Describing Our Christianity To New Atheists/anti-Theists

[JenellYB]

That did rather gallop off on a side trail, didn't it?

 

Jenell

[Tea]

To me, the argument comes down to this:

 

Can something exist that has no material/physical reality?

 

Science can only deal in measures and detection; anything without a material or physical aspect is inaccessible to science. So I agree with Mike that scientific materialism is so pervasive as to be an invisible bias.

 

There's no proof either way. They're simply different premises. So I don't usually find the debate to be that interesting.

[JenellYB]

To me, the argument comes down to this:

 

Can something exist that has no material/physical reality?

 

Science can only deal in measures and detection; anything without a material or physical aspect is inaccessible to science. So I agree with Mike that scientific materialism is so pervasive as to be an invisible bias.

 

There's no proof either way. They're simply different premises. So I don't usually find the debate to be that interesting.

 

 

To this, I have to respond, well maybe, maybe not.

 

By that, I mean that while science can only deal in measures and detection, that doesn't neccesarily make something without a material or physical aspect inaccessable to science. Actually, many things discovered and eventually accepted through science have been, at least at the start, things for which there were no means of direct measure or detection.

 

Measure and detection can be indirect as well as direct, and be consistent with scientific principles. Indirect measure and detection often involves observation of what may be effects of something that is itself, not subject to direct observation or measure. To use a biblical metaphor, consider Jesus' comparison of the evidence of the presence and workings of the Spirit to the passing of the wind through the leaves of the trees. Any form of direct observation of the wind, molocules that make up air, and the actions among those molecules that create what we detect as wind, were far in the future at that time. That those thing were not yet subject to direct observation did not mean there was no such thing as 'wind' before ways of direct observation and measure were discovered. Wind was detected and measured indirectly, through observation and measure of effects.

 

Further development of this idea in scripture of indirect observation and measure of "Spirit" include metaphors and analogies using "fruit" in the sense of evidence of presence and nature of "Spirit." Now, we may argue the point of just what this "thing" is that is called "Spirit" in those kinds of metaphors and analogies, what the actual nature of this underlying principle, or "thing" is that is involved in these "effects" attributed to it, without discrediting that there is "something" at work in bringing about those effects, that might actually be detected, observed, measured. Study and discovery in fields of social sciences is based on indirect observation through detection and measure of "effects" of immaterial things.

 

Another sense in which we commonly accept as 'real' something that cannot itself be directly observed or measured, that have no "material" qualities or substance, are such things as make science even possible...consider, what is a "number?" What does, say, "3" look like? What are the material qualties of "3"? And how and why does "3" interacting with another "3" always get consistent results such as "1" or "6" or "9" or "27" ?

 

Jenell

[romansh]

Another Campbellian thought (the late Campbell must be rolling over in his grave today).

 

As a broad western generalization (and therefore not completely accurate):

 

Many atheists and theists have one thing in common - they interpret the Bible in a literal fashion to varying degrees.

 

I don't think most atheists would have a problem with the many wonderful metaphorical interpretations that we (ignoring balking psychologists ) have.

 

It is when we concretize our religious texts the problems start. I suppose the same could be said of our scientific texts. But our science texts are in a constant flux. No scientist wants the textbook to remain fixed.

Edited July 9, 2012 by romansh

[minsocal]

Another Campbellian thought (the late Campbell must be rolling over in his grave today).

 

As a broad western generalization (and therefore not completely accurate):

 

Many atheists and theists have one thing in common - they interpret the Bible in a literal fashion to varying degrees.

 

I don't think most atheists would have a problem with the many wonderful metaphorical interpretations that we (ignoring balking psychologists ) have.

 

It is when we concretize our religious texts the problems start. I suppose the same could be said of our scientific texts. But our science texts are in a constant flux. No scientist wants the textbook to remain fixed.

 

Where does Campbell say this? Just curious.Campbell often talks about more than one interpretation of a myth, and that it is often the case that case that the authors of a myth intended more than one interpretation.

Edited July 9, 2012 by minsocal

[irreverance]

From what I understand about the New Atheist movement, it is a relatively new movement that claims religion can be tested by logic and reasoning, and some believe a world without any religion would be far more peaceful then what we have now. Some distinguish from bad religion, but many do not. A prime example of this would be Richard Dawkins, at least from what I understand.

 

My question is, how can we describe our brand of Christianity to people who may call themselves Antitheists? Some of them are quite hostile to religion, but especially to Christianity, and not completely without good reason, I think. How would you describe your take on Christianity to an Antitheist or New Athesist? I'm not asking in the name of conversion, but in dialogue and possibly healing and friendship. This is something that has challenged me for a long time.

 

And if I have any of my facts wrong, feel free to set me straight.

 

As I recall, Sam Harris (a mouthpiece for the new atheists) in The End of Faith noted that he didn't have a problem with people who understood God as Ground of Being, as did Tillich. (p. 65?) His issue is with those who equate "faith" with "belief" in such a way as to promote an unreasonable, dogmatic (and tyrannical) social policy. My understanding of most progressives is that they tend to take a process, existentialist, or narrative view of God, so the opportunity to bypass the "anti-religion" agenda is already built in.

 

When trying to bridge the gap with a militant new atheist, I would point that out. If that doesn't open them up to listening, then they probably aren't going to open up at all and are in the conversation only to bash. When I get the sense that one isn't open to listening, I generally don't waste my time talking with them.

 

Overall, though, most atheists I've encountered aren't all that militant, and our limited conversations go respectfully well.

[romansh]

Where does Campbell say this? Just curious.Campbell often talks about more than one interpretation of a myth, and that it is often the case that case that the authors of a myth intended more than one interpretation.

I'm pretty sure it is in PoM

for clarification I have read PoM several times

Pathways to Bliss not so carefully but a couple of times (may be time for a reread)>

And Myths to Live By

 

So any quote I have will almost certainly come from the first two books.

 

Sorry for the delay in replying

Edited August 25, 2012 by romansh