As a pragmatist I am finding it frustrating as we appear to have little common ground to debate on; for example we agree that there is no scientific data to base our thinking on, but that is all that is allowed as proof by our atheist friend. When it comes to circumstantial evidence, for example the behaviour of Christians, then it is responded that this could come from another source (which of course it could). The one argument that I don't think has been answered is that Christians behave in counter intuitive ways (see long quote below fold), but ways which when they are lived lead to life in all its fullness (John 10:10, GNB), but again subjective experience is not allowed.
Fowler's theory of Faith Development defines faith thus:
Think if you will, of faith as `universal’, as a feature of living, acting, and self-understanding of all human beings whether they claim to be `believers’ or religious or not (Fowler & Keen, 1985:17).As teachers of the faith one of the things that we have to deal with is that there are people at all faith stages in our congregations, and things which may be helpful to those at one stage might well be harmful to those at another. Somehow we have to find a way of speaking to all, of encouraging all, without frightening some away. That is why I believe that clergy will say things in private that they will not say in public or on a blog - in private one to one conversation it is much easier to work with where that person is!
Whilst taking on board Fowler's comment:
that the stages should never be used for the nefarious comparison or the devaluing of persons (Fowler, 1987:80)I do believe that those in the higher numbered stages are less likely to behave in ways which militant atheists object to.
The challenge to those of us of faith is perhaps how to move people through the faith journey, and perhaps as a real challenge how to evangelise directly into the later stages, for if the stages apply to whatever "faith" we have then it should in theory be possible to do this - although most programs, such as Alpha, appear to introduce people to the early stages.
"Do not repay one bad turn with another (1 Thes 5:15; 1 Pt 3:9)." Do not injure anyone, but bear injuries patiently. "Love your enemies (Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27)." If people curse you, do not curse them back but bless them instead. "Endure persecution for the sake of justice (Mt 5:10)."
A peacemaker's paragraph, this one confronts us with the Gospel stripped and unadorned. Nonviolence, it says, is the center of the monastic life. It doesn't talk about conflict resolution; it says, don't begin the conflict. It doesn't talk about communication barriers; it says, stay gentle even with those who are not gentle with you. It doesn't talk about winning; it talks about loving.
Most of all, perhaps, it offers us no false hope that all these attempts will really change anything. No, it says instead that we must be prepared to bear whatever blows it takes for the sake of justice, quietly, gently, even lovingly with never a blow in return.
A story from the Far East recounts that a vicious general plundered the countryside and terrorized the villagers. He was, they said, particularly cruel to the monks of the place, whom he despised.
One day, at the end of his most recent assault, he was informed by one of his officers that, fearing him, all the people had already fled the town, with the exception of one monk who had remained in his monastery going about the order of the day.
The general was infuriated at the audacity of the monk and sent the soldiers to drag him to his tent.
"Do you not know who I am?" he roared at the monk, "I am he who can run you through with a sword and never bat an eyelash."
But the monk replied quietly, "And do you not know who I am? I am he who can let you run me through with a sword and never bat an eyelash."
http://www.eriebenedictines.org/benedict - changes daily. From Insights for the Ages
Hi Alan,
ReplyDelete"I don't think has been answered is that Christians behave in counter intuitive ways" - What is that actually telling you? Is it a benefit of some kind? Is it particularly laudible? I'm not even sure what is being asked that hasn't been answerred.
"but ways which when they are lived lead to life in all its fullness" - In what way is this counter intuitive? In what way is this not open to those of faith and those of none? Who gets to decide what a 'life in all its fullness' is?
"but again subjective experience is not allowed." - Of course subjective experience is allowed. Most of our experiences are subjective. The rationalist sceptical point of view is simply saying that our subjective expereinces often fool us, so it's wise to look at them more rigorously.
Fowler & Keen, "Think if you will, of faith as 'universal', as a feature of living, acting, and self-understanding of all human beings whether they claim to be 'believers' or religious or not." - Nothing here that an atheist humanist would have a problem with. I get your pragmatism, when it comes to understanding human affairs. You don't need the supernatural, or what evere one's particular God happens to be or not to be.
