Post "the sixties" everyone likes to be called an iconoclast. Irreverence for this or that convention (let alone for the "establishment") is considered a requirement for being cool. Almost none of the people who are thus described deserve the outsider label. They may be radicals to their enemies but in their own groups -- say the left, the right, amongst atheists or amongst religious believers -- they are still predicable squares "on our side." What a shock then to read a brilliant book by a true iconoclast: Divinity of Doubt: The God Question by Vincent Bugliosi (#1 New York Times best selling author of Helter Skelter and many other books).
This book will have no friends of the kind who want to be comfortable in a group, no ready-made groups looking to be further validated by the one-way bias that passes for communication these days, where we all talk to people like us and distrust and even despise the "other."
That's because in attacking both atheism and religious faith, Bugliosi not only makes a passionate (and wildly amusing) argument for agnosticism, but also takes down the preening self satisfied so-called new atheists while also launching an attack on organized religion that can only make people like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris drool with "wish-I'd-said-that" envy.
I happen to be a Christian (I'm progressive politically and I go to a Greek Orthodox church) but I'm not the sort of believer who pretends that he (or she) has a corner on the truth. Face it, regarding religion: It's all about community and a longing for meaning. Theology is just people making excuses for a failed god or gods, while tap dancing to cover a multitude of sins.
In Divinity of Doubt, Bugliosi rightly points out that the new atheists haven't done more than attack religion while fobbing those attacks off as somehow proving this or that about the existence or lack of existence of God. Of course all they have done is show that religion mostly sucks.
True enough. But what did you expect? Religion was made by people.
On the other hand, as Bugliosi proves, religion -- say the Roman Catholic Church -- does more than fail some logic do-you-believe-in-a-virgin-birth test, it is doing wicked things -- say covering up pedophilia and protecting the institution rather than people. For instance, Irish church authorities in league with government enablers were placing children in horribly abusive camps until the 1980s. Physical and emotional abuse was a built-in deliberate feature of these "homes" for young men and women. The state-ordered investigation into cover-ups by the Dublin Archdiocese revealed that church officials had shielded scores of priests from criminal investigation over several decades and did not report any crimes to the police until the mid-1990s.
This was much the same behavior as happened in the United States: The Church's leaders spent much more time protecting their institution than their flock, let alone children.
The new atheists' arguments make sense only as attacks on religion. There's plenty to attack. But who says religion as practiced today, let alone as "revealed" in holy books, has anything to do with any actual creator? As Bugliosi writes, "Harris (like Hitchens) seems to believe something that is so wrong it is startling that someone of his intellect wouldn't see it immediately -- that gutting religion (as Harris tries to do by his technique of decimating faith that fosters religion) -- does not, ipso facto, topple God." (p 47) And with "friends" like the people running the religious groups these days, who needs enemies?
Bugliosi offers a resounding "I don't know" to the Big Questions and to the false certainties that sell books, not to mention stroke groups of "like minded" people. This book is as refreshing as it is honest. Maybe that's because unlike the churches and the new atheists Bugliosi isn't turning his views into a cottage industry.
If you're someone who doesn't buy into overly pat answers and knows that there is no knowing, Divinity of Doubt is for you.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His new book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Part 1
FS says: “I happen to be a Christian (I’m progressive politically and I go to a Greek Orthodox church) but I’m not the sort of believer who pretends that he (or she) has a corner on the truth.â€
But the Apostle says in Timothy: “the Church of the living God, pillar and stay of the truth.â€
What is the Church, Frank? This is Schaeffer’s first repudiation of his Orthodox Christian faith, in this, his latest missive.
FS says: “Theology is just people making excuses for a failed god or gods, while tap dancing to cover a multitude of sins.â€
Remember this from the Gospel of Saint John Theologos?: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This One was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come to be. In Him was life, and the Life was the light of men."
