Johnny stood impatiently at the curb edge, poised to rush across the busy intersection after his best friend, Billy. They had become fast friends after only a few weeks at training camp, and they have been inseparable since. Now Johnny sees Billy receding further into the distance; he knows it would be bad for him to try and cross now - the light is against him - and those cars and trucks are large and noisy.
Johnny is not being physically restrained, he is free to leap into traffic if he wants to. Nor is Johnny mentally deficient in any way. But he's been taught that vehicles are something to avoid, though he doesn't really understand that they can kill him. You can see he's itching to go, that he's mulling over the decision in his head, gauging traffic - should I stay? should I go? - how long do I have to wait?! At just about the point where he can't take it anymore, the light changes in Johnny's favor and he's free to cross. He does so with a mixture of caution and delight that he can now, at last, be able to catch up to his best friend, Billy.
It would seem that Johnny has a genuine choice - to cross the street against traffic (and risk getting killed), or to wait for the light to change and cross safely. It seems to us that his choice is free - he is not being physically held back (though even if he were, he could still make the choice to cross, he just wouldn't physically be able to), and he is not under any psychological compulsion to stay put - he has the same mental capacities as his peers.
So the question is: is his choice really free? To put it a bit differently: does Johnny have free will?
Most of us would answer yes - Johnny has free will, and he can choose equally between two real choices. If he chooses to cross the street against traffic, he could just as well have done otherwise - he could have decided to stay put and wait for the light to change.
But if this scenario seems a bit odd, that's because it is: both Johnny and Billy are dogs being trained to guide the blind and visually impaired. I am an instructor for The Seeing Eye - the oldest existing dog guide organization in the world - and for almost eight years I've been training dogs for guide work and observing dogs in pack-like scenarios (up to 20 dogs at a time) in our kennels.
Each dog is trained for four months, and I work with each dog each day during that time. As a pet owner and dog trainer, it would be easy for me to anthropomorphize my dogs. And as every dog lover knows, dogs even seem to be more human than some humans we know. And they definitely seem to deliberate and make choices, for good or ill.
Now, this case study is most definitely not meant to "prove" that free will doesn't exist (nor is it a lesson in training a dog to be a guide for the blind). I simply want to present, by way of analogy, a different way of looking at the problem of free will. Of course, the first step really should be getting people to even view it as a problem in the first place. It seems to me the vast majority of us take it as axiomatic that we have free will; it seems like the most obvious and most accessible thing about ourselves and our mental processes. Setting aside the more technical - and some would say pointless - philosophical arguments for the time being, what would it actually mean for us to say that our will is "free"?
Well, most people would say that, when confronted with a choice, they are able to deliberate in such a way that they could imagine themselves taking any number of options. For instance, in our example above, let's suppose that Johnny and Billy are human beings. Johnny can imagine himself crossing the street against the light - not without a good bit of anxiety at the thought of getting hit by a car - or he could simply endure the frustration of having to wait for the light to change in order to make a safe crossing. At the moment Johnny is thinking about what to do, he feels he has as much ability to cross as not to cross. It's simply a matter of making a decision to do one or the other, weighing all the factors. Johnny can take the risk of getting injured or killed in order to catch up to his friend, or he can take the risk of not catching up to his friend by deciding to wait until the light changes - who knows, by that time Billy could be long gone.
If someone were to tell us that our thought process in regard to decision-making is like a mathematical formula, or like a computer program with lots of inputs and if/thens, etc., we would surely say that they were mistaken. We are not computers, we don't run like mathematical equations - there's more to us than that. We may strive to have our decision-making run with the precision and accuracy of a computer program or formula, but we can always buck the system and choose whatever we want.
I said I wasn't going to present any philosophical arguments regarding free will; but I will paraphrase a couple dead white males on the topic. A human being can surely do what she wants, but she can't determine what she wants. In other words, each thought has a cause or causes, and each cause has a cause of its own, and so on. In order for me to say that my will is truly "free," there has to be some point along that chain of causes where "I" interject with my own, non-caused cause. Otherwise - theoretically - you can trace that chain of causes back to the point where it no longer makes sense to say that "I" chose anything.
But where does that un-caused "I" come from? Most religiously-oriented people would say that it is our "soul" that chooses. The more secular among us would say that it is our "spirit" or our "consciousness." The religious view of human beings is too common and too obvious to elaborate on. Besides, most people with a Judeo-Christian background don't believe dogs have "souls" per se anyway. The secular view is probably best summed up by what's known as libertarianism - the philosophical position as well as the political position (with a capital "L" - think Reason Magazine, John Stossel, etc.). The current Director of Programs of The Atlas Society, William Thomas, wrote an article for their website back in 2006 titled, "What Is the Objectivist View of Free Will?" I won't go into what is meant by "Objectivist" here, other than to say it gave birth to the Libertarian movement. The article, however, gives voice to the key intellectual underpinnings of libertarian thought. Mr. Thomas says that, "We observe [free will] through introspection, the inward perception of our own conscious processes...our free will resides, most basically, in our ability to direct our conscious attention."
Thomas calls this ability "focus," and the choice to focus is "the choice to think." For now, I will set aside the more philosophical problem of what it could possibly mean for "me" to direct my conscious attention. The question lying in wait for us here is similar to the question on every toddler's lips when confronted with the proposition that God created the universe: who created God? In our case, we would need to ask, "How does the 'me' direct its attention?" or "What causes the 'me' to direct its attention this way or that?" Neither the religious believer nor the libertarian has a clear answer to this question. Ayn Rand (the intellectual architect behind Objectivism and, hence, libertarianism) herself suggested that that is a question for the hard sciences to answer. Ayn Rand died in 1982, and the mind sciences have come a long way since then - but that is most definitely beyond the scope of this case study.
Thomas makes a few points that I believe are applicable to dogs as well as humans. For instance, he writes, "After all, if free will is false, how can anyone choose to change his mind on an issue?" and "Free will is simply a human capacity for action." In my work as a dog trainer - and specifically in training dogs to guide the visually impaired - I am responsible for training dogs to "think." In fact, part of my job is to train dogs to "intelligently disobey" a command if the dog thinks it will lead to danger for itself or its handler. As an example, and without going into too much unnecessary detail, I condition dogs to respect traffic. What I mean by this is that while I can't teach a dog that a car can kill it - indeed, no one really expects dogs to understand the concept of death at all - I can teach dogs to avoid them in certain situations; e.g., when a blind person is trying to cross an intersection.
I see dogs change their mind all the time. I see, on a daily basis, a dog's thought process. I can see by their body language what they are most likely "thinking." Every day I see dogs like Johnny (I don't use the dogs' real names for privacy reasons) deliberate and choose. Of course, since dogs can't speak human language, I have to rely on body language and behavior; but dog guide trainers - and dog trainers in general - are confident in their assessments of dog "thinking" because of literally thousands of years of human-canine coexistence.
But does this mean that dogs have free will? Most people say no. Why? Well, most people say that only humans have free will. But why do most people say this? Well, as I said before, most people believe in some sort of "soul" that is categorically different from what a dog has. And if they don't believe in souls per se, they at least believe that nature has produced humans as the crowning achievement of evolution and has endowed humans with a capacity that the rest of the "animal kingdom" simply doesn't possess.
But Charles Darwin postulated - and the scientific community has overwhelming concluded since then - that the tree of life is more like a bush than a tree, and definitely not like a ladder with humans at the top. Consciousness and free will (if there is such a thing) could certainly have evolved in a different species, and consciousness may have indeed evolved in other creatures - we simply have no current way of knowing this.
Regardless, most people view the difference between dogs and humans as an unbridgeable gap. Based on my experience, I view the difference between dogs and humans as one of degree and not one of kind. Dogs clearly have the capacity to choose between real options, as humans do. Dogs and humans both respond in a similar way to a system of rewards and punishments that condition their respective behaviors. Dogs and humans modulate their behavior in anticipation of these perceived rewards and punishments. In the dog training world, this is known as Operant Conditioning. Animal trainers conceive of two types of conditioning: operant and classical. In classical conditioning, a stimulus elicits an automatic response - think of Pavlov's dogs and their conditioned reflex of salivating at the presentation of a visual or auditory stimulus, instead of just food.
Operant conditioning, on the other hand, is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior. Subjects "voluntarily" alter their behavior based on the perceived consequences (by contrast, classical conditioning can be thought of as "involuntary" behavior). Our criminal justice system is premised on a similar type of conditioning. And this leads us to the real concern over free will: if we don't have free will, then how can we be moral? William Thomas, along with most Libertarians and almost all religious believers, offers the following lament in his article: "If our actions are not up to us, then we have no moral responsibility for them." But do we need to be concerned with the actual existence of such a faculty as free will, if our society is already set up to modify the behavior - in a moral way - of its constituents?
Thomas ends his article with, "There can be no effective guidance of human action, nor a satisfactory scientific account of human behavior, without taking into account the inescapable fact of free will." Dogs can be effectively guided in their behavior without us believing they have free will, while still believing - and witnessing - their deliberation and choices. If we were to take human free will out of the equation, and view the comedy of existence without that presumption, the comedy of existence would still play out the same: we would see humans modifying their behavior based on the perceived consequences of a system of rewards and punishments, just like dogs.
And I think that free will is far from being an inescapable fact of reality. In fact, when we think about it, its existence if far from being settled, and its importance far from being properly considered.
Author Archive for Juno WalkerPage 3 of 4
This weekend in D.C., Glenn Beck gave voice to what used to be a fairly fringe element in our society, but which has been growing in prominence - no doubt in part to leading politicians and media outlets such as Fox News. His rally, called Restoring Honor, emphasized what that not-so-fringe element believes:
"Something beyond imagination is happening," he told participants who packed the National Mall in Washington. "America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness."
Unfortunately for Beck - or for any religious believer - is that no one can really agree on which God is meant. Of course, the Beckites will say it is the Christian god, but even then, which Christian god is meant? Is it Beck's Mormon god? Is it Thomas Jefferson's god?
Thomas Jefferson denied the divinity of Christ and rejected the Old Testament god as "a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." To support Jefferson's view, I offer the following Old Testament verses:
Exodus 21:7 provides guidelines for an Israelite's selling of his daughter into slavery.
