Loading...Thanks to all for your feedback on my “Christmas Longings” (yesterday’s post). It was/is interesting indeed to see the enormous range of reactions. I’ve not seen anything like that for any other post over the blog’s nine-months of existence. I will not respond at any great length to any of them here – or even make comments on all of them in the comment section – though I will respond there to a few of them that seem to me to require comment. But I appreciate all the feedback, one way or the other.
After this short post, I will get back to the business at hand: Christianity in Antiquity (I’m working on an English edition of the Other Gospels just now, and have some things I want to post about it, starting tomorrow).
But by way of shorthand, in brief response to the responses, I can say the following. For those who have wondered: No, I am not planning on going back to church regularly or to become a Christian. Don’t see how I could, even if I wanted to. No, I do not have anything against pubs or those who go to them (I’ve been to hundreds of pubs and bars during the past six years when I was in church once!); and I don’t have a problem with anyone, like me, who imbibes more than their fair share of alcoholic refreshment. No, I don’t think I’m still a fundamentalist or a recovering fundamentalist (as you may know, I’m notorious for my fierce opposition to all things fundamentalist, and talking about the value of the “myth” of Christianity is a far cry from anything fundamental….).
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT!!!
I think there are many reasons why humanists (and religious people for that matter) who have the resources the help don’t do more to help those in need. One reason for some may be they think the homeless or poor are in the condition they are on the fault of their own. That their situation is the result of the decisions they made and therefore they deserve what they got or have. Others simply do not know how bad the situation for many really is for some – they have not been exposed to it on any meaningful level. I have met others who know the situation but are so driven by fear of themselves losing what they have to others who simply don’t care.
Hi Bart,
Greetings from Kent, Ohio. I’m a new member of your blog, as of today, and just wanted to say that your “Christmas Longings” post resonated most deeply with my wife and me. Thanks for writing it.
Ah, I’ve been in Kent many-a time. My brother teaches classics at Kent State (and has done, forever).
Not quite as ‘forever’ — yet — as my own KSU stint as a professor of geology, it turns out. In fact, I’ve known your fine brother for many years and have gotten to know him even better over the last year or so. He actually introduced us briefly following your most recent presentations at the university.
Over the past several years, I’ve benefited greatly from having read 5 or 6 of your many books, most recently your brother’s copy of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Likewise, I enjoyed your excellent Newsweek cover story, which I passed on to him and some other interested friends.
Ah! Sorry not to remember. That was a fun trip, that last noe. Gald you’ve enjoyed the books. Best,
I would just like to say that that there are those who do believe that there is more to life than just our few years here and who do try to do make this a better world, not simply because there may or may not be an infinite entity or god, but because it is the right thing to do.
My son is a young fundamentalist minister who truly does not wish to discuss religion with me.. We had lunch yesterday and I mentioned the value of academic scholarly investigation, analysis, and debate and he replied that these “liberal Scholars” are just trying to bring disruption to the faith of those who truly believe. that the Bible is the true words of God and there is nothing more to discover or investigate. He even mentioned you by name (not that he ever read any of your books). He also suggested that I have been watching too many documentaries. I also mentioned the work of Mother Teresa and he said that what she did wass just ‘social action” and has nothing to do with God or Jesus’ ethics.
To my mind, the challenge for scholars, and for the rest of us, religious or humanist or a mixture, is to communicate the value of what we deem significant and important work in the world, and that we are not the enemy.
Excellent points!
Which transition in your religious journey was most difficult, emotionally, intellectually, socially: from fundamentalism to evangelicalism, from evangelicalism to liberalism, from liberalism to agnosticism?
No contest. Becoming an agnostic!!
Bart how do you (or more so *did* cope) with getting frustrated / angry with fundies who just wont listen to an educated point of view? I find it almost impossible to withstand the ridiculous , illogical and irrational comments of my ex christain friends. its the hardest part for me being an agnositic and ex pentecostal christian , its so bad that I dont keep much contact with these guys anymore and its a shame really.
Yes, I have trouble understanding why *most* people don’t agree with me! 🙂
I havent found anyone agreeing with me yet! I think you are the on;y one ha! lol! either i am so disullusioned that i cant see the so called “glory” of the church or 99% of everyone i talk to are fickle! God help us! (i dont really mean the last part)
Thank you so much for both yesterday’s and today’s posts.
