I posted my previous blogpost on Twitter, and received a response from an atheist commenter with a link to an article saying that most Christians do believe literally in the articles of their faith.
Did I mention Christianity in my previous post? (Feel free to read it again to check.) No, I did not. So why do atheists want to take Christianity (or indeed Abrahamic religions) as the norm for religion? I thought they wanted to dethrone it from its prominent place in Western discourse. Some news for you, atheists and Christians alike: religion is not synonymous with Christianity.
The notion that all religion is predicated on belief is a 19th century one, promoted by Christians and colonialists who wanted to discredit other religions, or insisted on seeing them through the lens of Protestant Christianity. This process is well-attested in the academic literature on the subject.
Karen Armstrong (if the New Atheists bothered to read her work properly, instead of relying on soundbites) is right -- belief was not always the most important thing about religion. It may have been the most important thing in Christianity for a great deal of its history; and indeed Western Christianity is rather well-known for murdering people for having the "wrong" beliefs. Though that behaviour gradually came to be regarded as uncivilised after the burning of Michael Servetus and other Unitarians.
In Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism, Unitarianism / UUism etc there are a number of different schools of thought, giving rise to different practices and enjoying different mythologies. These different schools of thought co-exist happily and do not denounce each other as heretics. Nor do they take their mythologies literally.
There are many Christians who happily accept that they are not the only or the top religion, and who enjoy living in a world of pluralism where people of different faiths and none can learn from each other. Fortunately they are growing in numbers. Sadly, the New Atheists have either not noticed, or have wilfully misinterpreted the phenomenon. And they also don't get other religions, assuming that all religions must think theirs is the only truth and take their mythology literally. Funnily enough, not many New Atheists have studied the sociology of religion, or anthropology, or any other subject which might lead them to a more nuanced and accurate view.
New Atheism is so dim that it's no wonder many atheists and non-theists turned with relief to Atheism 2.0.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Missing the point (again)
PZ Myers and most of his commenters appear to have completely missed the point of Religion for Atheists.
They also completely exaggerate the importance of belief in religions. Alain de Botton is right that whether or not God exists is a boring question. It's been pretty well settled that God does not exist. Some theologians have got round this problem by saying that this is because God is existence, or the Ground of All Being, but then that leaves the question of what that might mean.
I'm glad that the New Atheism has raised the stakes in the theological game, and brought non-realist and apophatic theology to the fore again, but I dislike the way some New Atheists dismiss all religion as harmful rubbish.
Most religions are centred around practice rather than belief. In Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, Quakerism and Judaism, belief is not central to whether you count as a member of the religion or not. What counts is either values or practices. The question for Jews is not "Do you believe?" but "Are you observant?" For Pagans, what counts is your attitude to nature, the earth, and/or the land. There are many different schools of thought in Hinduism, Taoism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, and Quakerism, ranging from theists to non-theists. For Buddhists, deities may well exist, but they are irrelevant. Many Pagans and Unitarians would agree with the Buddhists on this. Many Unitarians are atheists and humanists.
So if it is not about providing an explanation of how the world works or how it came into being, what is religion for? It is about providing a system of shared meaning, and a set of spiritual practices (meditation and ritual), and a community to share ideas, joys and sorrows.
In liberal religions, you don't need to sign up to a set of axioms or propositions which may offend against your reason in order to be part of the community and make use of a collection of stories, mythology, symbols and practices.
Religious community also inspires people to band together to create social justice (although non-religious groups do this too). By consistently encouraging members to treat others with compassion, religious community can be a powerful tool for creating change. Think of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and others who were inspired to change the world.
They also completely exaggerate the importance of belief in religions. Alain de Botton is right that whether or not God exists is a boring question. It's been pretty well settled that God does not exist. Some theologians have got round this problem by saying that this is because God is existence, or the Ground of All Being, but then that leaves the question of what that might mean.
I'm glad that the New Atheism has raised the stakes in the theological game, and brought non-realist and apophatic theology to the fore again, but I dislike the way some New Atheists dismiss all religion as harmful rubbish.
Most religions are centred around practice rather than belief. In Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, Quakerism and Judaism, belief is not central to whether you count as a member of the religion or not. What counts is either values or practices. The question for Jews is not "Do you believe?" but "Are you observant?" For Pagans, what counts is your attitude to nature, the earth, and/or the land. There are many different schools of thought in Hinduism, Taoism, Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, and Quakerism, ranging from theists to non-theists. For Buddhists, deities may well exist, but they are irrelevant. Many Pagans and Unitarians would agree with the Buddhists on this. Many Unitarians are atheists and humanists.
So if it is not about providing an explanation of how the world works or how it came into being, what is religion for? It is about providing a system of shared meaning, and a set of spiritual practices (meditation and ritual), and a community to share ideas, joys and sorrows.
In liberal religions, you don't need to sign up to a set of axioms or propositions which may offend against your reason in order to be part of the community and make use of a collection of stories, mythology, symbols and practices.
Religious community also inspires people to band together to create social justice (although non-religious groups do this too). By consistently encouraging members to treat others with compassion, religious community can be a powerful tool for creating change. Think of Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, and others who were inspired to change the world.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
The woman caught in adultery
Christ with the Woman Taken in Adultery, by Guercino, 1621 (Dulwich Picture Gallery).