By putting Saint John’s theological statement next to Frank’s anti-theological statement, one can see in Frank’s proclamation that there is no such thing as theology. He not only tells the world that Holy Scripture is irrelevant, but he slanders every Saint who ever lived, all the while mocking the so-called “failed god†of the Christians! This is his second repudiation of the Orthodox faith.
FS says: “religion -- say the Roman Catholic Church -- does more than fail some logic do-you-believe-in-a-virgin-birth test…â€
The Orthodox Church’s Nicene Creed, says : “Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man;â€
One could replace “say the Roman Catholic Church†with “say the Greek Orthodox Church,†and Schaeffer would be repudiating his Greek Orthodox faith when he ridicules the dogma of the Virgin Birth. Frank says it’s illogical to hold such beliefs, though God Himself through the Holy Scriptures, Ecumenical Councils, and Holy Tradition says otherwise! A third denial of the Orthodox Christian faith by the neo-heretic Schaeffer! A faith he used to confess!
FS says: “Religion was made by people.â€
But the Orthodox faith claims to be of Divine origin. Just one example of this is the confession at Theophany. Remember? When Christ was baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest. The voice of God the Father bore witness of Christ, calling Him His beloved Son. The Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, confirmed the truthfulness of His word. Christ has appeared, revealing Himself, enlightening the world, renewing all creation. This is Frank’s fourth rejection of his Holy Orthodox faith!
In his defense, I do think he is speaking to the anthropological nature of the church (little C) not the Church. People do act and "make" the church so to speak. That is not the same as saying that God is not the origin of those actions. It is divinely established but implemented so to speak by ordinary folks. So there it will be flawed in some aspects - and institution that is part Divine and part human.
FS says: “But who says religion as practiced today, let alone as “revealed†in holy books, has anything to do with any actual creator?â€
Schaeffer, the Greek Orthodox agnostic, once again rejects the Divine Revelation of his Orthodox faith and by extension his Holy Scriptures, surmising that “religion†and the Scriptures have nothing to do with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Maker of Heaven and Earth! A fifth repudiation of his Orthodox Christian faith!
And finally, FS says he “knows that there is no knowing†proclaiming doubt itself to be divine, and the only sure guide.
Yet the Apostle John says emphatically in his Gospel “And this is the eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You did send forth.†This is Schaeffer’s sixth rejection of Orthodox Christianity, the appearance of God among men!
So why then Frank do you bother attending a Greek Orthodox church at all anymore? Why do you give the Orthodox a bad name? Why are you deliberately attempting to lead people astray by giving the impression that you are an Orthodox Christian when it is clear you reject the faith itself? Whither goest thou?
Nicholas explained: "All those who make an investigation judge the uncertain proportionally, by means of a comparison with what is taken to be certain. Therefore, every inquiry is comparative and uses the means of comparative relation. ... Hence,... it is not the case that by means of likeness a finite intellect can precisely attain the truth about things.... For the intellect is to truth as an inscribed polygon is to the inscribing circle." Seems rather zen to me.
That such a visionary thinker could rise in the ranks of the Catholic Church a generation before Martin Luther illustrates my observation that psychologically there are two major mental attitudes towards exploring the unknown--one is humble "learned ignorance" and the other the arrogance of forcing any new evidence to fit preconceived brainwashing by the establishment. Don't all religions have a few who exemplify the approach of Nicholas of Cusa, overshadowed by larger numbers of "fundamentalists"....and this includes the arrogance "new atheists" who refuse to "learn their ignorance" and take the same stance as sectarian "true believers"?
Frank, Mr. Bugliosi doesn't appear to be all that honest in his interpretation of what Dawkins writes. This is a flagrant misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins views and (I am not making this up).
I wonder if Bugliosi actually read what Dawkins wrote...it doesn't appear so. What Bugliosi leaves out is the important stuff. You know, the details. For example, evolution gives us a very complicated trail to follow. If you believe the Creationists, it's all VERY simple...god just did it. When you start to look at the ACTUAL evolutionary evidence, it's complicated, and that's not the important part, it's complicated IN A WAY that makes the "creation" process very embarrassingly messy.