I had just started reading God’s Problem this morning, before I read either of these posts. I have enjoyed everything I’ve read of yours, but have put off reading this book. I am still a little raw myself, you see, having really left faith behind in the last 5 years. And as I reevaluated my theology, I was rather determined that the problem of evil NOT be what drew me away from the church.
I suffered deeply as an adolescent. I was also very passionate about my involvement in my church. My “leaving faith” story differs from yours though in that all along, I knew my theological views were VERY liberal. I refused ever to believe in a god who would make me ill to test me or even to cause me to grow as a person. A commenter on yesterday’s post spoke of a rabbi who made a comment nearly identical to one a minister friend of mine makes all the time. He essentially says, “I don’t believe in a God like that, either”. And for quite a while, that worked for me, too. But I think my real game was a studious avoidance of thinking about where that really left me, in terms of my faith. I was determined that I could somehow believe in a loving God who knew me and was responsible for the good things in my life but not the bad, because there is just pain in life. I wasn’t too clear on how to give God credit for good things, so it wasn’t a huge leap to realize that this didn’t fit. In the end, my actual beliefs had to change very little for me to realize that I was not a Christian.
The kind of frustration you describe feeling while listening to the beseeching, personal prayer is still strongly with me. But I don’t think my anger is or has ever been with God. I never believed strongly enough that God was a player in my life to feel that part of the loss (unless I am still in denial, somehow). I think my anger is with Christianity as an institution. Some of this is down to personal issues I just need to deal with. But too, as your posts yesterday and today hint, there is a lot of beauty to be found in Christian tradition. I’m angry that there is so much ugliness (hate, intolerance) too, and I’m angry that so many Christians act as though Christianity has the corner on morality or love.
The last time I went to church, they sang “They’ll Know We Are Christians” (by our love, the song says). I used to love this song– it gave me a feeling of being connected to others who want to live a life that is founded in loving those around us. But the song frustrates me now. I want so much to live among people who seek excellence in themselves and others. I want to be around people who share my love for caring for others, particularly since I do so poorly lately in caring for others.
I’m sorry I’ve rambled on so. I have trouble with wordiness. But I wanted just to say that I share your longing to be surrounded in a more humane humanism (not that it doesn’t exist, it just is hidden, often, I think). And I thank you for expressing your desire to see more of it, because with people like me who are too selfishly tied up in our own anger issues, it is far to easy to see just the negative side of secularism.
Thanks for your note. I know the song quite well (“We are one in Spirit…”) (Although I have to say, even in the days when I sang it I never really thought that it corresponded to the reality I experienced…).
I hope you find the book helpful.
One of my new friends that I met in a class offered by a local university to, and in this case also by, “seniors” with the broad title “History of God”, made a wise observation: God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, God is love. You can have any two but not all three.”
“If this life is all there is, we should certainly live it to its fullest as much as we can for as long as we can. But if we don’t feel pangs of empathy for others who are miserably suffering and basically taking it in the teeth, then I would argue we are not being fully human.”
Thank you for this. It is very meaningful for me and touches me deeply.
AMEN! 😉
I completely agree with Bart’s sentiments. If non-theists and/or humanists want credibility to engage with those of faith we should show our love for our only lives and those of others through altruism and philanthropy. I laud Bart for his foundation to help alleviate human suffering. We need more of it.
Bart,
In many respects you seem to be “a regular guy.” That’s a compliment, not a criticism. I admire your intellect and the fact that you obviously have feelings for those less fortunate than yourself. Maybe it’s the way you are wired and maybe there’s an element of survivors guilt at being one of the lucky ones. After all, life has never been a bowl of cherries and most people, even the rich, have suffered mightily. But “methinks thou dost protest too much” when it comes to promoting “humanism,” as though it should be something other than what it is. The dictionary definition includes caring about the welfare of one’s fellows, yet the reality is quite different. The same holds for being “Christian” for that matter. Being “fully human” has its dark side, more so when it comes to organized religion. All men and all women (even children) are all wired for personal gain and self-survival. No need to lament the fact. As I see it, we should be grateful for our good fortune as it come our way without descending into cruelty or greed. Whatever that means to you is fine with me and I hope you feel the same. Better to rejoice at the light in our lives than the darkness outside.