[Richard Dawkins] made the broad and uncontroversial point that the Bible includes passages both laudable and vile. As an example of the former and a great teaching he thought most people in the room would immediately get behind, he gave the Gospel injunction, ‘he that is without sin, cast the first stone’.
Alex Gabriel is a bit baffled by this:
Of course literal stonings are undesirable, and of course reacting to transgressions overharshly is worth discouraging. But the point of what Jesus says is, he is without sin. Not being subject to paternally transmitted original sin, Jesus is the only completely sinless human being and was (to commandeer a phrase) born that way. This is what gives him moral authority, as the son of God, over the woman; it’s why only he gets to absolve her sins. When he tells the crowd, ‘You are not without sin’, he is telling them they don’t get to judge her.Here's the story from the English Standard Version:
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”]]Now, we could view Jesus entirely as a fictional or mythological character presented by the gospel authors - there is good reason to think that he acquired several legends from other mythological characters, in much the same way as King Arthur and Robin Hood did. Certainly the virgin birth story is as old as the hills, and was told about several Middle Eastern vegetation gods (Attis, Adonis, etc). The same goes for the story of the resurrection.
Or we could view him as a real person who has been at least partially misrepresentedby the gospel authors.
The mainstream Christian view is of course that he was the Son of God, in which context Alex's interpretation may well be correct.
Whether we view him entirely as a fictional character or as a real person at least partly misrepresented by the gospel authors, there are two questions we could ask here:
- What does Jesus mean by "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” and "Neither do I condemn you"?
- What does the gospel author think he meant?
Why do I care about this if I think Jesus may well have been a fictional character? Because I like the story, and I think it's important to be able to interpret stories in a poetic and flexible way, but not to infer the author's intentions from later interpretations.
So here is my interpretation of the story.
Jesus comes (as a rabbi among other rabbis) to the temple. He is teaching the people (as a popular rabbi would) when the woman taken in adultery is brought to him. The punishment for her "crime" is a horrible, slow and painful death. Jesus points out that the people who want to kill her for it are also guilty of some misdemeanour or other. The story is silent on whether Jesus thinks he himself is without sin - perhaps the reader is meant to infer that, but it is not explicitly stated. The point of the story is that we should show mercy and not excessively punish people for their bad behaviour, because we have also behaved badly. It's about showing empathy to others.
When Jesus says "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” and "Neither do I condemn you", I do not think that he's claiming to be without sin himself - that is a later doctrinal position.
OK, so elsewhere Jesus is reported as having said "Therefore be ye merciful, even as your Father in heaven is merciful" and "Judge not, that ye be not judged". But as far as I can recall, Jesus never arrogates to himself the right to judge. This power is attributed to him later by the Book of Acts and the Book of Revelations.
In fact, Jesus repeatedly extends sonship of God to humans generally. He says "I have said, ye are gods" and refers to God the Father as the father of everyone, not just his own father. So I don't think that Alex's interpretation is justified either by the text, or by the state of Christian theology when the text was written. It may well be the view of later theologians, but that is another issue.
So I think Richard Dawkins is right to like the story. He likes it because it's about being reasonable and empathic, tempering justice with mercy, and taking all factors into consideration, and not being judgmental and self-righteous.
What do you think the story means?
Monday, February 06, 2012
Review: Religion for Atheists
Religion for Atheists (like Alain de Botton's other books) is fluently and entertainingly written. The arguments are cogent and well made. I didn't agree with everything in the book, but it certainly put out some interesting ideas.
One thing that surprised me was that, unlike some of his other books (such as The Consolations of Philosophy), it did not reference many other writers or efforts in this field, although it generously acknowledged the efforts of Auguste Comte to invent a universal religion in the 19th century. The acknowledgements at the end did mention Richard Holloway, Daniel Dennett, Mark Vernon and so on. I was a bit surprised there was no mention of Karen Armstrong, since she has done much to move the debate on from whether religions are literally true to whether they are of value.
Perhaps a supplementary work could survey the history of religion for atheists, liberal religion, creedless religion, the development of humanism, pantheism, naturalism and so on.
The basic premise of the book is that many of the areas of endeavour for religions - encouraging us to be more compassionate, build communities, connect with nature, and spend time reflecting and meditating - have been badly secularised, and in some cases not secularised at all.
Where, asks de Botton, are the temples of values such as compassion, community and love? Where are the secular places where we can be reminded that we are not alone in our suffering, and thereby be cathartically relieved of it?
The book also points out the techniques by which religions inculcate values into their practitioners: by having special days and special rituals to enshrine these values in our hearts, and by repeating these festivals on a regular basis, and allowing us to share our responses to suffering, beauty and love in a communal setting.
Actually, many of these techniques have been continued in liberal religions which welcome atheists without trying to change their mind about being atheists, such as Buddhism, Paganism, and Unitarianism. But Western practitioners of these religions - which may have thrown the baby out with the bath water in some aspects of their religious life - would do well to read Religion for Atheists to see what we have omitted. One obvious thing is the use of images, which many Unitarian chapels do not have.