It's not that it's just complicated but it's complicated in a way that makes an omnipotent god impossible; this sort of god WOULDN'T have left these "messy" evolutionary mistakes behind in his beloved creatures.
Isn't it about time people were honest about what Science ACTUALLY proves and how little religion actually answers the "big questions?" Let's stop pretending that we can't know.
Please...let's be real.
I am content to say that there might be a Creator that exists outside the universe. I am constrained by experience and knowledge to say that I'll never get any farther than that in my understanding of that possibly-existing Creator. It would be a mistake to attribute human qualities to it, such as emotion, intelligence, or purpose. It is impossible to imagine a personal relationship between an infinite thing and a finite thing. There are many who believe "God" has a relationship with each human, but this "God" is just a super-sized human, to whom they attribute human feelings like love, grief, anger and the capacity to suffer. Frankly it sounds downright silly to me when people talk about sin "hurting God" or "God's love" for mankind. Talk about projection!
What I experience directly must then be translated into terms that are not the equivalent of the experience, but analogous to it. Being limited, they will of course not be entirely adequate, so they will break down at some point.
The map is not the territory, but it does help me find the territory should I care to explore.
VERY WELL stated; ultimately all of us through action and deed do reveal core beliefs, to others and ourselves.
The self proclaimed "big questions..."
In other words, lets make up something and then DARE people to disprove it.
I can make up lots of things.For example, I can make up the idea that the color pink, and ONLY the color pink actually thinks. So, should we put our Scientists right on this? The idea of a god is simply absurd as me saying the color pink has intelligence.
These are NOT "big questions." These are simply made up fabrications and since the Narrative has been driven by the "Big Three:" Christianity, Judaism and Islam (Mostly Christianity), they DEMAND attention and DEMAND authority.
Even more constricting is that the "big three" were founded on empires and the power associated with being part of an empire.
To bring this back to the issue, the very idea that some sort of god is an important question, is being pulled from the needs of empires (wealth, control, survival, greed...).
For that matter, why isn't the existence of Santa the "big question?" How about Peter Pan or Voldemort? And before you take offense, remember, the bible is a book of fiction that originated around the campfires 3000 years ago. It has NO MORE legitimacy than the Harry Potter series.
We live in a REAL world with real rules and it's simply a matter of time before Science removes the need for this question.
Take, for example, Pons and Fleishmann who pretended that they got energy out of cold fusion...The problem is that they didn't actually prove their point and the Science community corrected itself and correct them.
Meanwhile, on the other side, 40% of Americans believe that Jesus literally (pick your miracle) walked on water. You won't find any of their fellow 40 percenters jumping up and demanding proof. We all know you get quite the opposite reaction to even the most absurd claims.
And that's my point. If one doesn't bother with the proof bit, you have nothing but a fictional representation of your own wishful thinking and that really isn't the same thing.
Now, if you're arguing that science can give us any number of horrible ends, perhaps you should check to make sure it is, in fact, Science and not our beloved corporations that are actually pushing these ends.
I appreciate your candor about your personal beliefs, and how your former beliefs have shaped your life. That's not to say I agree with everything you say, but I appreciate your personal honesty in writing.
I am beginning to pick up and put together the various glimpses of your personal religious beliefs peppered throughout your posts periodically. While I understand that personal piety is just that, personal, you have put yourself in the public light in a very transparent way. That being a given, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind doing a post (or even a short series of posts) on how your agnostic beliefs coincide with you Greek Orthodox practices. For instance, how do you participate in the Eucharist, or what do you believe about the Eucharist as an agnostic? In general, a basic view of Frank the man. No political, ideological or even religious groups or their views to attack, just a brief view of yourself. Again, I know this may be a personal request, but your are already out there for all to see (in a transparent sense).