Best,
D.C. Smith
Bart, it seems to me, based on your comments, that your religious views are similar to those of Bishop John Shelby Spong except Spong considers himself a committed Christion because he attempts to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. I would classify Spong as a Christian agnostic. I would be curious to know what you think of
Spong’s books, especially Jesus for the nonreligious?
I just commented on someone else’s question about Spong: see there! The obviousl difference is that I don’t call myself a Christian, though obviously he and I see eye-to-eye on lots of things. But I haven’t read his books.
Oh please do read some of his books. I’m working on “Christianity must Change of Die.” The big difference between you and Bishop Spong is that he doesn’t hold back in any way…he’s full of fire and fury and says it like he feels it. He’d give Jonathan Edwards a run for his money just in rhetoric. He is a very exciting writer.
I like his notion of “Christian in Exile.”
Also, please allow me a comment on agnosticism (in reference to your comment to a writer above) (you have got me thinking about the virtues of agnosticism)…I often think of myself as agnostic for this reason: I can not prove the existence of a God or the non-existence of such.. An atheist thinks he can prove the non-existence of a God (as with Dawkins delusion idea) and a theist thinks he can prove the existence of a God (as with classical Aquinas)…that is, proof through reason and the scientific method. But an agnostic knows that he can not prove the existence of a God, one way or the other by those methods. Thus, I think of myself as an agnostic in that way, but make the deliberate choice to live my life on the assumption that there is more to life and creation than simply what we see here or know about the cosmos…thus, the probability of an infinite source in some form known by many names….and gives me the motivation to help our people and our planet in whatever small ways that I can, realizing that an atheist can do the same from his perspective. Does that make any sense at all?
This notion also drives my son crazy :>)
Yup, makes sense. As I said in an earlier post, I have come to think (in the past year) that “agnosticism” has to do with what we don’t know (whether there is a superior force/being/power in the universe) and “atheism” has to do with what we don’t believe (I don’t *believe* in the God of the Bible, e.g.,). So it is in fact possible to be both.
But you are only slightly more atheist than Christians, because of all of the gods who were ever worshiped they only believe in one.
Just a thought!
What’s missing in general seems, at least to me, to be basic politeness, basic discipline, basic compassion, etc. A lot of people have indeed become very self-centered and superficial. Or maybe it’s just because they’re lost and no one told/taught them any decent alternatives … Religion gives such an alternative, to a certain degree. But the problem is that religion then tends itself to go too far, to become to extreme, to become too intolerant, etc.
I guess what we’re seeing in (Western) society right now is one of the two extremes. The pendulum went from a very conservative society (with all the bad that entails) to a very liberal society (with all the bad that entails). The best option would probably be found in the middle again: keep the good elements from both views: conservative and liberal! But I guess it’s easier for most people to keep to one extreme 🙁
The societal revolution of the 1960ies was absolutely needed but it some cases the baby was thrown out with the bathwater …
One should ignore all the good things going on today too though! Overall people seem to be more creative than ever, to care more for the environment than ever, there are progresses made in education, etc … It’s not all perfect, true, but it’s not all bad either! We should expect more from us and from others!!
Oh, and I also think that a lot of people are doing ‘stupid’ and ‘superficial’ things because they feel that they’re not really needed in society … we would have to work on that aspect too!
This paragraph makes a powerful point:
“On the other hand: Yes, I do think that being a humanist should involve something more than the negative – the opposition to all things religious. I think it should involve something positive – the celebration of what it means to be human, on one hand, but also the attempt to do good for the rest of us who are human. Humanism today, as I see and experience it, is widely negative and reactive instead of positive and pro-active, and I think that’s a mistake. Yes, I think humanists (like me) should be the stellar do-gooders of our world, the first responders to crises, the reliable helpers in times of need, the ones most obviously concerned for the welfare of others, since, after all, we *are* supposed to be celebrating the human. (By the way, there have been studies of who gives – not just to their fundy churches, but to charities dealing with hunger and poverty and homelessness, and people with deep religious convictions put those of us without those convictions to shame. That ain’t right.)”
It’s the primary reason I’m skeptical of secular humanism in an capitalist individualist culture. Perhaps that’s the context that makes humanists less likely to be giving, etc. Given another socio-cultural milieu…
My primary reason for being a so-called “liberal” Catholic is to love God as long and as hard and as much as I can. That expresses itself in how I view and treat my fellow human beings as Jesus taught in the Gospels. (I purchased and read your NT text and I should thank you here for giving me back my faith in them. I had become quite the nip and tuck reader!.) I’d go so far as the only way that counts. Further, the words of James on true religion keep coming back to me.