"Somehow we have to find a way of speaking to all..." - How about openly and honestly. It smacks of deviousness to hold back on what you really believe. Isn't this how cults work, by easing people into the faith?
"I do believe that those in the higher numbered stages are less likely to behave in ways which militant atheists object to" - There is less to object to, yes. But the biggy, the one that's there no matter how you adapt, is faith itself.
From my personal experience :) there are things which before my faith had this strength I would not have done, but which have led to me feeling more alive as a result of having done them.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at our subjective experiences there is rarely any other evidence - so we are left with ignoring them or being told that it is unscientific.
Cults brainwash people (and I know you think religions do) whereas I would see faith as about helping people decide for themselves. I do not say things that I don't believe - I might not say things that I do believe if I think that they will cause suffering.
Even scientists have faith of a kind. Many will talk about how they knew they were right before the evidence showed it.
Hi Alan,
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's cleared some bits up for me. Thanks for persisting. I really think the religious language clouds issues a lot, mixing up quite regular human condition stuff unnecessarily in a mystical cloak. And I still think this mystical cloak, in the form of religious language, hides a multitude of sins of irrationality masquerading as profundity.
"There are things which before my faith had this strength I would not have done, but which have led to me feeling more alive as a result of having done them." - That's as clear a message as any. I get this. It's perfectly reasonable in the human context that we can boost ourselves, convince ourselves, instill self-confidence that allows us to experience and achieve things we might otherwise have been afraid to do. Is this what you mean? But isn't that all this is? We desensitise ourselves to fears and difficulties in order to overcome the fears. We practice skills repeatedly to become accustomed to them, familiar with them. There are many methods available that we can use to do this. If the personal inner workings of your faith help you with that, then fair enough.
But, getting to the pragmatic, do you really need the mysticism? Do you really need the flamboyant stories? Do you really need the Bible even, at all? Many rational atheists would accept the hypothesis that there could be an agent creator, but without the clear evidence there is no method, no human capacity, that gives us access to what that God may be. You may have inner feelings of an agent God talking to you or listening to you personally (depending on one's interpretation of how God works), but do you really need the other stuff, the stuff which really does seem like irrational nonsense from a past tradition?
"Cults brainwash people (and I know you think religions do) whereas I would see faith as about helping people decide for themselves." - I'd be much happier in this respect if children weren't subject to religion in the way they are. It's one thing to be educated about religions, but another to be indoctrinated into it from a young age. I think it is brainwashing with children - they soak up so much they can't help but believe what religions tell them. They are given little chance to be objective about it, to decide for themselves.
"I do not say things that I don't believe - I might not say things that I do believe if I think that they will cause suffering." - ok. But I still find it odd that it doesn't do what it says on the tin. Aren't the customers, the laity, being mis-sold?
"Even scientists have faith of a kind. Many will talk about how they knew they were right before the evidence showed it." - They're human, so yes they do. That's how the brain works. If you get chance to see the current series on BBC, The Story Of Science, it covers this aspect - the intuition, the luck, the circumstances, the right time and place. But that's not what makes it science. The science comes after that, constructing more rigorous experiments, repeating experiments, having others repeat them - this is what builds up confidence in results and makes the initial 'faith', luck, circumstance irrelevant; it's what irons out many of the 'mistaken faiths' scientists have that are never heard of again because they were wrong.
OK - so "boost ourselves, convince ourselves, instill self-confidence that allows us to experience and achieve things we might otherwise have been afraid to do"
ReplyDeleteObjectively that is what faith would look like from the outside. However, if all we can see are hints and nudges then weight of numbers counts and I see more Christians doing this than others - and becoming more alive for having done it.
Whether you need the Bible depends on what you think it is and how you use it. I see it as the best guide out there - but not in a text book way.
I too worry about children - there is too much indoctrination - but I suspect that you indoctrinate with atheism :).