1 Samuel 15:2 gives just one of the many disgusting examples of the LORD ordering the murders of women and infants. I don't think I need to state more...
Numbers 31:16 provides probably my favorite Old Testament atrocity. In it, Moses - mouthpiece of God - orders his soldiers to kill all the women but to keep the young virgins for themselves. Aw, what a guy.
Thomas Jefferson seemed to venerate Jesus as a great moral teacher. I disagree. If the sayings attributed to Jesus are accurate (or even true) - and that's a big IF, considering they were written by zealous believers in a pre-literate, superstitious time - they don't seem to show a man of exemplary moral character, and the moral formulation he is arguably most famous for - the Golden Rule - has been present in many cultures not related to Christianity, and even predating it.
Aside from the Old Testament atrocities, maybe we can turn to the Ten Commandments. Should that be the basis for ruling our Nation? Let's see:
1. Have no other gods than God
2. No graven images
3. Don't take the Lord's name in vain
4. Keep the Sabbath holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Don't murder people
7. Don't commit adultery
8. Don't steal
9. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor
10. Don't covet your neighbor's stuff
OK. So, we should probably discriminate between "guidelines for living/morality," and "law" backed by the force of the State. If we're going to use the Ten Commandments as law, as many people in this country believe should be the case, we already have 3 of them codified: murder, theft, and perjury (which is what I'll assume "bearing false witness" means). For most of the others, I don't believe most people would think it's a good idea to fine or imprison people for making or having statues of other gods and things, nor for being envious of your neighbor's hot wife or plasma flat-screen TV. Likewise for not being able to work on Sunday, not honoring a sexually-abusive father or mother, or sleeping around - although if you enter into a legal contract like marriage, you will most likely be ordered to pay up if you cheat on your spouse.
So maybe the Ten Commandments aren't the best guide for ruling the Nation. Author and atheist Sam Harris wryly notes that the Ten Commandments - written by the hand of the supreme master of the universe himself - is not the most articulate moral document there is. The Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism appears to be a saner, more comprehensive approach to morality than the Ten Commandments - or Christ's teachings. After all, what did Christ - or Christ through Paul - teach?
Matthew 5:18-19 gives us: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."
So apparently Jesus is urging us to keep the Old Testament law. I mean, either he means "until heaven and earth pass away," or he doesn't, right? And Matthew 5:27-32 gives us "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Now, if Christians really believed this is good guidance, then there would be a hell of a lot more one-eyed, one-handed politicans in public service.
To be fair, Jesus also said - in Matthew 22:36-40 - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
OK. So that's a little better. But what about a Christian's involvement in secular government? Should a Christian be trying to change the Nation's laws at all? Let's see what the apostle Paul says in Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
Now, this CERTAINLY doesn't sound like the religious right we've known for so long here in America, does it? They claim our authorities are not only corrupt, but sinfully depraved; that we shouldn't even have to pay taxes, etc.
And who can forget this little gem by Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14: "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
But what if Islam should gain the ascendency in America? As we've seen with the infamous "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, there are many Christians who don't countenance religious freedom or freedom of assembly for Muslim - how much less for a Muslim-based government!
It could happen. Unfortunately, either could happen...
This weekend in D.C., Glenn Beck gave voice to what used to be a fairly fringe element in our society, but which has been growing in prominence - no doubt in part to leading politicians and media outlets such as Fox News. His rally, called Restoring Honor, emphasized what that not-so-fringe element believes:
"Something beyond imagination is happening," he told participants who packed the National Mall in Washington. "America today begins to turn back to God. For too long, this country has wandered in darkness."
Unfortunately for Beck - or for any religious believer - is that no one can really agree on which God is meant. Of course, the Beckites will say it is the Christian god, but even then, which Christian god is meant? Is it Beck's Mormon god? Is it Thomas Jefferson's god?
Thomas Jefferson denied the divinity of Christ and rejected the Old Testament god as "a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust." To support Jefferson's view, I offer the following Old Testament verses:
Exodus 21:7 provides guidelines for an Israelite's selling of his daughter into slavery.
1 Samuel 15:2 gives just one of the many disgusting examples of the LORD ordering the murders of women and infants. I don't think I need to state more...
Numbers 31:16 provides probably my favorite Old Testament atrocity. In it, Moses - mouthpiece of God - orders his soldiers to kill all the women but to keep the young virgins for themselves. Aw, what a guy.
Thomas Jefferson seemed to venerate Jesus as a great moral teacher. I disagree. If the sayings attributed to Jesus are accurate (or even true) - and that's a big IF, considering they were written by zealous believers in a pre-literate, superstitious time - they don't seem to show a man of exemplary moral character, and the moral formulation he is arguably most famous for - the Golden Rule - has been present in many cultures not related to Christianity, and even predating it.
Aside from the Old Testament atrocities, maybe we can turn to the Ten Commandments. Should that be the basis for ruling our Nation? Let's see:
1. Have no other gods than God
2. No graven images
3. Don't take the Lord's name in vain
4. Keep the Sabbath holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Don't murder people
7. Don't commit adultery
8. Don't steal
9. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor
10. Don't covet your neighbor's stuff
OK. So, we should probably discriminate between "guidelines for living/morality," and "law" backed by the force of the State. If we're going to use the Ten Commandments as law, as many people in this country believe should be the case, we already have 3 of them codified: murder, theft, and perjury (which is what I'll assume "bearing false witness" means). For most of the others, I don't believe most people would think it's a good idea to fine or imprison people for making or having statues of other gods and things, nor for being envious of your neighbor's hot wife or plasma flat-screen TV. Likewise for not being able to work on Sunday, not honoring a sexually-abusive father or mother, or sleeping around - although if you enter into a legal contract like marriage, you will most likely be ordered to pay up if you cheat on your spouse.
So maybe the Ten Commandments aren't the best guide for ruling the Nation. Author and atheist Sam Harris wryly notes that the Ten Commandments - written by the hand of the supreme master of the universe himself - is not the most articulate moral document there is. The Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism appears to be a saner, more comprehensive approach to morality than the Ten Commandments - or Christ's teachings. After all, what did Christ - or Christ through Paul - teach?
Matthew 5:18-19 gives us: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."
So apparently Jesus is urging us to keep the Old Testament law. I mean, either he means "until heaven and earth pass away," or he doesn't, right? And Matthew 5:27-32 gives us "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Now, if Christians really believed this is good guidance, then there would be a hell of a lot more one-eyed, one-handed politicans in public service.
To be fair, Jesus also said - in Matthew 22:36-40 - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
OK. So that's a little better. But what about a Christian's involvement in secular government? Should a Christian be trying to change the Nation's laws at all? Let's see what the apostle Paul says in Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
Now, this CERTAINLY doesn't sound like the religious right we've known for so long here in America, does it? They claim our authorities are not only corrupt, but sinfully depraved; that we shouldn't even have to pay taxes, etc.
And who can forget this little gem by Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14: "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
But what if Islam should gain the ascendency in America? As we've seen with the infamous "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, there are many Christians who don't countenance religious freedom or freedom of assembly for Muslim - how much less for a Muslim-based government!
It could happen. Unfortunately, either could happen...
I went to the New Jersey State Fair this summer and saw, among other things, a few religiously-oriented booths. One of them - The Gideons - gave me a tract called, "Facts to Face."
The first verse cited was from the book of Romans - chapter 5, verse 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world..."
Strangely enough, it made me think of the evolution-creationism debate. There are those who accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection; there are those who reject it out of hand because the Bible tells them so; and there are those who try to find a middle ground where they can accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution and still claim to be a true Christian. The current Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland - Francis Collins - is one such person.
Here are a few quotes:
"I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe."
"[Evolution] may seem to us like a slow, inefficient, and even random process, but to God—who's not limited by space or time—it all came together in the blink of an eye. And for us who have been given the gift of intelligence and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world that he created, to have now learned about this evolutionary creative process is a source of awe and wonder. I find these discoveries are completely compatible with everything I know about God through the Scriptures."
The problem, as you may or may not have guessed (and maybe you haven't, because I haven't seen this problem brought up before), is that the whole purpose of Christ is undermined by evolution. How? Think about it - the Bible tells us that God created Adam and Eve and that they sinned - and somehow all of humanity, every single person born since, has inherited this sin. Now, there are two obvious problems here: if we can't take the Bible literally in one point, as in the Genesis account (and as Collins wishes to), then how can we take any of the other things in the Bible literally? How do when know when to take something literally and something figuratively? Now, true believers will say that the Holy Spirit or some such thing makes it clear to each individual believer; but you definitely can't tell from the text. Actually, a clear reading of the text would incline one to take it literally. The other problem is this idea of an inheritance of a "sin nature." What is the mechanism by which this nature is inherited? Is it in our genes? Will scientists one day be able to pinpoint the "sin gene"? The Bible doesn't tell us what the mechanism is - it simply says that's how it is.
Getting back to the less obvious problem - the problem of reconciling the Biblical account of creation with the theory of evolution - the apostle Paul, the mouthpiece of Christ, apparently believes that God literally created Adam and that Adam literally sinned. At least that's what Romans 5:12 says. More tellingly, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Are we to take these verses figuratively? Paul goes on to say that's precisely why Jesus needed to come into the world - to be a guiltless sacrific and atonement for the sins of humanity, as introduced by Adam.
To my knowledge, Jesus himself is curiously silent on the matter. At least, he doesn't mention Adam by name, or the action of original sin itself. But he does reference another biblical-historical figure of dubious standing - Noah. He says in Matthew 24:37-38:
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark."
The story of Noah and the flood has it's own insurmountable problems, but Jesus clearly believed he existed and that the flood happened. Why not Adam and Eve?
So it looks like Christians who want to be "true believers" (whatever that means; ask ten believers and you get ten different answers) have a choice to make: to follow Jesus and listen to Paul - based on their alleged, Holy Spirit-inspired, actual words - or give up Christianity altogether and possibly for the first time face the facts of reality.
I went to the New Jersey State Fair this summer and saw, among other things, a few religiously-oriented booths. One of them - The Gideons - gave me a tract called, "Facts to Face."
The first verse cited was from the book of Romans - chapter 5, verse 12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world..."