The bit I was not sure I agreed with was the idea that institutions are a good thing. In many ways they are, and it would be great if lone thinkers like Nietzsche could have been accommodated somewhere where they could get on with thinking and writing, and not have to worry where the next meal was coming from - but perhaps Nietzsche's thought would have been very different if he had been a tenured professor. Institutions can be stultifying, produce conformity and complacency, and persecute minorities.
I do agree that the most boring question you can ask of a religion is whether it is true. Taking the story literally, whether you decide that it’s true or false, kills the multiple meanings that can be teased out of the story. It also ignores the many other great stories which follow the same mythological pattern: Isis and Osiris, Orpheus and Eurydice, Inanna and Dumuzi. The endless arguments about whether miracles can really happen, whether the earth was created, and whether God was really a man in Palestine, are boring to people who want to move on from the question of whether the story is literally true, to whether it will help us to live well.
The section on Auguste Comte's universal religion was very interesting. I suspect that his religion failed for several reasons; the fact that it was the idea of one person; but also the fact that it did not grow and emerge organically. Religions are like languages - they evolve and grow in their particular cultural and historical context. Esperanto failed as a universal language because it was not wedded to a culture and did not grow organically. Latin succeeded in remaining the lingua franca in Europe for several centuries after it ceased to be the language of Rome because people wanted to buy into the values of Romanitas and perpetuate the order and culture of the Roman Empire. The religions that will emerge from the wreckage of traditional religious belief in the West will be ones that builds on the traditions of the past, not a newly-invented one. Alain de Botton may well be hailed as a prophet in this newly emergent religion, but I doubt that he will be regarded as its founder - and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be.
As Richard Holloway pointed out in his review, I suspect the people who will like this book will be atheists and agnostics who are already involved in liberal religious organisations like the Sea of Faith, Unitarianism, pantheism, Paganism, Buddhism and so on. I certainly recommend it, and hope that it will start a more thoughtful conversation about where religion comes from, where it is now, and where it is going.
One thing that surprised me was that, unlike some of his other books (such as The Consolations of Philosophy), it did not reference many other writers or efforts in this field, although it generously acknowledged the efforts of Auguste Comte to invent a universal religion in the 19th century. The acknowledgements at the end did mention Richard Holloway, Daniel Dennett, Mark Vernon and so on. I was a bit surprised there was no mention of Karen Armstrong, since she has done much to move the debate on from whether religions are literally true to whether they are of value.
Perhaps a supplementary work could survey the history of religion for atheists, liberal religion, creedless religion, the development of humanism, pantheism, naturalism and so on.
The basic premise of the book is that many of the areas of endeavour for religions - encouraging us to be more compassionate, build communities, connect with nature, and spend time reflecting and meditating - have been badly secularised, and in some cases not secularised at all.
Where, asks de Botton, are the temples of values such as compassion, community and love? Where are the secular places where we can be reminded that we are not alone in our suffering, and thereby be cathartically relieved of it?
The book also points out the techniques by which religions inculcate values into their practitioners: by having special days and special rituals to enshrine these values in our hearts, and by repeating these festivals on a regular basis, and allowing us to share our responses to suffering, beauty and love in a communal setting.
Actually, many of these techniques have been continued in liberal religions which welcome atheists without trying to change their mind about being atheists, such as Buddhism, Paganism, and Unitarianism. But Western practitioners of these religions - which may have thrown the baby out with the bath water in some aspects of their religious life - would do well to read Religion for Atheists to see what we have omitted. One obvious thing is the use of images, which many Unitarian chapels do not have.
The bit I was not sure I agreed with was the idea that institutions are a good thing. In many ways they are, and it would be great if lone thinkers like Nietzsche could have been accommodated somewhere where they could get on with thinking and writing, and not have to worry where the next meal was coming from - but perhaps Nietzsche's thought would have been very different if he had been a tenured professor. Institutions can be stultifying, produce conformity and complacency, and persecute minorities.
I do agree that the most boring question you can ask of a religion is whether it is true. Taking the story literally, whether you decide that it’s true or false, kills the multiple meanings that can be teased out of the story. It also ignores the many other great stories which follow the same mythological pattern: Isis and Osiris, Orpheus and Eurydice, Inanna and Dumuzi. The endless arguments about whether miracles can really happen, whether the earth was created, and whether God was really a man in Palestine, are boring to people who want to move on from the question of whether the story is literally true, to whether it will help us to live well.
The section on Auguste Comte's universal religion was very interesting. I suspect that his religion failed for several reasons; the fact that it was the idea of one person; but also the fact that it did not grow and emerge organically. Religions are like languages - they evolve and grow in their particular cultural and historical context. Esperanto failed as a universal language because it was not wedded to a culture and did not grow organically. Latin succeeded in remaining the lingua franca in Europe for several centuries after it ceased to be the language of Rome because people wanted to buy into the values of Romanitas and perpetuate the order and culture of the Roman Empire. The religions that will emerge from the wreckage of traditional religious belief in the West will be ones that builds on the traditions of the past, not a newly-invented one. Alain de Botton may well be hailed as a prophet in this newly emergent religion, but I doubt that he will be regarded as its founder - and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be.
As Richard Holloway pointed out in his review, I suspect the people who will like this book will be atheists and agnostics who are already involved in liberal religious organisations like the Sea of Faith, Unitarianism, pantheism, Paganism, Buddhism and so on. I certainly recommend it, and hope that it will start a more thoughtful conversation about where religion comes from, where it is now, and where it is going.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Christo-Pagans
So, is it possible to be a Christo-Pagan?
