They talk a lot, and loudly, and all at the same time. If they were your family during Thanksgiving, they'd be talking with their mouths full. It would be almost amusing if it weren't, on some important level, rather tragic.
I'm referring, of course, to the nonstop talking heads who can be found at almost any hour of the day, talking nonstop, all over television and radio. They talk about everything and nothing, so much so that they actually blur the distinction between talking about something and talking about nothing. They are, alas, the face -- or perhaps I should say the food-stuffed mouth -- of public discourse.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
Not even when it comes to the more controversial topics of public discourse, in particular the cluster of issues relating to religion, faith, and God. As I was researching my new book The God Question: What Famous Thinkers from Plato to Dawkins Have Said About the Divine, in fact, I discovered a very appealing alternative.
There are basically four sorts of people, it seems to me, who participate in debates about God: the reasonable theist, the reasonable atheist, and unreasonable versions of each.
By a "reasonable theist" I mean someone who believes in God but who is open to exploring (and critiquing) that belief with all the normal tools of knowledge acquisition, including perception, experience more broadly construed, and most importantly reason. The reasonable theist desires not merely to believe in God, but to believe in God in the strongest and most coherent way he or she can -- which requires investigating, in a genuinely open-minded and frequently critical way, the strongest and most coherent versions of theism available.
By a "reasonable atheist" I mean someone who believes that God does not exist but who is open to exploring that belief with all the normal tools of knowledge acquisition, including again, most importantly, reason. Such a person recognizes, in particular, that to reject belief in God in a reasonable way is to reject the strongest and most coherent versions of theism -- which in turn also requires first investigating those theisms in a genuinely open-minded (if frequently critical) way.
"Unreasonable" people of either persuasion, meanwhile, are roughly everybody else (including, unfortunately, me much of the time).
When you look at what the great thinkers have said about God you are, generally, in the presence of very reasonable persons, both of the theist and atheist variety. But when you turn on your TV or listen to your radio or read most of today's periodicals and even best-selling books, you are generally in the presence of not very reasonable persons, of both varieties. What you witness is often about as appealing as your uncle Fred's making a point with his half-chewed turkey bulging from each cheek. There are the loud voices and the raving rants. There is the invoking of labels and the calling of names: theists are foolish, irrational, close-minded, and crazy, while atheists are hedonistic heathens, selfish and soulless sinners. Mostly there are people talking -- shouting -- right past each other, there is lots of noise and very little significance, and there is definitely, most definitely, no listening.
It doesn't have to be that way.
Public discourse cannot generally be on the same level as scholarly discourse; of course not. But discourse can be reasonable even when it is widely accessible, even when it dispenses with jargon, Latin phrases, and little logical symbols. Public discourse in fact could learn a lot from the great thinkers, not specifically about their therefores and reductios and if-p-then-q's, but about something more general. For when you enter the presence of the great thinkers, you are in a room dominated first and foremost by respect -- not merely for the other occupants of the room, but for something more fundamental: respect above all for the norms of reason, of reasonable debate, and for the very act of inquiry itself.
This is a room where the conversation is not at rock-concert decibels. This is room without rants, where points are made and defended and -- here is the amazing part -- there are actual pauses in speech where other people can get not just a word in but whole paragraphs, and respond, actually respond, in a relevant way, to the points the speaker is actually making. There is no name-calling here. Or maybe there is some, for we may call what goes on, in this rant-less room, a name which has become increasingly irrelevant in public discourse in recent years: namely, a conversation.
This need not be imagined as a warm and mushy love-fest, of course, replete with herbal tea and frequent group hugs. (Not that there's anything wrong with those.) The word "conversation" here characterizes only the genuinely participatory nature of the discourse. "Conversation" can, and in this case does, include many diverse kinds of content, even the kind more regularly associated with caffeinated beverages: argument, disagreement, and debate.
For to those people committed to the norms of reason, reasonable debate, and ultimately to the act of inquiry itself, one thing quickly becomes clear above all else: reasonable people may (and generally do) disagree about almost every topic. What that means is as simple and obvious as it is important and profound: namely, the sheer fact that someone reaches a different conclusion from yours doesn't itself mean that they are unreasonable.
And once you realize that, you realize something else.
This: that you can learn a tremendous amount from people with whom you disagree, as long as they are as committed to the act of inquiry as are you. For if they disagree with you, it is because they have reasons they find persuasive: arguments they find compelling, objections that seem to them to undermine your own positions, and so on. Well, if you really want to believe whatever it is you believe on the basis of genuinely good reasons, then who, we might ask, do you want to talk to: the person who already agrees with everything you believe, or the person who has discovered problems and objections and counter-arguments to your beliefs?