Strangely enough, it made me think of the evolution-creationism debate. There are those who accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection; there are those who reject it out of hand because the Bible tells them so; and there are those who try to find a middle ground where they can accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution and still claim to be a true Christian. The current Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland - Francis Collins - is one such person.
Here are a few quotes:
"I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature. Like St. Augustine in A.D. 400, I do not find the wording of Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific textbook but a powerful and poetic description of God's intentions in creating the universe."
"[Evolution] may seem to us like a slow, inefficient, and even random process, but to God—who's not limited by space or time—it all came together in the blink of an eye. And for us who have been given the gift of intelligence and the ability to appreciate the wonders of the natural world that he created, to have now learned about this evolutionary creative process is a source of awe and wonder. I find these discoveries are completely compatible with everything I know about God through the Scriptures."
The problem, as you may or may not have guessed (and maybe you haven't, because I haven't seen this problem brought up before), is that the whole purpose of Christ is undermined by evolution. How? Think about it - the Bible tells us that God created Adam and Eve and that they sinned - and somehow all of humanity, every single person born since, has inherited this sin. Now, there are two obvious problems here: if we can't take the Bible literally in one point, as in the Genesis account (and as Collins wishes to), then how can we take any of the other things in the Bible literally? How do when know when to take something literally and something figuratively? Now, true believers will say that the Holy Spirit or some such thing makes it clear to each individual believer; but you definitely can't tell from the text. Actually, a clear reading of the text would incline one to take it literally. The other problem is this idea of an inheritance of a "sin nature." What is the mechanism by which this nature is inherited? Is it in our genes? Will scientists one day be able to pinpoint the "sin gene"? The Bible doesn't tell us what the mechanism is - it simply says that's how it is.
Getting back to the less obvious problem - the problem of reconciling the Biblical account of creation with the theory of evolution - the apostle Paul, the mouthpiece of Christ, apparently believes that God literally created Adam and that Adam literally sinned. At least that's what Romans 5:12 says. More tellingly, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Are we to take these verses figuratively? Paul goes on to say that's precisely why Jesus needed to come into the world - to be a guiltless sacrific and atonement for the sins of humanity, as introduced by Adam.
To my knowledge, Jesus himself is curiously silent on the matter. At least, he doesn't mention Adam by name, or the action of original sin itself. But he does reference another biblical-historical figure of dubious standing - Noah. He says in Matthew 24:37-38:
“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark."
The story of Noah and the flood has it's own insurmountable problems, but Jesus clearly believed he existed and that the flood happened. Why not Adam and Eve?
So it looks like Christians who want to be "true believers" (whatever that means; ask ten believers and you get ten different answers) have a choice to make: to follow Jesus and listen to Paul - based on their alleged, Holy Spirit-inspired, actual words - or give up Christianity altogether and possibly for the first time face the facts of reality.
Does anyone wonder why fantastic stories like spirit-possession, giants roaming the earth, dragons, corpses rising from the dead, and various other phantasmagoria aren't widely disseminated and believed in today's world?
Is it really any wonder that all of these types of stories WERE widely disseminated and believed in a pre-historic (in an organized, methodological sense), pre-scientific time?
A team of medical scientists have just published the first serious epidemiological study on spirit possession - and its link to mental and physical illness - in post-civil war Mozambique.
It has been the epistemological and metaphysical heritage of humanity to explain natural and personal forces of nature in terms of "spirits." All sorts of supernatural beings have been postulated to explain the apparently inexplicable. The operative word here is obviously "apparently." It is my opinion that the greatest achievement of humanity has been the development of the scientific method. What used to be inexplicable has been explained - sometimes at the expense of common sense or intuition (e.g., heliocentrism, evolution via natural selection).
Broadly speaking, science is a "systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."
Now, as one who maintains a naturalistic world-view (barring enough convincing evidence otherwise), I also maintain that the scientific method evolved along with humanity and is, of course, prone to error. As Nietzsche says in The Gay Science:
"Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith, which were continually inherited, until they became almost part of the species, include the following: that there are enduring things; that there are equal things; that there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in itself. It is only very late that such propositions were denied and doubted; it was only very late that truth emerged - as the weakest form of knowledge."
Elsewhere Nietzsche comments on the origin of logic, which is a staple of the scientific method:
"How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished..."
All this being said, almost everyone today agrees that "error" has been phenomenally reduced throughout the history of humanity. We not only have well-understood and demonstrable explanations for those things that made enormous emotional impacts on early humans (e.g., natural forces like thunder, lightning, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.), but also for things that the vast majority of us have neither a need nor desire to understand (e.g., quantum physics, etc.).
As a side note, I have to say thank goodness for the Greeks, at least the pre-socratic thinkers like Anaximander who "made bold inquiries; he questioned the myths, the knowledge of the old, the heavens, and even the gods themselves. He was wholly rational in his approach and his quest was to derive natural explanations for phenomena that previously had been ascribed to the agency of supernatural powers...His account of meteorology constitutes a most innovative proposition. Though only partially correct, it is the first recorded attempt of a scientific explanation of the weather in the history of mankind."
Tribal humans around the world today, still living in a pre-scientific, pre-historical milieu, are still given to supernatural explanations for the events and forces that impact their daily lives. But modern civilization, for the most part, has dispensed with these erroneous but understandable delusions. Most of modern civilization doesn't readily believe stories like a woman turning into a pillar of salt, or a man being swallowed whole by a whale and coming out alive, or a primitive wooden ship filled with two of every "kind" of animal - including, presumably, the dinosaurs - surviving a global, several-month-long deluge.
If only Jews, Christians and Muslims could incorporate a rigorous intellectual conscience into their world-views; then humanity could breathe a little easier, sleep a little more soundly, and feel, along with Nietzsche, that "at long last the horizon appears free to us again...at long last our ships may venture out again...all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again..."
Does anyone wonder why fantastic stories like spirit-possession, giants roaming the earth, dragons, corpses rising from the dead, and various other phantasmagoria aren't widely disseminated and believed in today's world?
Is it really any wonder that all of these types of stories WERE widely disseminated and believed in a pre-historic (in an organized, methodological sense), pre-scientific time?
A team of medical scientists have just published the first serious epidemiological study on spirit possession - and its link to mental and physical illness - in post-civil war Mozambique.
It has been the epistemological and metaphysical heritage of humanity to explain natural and personal forces of nature in terms of "spirits." All sorts of supernatural beings have been postulated to explain the apparently inexplicable. The operative word here is obviously "apparently." It is my opinion that the greatest achievement of humanity has been the development of the scientific method. What used to be inexplicable has been explained - sometimes at the expense of common sense or intuition (e.g., heliocentrism, evolution via natural selection).
Broadly speaking, science is a "systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."
Now, as one who maintains a naturalistic world-view (barring enough convincing evidence otherwise), I also maintain that the scientific method evolved along with humanity and is, of course, prone to error. As Nietzsche says in The Gay Science:
"Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors. A few of these proved to be useful and helped to preserve the species: those who hit upon or inherited these had better luck in their struggle for themselves and their progeny. Such erroneous articles of faith, which were continually inherited, until they became almost part of the species, include the following: that there are enduring things; that there are equal things; that there are things, substances, bodies; that a thing is what it appears to be; that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good in itself. It is only very late that such propositions were denied and doubted; it was only very late that truth emerged - as the weakest form of knowledge."
Elsewhere Nietzsche comments on the origin of logic, which is a staple of the scientific method:
"How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished..."
All this being said, almost everyone today agrees that "error" has been phenomenally reduced throughout the history of humanity. We not only have well-understood and demonstrable explanations for those things that made enormous emotional impacts on early humans (e.g., natural forces like thunder, lightning, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.), but also for things that the vast majority of us have neither a need nor desire to understand (e.g., quantum physics, etc.).
As a side note, I have to say thank goodness for the Greeks, at least the pre-socratic thinkers like Anaximander who "made bold inquiries; he questioned the myths, the knowledge of the old, the heavens, and even the gods themselves. He was wholly rational in his approach and his quest was to derive natural explanations for phenomena that previously had been ascribed to the agency of supernatural powers...His account of meteorology constitutes a most innovative proposition. Though only partially correct, it is the first recorded attempt of a scientific explanation of the weather in the history of mankind."
Tribal humans around the world today, still living in a pre-scientific, pre-historical milieu, are still given to supernatural explanations for the events and forces that impact their daily lives. But modern civilization, for the most part, has dispensed with these erroneous but understandable delusions. Most of modern civilization doesn't readily believe stories like a woman turning into a pillar of salt, or a man being swallowed whole by a whale and coming out alive, or a primitive wooden ship filled with two of every "kind" of animal - including, presumably, the dinosaurs - surviving a global, several-month-long deluge.
If only Jews, Christians and Muslims could incorporate a rigorous intellectual conscience into their world-views; then humanity could breathe a little easier, sleep a little more soundly, and feel, along with Nietzsche, that "at long last the horizon appears free to us again...at long last our ships may venture out again...all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again..."
In Part I of this blog post, I talked about Donald Miller's - and religious believers in general - utter lack of an intellectual conscience.
There are a few more points I'd like to make that I didn't include in the previous post. Miller says, "Who knows anything anyway?" Miller is the intellectual heir (though certainly not in any rigorous sense) of a long line of philosophers - religious and otherwise - who have argued for skepticism with regard to human knowledge. In its strongest sense, skepticism is the idea that human beings can't truly know anything. Related to this, the skeptic says that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Unfortunately for the skeptic, asserting that there can be no knowledge is itself a knowledge claim. How does the skeptic know there is no knowledge? Exactly.
Lay skeptics, if you will - like Miller - argue for skepticism because they point out - and rightly so - that human beings are capable of making mistakes and errors. But this is almost too obvious to state. But what the skeptic is trying to argue is that if human beings can't have "certain" knowledge, then there can be no knowledge at all - at least not through the function of human reason. This is where they sneak in the idea of "knowing" through faith, a bastardization of terms if there ever was one. But as they're doing this, they drag in a truckload of additional epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological baggage without providing the requisite justifications for them. For example, they claim faith is a valid source of knowledge (an epistemological claim) because God (a metaphysical/ontological claim) is the source of faith, and God is perfect (another epistemological claim). But when the believer says that we can't really know anything, how can they claim to know anything about the mechanism of faith, or the existence of God, or his characteristics? (Of course, here they usually assert the authority of the bible, but that is a circular argument par excellence: How do you know there is a God? The bible says so. Who wrote the bible? God did. Etc.)