It depends on what kind of Christianity and what kind of Paganism you are trying to merge.
One approach to Christo-Paganism emphasises that Yahweh had a consort, the goddess Asherah. Another way to do it might be to regard Jesus as a dying and resurrecting god along the same lines as Attis, Adonis, Dumuzi, Tammuz, etc. Or you could be a henotheist who worships Yahweh and family whilst acknowledging the existence of other deities.
Certain kinds of Christianity are not compatible with Paganism. The type of Christianity that says we are all inherently sinful and fallen, and need an atoning sacrifice to save us, seems to me to be completely antithetical to Paganism.
But the kind of Christianity that emphasises compassion and forgiveness does seem compatible with Paganism. These virtues were extolled by ancient Roman polytheism.
I'm not sure if Gnosticism is compatible with Paganism, because Gnosticism was world-denying and Paganism is world-affirming - but I know people who identify as both. It's certainly possible to believe in gnosis alongside earth spirituality.
Personally, I could never call myself a Christian because too many people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, and because I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the only "anointed one" - but others feel that the name can be reclaimed. Good for them.
It could also be pointed out that ancient pagans (in the form of Roman state religion) murdered a lot of Christians. But Christianity's record of genocide is considerably larger in both geographical scope and historical duration.
It's certainly possible to be a Unitarian and a Pagan - but then not all Unitarians are Christians. Even the ones who identify as Christian don't believe in vicarious atonement (Jesus dying for your sins) or Jesus being part of the godhead. They also respect other religions.
(Just in case you were disappointed that the previous post wasn't about Christo-Pagans.)
It depends on what kind of Christianity and what kind of Paganism you are trying to merge.
One approach to Christo-Paganism emphasises that Yahweh had a consort, the goddess Asherah. Another way to do it might be to regard Jesus as a dying and resurrecting god along the same lines as Attis, Adonis, Dumuzi, Tammuz, etc. Or you could be a henotheist who worships Yahweh and family whilst acknowledging the existence of other deities.
Certain kinds of Christianity are not compatible with Paganism. The type of Christianity that says we are all inherently sinful and fallen, and need an atoning sacrifice to save us, seems to me to be completely antithetical to Paganism.
But the kind of Christianity that emphasises compassion and forgiveness does seem compatible with Paganism. These virtues were extolled by ancient Roman polytheism.
I'm not sure if Gnosticism is compatible with Paganism, because Gnosticism was world-denying and Paganism is world-affirming - but I know people who identify as both. It's certainly possible to believe in gnosis alongside earth spirituality.
Personally, I could never call myself a Christian because too many people have been murdered in the name of Christianity, and because I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the only "anointed one" - but others feel that the name can be reclaimed. Good for them.
It could also be pointed out that ancient pagans (in the form of Roman state religion) murdered a lot of Christians. But Christianity's record of genocide is considerably larger in both geographical scope and historical duration.
It's certainly possible to be a Unitarian and a Pagan - but then not all Unitarians are Christians. Even the ones who identify as Christian don't believe in vicarious atonement (Jesus dying for your sins) or Jesus being part of the godhead. They also respect other religions.
(Just in case you were disappointed that the previous post wasn't about Christo-Pagans.)
Monday, January 30, 2012
"Pagan Christianity"
Ha. I bet you thought this was going to be a blogpost about ChristoPagans, didn't you?
That's what I thought when I saw the title of this blogpost by Dyfed Wyn Roberts, Pagan Christianity.
But no, it's about a pair of bigots who have written a book complaining about all the "pagan" bits in Christianity.
I find the notion of expunging "pagan" practices from Christianity really offensive - but then I am a Pagan.
The Orthodox Church at least has the sense to practice inculturation in its missionary activities, whereby it preserves the bits of the pre-Christian culture that do not conflict with Christianity (which is most things).
I don't approve of converting people of other religions to Christianity, but if you must do so, at least do it with some respect and sensitivity towards them, as the Orthodox Church does.
The early church preserved many aspects of pagan culture which might otherwise have been lost. Snorri Sturluson wrote down the Eddas (Norse legends). The Pantheon in Rome was converted into a church (can we have it back please?) St Paul quoted two pagan poets, Epimenides and Aratus, in his famous speech in the marketplace in Athens.
Many customs which are supposedly "pagan" actually turn out to be only pre-Reformation folk customs.
Other practices (such as Christmas trees) may have been pagan or Christian in origin - no-one is quite sure.
Doubtless there are "pagan" bits in Christianity - including the myth of the dying and resurrecting god so beloved of most Christians - but they should be celebrated, not expunged.
That's what I thought when I saw the title of this blogpost by Dyfed Wyn Roberts, Pagan Christianity.
But no, it's about a pair of bigots who have written a book complaining about all the "pagan" bits in Christianity.
I find the notion of expunging "pagan" practices from Christianity really offensive - but then I am a Pagan.
The Orthodox Church at least has the sense to practice inculturation in its missionary activities, whereby it preserves the bits of the pre-Christian culture that do not conflict with Christianity (which is most things).
I don't approve of converting people of other religions to Christianity, but if you must do so, at least do it with some respect and sensitivity towards them, as the Orthodox Church does.
