonviolence turn one into a doormat or is it a powerful way of challenging one's enemy while (potentially) showing love for them at the same time?

Oppressors (everyone form slave owners to bullies at Catholic schools) have told the oppressed to "turn the other cheek" in order to keep them in their place. This sort of passive pacifism does not, I believe, properly reflect Jesus' teaching.

Jesus told the oppressed to turn the other cheek as an act of positive assertion, as an act of defiant self-worth, but also as an act of love. This sort of nonviolence--the active sort of Jesus and the early Anabaptists and King and Gandhi and the Christian Peacemaker Teams--is active and subversive. It isn't docile submission to abuse. It is submissive insofar as it doesn't seek revenge or desire to set one's self up as the oppressor. Rather, it seeks liberation for both oppressed and oppressor.

I believe we have every right to defend ourselves, but not if that self-defense is violent to the assailant. Violence can be verbal (seeking to destroy with words) or physical (seeking to do someone bodily harm). I realize that it isn't always easy to tell when an act is violent and I even recognize that there is even a time and a place for the use of non-lethal force.

All of this is to say that nonviolence is more than being passive, or not responding to acts of violence or oppression. We are clearly shown throughout the Gospels and the Epistles an active nonviolence...a persistent and public witness against the Powers that seeks to bring liberation. Paul was a great example of someone who is committed to nonviolence yet could hardly be called a doormat. So, when people mistreat you--physically or emotionally--nothing Jesus or Paul or Peter said should be construed as "just take it."

Nevertheless, Jesus or Paul or Peter never advocate seeking power over others. If we have been wronged, we aren't to seek revenge or try to turn the tables or to assert ourselves in such a way that we diminish them so that we might have the fleeting feeling of superiority.

Not too much. I mean, a number of us have connected with folks over at Woodland Hills, but not in any sustained or deep way. I've connected with Greg a few times, but not in any great depth. I think being on separate sides of the city and the difference in size (30 versus mega) is an issue. We're open though...but it will probably take some time for us to make a deeper connection.