But we don't need complete certainty to claim justification for true beliefs. I don't need to prove for certain that God doesn't exist in order for me to believe (and demonstrate) that it's probable that he doesn't. It would be more difficult for me to demonstrate that the god of the Deists doesn't exist - mainly because "it" doesn't have as many characteristics as the Christian god that are capable of being refuted with logic and sound reasoning. You can think of knowledge as residing along a continuum or spectrum, from possible to probable to certain. As the level of convincing evidence rises, the more certain we are that our belief is true. My problem with a religious believer like Miller is that he claims to have experienced God but cannot - or refuses - to explain the process by which he has had this experience, and how he knows it's real. And it's not that he simply "knows" he has experienced God, he is "certain," and his hubris exceeds that of most scientists in most areas. For example, Miller says things like the following:
"Penny is living proof that Jesus still pursues people."
"[Christian spirituality] cannot be explained, yet it is beautiful and true."
At least a scientist, in his given field, has a significant amount of evidence accumulated in that field, as well as corroborating evidence from other fields as well. Science is a unifying discipline. But let's get back to Penny for a moment. I will quote this anecdote at length because it's worth it.
Remember, Miller claims in the book that “Penny is living proof that Jesus still pursues people.” But we’ll see that Jesus has some highly controversial methods. He had met Penny at Reed also, and they became friends because they were both “ridiculously insecure.” Apparently Penny had an unusual experience while studying in France, where she met one of Miller’s other friends, Nadine. He claims that Penny wanted nothing to do with religion. But her and Nadine hit it off because Nadine was very interested in Penny’s past. As a result of their blossoming friendship, Nadine’s type of Christianity became intriguing to Penny and they would have many conversations about it. Penny started reading the bible with Nadine, and they would eat chocolate and smoke cigarettes together while reading. Then one night, Penny was “pretty drunk and high,” and claimed to have heard God speak to her. He allegedly said, “Penny, I have a better life for you, not only now but forever.”
Now, it seems to me that hearing voices is a rather dubious thing, and typically coincides with a psychotic break with reality. In fact, just pages before, Miller had given Penny’s background and mentioned that her mother was in fact a paranoid schizophrenic now living on the streets of Seattle where she refuses help from anyone. Of course no one can prove that Penny didn’t hear a voice speak to her; and of course no one can prove that it wasn’t God’s voice. I’ve personally been high and drunk at the same time, too, in college, but I’ve never heard voices. It did, however, feel like I was floating on air as I mingled with the other students at the fraternity party. But I digress. Additionally, Penny also mentioned that, a couple of nights later, presumably sober, she got down on her knees and prayed to God. She says she had already come to believe that Jesus was God, though she says she doesn’t know how she came to that conclusion. She says it wasn’t like doing math or anything, she just “knew inside that He was God.” And she asked God to forgive her.
Now, this Penny episode goes back to the issue of intellectual conscience. Not only does Miller believe Penny's story, he cites it as living proof of Jesus' work in the world. The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways, no? A person with an intellectual conscience would chalk that up to hallucination and self-deception. It is almost too ridiculous to even talk about. And there was a time when I would laugh and go about my business; but with the rise of religious fundamentalism in the world, I feel compelled to do my part, however small, to combat irrationality and attempt to bring back a taste for intellectual conscience. The stakes are just getting too high.
In regard to intellectual conscience - or lack thereof - I should note that the mainstream evangelical establishment, as exemplified in the flagship journalistic endeavor of the movement, Christianity Today, had this to say about Miller's book:
"Spirituality combines deep self-examination—;Who am I, and how am I living?—with a call to integrate with the world outside the self. True spirituality is never merely about the self, but about the experience of the self in the world with God.
This true spirituality is what readers respond to in Donald Miller. His essays are personal, yes, but not solipsistic. They may resolve too quickly, but to their credit, they often do so by calling readers to greater sympathy with others, deeper faith in the love of God, and more patience during trials of discipleship. They tell of the self in the interest of community concerns. They are ultra-casual in tone, filled with the clutter of informal conversation. But that very style and tone draws evangelicals who can relate to Miller's story of faith.
Miller's books describe the experience of being evangelical in a manner that echoes the feelings and thoughts of thousands of evangelicals today. And because he is careful not to reject the faith, he helps readers—especially culturally conflicted young evangelicals—recover it. His books encourage a certain amount of Christian navel-gazing, but only long enough to get the fuzz out."
And:
"He is also neither irreverent nor bohemian—at least, not much. But for mainstream evangelicals today, Miller is a bridge to an irreverent, bohemian world. His work is framed with bohemia—a road trip, a pint of beer, an occasional curse word—but filled with explicit longing for Jesus. He never takes on basic Christian tenets or evangelical priorities such as biblical authority and spreading the gospel, but he asks just enough questions, with just enough gravity, to attract readers who have similar reservations about their faith culture. He's a sotto voce critic of evangelicalism, telling anxious audiences that it's okay to question the faith, yet keep it."
It truly makes me wonder if these reviewers actually read the book, the whole book, especially with regard to the Penny anecdote. The first reviewer said spirituality requires deep self-examination. Clearly it's not deep enough.
Also not deep enough is Miller's understanding of other religions, especially Buddhism:
"It never occurred to me that if Christianity was not rational, neither were other religions. There were times I wished I was a Buddhist, that is, I wished I could believe that stuff was true, even though I didn't know exactly what a Buddhist believed. I wondered what it would be like to rub some fat guy's belly and suddenly be overtaken with good thoughts and disciplined actions and a new car."
I'd like to let Nietzsche (in The Antichrist) tell Miller about Buddhism, and how it compares to Christianity:
"I hope that my condemnation of Christianity has not involved me in any injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of adherents: Buddhism. Both belong together as nihilistic religions...but they differ most remarkably...Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of "God" had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism): it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering."
Of course, I doubt very much that Miller would allow himself to read a book called "The Antichrist."
Finally, what most religious believers do, when they can't establish a truly respectful place for their beliefs in the world, is resort to the shelter of faith where no one can touch them. Unfortunately, this provides further confirmation that religious belief eventually comes down to self-deception and wish fulfillment. People who have "deep convictions," as Miller calls them, with regard to religious beliefs, need their convictions. In Miller's own words:
"I was starting to believe I was a character in a greater story."
"The truths of the Bible were like magic, like messages from heaven, like codes, enchanting codes that offered power over life, a sort of power that turned sorrow to joy..."
"But even more than that, to be honest, I wanted to know who I was."
"I never asked to be human."
"It was wonderful because I forgot my problems."
"I need wonder. I know that death is coming."
"I need wonder to explain what is going to happen to me...I need something mysterious to happen after I die. I need to be somewhere else after I die..."
"I need to know that God has things figured out..."
"I need for there to be something bigger than me..."
"I think I realized that if I walked up to His campfire...I think he would tell me what my gifts are and why I have them, and He would give me ideas on how to use them. I think He would explain to me why my father left, and He would point out very clearly all the ways God has taken care of me through the years, all the stuff God protected me from."
There are many more ludicrous things in this book, but I really don't think I have the patience to get through them all. In the final analysis, this book is a sermon to the choir. But it's also a telling testament to the persistent, pervasive and obdurate nature of religious belief, and the foundation and justification it lays for dangerous acts.
In Part I of this blog post, I talked about Donald Miller's - and religious believers in general - utter lack of an intellectual conscience.
There are a few more points I'd like to make that I didn't include in the previous post. Miller says, "Who knows anything anyway?" Miller is the intellectual heir (though certainly not in any rigorous sense) of a long line of philosophers - religious and otherwise - who have argued for skepticism with regard to human knowledge. In its strongest sense, skepticism is the idea that human beings can't truly know anything. Related to this, the skeptic says that we must doubt every alleged instance of knowledge. Unfortunately for the skeptic, asserting that there can be no knowledge is itself a knowledge claim. How does the skeptic know there is no knowledge? Exactly.
Lay skeptics, if you will - like Miller - argue for skepticism because they point out - and rightly so - that human beings are capable of making mistakes and errors. But this is almost too obvious to state. But what the skeptic is trying to argue is that if human beings can't have "certain" knowledge, then there can be no knowledge at all - at least not through the function of human reason. This is where they sneak in the idea of "knowing" through faith, a bastardization of terms if there ever was one. But as they're doing this, they drag in a truckload of additional epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological baggage without providing the requisite justifications for them. For example, they claim faith is a valid source of knowledge (an epistemological claim) because God (a metaphysical/ontological claim) is the source of faith, and God is perfect (another epistemological claim). But when the believer says that we can't really know anything, how can they claim to know anything about the mechanism of faith, or the existence of God, or his characteristics? (Of course, here they usually assert the authority of the bible, but that is a circular argument par excellence: How do you know there is a God? The bible says so. Who wrote the bible? God did. Etc.)
But we don't need complete certainty to claim justification for true beliefs. I don't need to prove for certain that God doesn't exist in order for me to believe (and demonstrate) that it's probable that he doesn't. It would be more difficult for me to demonstrate that the god of the Deists doesn't exist - mainly because "it" doesn't have as many characteristics as the Christian god that are capable of being refuted with logic and sound reasoning. You can think of knowledge as residing along a continuum or spectrum, from possible to probable to certain. As the level of convincing evidence rises, the more certain we are that our belief is true. My problem with a religious believer like Miller is that he claims to have experienced God but cannot - or refuses - to explain the process by which he has had this experience, and how he knows it's real. And it's not that he simply "knows" he has experienced God, he is "certain," and his hubris exceeds that of most scientists in most areas. For example, Miller says things like the following:
"Penny is living proof that Jesus still pursues people."
"[Christian spirituality] cannot be explained, yet it is beautiful and true."
At least a scientist, in his given field, has a significant amount of evidence accumulated in that field, as well as corroborating evidence from other fields as well. Science is a unifying discipline. But let's get back to Penny for a moment. I will quote this anecdote at length because it's worth it.
