Letters to the Editor
-
Irony and belief
I write as an ironic* Christian (a strong agnostic who after many years of atheism changed to theism as her direction). I'm excited about Pagels' book and look forward to reading it. But I'd like to respond to some of the letter writers.
Someone rightly pointed out the prejudice many atheists receive from theists about their beliefs; but theists receive the same treatment from atheists. I've been on the receiving end of both sides of this. As a theist, I've been asked numerous versions of "You're intelligent - how can you believe that stuff?" Atheist friends seem to regard my faith as a strange aberration in someone they otherwise treat as smart and practical, whose advice in other areas they say they value. The concept that one can have an intelligent view of God seems beyond them.
Much of it comes from mistakenly conflating my faith with that of a fundamentalist, in the same way that many Christians conflate all Muslims with radical fundamentalist Muslims. But I realized (studying physics as a strong atheist) that there were no answers possible on this question. The goal to me is to understand the universe as best I may, and to represent my understanding as honestly and clearly as I may to myself and others.
I don't believe in an old man in a heaven, I don't believe in intelligent design. My husband (PhD philosophy of religion, UVA) has actually presented on why intelligence design is both bad faith and bad science. I think those who question evolution and current cosmological theory are in deep denial about reality. Most of the religious people I know personally are not fundamentalists. They have a strong understanding of science, and don't want to impose their views on the rest of humanity. But we are tarred with the same brush as the vocal fundamentalist minority in the eyes of most atheists.
When atheists point to the prejudice of theists as a motivating factor in radicalizing atheism, they undermine their argument because they show the psychological roots of their own prejudice; when they don't acknowledge that the question itself is unanswerable, they show denial. When theists say their faith supersedes that of other humans, they show their own denial; when they get drawn into silliness like intelligent design, they betray a lack of understanding of their own faith. (As my husband wrote, "The god sought by intelligent design is not a god worshipped by any member of any living religion - he is the bloodless god of the gaps, the god of the philosophers. The God of worship is a living being.") My point is that there are first- and second-level thinkers on both sides.
First-level doesn't question itself, it questions others. It may have arrived at its beliefs through this process, but it holds its beliefs as "right" in contrast to another person's "wrong." Second-level digs a little deeper and questions itself. Second-level knows that at any given moment, it straddles the paradox of acting as if its beliefs are correct, but knowing they may at any time be undermined by a new understanding or fact. Irony, in other words.
The human brain is not capable of fully understanding the universe, simply because it's not capable of fully perceiving it. To act as if your individual understanding of the world is "right" in comparison to another's reveals a lack of understanding of the meaning of being human.
Like the doctor said, "Opening ourselves to exploring as much as we can about this can be, in fact, an act of faith."
--
*I say "ironic" in contrast to "skeptical" because I have faith. As an ironist who is deeply aware of the absurdity of a primate on Terra asking the question, "Is there a god?", I nonetheless think it's important for the individual human to do his best to answer those questions. I have faith in my personal understanding, even as I know it may change.
-
re: -- would be funny if it wasn't true
"Yeah, because the Christian Right is always so happy to discuss the possible alternatives to their beliefs."
Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear (i have only had one cup of coffee so far ;)...my point is that yes, there are fundamental christians (of which I am not a part, but I am fairly deeply Catholic, and a socialist...so I don't really know where that places me the the ol' spectrum) who argue in a black/white dichotomy. They are wrong to do so, and it's perplexing why the newer brand of scientific atheists would frame their debate in the same manner.
If you want to be assured of never getting through to the other side, the best way to do so is to treat them like morons.
it's all tied into this particularly rank form of discussion we see today...it's all I'm right and you're an idiot. Why do people on the Left (and I know I'm making a huge assumption that all scientific atheists are left-wing) so quick to adopt a tone of debate that drives them absolutely batty when the Right uses it for political discourse? It seems counter-intuitive to me.
thanks,
-
Neil
"Manicheans," maybe?
It is interesting that you propose that the current theist/atheist Ultimate Fighting championship relies on a binary opposition that the Gnostics would have recognized.
-
Paul in KY
I like yr sense of humor ^<>^
-
@Henry
HAHA! You totally got me, and I didn't even realize it! :)
nice work, my friend, nice work!
(seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, that sht was fcking awesome!)
-
The editor starred this post???? sheesh
someone wrote:
"It's a Gnostic "gospel"
For those of you who are interested in the topic at large and not your basic atheist vs. the religious "debate," check out "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus," by N. T. Wright, which takes the topic head on. It's a great read. The punchline is the so-called "Gospel of Judas" is a Gnostic gospel, and therefore bogus.
http://www.amazon.com/Judas-Gospel-Jesus-Missed-Christianity/dp/0801012945"
**********
Great read? What the hell are you talking about? I read the reviews on Amazon, and all this book is, is yet another cheap apologia for the christian authoritarians in the 2nd century who crushed all opposition to the simple, idiot faith they aimed to create.
If you bother to read Pagels' original book "The Gnostic Gospels" it's crystal-clear that the early leaders of the cult known as "christianity" had a problem: how to get people to die for the religion. The Gnostic side of the argument was WAY too complicated for the average illiterate palestinian to understand. The almost *sole* reason the New Testament looks the way it does, understandable by any child over the age of 8, was to create a religion people would die for. And that anyone could understand.
These alternative texts known as the Gnostic Gospels are very, very dangerous, because they prove beyond any argument that Christianity is a religion created by men, not by God. At least, they prove that to any rational person.
Such texts, in any religion, must be extirpated, root-and-branch, and books like the one referenced above are intended to do exactly that. They probably succeed fairly well at it, too.
Just as there's no accounting for taste, there's no arguing with faith. And that's a big, big problem, as Richard Dawkins has so succinctly explained it.. when you can't make rational arguments to someone, because their beliefs are not susceptible to rationality, there's a lot of danger in that.
The sad part is, if we could just shuck all of this God shit, and all belief in supernatural phenomena, we'd all be a lot better off, forced to confront the here-and-now of mortality, of the fact that this is the only chance at life that any of us has, that there is no pie in the sky, no big guy in the heavens who made everything with dirt.
And that our natural resources are limited, and once they're gone, they're gone. The big guy in the sky won't make more.
Belief in the supernatural is the most destructive of all human weaknesses. Perhaps evolution will fix that problem someday, but until belief in the supernatural becomes an evolutionary liability, that's not likely.