I'm just curious about your beliefs and am in no way trying to be sarcastic. I hope you will consider this idea.
Thank you,
Jeremiah
I saw him describe Bugliosi as "making an argument for agnosticism".
I saw Frank describe himself as "... a Christian... but I'm not the sort of believer who pretends that he (or she) has a corner on the truth."
But at no point did I see Frank call *himself* agnostic ... so I have to conclude that either you misread, misunderstood, or deliberately misstated. Hopefully one of the former?
I am not an agnostic. But I do believe that I can and am often wrong about what I think and reserve the right to change my mind. The Orthodox (say they) subscribe to the idea that humility is a good thing. That includes believing that no individual has "The Truth" because whatever that is (or might be) is beyond human wisdom to describe. Too bad that these days many "Orthodox" talk like rationalistic Western Protestants of the Calvinist doctrine-base variety as in "Do you believe in the sacraments?!" when the real question is: "Do you understand the sacraments?" To which the only honest answer is "Of course not. Who does?" And/or "DOES THE WORD 'MYSTERY' RING A BELL?" There is no meaningful faith without doubt.
Best, Frank
"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." -- Dictionary.com
"a general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns." -- Penguin Dictionary of Religions
"Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine." -- Encyclopedia Britannica
"a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values." -- Wikipedia
It's not absolutely clear from your comment, do you practice the Christian faith? If so then you'll be familiar with God's original statement of identity as documented in Exodus 3:14: "I AM". If taken literally, this suggests that God simply presents the mystery, and every subsequent (in this case) Christian religious detail is made by humans who are striving to solve it.
I'm a fundamentalist because I point out that that Greek Orthodox Church actually has theology that was believed and codified by holy men??! Frank, you're the one that wrote Letters to Aristotle and Dancing Alone and went around for 10 years preaching about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy. Talk about fundamentalist. Has any of your progressive readers read these books or seen any of your videos?
You have never left the fundamentalism of your early days; you just changed its object-- many times over I may add. You've reinvented yourself more than Madonna. Now you are a fundamentalist against anyone who would disagree with your progressive agenda or who actually believes that the Church had real theology beyond getting together in community and longing for meaning. I don't know any moderate or even "modernist" Orthodox who would remotely agree that going to liturgy is sitting around "longing for meaning". That's what I did in college when I smoked weed and talked about how Reagan was an _ss for supporting the Contras.
Frank, it's fine that you are a progressive and have changed your views... who hasn't! It's fine that you are Greek Orthodox. But why not be honest that your views on many issues including the ones I have taken an issue with are far from being Orthodox by any standard. The fact that all you call anyone who disagrees with you a "far right fundamentalist" shows me much about your position. Give me a break.
Too bad he didn't take that approach in his blog.
A definition of a straw man is when someone simplifies or misinterprets what someone says in order make their position more radical.
In the case of Dawkins, Bugliosi, it seems, intentionally misrepresented Dawkins.
Theology is about knowing the true God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) through its energies. These "theologians" weren't interested in making excuses for a failed God, but seeking to make God known. Of course, you could claim that God is unknowable (apophatic), but that is a cop out when talking about Orthodoxy which believes that God can be known through his energies and that God can be known through the Trinity and the Incarnation. I realize you are representing your own believes, but you implicate Greek Orthodoxy by your comments and are also not consistent with what you wrote in books like Dancing Alone and Letters to Fr. Aristotle. Please be honest with your readers about your Faith or be honest with Greek Orthodox Christians about your change in beliefs. To act like you can have both is doubleminded and simply not honest.
For all of these folks to agree, that God can be experienced, but not specifically known, defined, or nailed down ... is a cop-out?
To admit that an agnostic might have a point ... is disingenuous?
And here I thought it was we Roman Catholics who had the Augustinian/Scholastic fetish.
Its been a long day and I have to admit I have not really discussed theological issues in a while (did I mention I am a priest's wife - I talk more about hummus and table cloths than theology). Is this sad?? :)