Remember, Miller claims in the book that “Penny is living proof that Jesus still pursues people.” But we’ll see that Jesus has some highly controversial methods. He had met Penny at Reed also, and they became friends because they were both “ridiculously insecure.” Apparently Penny had an unusual experience while studying in France, where she met one of Miller’s other friends, Nadine. He claims that Penny wanted nothing to do with religion. But her and Nadine hit it off because Nadine was very interested in Penny’s past. As a result of their blossoming friendship, Nadine’s type of Christianity became intriguing to Penny and they would have many conversations about it. Penny started reading the bible with Nadine, and they would eat chocolate and smoke cigarettes together while reading. Then one night, Penny was “pretty drunk and high,” and claimed to have heard God speak to her. He allegedly said, “Penny, I have a better life for you, not only now but forever.”
Now, it seems to me that hearing voices is a rather dubious thing, and typically coincides with a psychotic break with reality. In fact, just pages before, Miller had given Penny’s background and mentioned that her mother was in fact a paranoid schizophrenic now living on the streets of Seattle where she refuses help from anyone. Of course no one can prove that Penny didn’t hear a voice speak to her; and of course no one can prove that it wasn’t God’s voice. I’ve personally been high and drunk at the same time, too, in college, but I’ve never heard voices. It did, however, feel like I was floating on air as I mingled with the other students at the fraternity party. But I digress. Additionally, Penny also mentioned that, a couple of nights later, presumably sober, she got down on her knees and prayed to God. She says she had already come to believe that Jesus was God, though she says she doesn’t know how she came to that conclusion. She says it wasn’t like doing math or anything, she just “knew inside that He was God.” And she asked God to forgive her.
Now, this Penny episode goes back to the issue of intellectual conscience. Not only does Miller believe Penny's story, he cites it as living proof of Jesus' work in the world. The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways, no? A person with an intellectual conscience would chalk that up to hallucination and self-deception. It is almost too ridiculous to even talk about. And there was a time when I would laugh and go about my business; but with the rise of religious fundamentalism in the world, I feel compelled to do my part, however small, to combat irrationality and attempt to bring back a taste for intellectual conscience. The stakes are just getting too high.
In regard to intellectual conscience - or lack thereof - I should note that the mainstream evangelical establishment, as exemplified in the flagship journalistic endeavor of the movement, Christianity Today, had this to say about Miller's book:
"Spirituality combines deep self-examination—;Who am I, and how am I living?—with a call to integrate with the world outside the self. True spirituality is never merely about the self, but about the experience of the self in the world with God.
This true spirituality is what readers respond to in Donald Miller. His essays are personal, yes, but not solipsistic. They may resolve too quickly, but to their credit, they often do so by calling readers to greater sympathy with others, deeper faith in the love of God, and more patience during trials of discipleship. They tell of the self in the interest of community concerns. They are ultra-casual in tone, filled with the clutter of informal conversation. But that very style and tone draws evangelicals who can relate to Miller's story of faith.
Miller's books describe the experience of being evangelical in a manner that echoes the feelings and thoughts of thousands of evangelicals today. And because he is careful not to reject the faith, he helps readers—especially culturally conflicted young evangelicals—recover it. His books encourage a certain amount of Christian navel-gazing, but only long enough to get the fuzz out."
And:
"He is also neither irreverent nor bohemian—at least, not much. But for mainstream evangelicals today, Miller is a bridge to an irreverent, bohemian world. His work is framed with bohemia—a road trip, a pint of beer, an occasional curse word—but filled with explicit longing for Jesus. He never takes on basic Christian tenets or evangelical priorities such as biblical authority and spreading the gospel, but he asks just enough questions, with just enough gravity, to attract readers who have similar reservations about their faith culture. He's a sotto voce critic of evangelicalism, telling anxious audiences that it's okay to question the faith, yet keep it."
It truly makes me wonder if these reviewers actually read the book, the whole book, especially with regard to the Penny anecdote. The first reviewer said spirituality requires deep self-examination. Clearly it's not deep enough.
Also not deep enough is Miller's understanding of other religions, especially Buddhism:
"It never occurred to me that if Christianity was not rational, neither were other religions. There were times I wished I was a Buddhist, that is, I wished I could believe that stuff was true, even though I didn't know exactly what a Buddhist believed. I wondered what it would be like to rub some fat guy's belly and suddenly be overtaken with good thoughts and disciplined actions and a new car."
I'd like to let Nietzsche (in The Antichrist) tell Miller about Buddhism, and how it compares to Christianity:
"I hope that my condemnation of Christianity has not involved me in any injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of adherents: Buddhism. Both belong together as nihilistic religions...but they differ most remarkably...Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of "God" had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism): it no longer says "struggle against sin" but, duly respectful of reality, "struggle against suffering."
Of course, I doubt very much that Miller would allow himself to read a book called "The Antichrist."
Finally, what most religious believers do, when they can't establish a truly respectful place for their beliefs in the world, is resort to the shelter of faith where no one can touch them. Unfortunately, this provides further confirmation that religious belief eventually comes down to self-deception and wish fulfillment. People who have "deep convictions," as Miller calls them, with regard to religious beliefs, need their convictions. In Miller's own words:
"I was starting to believe I was a character in a greater story."
"The truths of the Bible were like magic, like messages from heaven, like codes, enchanting codes that offered power over life, a sort of power that turned sorrow to joy..."
"But even more than that, to be honest, I wanted to know who I was."
"I never asked to be human."
"It was wonderful because I forgot my problems."
"I need wonder. I know that death is coming."
"I need wonder to explain what is going to happen to me...I need something mysterious to happen after I die. I need to be somewhere else after I die..."
"I need to know that God has things figured out..."
"I need for there to be something bigger than me..."
"I think I realized that if I walked up to His campfire...I think he would tell me what my gifts are and why I have them, and He would give me ideas on how to use them. I think He would explain to me why my father left, and He would point out very clearly all the ways God has taken care of me through the years, all the stuff God protected me from."
There are many more ludicrous things in this book, but I really don't think I have the patience to get through them all. In the final analysis, this book is a sermon to the choir. But it's also a telling testament to the persistent, pervasive and obdurate nature of religious belief, and the foundation and justification it lays for dangerous acts.
I'd like to give a review (polemic?) of influential evangelical author and public speaker Donald Miller's book, Blue Like Jazz.
But first, I'd like to lay my ideological cards on the table at the outset: I am an unabashed atheist who has cultivated a strong intellectual conscience, something Donald Miller in general - and religious believers in particular - sorely lack. I am sympathetic to Nietzsche's lament when he wrote back in 1882 in The Gay Science:
"I keep having the same experience and keep resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this 'great majority.'"
Elsewhere in the same volume Nietzsche states:
"One sort of honesty has been alien to all founders of religions and their kind: They have never made their experiences a matter of conscience for knowledge. 'What did I really experience? What happened in me and around me at that time? Was my reason bright enough? Was my will opposed to all deceptions of the senses and bold in resisting the fantastic?' None of them has asked such questions, nor do any of our dear religious people ask them even now. On the contrary, they thirst after things that go against reason, and they do not wish to make it too hard for themselves to satisfy it. So they experience 'miracles' and 'rebirths' and hear the voices of little angels!"
And as we'll see in Miller's memoir, his book is rife with this kind of intellectual laziness (resistance?). What's more, he and his friends and acquaintances even hear the voice of God! And we'll see how badly Miller himself thirsts after things that oppose reason...
My main gripe with Miller's memoir, and his evangelism, comes down to epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as: "the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind?"
Now, I normally wouldn't be so concerned with a book like this, but this literary effort, and his public speaking, is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. To make things clear, his purpose in writing this memoir is more than just mere pedestrian voyeurism. As he states on page 239: “I want you to know Jesus too. This book is about the songs my friends and I are singing.” On the next, and final, page, he continues: “If you haven’t done it in a while, pray and talk to Jesus. Ask Him to become real to you....I can’t think of anything better that could happen to you.” With that out of the way, you can understand the stories he relates in this book in their proper context. He wants Christianity to be updated for a modern taste - he wants it to be cool to be a Christian and to love Jesus.
However, this in itself doesn't present any egregious problems; the biggest worry with Miller and his ideological commitment is when he writes, on page 111: "I would die for the gospel because I think it is the only revolutionary idea known to man." Clearly, in theory if not in practice, the radical Muslim element in the world today seeking to combat Western values and implement Sharia law are ideological kin to Miller and his ilk. Of course, he may not be speaking literally. But throughout the book, Miller and his friends claim to literally hear the Vox Dei, and even see Emily Dickinson:
"I would talk to myself sometimes, my voice coming back funny off the walls and the ceiling...I would read the poetry of Emily Dickinson out loud and pretend to have conversations with her...and I asked her if she was a lesbian. For the record, she told me she wasn't a lesbian. She was sort of offended by the question, to be honest. Emily Dickinson was the most interesting person I'd ever met. She was lovely, really, sort of quiet like a scared dog, but she engaged fine when she warmed up to me. She was terribly brilliant."
To be honest? Is he really being honest here? Now, to be fair, the excerpt above comes from a time in his life when he was painfully lonely, and he said he was "pretending" to have a conversation with the storied poet. However, what are we to make of something like this:
"I tell you of Emily Dickinson because it reminds me of the first time I thought, perhaps, I had lost my mind in isolation. I know now it was an apparition of loneliness, but I cannot tell you how very real it seemed that evening in Amherst [where Dickinson lived]."
Friends, here is where principles of epistemology come into play, as well as the concept of an intellectual conscience. He claims he knows that his vision of Miss Dickinson was an apparition. How does he know? He doesn't say. We can safely assume, however, that his metaphysical world-view doesn't allow for ghosts - only gods.
But how does he know what he claims to know? That's a matter of epistemology. By what criteria does he judge that the Emily Dickinson apparition was unreal, but that the voice he and his friends hear is the voice of the one true God? That's a matter for intellectual conscience as well. Here's Nietzsche on the subject, speaking to a fictional moralist who claims that his conscience speaks with moral authority:
"Why do you consider this, precisely this, right?