The early church preserved many aspects of pagan culture which might otherwise have been lost. Snorri Sturluson wrote down the Eddas (Norse legends). The Pantheon in Rome was converted into a church (can we have it back please?) St Paul quoted two pagan poets, Epimenides and Aratus, in his famous speech in the marketplace in Athens.
Many customs which are supposedly "pagan" actually turn out to be only pre-Reformation folk customs.
Other practices (such as Christmas trees) may have been pagan or Christian in origin - no-one is quite sure.
Doubtless there are "pagan" bits in Christianity - including the myth of the dying and resurrecting god so beloved of most Christians - but they should be celebrated, not expunged.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Atheism 2.0 and liberal religion
So, I finally managed to watch the whole of Alain de Botton's TED talk on Atheism 2.0, because I finally got broadband installed. Yay!
Pharyngula raised the objection that learning by rote is a bad thing. Well, I am sure that's true at advanced levels of science, but the reason the Japanese are so good at maths is because they still learn their times tables by rote. And it's very difficult to speak German properly if you don't learn the declension of the definite article, indefinite article, and adjectival endings, which also involves rote learning.. You can then go on to see how they operate in different contexts, but unfortunately there are some things that do need to be learnt by rote. However, that's not what Alain de Botton actually said - he said that repetition was good. Also there's a difference between learning something by heart and learning it by rote. And de Botton is not talking about the repetition of a creed or dogma, but the repetition of learning how to forgive, how to be compassionate, how to meditate - yes, these require practice and repetition. You have to meditate every day to get any good at it - and it has effects that can be measured by science. These effects are not caused by any supernatural thing - they are caused by the calming down of the brain and moving into a more relaxed state. Obviously.
Anyway, I reckon Atheism 2.0 sounds a lot like Unitarianism. Unitarians have been welcoming atheists (without trying to change their minds about being atheist) since the 1920s. Unitarians have been non-creedal (that is, each person is free to seek their own understanding of the truth) since the earliest days of the movement in Poland. Unitarians also draw inspiration from literature (yes! praise Shakespeare!), science (Darwin came from a Unitarian family), and reason.
Atheists 2.0 would also be welcome in Buddhism (a non-theist religion), Quakerism (includes many non-theists and atheists) and much of Paganism.
What did surprise me was that de Botton did not mention spiritual practices like meditation. These, to my mind, are the most effective bits of religion - not because they inculcate you with morality, but because they make you a calmer and less aggressive person.
When the compère asked him why he didn't mention spiritual experience and de Botton replied that you can have spiritual experiences without religion, that rather missed the point. Of course you can have spiritual experiences without religion, but religion provides you with techniques that allow you to access that level of consciousness on a regular basis. In my view, religion is spirituality practiced in community.
Also, he was talking as if Atheism 2.0 was a new idea, but as I said, Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since the 1920s; Buddhists have always been non-theist; and Lao Tsu just refers to the ultimate mystery as the Tao (the Way) and leaves it at that. He also says "The tao that can be named is not the true Tao." So as soon as you try to give it a name, it disappears. In a way, the same truth is pointed to when Moses asks the burning bush who it is, and the reply is "I am that I am". The Mystery has no name. There's a lovely hymn by Brian Wren, a member off the Iona community, which begins "Name Unnamed, hidden and shown, knowing and known" which is about the ineffability of the great Mystery.
Apophatic theology is really important here, too. Apophatic theology is the idea that anything you say about the divine can be negated - it is not light, it is not darkness, it is not wisdom it, it is not love. It is like all these things, but it is not them. I think the reason atheism became so popular in the first place is because people lost all sense of the mystery of "God" and tried to define it as a person, or as three persons, and got bogged down in all the literalness; whereas if you just regard God as a metaphor for the mind of the universe, that's a lot easier.
De Botton also says "it's obvious that God doesn't exist - let's move on" -- but wait, there have been some really interesting theological ideas around that non-existence. Spinoza with his idea of God as Nature; Tillich with his theology of the Ground of All Being; Eriugena with his view that God cannot exist in a material universe; Pagans and pantheists with talk of energies and immanent deities.
Another thing he suggests is that if all religious belief systems are equally untrue, then pick and mix is OK. Well, yes, up to a point, but the problem is, how do you know whether you're rejecting a particular symbol or practice because it is objectively bad, or because it pushes up against an issue that you have? For example, in Wicca, we call the quarters with the four elements, which are seen as symbols of aspects of the psyche. (Earth = sensation; Air = intellect; Water = emotion; Fire = passion and intuition). So if someone was just picking the bits they liked, they might pick the element which most closely corresponded to their psychological makeup. But if they work with all four elements and their symbolism, it might create a balance in their psyche.
I think Atheism 2.0 is an idea whose time has come - apart from the fact that's it's already been invented several times before.