When you look at what the great thinkers have said about God, the most startling thing you discover is precisely that: the widespread recognition that they can learn from those with whom they disagree even the most profoundly. Historically the great thinkers from Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions have read each other's works, debated each other's positions, and learned from each other, even as they diverged in their conclusions about as radically as one can. The same goes for thinkers from competing denominations within any one of these traditions.
And the same goes too, most of all, for theistically-inclined thinkers and the atheistically-inclined.
Or rather, to return to my own labeling and name-calling above, it goes for the reasonable theist and the reasonable atheist. They may reach quite opposite conclusions in the end, but you can see, as you look at my description of each above, that they both will spend much of their time engaged in precisely the same activity: investigating, in a genuinely open-minded (and frequently critical) way, the strongest and most coherent versions of theism available. It is no accident that they each might well make each other's best, most productive study partners.
The lessons for today's world are obvious. Not just "go buy Andrew Pessin's book this instant from Amazon.com" (though that is a pretty good lesson, in my opinion). But rather that much goodness ensues when there is discourse amongst disagreeing parties -- or not just discourse but genuine conversation, that is, conversation governed by the norms of rational inquiry and all that that entails. Much goodness ensues, in other words, when the conversers are reasonable non-ranters who, as a bonus, often swallow before speaking.
Don't just take my word for it: ask such thinkers as the Jewish Maimonides, the Christian Aquinas, and the Muslim Averroes. (Though taking my word affords you the benefit of dealing with fewer therefores and reductios, not to mention a whole lot less Hebrew, Latin, and Arabic, respectively.)
Or don't take anyone's word for it. Think it through for yourself.
Though, of course, it is only in a room without rants, in the end, that you can even hear yourself think.
Follow Andrew Pessin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/60SecondPhilos
LOL! The theists are such great fun; they take themselves so seriously!!
By defining yourself as someone who does not believe what someone else believes, you have to hold yourself to the same criteria of proof that you demand from others. A person who considered himself to be an AGreatPumpkinist, may in fact be a believer in Santa Claus or in any other myth including the myth of the existence of a world without God.
I spoke in tongues, witnessed for jesus, prayed, memorized scriptures, read the bible cover to cover and did all that was expected of a christian kid. Like other athiests, I came to see it as no more than bunkem.
An athiest is simply someone who needs religion like a bird needs a parachute.
Reason has to be related to some reality than has some concreteness besides faith, desire, and desperation! The Abrahamic cults all seem to end up in circular belief that a story is true because the story says it is true and the Priests will lop off your head for any lack of "faith". That room of reason ends up real empty of reasonable theists very quickly!
While I cannot understand completely the "sacrifice" (Although I think the key idea is one of "self-giving" love) I think the real reason for the Incarnation was so that God could "walk among us" and be more intimate in his relationship with us.
Also, far more important than the "sacrifice" is the Resurrection. I cannot emphasize enough the centrality of this to Christianity.
Somewhere in the Bible, God says, "my ways are not your ways" and I think Jesus whole life was tesament to this.
Remember, at the time he was born, Judea was under the heel of Rome. It is difficult for us to imagine what that was like, although a ROMAN historian (Tacitus) put it very well when he said, "The Romans make a desert, and call it peace."
Anyway, when Jesus was active, Jews were hoping desperately for a Messiah (the word means "annointed one" and both kings and priests were "annointed" (with oil).
They were expecting another military hero -- another David who would bring deliverance from Roman oppression.
ctd.
Let me put the question this way. Do you WANT to go to hell? If not, then I wouldn't worry about it.
But that is just a metaphor.
Theologically speaking, hell is the absence of God. If you ever get a chance to read that book I mentioned, C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" you will see Lewis' interesting metaphor.
Hell in that story is a huge city, although the buildings are so insubstantial that rain falls through them. It is a shadowy world.
The reason hell is so huge is that those people who are there cannot stand one another, and are constantly moving away from each other.
And it is THEIR choice to be there. They each have resentments and grievances they cannot let go of.
They are so caught up in this that they cannot simply surrender to JOY.
This seems impossible. One would ask, WHY would ANYONE choose such a thing?