'Because this is what my conscience tells me; and the voice of conscience is never immoral, for it alone determines what is to be moral.'
But why do you listen to the voice of your conscience? And what gives you the right to consider such judgment true and infallible? For this faith - is there no conscience for that? Have you never heard of an intellectual conscience? A conscience behind your conscience? Your judgment 'this is right' has a pre-history in your instincts, likes, dislikes, experiences, and lack of experiences. 'How did it originate there?' you must ask, and also: 'What is it that impels me to listen to it?' You can listen to its commands like a good soldier who hears his officer's commands. Or like a flatterer and coward who is afraid of the commander. Or like a dunderhead who obeys because no objection occurs to him. In short, there are a hundred ways in which you can listen to your conscience. But that you take this or that judgment for the voice of conscience - in other words, that you feel something to be right - may be due to the fact that you have never thought much about yourself and simply have accepted blindly that what you have been told ever since your childhood was right."
I should note here that Miller was raised Southern Baptist. Like Miller, I, too, was born into born-again Christianity, and the better part of my adult life has been characterized by an at-first subconscious and, later, conscious, effort to extricate myself from my religious upbringing. I'm 38 years old; Miller is 39. Somehow the two of us have arrived at diametrically opposed views about the universe in which we live. I attribute this difference to an intellectual conscience; or, in Miller's case - a lack of it.
At this point, I'd like to present a representative sample of Miller and his friends' epistemology and intellectual conscience (or lack of it) in action:
“I could sense very deeply that God wanted a relationship with Laura.”
“I feel like He is after me.”
“I feel as though I need to believe.”
“My dislike for institutions is mostly a feeling, though, not something that can be explained.”
“I could feel that God was answering my prayer so I went.”
“It is the nuttiest youth group you will ever see, but that is what God said to do.”
“I could feel God’s love for him.”
“I knew it was true. I could feel that it was true.”
“I felt like God was saying that if I had faith she would marry me.”
“I am certain it was the voice of God because it was accompanied by such a strong epiphany.”
As you can see from this sample, Miller et al. claim knowledge via feelings. Feelings, sensations, intuitions - all of these may in fact have strong emotional tones to them, but that doesn't qualify them for knowledge. I particularly like the last quote, and it's particularly ironic in that Miller's friend-turned-Christian, Penny, had a mother who was a paranoid schizophrenic. Does Miller not realize that paranoid schizophrenics hear voices and have strong epiphanies? Of course he does. Does he realize that their hallucinations don't correspond to reality? Of course he does. But how does he know that his and his friends' hallucinations are not of the same class? He doesn't.
Miller gives himself away with regard to his attitude toward an intellectual conscience when he writes:
"My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don’t really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don’t believe in God and they can prove that He doesn’t exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove that He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it’s about who is smarter, and honestly I don’t care. I don’t believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything."
Who knows anything anyway? Is that a reason to simply give up? If you're willing to die for something, as Miller claims he is, don't you owe it to yourself - and to society at large - to NOT give up? Intellectual conscience demands that we "scrutinize our experiences as severely as a scientific experiment," to quote Nietzsche again. And if you can't come to an adequate resolution or conclusion, then living in a civil society demands that you practice agnosticism!
Refusing to engage an intellectual conscience is irresponsible; refusing to do so while being willing to die for an ideology is outright dangerous.
I'd like to give a review (polemic?) of influential evangelical author and public speaker Donald Miller's book, Blue Like Jazz.
But first, I'd like to lay my ideological cards on the table at the outset: I am an unabashed atheist who has cultivated a strong intellectual conscience, something Donald Miller in general - and religious believers in particular - sorely lack. I am sympathetic to Nietzsche's lament when he wrote back in 1882 in The Gay Science:
"I keep having the same experience and keep resisting it every time. I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. Indeed, it has often seemed to me as if anyone calling for an intellectual conscience were as lonely in the most densely populated cities as if he were in a desert. Everybody looks at you with strange eyes and goes right on handling his scales, calling this good and that evil. Nobody even blushes when you intimate that their weights are underweight; nor do people feel outraged; they merely laugh at your doubts. I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward: the most gifted men and the noblest women still belong to this 'great majority.'"
Elsewhere in the same volume Nietzsche states:
"One sort of honesty has been alien to all founders of religions and their kind: They have never made their experiences a matter of conscience for knowledge. 'What did I really experience? What happened in me and around me at that time? Was my reason bright enough? Was my will opposed to all deceptions of the senses and bold in resisting the fantastic?' None of them has asked such questions, nor do any of our dear religious people ask them even now. On the contrary, they thirst after things that go against reason, and they do not wish to make it too hard for themselves to satisfy it. So they experience 'miracles' and 'rebirths' and hear the voices of little angels!"
And as we'll see in Miller's memoir, his book is rife with this kind of intellectual laziness (resistance?). What's more, he and his friends and acquaintances even hear the voice of God! And we'll see how badly Miller himself thirsts after things that oppose reason...
My main gripe with Miller's memoir, and his evangelism, comes down to epistemology. Epistemology can be defined as: "the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind?"
Now, I normally wouldn't be so concerned with a book like this, but this literary effort, and his public speaking, is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. To make things clear, his purpose in writing this memoir is more than just mere pedestrian voyeurism. As he states on page 239: “I want you to know Jesus too. This book is about the songs my friends and I are singing.” On the next, and final, page, he continues: “If you haven’t done it in a while, pray and talk to Jesus. Ask Him to become real to you....I can’t think of anything better that could happen to you.” With that out of the way, you can understand the stories he relates in this book in their proper context. He wants Christianity to be updated for a modern taste - he wants it to be cool to be a Christian and to love Jesus.
However, this in itself doesn't present any egregious problems; the biggest worry with Miller and his ideological commitment is when he writes, on page 111: "I would die for the gospel because I think it is the only revolutionary idea known to man." Clearly, in theory if not in practice, the radical Muslim element in the world today seeking to combat Western values and implement Sharia law are ideological kin to Miller and his ilk. Of course, he may not be speaking literally. But throughout the book, Miller and his friends claim to literally hear the Vox Dei, and even see Emily Dickinson:
"I would talk to myself sometimes, my voice coming back funny off the walls and the ceiling...I would read the poetry of Emily Dickinson out loud and pretend to have conversations with her...and I asked her if she was a lesbian. For the record, she told me she wasn't a lesbian. She was sort of offended by the question, to be honest. Emily Dickinson was the most interesting person I'd ever met. She was lovely, really, sort of quiet like a scared dog, but she engaged fine when she warmed up to me. She was terribly brilliant."
To be honest? Is he really being honest here? Now, to be fair, the excerpt above comes from a time in his life when he was painfully lonely, and he said he was "pretending" to have a conversation with the storied poet. However, what are we to make of something like this:
"I tell you of Emily Dickinson because it reminds me of the first time I thought, perhaps, I had lost my mind in isolation. I know now it was an apparition of loneliness, but I cannot tell you how very real it seemed that evening in Amherst [where Dickinson lived]."
Friends, here is where principles of epistemology come into play, as well as the concept of an intellectual conscience. He claims he knows that his vision of Miss Dickinson was an apparition. How does he know? He doesn't say. We can safely assume, however, that his metaphysical world-view doesn't allow for ghosts - only gods.
But how does he know what he claims to know? That's a matter of epistemology. By what criteria does he judge that the Emily Dickinson apparition was unreal, but that the voice he and his friends hear is the voice of the one true God? That's a matter for intellectual conscience as well. Here's Nietzsche on the subject, speaking to a fictional moralist who claims that his conscience speaks with moral authority:
"Why do you consider this, precisely this, right?
'Because this is what my conscience tells me; and the voice of conscience is never immoral, for it alone determines what is to be moral.'
But why do you listen to the voice of your conscience? And what gives you the right to consider such judgment true and infallible? For this faith - is there no conscience for that? Have you never heard of an intellectual conscience? A conscience behind your conscience? Your judgment 'this is right' has a pre-history in your instincts, likes, dislikes, experiences, and lack of experiences. 'How did it originate there?' you must ask, and also: 'What is it that impels me to listen to it?' You can listen to its commands like a good soldier who hears his officer's commands. Or like a flatterer and coward who is afraid of the commander. Or like a dunderhead who obeys because no objection occurs to him. In short, there are a hundred ways in which you can listen to your conscience. But that you take this or that judgment for the voice of conscience - in other words, that you feel something to be right - may be due to the fact that you have never thought much about yourself and simply have accepted blindly that what you have been told ever since your childhood was right."
I should note here that Miller was raised Southern Baptist. Like Miller, I, too, was born into born-again Christianity, and the better part of my adult life has been characterized by an at-first subconscious and, later, conscious, effort to extricate myself from my religious upbringing. I'm 38 years old; Miller is 39. Somehow the two of us have arrived at diametrically opposed views about the universe in which we live. I attribute this difference to an intellectual conscience; or, in Miller's case - a lack of it.
At this point, I'd like to present a representative sample of Miller and his friends' epistemology and intellectual conscience (or lack of it) in action:
“I could sense very deeply that God wanted a relationship with Laura.”
“I feel like He is after me.”
“I feel as though I need to believe.”
“My dislike for institutions is mostly a feeling, though, not something that can be explained.”
“I could feel that God was answering my prayer so I went.”
“It is the nuttiest youth group you will ever see, but that is what God said to do.”
“I could feel God’s love for him.”
“I knew it was true. I could feel that it was true.”
“I felt like God was saying that if I had faith she would marry me.”
“I am certain it was the voice of God because it was accompanied by such a strong epiphany.”
As you can see from this sample, Miller et al. claim knowledge via feelings. Feelings, sensations, intuitions - all of these may in fact have strong emotional tones to them, but that doesn't qualify them for knowledge. I particularly like the last quote, and it's particularly ironic in that Miller's friend-turned-Christian, Penny, had a mother who was a paranoid schizophrenic. Does Miller not realize that paranoid schizophrenics hear voices and have strong epiphanies? Of course he does. Does he realize that their hallucinations don't correspond to reality? Of course he does. But how does he know that his and his friends' hallucinations are not of the same class? He doesn't.