Pharyngula raised the objection that learning by rote is a bad thing. Well, I am sure that's true at advanced levels of science, but the reason the Japanese are so good at maths is because they still learn their times tables by rote. And it's very difficult to speak German properly if you don't learn the declension of the definite article, indefinite article, and adjectival endings, which also involves rote learning.. You can then go on to see how they operate in different contexts, but unfortunately there are some things that do need to be learnt by rote. However, that's not what Alain de Botton actually said - he said that repetition was good. Also there's a difference between learning something by heart and learning it by rote. And de Botton is not talking about the repetition of a creed or dogma, but the repetition of learning how to forgive, how to be compassionate, how to meditate - yes, these require practice and repetition. You have to meditate every day to get any good at it - and it has effects that can be measured by science. These effects are not caused by any supernatural thing - they are caused by the calming down of the brain and moving into a more relaxed state. Obviously.
Anyway, I reckon Atheism 2.0 sounds a lot like Unitarianism. Unitarians have been welcoming atheists (without trying to change their minds about being atheist) since the 1920s. Unitarians have been non-creedal (that is, each person is free to seek their own understanding of the truth) since the earliest days of the movement in Poland. Unitarians also draw inspiration from literature (yes! praise Shakespeare!), science (Darwin came from a Unitarian family), and reason.
Atheists 2.0 would also be welcome in Buddhism (a non-theist religion), Quakerism (includes many non-theists and atheists) and much of Paganism.
What did surprise me was that de Botton did not mention spiritual practices like meditation. These, to my mind, are the most effective bits of religion - not because they inculcate you with morality, but because they make you a calmer and less aggressive person.
When the compère asked him why he didn't mention spiritual experience and de Botton replied that you can have spiritual experiences without religion, that rather missed the point. Of course you can have spiritual experiences without religion, but religion provides you with techniques that allow you to access that level of consciousness on a regular basis. In my view, religion is spirituality practiced in community.
Also, he was talking as if Atheism 2.0 was a new idea, but as I said, Unitarians have been welcoming atheists since the 1920s; Buddhists have always been non-theist; and Lao Tsu just refers to the ultimate mystery as the Tao (the Way) and leaves it at that. He also says "The tao that can be named is not the true Tao." So as soon as you try to give it a name, it disappears. In a way, the same truth is pointed to when Moses asks the burning bush who it is, and the reply is "I am that I am". The Mystery has no name. There's a lovely hymn by Brian Wren, a member off the Iona community, which begins "Name Unnamed, hidden and shown, knowing and known" which is about the ineffability of the great Mystery.
Apophatic theology is really important here, too. Apophatic theology is the idea that anything you say about the divine can be negated - it is not light, it is not darkness, it is not wisdom it, it is not love. It is like all these things, but it is not them. I think the reason atheism became so popular in the first place is because people lost all sense of the mystery of "God" and tried to define it as a person, or as three persons, and got bogged down in all the literalness; whereas if you just regard God as a metaphor for the mind of the universe, that's a lot easier.
De Botton also says "it's obvious that God doesn't exist - let's move on" -- but wait, there have been some really interesting theological ideas around that non-existence. Spinoza with his idea of God as Nature; Tillich with his theology of the Ground of All Being; Eriugena with his view that God cannot exist in a material universe; Pagans and pantheists with talk of energies and immanent deities.
Another thing he suggests is that if all religious belief systems are equally untrue, then pick and mix is OK. Well, yes, up to a point, but the problem is, how do you know whether you're rejecting a particular symbol or practice because it is objectively bad, or because it pushes up against an issue that you have? For example, in Wicca, we call the quarters with the four elements, which are seen as symbols of aspects of the psyche. (Earth = sensation; Air = intellect; Water = emotion; Fire = passion and intuition). So if someone was just picking the bits they liked, they might pick the element which most closely corresponded to their psychological makeup. But if they work with all four elements and their symbolism, it might create a balance in their psyche.
I think Atheism 2.0 is an idea whose time has come - apart from the fact that's it's already been invented several times before.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A Bible for every school?
Apparently Michael Gove wants a King James Bible in every school.
Whilst I agree that the Bible is a foundational text of our culture, and that the 400th anniversary of it becoming available in English is worth celebrating, I do not think it should be accorded a status above other important books, like On the Origin of Species, or the works of Shakespeare. And why wouldn't schools already have a copy of the Bible in their library, along with other important sacred and secular works?
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Sense of humour failure?
Bisexual FTW tweeted:
However, I think what they are doing by referring to him as "Pope Betty" is the old-time Polari habit of referring to everyone (up to and including God, who is known as Gloria) as female. It also implies that he is a closet case (and given the propensity of Catholic clergy to wear dresses - sorry, robes - and froth at the mouth about gay sexuality, that's not an unreasonable conclusion).
Really unimpressed with @pridelondon and @petertatchell referring to the pope as "Pope Betty". Emasculating him is sexist and out of order.Referring to a man as if he was female is potentially sexist towards women, because it implies that women are inferior; but referring to this as "emasculating" sounds as if Bisexual FTW thinks it is sexist towards men.
However, I think what they are doing by referring to him as "Pope Betty" is the old-time Polari habit of referring to everyone (up to and including God, who is known as Gloria) as female. It also implies that he is a closet case (and given the propensity of Catholic clergy to wear dresses - sorry, robes - and froth at the mouth about gay sexuality, that's not an unreasonable conclusion).
Monday, January 09, 2012
a symbol for science
There's an interesting article by Paul Root Wolpe in the Opinion section of New Scientist putting forward the idea that science needs a symbol so that people can express support for science, because it is under attack.