James 1:27
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
If I were a Christian, I’d be *your* kind of Christian!!
Thank, you. That means a lot. And for what it’s worth, you are far more Christian than many: Luke 6:46-49. Give me a man who is a doer of the Word than a mere hearer any day. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.
I should add that I’ve thought about God’s Problem and your journey quite a bit. I too have had my contentions with faith. (My first crisis of faith was the difference between the scholarly and, as you call it, the devotional views of the Bible.) What struck me is that the God you once believed in, as you briefly describe, seems rather simple, anthropomorphic, and fully domesticated, an idol in other words. I’ve always had trouble believing in such a God, ironically because I took to heart what the nuns and priests taught me from the very beginning: that God is vast and unknowable. It always troubled me that in the next breath they would speak of the Trinity as if it were a pie sliced in three. It never made sense and “It’s a mystery,” always sounded like a cop out. At any rate, my personal theology is, in fact, Cappadocian. (http://therobopinion.net/2012/09/18/the-god-i-believe-in-part-trinity/ should you care to check in to it.) Like the story of The Blind Men and the Elephant, it is both positive in its affirmation of God’s reality, pragmatic in what we know about God, and still reminds us be humble about what God is or isn’t. Jesus, MLK, Mother Theresa, etc. spoke of a God you could know but never hope to understand.
You have struggled with The Problem of Evil in the past. I’ve always wondered why you’ve never to my knowledge contended with this view of God. It seems to me, a red flag, whenever I can predict how God is going to roll on a given topic. I would encourage you to write about your thoughts if you’ve had them because I would find your insights invaluable.
Peace and blessings,
-R
Bravo and beautifully expressed!
I don’t disagree with you on much. So far just on two things: I think you should have used some softer word or words other than “fraud” in your recent book and gas fireplaces actually are not so bad especially when the electricity is off and it’s cold outside..
“And for those who think that without God there is no reason to be concerned about our fellow man and woman, I have to say that I appear to be wired completely differently from you and (Key point!) in my opinion being different wiring cannot be used as an excuse to get off the hook.”
Where do you think your wiring came from? Innate? Learned? Could you unwire if you wished?
None of us can unscramble the scrambled eggs that we are. If you are raised in a society with enlightened Christian values, and are not deviant, then you got ’em. You can intellectually accent to or reject any ideas or beliefs, but you just can never unform what got formed as you developed.
Your values seem just fine to me, but we come from very much the same frying pan.
I imagine wiring is partly hard (innate, genes, DNA) and partly soft (upbringing, experiences). If we knew for sure, of course, we could make sure everyone was wired in the right way. (And the right way, in most people’s opinion, is the way that they themselves are wired. 🙂 )
Make sure everyone’s wired the right way? Scary idea !
For innate human behavior vs. learned with regard to how we have treated each other through history – here is some good hard data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
Very positive!
“Maybe caring souls are more naturally religious as well. But I just don’t see why. And for those who think that without God there is no reason to be concerned about our fellow man and woman, I have to say that I appear to be wired completely differently from you and (Key point!) in my opinion being different wiring cannot be used as an excuse to get off the hook. If this life is all there is, we should certainly live it to its fullest as much as we can for as long as we can. But if we don’t feel pangs of empathy for others who are miserably suffering and basically taking it in the teeth, then I would argue we are not being fully human.”
This past summer I was reading up on psychopathy and the associated personality disorders that fall under that term. I recommend for a short introduction to the subject ‘Almost a Psychopath, Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy?’ by Ronald Schouten, MD, JD and James Silver, JD.
Some experts do argue that the psychopath is an evolutionary development that is “sub-human”. (I see in the recent news that the shooter in CT will be undergoing DNA testing to see if there is something notable about an individual who could committ such an act.)
It has long been noted that psychopaths are drawn to the churches where they can take advantage of the innocent and trusting. Everyone can think of a string of examples of this occurring and it pays to know the characteristics of such individuals for the occasion when you will meet them. You find them so often that you have to wonder if psychopathy didn’t have something to do with the idea of religion in the first place.