Miller gives himself away with regard to his attitude toward an intellectual conscience when he writes:
"My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I don’t really do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don’t believe in God and they can prove that He doesn’t exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove that He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it’s about who is smarter, and honestly I don’t care. I don’t believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away from Him, and please pray that I never do, I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons, the same reasons that any of us do anything."
Who knows anything anyway? Is that a reason to simply give up? If you're willing to die for something, as Miller claims he is, don't you owe it to yourself - and to society at large - to NOT give up? Intellectual conscience demands that we "scrutinize our experiences as severely as a scientific experiment," to quote Nietzsche again. And if you can't come to an adequate resolution or conclusion, then living in a civil society demands that you practice agnosticism!
Refusing to engage an intellectual conscience is irresponsible; refusing to do so while being willing to die for an ideology is outright dangerous.
I know I said that I wasn't going to blog about atheism and religion, or atheism versus religion, etc.; but I think it's important to sometimes reflect on the difficult soul-searching that goes on inside the "souls" of those who were raised in some type of religious faith.
As I've recounted elsewhere, I've gone through my own "dark night of the soul." I think those of us atheists who were not raised in a traditionally religious home cannot quite appreciate the unique intellectual and emotional journey of those born into a hegemonic religious milieu.
The following article is from Psychology Today:
Public identity and private belief are never more at odds than when a preacher loses his faith.
By: Bruce Grierson
James McAllister, a 56-year-old Lutheran minister in the midwest, was working on his sunday sermon one Thursday afternoon last summer. It wasn't going well. The reverend wasn't suffering from writer's block—in fact, he was crafting quite an elegant parable about "the importance of making our whole lives a prayer." No, the problem was bigger than that. The sermon skated around a private truth that McAllister could no longer deny.
McAllister has learned that you can tell inspirational stories, grounded in social justice and tolerance and peace, without having to bring God into the picture—and this sermon was a masterful case in point. A woman in his congregation had recently dropped everything to care for her cancer-stricken daughter, and that selfless commitment was sacred in its way. "You can see how I cook the books a little bit to make it easier to look in the mirror," he says of his sermons. "But there are times when I get that sort of empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm a fraud."
Months ago, McAllister, who is presented pseudonymously here, took his crisis to the bishop. He'd lost the faith, he explained, and he wanted out.
"Oh you're not quitting," she said, waving her hand dismissively. "You haven't lost your faith."
"Um, yeah I have," McAllister said. "This is for real."
The bishop shook her head. For the church elders, McAllister's revelations simply did not compute.
"They're either in complete denial," he says, "or they're completely comfortable with the idea that they have a pastor who's a fraud, as long as he puts asses in the seats."
McAllister took the issue up with his psychiatrist. "It emerged that she was a devout Christian herself," he says. "To her credit, she tried to be professional." Where she had once begun and ended their sessions with prayer, she stopped when he asked her to. "But I could see she was squirming. You know, she was sitting with a man of the cloth who had lost it. She had problems with that."
To be a clergyman struggling with God in modern times is to reside at the center of a great battle. At a time when the tension between faith and doubt arguably defines the distance between people more than does gender or race or even politics, the Doubting Priest bears witness for the defense and the prosecution. (Mother Teresa's grave spiritual doubt, as revealed last fall in her letters, means one of two things: Either the closest thing to a modern saint was a phony, or her trials actually make her religious life more meaningful, a poignant example of faith not as a certainty but as a required test that leads to a more profound commitment.) The spiritual struggles of ministers and priests and rabbis remind us that, amid encroaching fundamentalism, atheism is also on the rise. The neo-atheist movement is fueled by outspoken academics and intellectuals including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others who bombard the airwaves and bestseller lists with their calls for deconversion. You can now send your kid to an atheist summer camp or get yourself certifiably "de-baptized." (Britain's national Secular Society offers the service: "Liberate yourself from the original mumbo jumbo that liberated you from the original sin you never had.") There are hundreds of college-campus groups devoted to secular humanism. The Atheist Alliance International reports "so many speaking requests that leaders of national atheist groups can't keep up."
Even amid the neo-atheist din, a clergy member's crisis of faith stands out. The natural order of things is upset when those entrusted with the protection of souls lose the plot. Because the clergy's livelihood and public identity are intimately bound up with their faith, practical considerations can be just as pressing as theological doubt. And the split between private beliefs and public sermons can leave religious leaders feeling deeply inauthentic, a source of psychic stress that most laypeople will never know.
Many soul-searching clergy never leave the church, making the ranks of ordained agnostics and atheists impossible to tally. But the raw numbers aren't much on the minds of clergy actually in the throes of deconversion. Their doubt is as real and immediate as a cloud over the sun. And somewhere in the nest of questions is a simple one: How did this happen?
McAllister had been raised Catholic, then drifted into a 25-year interregnum where he stopped going to church and called himself an atheist. A midlife spiritual restlessness nudged him into chaplaincy training years ago. A second-career minister—for most of his life he was a graphic designer and a fine artist—McAllister approaches the Big Questions more in the manner of a scholar than of a monk. (Even as a Catholic grade-school kid, he recalls, he hungered for real evidence. "Why," he would ask the nuns, "did this stuff all happen so long ago before there were cameras and TVs? Why aren't there prophets and holy people and miracles now?") Frustrated with his denomination but by no means ready to bail out, he picked up Sam Harris's book The End of Faith. He found he "agreed with about 98 percent of it."
He picked up other books in the neo-atheist canon. He read Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, and then the one-two punch of Christopher Hitchens's mega-bestselling God Is Not Great and his earlier Letter to a Christian Nation. He closed the latter book and found himself saying, aloud, "Amen." He had to face his misgivings. "I realized, it isn't just that I'm hurt by the way I was treated at synod, and it isn't just that the senior pastor that I work with was an asshole. It's that I don't believe in this anymore. And that was terrifying."
McAllister is not just scared for himself. "I know that my parishioners look to me for comfort," he says. "They're coming to the end of their life and they want some assurance that it's all going to be OK. I have sat at the deathbed of people in my congregation and told them what I regard as lies—or fantasies, at least—just to give them comfort. I'm willing to do that up to a point, but not for the rest of my working life."
Then there's the practical dimension. McAllister owes the church $18,000 for his schooling, at the same time as he's trying to put his last son through college. "I'm 56, which isn't a real good age to be pounding the pavement, and I've got a master's of divinity, not the most marketable degree in the world."
Richard Dawkins is convinced that McAllister's situation is common; in fact, he hopes one day to address it through "clergyman-retraining scholarships," set up through his charitable foundation, to "bridge the gap between living a lie and getting a new life," as he puts it.
McAllister's dilemma is familiar to Dan Barker, who coheads the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The group spreads the word about atheism and fights legal battles to keep church and state separate. It is a soft place to land for the doubters who find it. Barker daily receives e-mails and letters from people who are wrestling with issues of faith, and he always writes back promptly and cheerily. E-mails from clergy are a very small part of the mix. But of all the stories he hears, these are the ones that resonate most—because they are his story, too.
Barker was a religious prodigy. Raised attending a charismatic Pentecostal church near Disneyland, he received "the call" at age 15, and wasted no time spreading the good news. He converted his high-school Spanish teacher. He became part of an evangelical team that went door-to-door holding revival meetings. He penned and performed popular Christian jingles.
But after a milestone birthday, number 30, came and went in 1979, Barker found himself agitated. Creatively, he was stalled; he was having trouble working on a Christian musical about a lost lamb, "because," he explains, "my views were changing while I was trying to write it." The restlessness, he determined, was spiritual. "It was as if there was a little knock on my skull and somebody was saying, 'Hello! Anybody home?' I was starving and didn't know it, like when you work hard on a project and forget to eat and don't know you are hungry until you are really hungry."
He began reading widely outside the Christian canon: science magazines, psychology, philosophy. It was the liberal-arts education he never had, and what followed was "a slow but steady migration across the theological spectrum" that took about five years. (Among the deeply faithful, doubt is often first stoked with exposure to the "outside world.")
As he carried on a secret life of secular reading, Barker phased out the fire-and-brimstone sermons. "But even then I felt hypocritical, often hearing myself mouth words about which I was no longer sure, but words that the audience wanted to hear."
The confirmation, as Barker interpreted it, came one night in November, as he lay on a burlap cot in a church in a Mexican border town where he'd come to give a guest sermon. As he peered out at a splash of stars, Barker had a sudden profound sensation that had nothing to do with intellect, the kind of deeply felt moment more commonly associated with finding God than losing Him. He was, Barker understood, utterly alone here.
"For my whole life there had been this giant eyeball looking at me, this god, this holy spirit, this church history, and this Bible. And not only everything I did but everything I thought was being judged: Was God pleased? I realized that that wasn't there anymore. It occurred to me, 'I own these thoughts. Nobody knows what I'm thinking right now. There's no fear of hell, no fear of judgment, I don't have to be right or wrong, I can just be me.'" It felt as if charges had been dropped for a crime for which he had been falsely accused. It was exhilarating and frightening all at once. "When you're ready to jump out of an airplane to skydive, you can be terrified but excited at the same time," he says. "There's a point where you go, all right, let's do this."
Says Barker: "we surveyed our members some years ago, asking them: "If you were raised religious, why did you change your mind?" There was no one answer. Some people gave social reasons: the way the church treats women. Some people gave reasons like, 'the fear of hell—I just couldn't live with that.' But the answer people gave more often than any other was that it was intellectual: Religion eventually just did not make sense."
Looking back, Tom Reed, a former Roman Catholic priest from Mississippi, can pretty clearly identify his own moment of truth. It followed a quick succession of historical events: the 1968 Vatican statement upholding opposition to birth control and the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The two events finished off Reed's faith in the church and his faith in God.
For Reed, deconversion was almost as quick and binary as the flick of a switch. At a certain point, he says, "it was suddenly clear that the courageous thing to do was to just admit that this is all made up.
"I remember waking up one day saying, I'm going to practice being an atheist, just move through the day with that in mind. It had become a part of my being, the idea that God was ultimately responsible for everything that was happening. Now I proceeded from the assumption that there was no God in the picture."