Is science really under attack (apart from by a few nutters on the extreme end of religion)? The article even admits that plenty of people of faith do support science. My own research into Pagans and science found a lot of support for science. Dr Wolpe himself is an expert in bioethics, so I guess he comes up against a lot of overlap and potential conflict between religion and science in his work.
American Atheists use the atomic whirl as a symbol, and it is recognised as the symbol for atheism on veterans' gravestones. That symbol might be one possibility. The New Scientist article points out that the DNA double helix won't do, because the symbol must represent physics and chemistry as well as biology. He goes on to say:
As to the points that the symbol would express support for...
The symbol could be an atom, except that it is already in use for a particular group. It could be a chemical flask, but that would not encompass astronomy. It's difficult to think of a symbol that would encompass the whole of science. Maybe a pair of compasses to represent the idea of measuring? or a pair of scales to indicate weighing up the evidence?
Is science really under attack (apart from by a few nutters on the extreme end of religion)? The article even admits that plenty of people of faith do support science. My own research into Pagans and science found a lot of support for science. Dr Wolpe himself is an expert in bioethics, so I guess he comes up against a lot of overlap and potential conflict between religion and science in his work.
American Atheists use the atomic whirl as a symbol, and it is recognised as the symbol for atheism on veterans' gravestones. That symbol might be one possibility. The New Scientist article points out that the DNA double helix won't do, because the symbol must represent physics and chemistry as well as biology. He goes on to say:
And it should be easy to modify, perhaps to identify a subject area - able to accommodate within it a double helix, or an atom, or the word NASA, or any other refinement locating the bearer in the scientific firmament. Perhaps it could even accommodate a cross or star of David or some other symbol to state: "I am a Christian (or Jew or Muslim) and support science as an enterprise."You could certainly fit a pentagram or a chalice in the middle of an atomic whirl.
As to the points that the symbol would express support for...
- I'm not sure that I want a rigid demarcation between the areas that religion and science can pronounce upon, as I am not a supporter of the non-overlapping magisteria theory. May the person with the best evidence win the debate.
- I do want to express support for the scientific method, and empiricism generally.
- I think that politicians all too often make decisions which fly in the face of scientific evidence.
- I do want to show that I am full of awe and wonder at the beauty of the universe as revealed by science.
- However, I do think science could be more open to phenomena that do not appear to have a material basis (they probably do, but no-one has worked out how to measure them yet).
- I don't believe that scientists are entirely objective; they are too often influenced by politics and ideology.
- I don't want to express support for Dawkins' dismissal of myth and fairy-tales (I am sure no-one ever took them literally; they express mythopoeic truths)
- And I do think science should take ethical and environmental concerns into consideration more often.
- I would like to see more awareness among scientists of Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts.
- I would like to see more awareness among scientists of the history and philosophy of science generally, and how many times science and technology has made situations worse instead of making them better.
The symbol could be an atom, except that it is already in use for a particular group. It could be a chemical flask, but that would not encompass astronomy. It's difficult to think of a symbol that would encompass the whole of science. Maybe a pair of compasses to represent the idea of measuring? or a pair of scales to indicate weighing up the evidence?
In praise of Alain de Botton
Quite possibly single-handedly responsible for reviving interest in
philosophy among the general reading public (that is to say, the small
proportion of the population that actually reads books), de Botton has
certainly made philosophy accessible to me. I wanted to be interested in
philosophy, but found the long-winded, overly abstracted and tortuous
way it is generally written completely inaccessible. De Botton's
engaging and laconic style, however, makes it available, and
interesting, and applicable to the real world.
I started with The Art of Travel, which explores the experience of travel, why we do it, and which bits we focus on and which we ignore. Then I read The Consolations of Philosophy, which explores the approaches of various different philosophers to the common problems of life (love, death, meaning). Then I read The Architecture of Happiness, which looks at which types of architecture make us happy, and which make us miserable, and why. I am currently reading The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. I've only got as far as chapter 1, on logistics, which explores why we ignore the romance of goods coming from far away places and being delivered to our doorsteps, and why we allow warehouses and distribution centres to be so ugly and boxy. But it's very good indeed and promises to be as interesting as his other stuff. I look forward to reading his next book, Religion for Atheists. A timely offering if ever there was one - there are plenty of religions which don't mind if you're an atheist (Unitarians, Quakers, Pagans and Buddhists all welcome atheists and don't try to change them into theists).
De Botton's writing does what good poetry and comedy should do: it looks at the world from a different perspective, and makes connections between things that no-one else had noticed a connection between. Presumably that is what good philosophy should do, too. He also asks why things are as they are, and whether the status quo could or should be changed - or, if he doesn't ask this question himself, he certainly provokes it in the reader, and gives the reader the conceptual tools to ask the question, and work towards an answer.
It is a truism that the in France, philosophers are held in popular esteem, whereas in England, they are regarded with suspicion. De Botton has single-handedly reversed that trend, so that it is cool to be seen reading one of his books. And about time too.
Of course there have always been people who enjoy Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and so on, but they were few and far between; now there are more people who read and enjoy philosophy, thanks to de Botton, who has succeeded in popularising something without dumbing it down.