Yet, haven't you ever encountered a situation where a child is told all they have to do is say they are sorry and "make up" and they can have their dessert? And yet, some children would rather hold onto the grievance, the resentment, than have something that they would, ordinarily really want-- their dessert.
Milton, in describing Satan's revolt, sums the attitude perfectly with Satan's quote; "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven." -- In this story, it is pride and lust for power that keep Satan from surrendering to JOY.
ctd.
It all comes down to free will -- and I am not talking about what one believes. But how one lives. God will not force God's self upon us. We are free to reject that. (And I am not talking about people who sincerely don't believe in God) -- Many atheists or those of other faiths are very loving people, and are deeply concerned with justice. THAT is what is important.
I am not even talking about those who may (often with good cause) be ANGRY with God. This often happens when someone suffers a great deal, and, while such persons are in need of healing, God DOES understand the anger.
What it comes down to is people's attitude towards each other. Recall the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The rich man wasn't condemned for being rich, but for being indifferent to the sufferings of a poor man who was literally on his doorstep. And he had the resources to relieve the suffering of Lazarus. But he didn't. He didn't care.
Elie Wiesel put it quite well, when he said, the opposite of love isn't hate. It is indifference. The reason so much evil occurs isn't because there are so many evil people, but because too many good people do not CARE.
Yet, over and over in the Bible, we are told that God's mercy is infinite, God is EAGER to forgive all who seek it, and eager to embrace us with God's love.
Bear in mind that Satan is a word that means different things at different times in the Bible.
Eliminating Satan would not eliminate evil, which (for me at least) is the deeper question.
Human beings are plenty capable of committing horrific acts without the aid of Satan.
As a believer, let me say I agree with you on the tax issue. I would go even farther. I think it vital that we embrace the separation of church and state, and keep public school classrooms from becoming places where evolution (and in fact much of science) is questioned, and our history is revised to confrom with fundamentalists views of things. (I am sure you have seen the recent stories on the Texas textbook controversy. I have this strange belief that the curriculum for history should be developed by HISTORIANS, and that for science by SCIENTISTS - not by those who are not qualified, and by those whose views are outside of the mainstream --like creationism)
For me, whatever makes you a better person is the path you should pursue. If that is through belief, well and good. If that is through atheism or agnosticism, then that is good also.
And we can agree to disagree in those areas where reason cannot take us --like faith. Most importantly, we should treat those who disagree with us with respect and tolerance for their views.
I had a great deal of respect for Carl Sagan, I have a great deal of respect for Richard Dawkins.
I may not always agree with their views, but I appreciate their great contributions to science and share their sense of wonder and awe with the Cosmos.
I actually have more issues with religious leaders who behave hypocritically, and who do things like endanger children by trying to pretend their church is perfect and thus enable child abusing priests to victimize more children, because their concern isn't with the children, but with the church's "image"
Do you think it's possible to work alongside someone, consider them part of your community, when you know that they believe something that is the polar opposite to what you believe? I've been trying to figure this out. So far I do think it's possible, based on my experience as an atheist member of a church organization. It's a very unique place and I'm not sure it would work anywhere else, but it's given me the opportunity to practice the "I'm OK, You're OK" approach to belief systems. With very few exceptions I've been welcomed with open arms and respected in my beliefs.
So.... Do you think you would have been uncomfortable talking to me over coffee? I will make an open honest confession and say that I don't think I would have been comfortable talking with religious folks a couple of years ago. I would have assumed, frankly, that they hated me and wanted to convert me. Now I know that most of those folks thought the same thing about me. It's a lovely thing to drop all that fear and just be human together.
Nobody is going to be convinced. Not even you reading this.
Does it matter that the oldest recorded religious rite known by humans was circa 100 thousand years ago while the oldest of today's major religions cannot be dated back to 10 thousand years ago?
The knowledge that your average galaxy is 100 million light years from end to end and that there are billions of them out there could speak to some entity standing outside of all of them looking in. A deity or some entity's equivalent of a Rubik's cube.
How though, does divine certitude in the latter and the discount of logic in the former get answered by the deist religions?
http://anatheistinchurch.wordpress.com/
A theist is someone who has theistic beliefs.
An atheist is lacking those beliefs (but not necessarily believing the opposite is true).
An analogy can be drawn with the word 'asexual' or 'apolitical'.
In this way, an agnostic is also (usually) an atheist, because they are undecided about whether or not a god exists and (therefore) they don't actually hold the belief that god exists. (There is also the agnostic theist, who believes there is a god but does not believe we know the nature of that god)
-- Stephen Roberts