I started with The Art of Travel, which explores the experience of travel, why we do it, and which bits we focus on and which we ignore. Then I read The Consolations of Philosophy, which explores the approaches of various different philosophers to the common problems of life (love, death, meaning). Then I read The Architecture of Happiness, which looks at which types of architecture make us happy, and which make us miserable, and why. I am currently reading The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. I've only got as far as chapter 1, on logistics, which explores why we ignore the romance of goods coming from far away places and being delivered to our doorsteps, and why we allow warehouses and distribution centres to be so ugly and boxy. But it's very good indeed and promises to be as interesting as his other stuff. I look forward to reading his next book, Religion for Atheists. A timely offering if ever there was one - there are plenty of religions which don't mind if you're an atheist (Unitarians, Quakers, Pagans and Buddhists all welcome atheists and don't try to change them into theists).
De Botton's writing does what good poetry and comedy should do: it looks at the world from a different perspective, and makes connections between things that no-one else had noticed a connection between. Presumably that is what good philosophy should do, too. He also asks why things are as they are, and whether the status quo could or should be changed - or, if he doesn't ask this question himself, he certainly provokes it in the reader, and gives the reader the conceptual tools to ask the question, and work towards an answer.
It is a truism that the in France, philosophers are held in popular esteem, whereas in England, they are regarded with suspicion. De Botton has single-handedly reversed that trend, so that it is cool to be seen reading one of his books. And about time too.
Of course there have always been people who enjoy Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell and so on, but they were few and far between; now there are more people who read and enjoy philosophy, thanks to de Botton, who has succeeded in popularising something without dumbing it down.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Same-sex love in the Bible
Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, have often been held up as examples of same-gender love. They may or may not have been having some sort of sexual interaction - but it really doesn't matter. The important thing about their relationships is that they loved each other; and this can be inspiring, both for close same-gender friendships and same-gender sexual relationships.
It would be incorrect to assume that just because two people of the same sex love each other then that automatically means they must be lesbian or gay. It would be just as bad as automatically assuming that they can't have been lovers because they were in the Bible, and that everyone in the Bible was heterosexual.
The current identity of LGBTs is a relatively recent phenomenon. People classified sexualities differently in the past, e.g. the ancient Greeks classified people as either penetrators (strong, active) or penetrated (weak, passive) - so it was OK to be the penetrator but not the penetrated (women, eromenoi). So it makes no sense to back-project contemporary LGBT identities on to same-sex relationships of the past and/or other cultures. That's why many writers on this subject are careful to refer to "women-loving women" and "men-loving men" when talking about the past or other cultures - becuase then it doesn't assume that the same set of practices and cultural assumptions was happening. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with LGBT people viewing same-gender relationships from the past as inspirational, in fact it's a good thing.
To say that Ruth and Naomi might have been having a sexual relationship is not to "reduce" their relationship to "only" being about sex. Lesbian relationships are not solely about sex - they are also about love, caring, mutual support, friendship, shared values, shared interests, going for walks together, and so on.
It is important not to airbrush out sexuality from texts like the Bible, and ancient mythologies in general. Sexuality is sacred and part of human experience, and it can be deeply spiritual.
It is very important to LGBT Christians to see Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan as exemplars of samae-sex love. And I think it quite likely that there was at least an erotic aspect to their relationships. Rev Fred Hammond, a UU minister, points out:
It would be incorrect to assume that just because two people of the same sex love each other then that automatically means they must be lesbian or gay. It would be just as bad as automatically assuming that they can't have been lovers because they were in the Bible, and that everyone in the Bible was heterosexual.
The current identity of LGBTs is a relatively recent phenomenon. People classified sexualities differently in the past, e.g. the ancient Greeks classified people as either penetrators (strong, active) or penetrated (weak, passive) - so it was OK to be the penetrator but not the penetrated (women, eromenoi). So it makes no sense to back-project contemporary LGBT identities on to same-sex relationships of the past and/or other cultures. That's why many writers on this subject are careful to refer to "women-loving women" and "men-loving men" when talking about the past or other cultures - becuase then it doesn't assume that the same set of practices and cultural assumptions was happening. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with LGBT people viewing same-gender relationships from the past as inspirational, in fact it's a good thing.
To say that Ruth and Naomi might have been having a sexual relationship is not to "reduce" their relationship to "only" being about sex. Lesbian relationships are not solely about sex - they are also about love, caring, mutual support, friendship, shared values, shared interests, going for walks together, and so on.
It is important not to airbrush out sexuality from texts like the Bible, and ancient mythologies in general. Sexuality is sacred and part of human experience, and it can be deeply spiritual.
It is very important to LGBT Christians to see Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan as exemplars of samae-sex love. And I think it quite likely that there was at least an erotic aspect to their relationships. Rev Fred Hammond, a UU minister, points out:
The Hebrew word for love in the text is Ahava. Ahava is used some 250 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used to refer to the sexual as in the very poetic Song of Songs. It is used to refer to the love of a husband for a wife. It is used to refer to passion in illicit relationships. It is used to refer to the love of Jonathan and David, and Ruth and Naomi, and it is used in the great commandment to love one’s neighbor as one self[2]. And while we translate ahava as love, it literally means “I will give.”The word Ahava is just as ambiguous (in the sense of whether it includes a sexual aspect) as our word, love. And this ambiguity leaves it open for a wide variety of ways to express love - and that can only be a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)