It sounds like a coolly rational process, a Jesuitical internal debate tipping forward into certainty. It wasn't. "It was scary as hell," Reed says. "I realized, 'I'm not going to see my mother and father again.' " The sense of cold finality, the impression that one's prayers are just so many tennis balls served into the ocean: Such existential issues are a big part of anybody's crisis of faith. But for religious leaders, the stakes are raised even further, for faith is no longer a private matter.
"As a clergyman your livelihood is not just a job—it's a whole theological system that you'd better be on board with," says Dick Hewetson, a former Episcopal minister from Minnesota who left the church to do secular work and soon called himself an atheist.
"It hit me during those last couple of years in the pulpit that everything coming out of my mouth was being taken as gospel," he says. "I began to think, This is crazy. If I tell these people something, they believe me. Remember Jonestown? People asked, How could that happen? Well, I know how. I wasn't the Jim Jones type, and my people weren't the Jonestown type. But I was the shepherd and they were the sheep, for sure."
Charles Templeton, the late Canadian evangelist-turned-journalist, argued that a disjunction between what clergymen say publicly and what they believe privately is so common that serious cognitive dissonance comes with the territory. "Most intelligent clergymen preach to the right of their theology," Templeton wrote in his memoir Farewell to God. "They are more conservative in the pulpit than they are in private conversation or when counseling a parishioner."
What eventually happens, as it did for James McAllister, is that sermons become cooler and less dogmatic. The clergyman, stated Templeton, "is likely to settle for what might best be described as an altruistic, do-goodest Christian philosophy."
Krista Wren [name changed], who never became a minister only because doors were quietly closed in front of her, tells a tale of spiritual disaffection with an ironic twist. A minister's wife from Atlanta and "a flailing Christian for 23 years," Wren worked with her husband on Pat Robertson's ministry before leaving to do missionary work in Africa. She thought of herself as a missionary; unfortunately for her, no one else did. At one fund-raising meeting prior to the couple's African departure, three dozen people gathered around her husband, Tom [name changed], and one said a prayer: "God, anoint Tom to bring forth your word with power! Let him see miracles as he prays for the people of Africa. May he lead many to Christ as you empower his words... " Then the crowd gathered around her. She held her breath in anticipation. "And Dear God," a woman's voice said, "please give Krista creative ways to do laundry." It was a decisive moment and in a way a portent of the end. "Maybe I've not gotten past it because it sums up the mind of many churches and even so many scriptures," Wren wrote in a recent e-mail to Dan Barker, with whom she had been corresponding. "Men do great things for God—and women wash their shorts."
Wren is currently a hairsbreadth away from throwing it all over the side and coming out as an atheist.
But here is the twist: Her husband became a pastor only because, many years ago, she converted him. ("And with a great deal of effort.") Now she's heading back across the bridge the other way. She is virtually certain he won't make the trip with her. What is certain is that their marriage will be tested. Her disaffection is a subject so delicate she handles it with tongs.
"I'm hesitant to say too much, but the things that I have said have caused him to look as though his dog just died. When he learned I was corresponding with Dan—he looked over my shoulder in the middle of an e-mail—the color drained from his face. He shook his head and said, as he walked out of the room, 'This is just sad.' Well, part of me thinks it's sad, and part of me thinks it's about damn time."
Barker's own marriage did not survive his spiritual U-turn. (His wife, who remains faithful, remarried a Baptist minister.) And their four children?
"We both agreed that the children should never have to be in a position where they had to choose sides." One son has announced that he doesn't believe in God. One daughter "was going to a Unitarian church for a while, and I think she might be a nominal believer." A second daughter "has been a New Agey believer for a while." The third daughter is patently, traditionally religious. Barker seems pleased by the way the kids landed all across the spectrum of belief/disbelief, pixels in a snapshot of free will. Religious conversion is often explained in part as an effort to relieve the tension of uncertainty ("If the decision could be made conscious," psychiatrist M. Scott Peck once wrote, "I think it would be as if that person said to himself or herself, 'I am willing to do anything—anything—in order to liberate myself from this chaos.'") But letting faith go, in the end, can bring relief, too.
"We tend to ignore how much cognitive effort is required to maintain extreme religious beliefs, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever," says the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. He likens the process to a cell trying to maintain its osmotic pressure. "You're trying to pump out the mainstream influences all the time. You're trying to maintain this wall, and keep your beliefs inside, and all these other beliefs outside. That's hard work." In some ways, then, at least for fundamentalists, "growing out of it is the easiest thing in the world."
In Dan Barker's journey from fundamentalism to atheism, there were two stages of disillusionment. First came the loss of faith in the religion (that is, the loss of faith in the literal word), and then came the loss of faith in faith itself.
"The first step is hardest," he says. "Because as a fundamentalist, there is no middle ground.
"I remember a pastor telling me that he had a couple of congregants who didn't believe in the historical truth of Adam and Eve. They thought that Adam and Eve were a metaphor. I was shocked. I thought, 'How can you even let them be in your church? If parts of the Bible can be allegorized, then anything goes!'
"But I made the leap: OK, the fact that I disagree with these Christians should not be grounds for disfellowshipping them. That was a hard thing for me to do. But once I did it, the later flying leaps that I made were easier to take, psychologically, because I'd already admitted some gray."
A number of the clergy who have contacted Barker tell of a similar spiritual arc. It's as if a kind of psychological algorithm begins to work, with the shedding of illusions proceeding in inevitable, sequential steps, until an outdated belief is pitched with last night's coffee grounds. We wake up, if we're lucky: case closed.
And yet it is not so simple as that. Carlton Pearson is an example of a clergyman whose spiritual about-face need not end up where neo-atheists say it should. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Pearson, then a Pentecostal bishop, was among the most prominent and beloved fundamentalist preachers in the American South, heading up a megachurch in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with a loyal congregation 5,000 strong.
But something happened to Pearson as he and his church nosed toward the millennium. He stopped believing in hell and sin and the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
He was eating dinner in front of the TV with his baby daughter. On the news, Peter Jennings was revisiting Rwanda, investigating the fallout from that country's civil war. The scene was nightmarish: tiny infants, flies in their eyes and hair red from malnutrition groping at the empty breasts of their skeletal mothers. Carlton looked over at his own plump-faced child, then back at the TV. These African kids would soon be gone. Gone where? According to his own formal belief system, they were bound for hell. Somebody, he thought, needs to preach the gospel to these kids right now. To save them.
And then another thought formed. "You think I'm sucking them into hell? Carlton, look. They're already there." This, he thought, is where the pain comes from, all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. We do it to each other, and to ourselves. "I saw emergency rooms and divorce courts and jails," Pearson recalls. "For the first time in my life, I did not see God as the inventor of hell."
It was a very different Carlton Pearson who returned to the pulpit. A lot of things he had been preaching, he told his congregation, were wrong. The central premise of their faith, the idea, "as my dad used to put it, that 'You gonna be cookin,' but you ain't never gonna get done!' " was bogus. There is no eternal damnation.
Almost all of the flock abandoned Pearson, who was officially declared a heretic by the College of Pentecostal Bishops.
Like Dan Barker, Carlton Pearson made a big leap away from literalism. And that leap set a chain-reaction of new perceptions: He became much less judgmental, more receptive to people and ideas he had dismissed or discounted. Unlike Barker's leap, Pearson's did not land him in a godless place. Throughout his trials the transmission signal of the divine, a felt thing, an inarticulable but absolutely bet-the-farm certainty persisted.
And so instead of abandoning God he invented a new theology that he calls the "gospel of inclusion," and he hung out a new shingle for a church he calls New Dimensions. It's a theology that gives everyone, not just avowed Christians, hope of salvation—and spares everyone the eternal fire of hell.
"I believe the logic of God is inerrant," he says. "I don't believe that the letter is. The logic of God would be love; the letter of God would be law." That Pearson is nominally a Christian seems almost a trivial point. After he was officially declared a heretic by the College of Pentecostal Bishops, the Unitarian Church of Christ opened its arms to him; and since it preached an inclusiveness he appreciated, the denomination seemed as good a place as any to hang his hat.
The Unitarian Church is a haven for many an atheist and agnostic, offering the comforting ritual (hymns are often rewritten with nontheistic lyrics) and esprit de corps of religion, without the dogma. Suzanne Paul, a minister to the New Hope Unitarian Universalist congregation in the suburbs of Detroit, was raised Roman Catholic, but could not stop questioning the "logic" of the Bible, and concluded that she was an atheist at age 20. She became involved in humanistic Judaism through her husband and finally found a niche in New Hope, where she leads holiday celebrations she sorely missed. "We celebrate Passover, Easter, Yom Kippur, asking, 'What can we learn from this holiday?' Yom Kippur, for example, is about forgiveness and atonement. We are naturally social animals and like to be with like-minded people. I enjoy the community aspect of religion but not the theistic end of it."
It took Suzanne some three decades to openly declare herself an atheist. "I recognized early that you can clear a room if you say you're an atheist. I prefer to identify myself as a humanist."
Pearson, too, has struggled with when and how to characterize his beliefs. "I don't always say this publicly but I'm starting to feel more free to do so: I don't necessarily believe in a god, or the God; I just believe in God."
Since his new direction, Pearson's fortunes have plummeted. Only about a hundred people hear him preach on Sundays at 1 p.m. because they have to wait until the Episcopalians finish their service. "We're in a foster-care program," he says.
And when people approach him and say, "Bishop Pearson, I'm losing my faith," he now has a better answer.
"We spend our lives impersonating who we think others want us to be," he says. "And we end up as living impostors. So, when someone comes to me and tells me they're losing their faith, I congratulate them. You're starting to embrace your own thinking self—the essential, immutable, immortal self— as opposed to the accidental criminal you have been made to think you are."
Doubt, for Carlton Pearson, isn't a sign that one's faith is evaporating; it's just a sign that it's going underground and changing.
And so there emerges, in the literature of spiritual self-transformation, a kind of parallel canon between the religious conversions and the Dawkins-style deconversions. It is the idea of the full circle, or the nun-turned-religious scholar Karen Armstrong's so-called "spiral staircase," wherein we eventually come back around to our old spiritual position, but at a higher level, from which we see a wider landscape.
It's the story of the young Carl Jung. Growing up in Geneva, he watched his parson father become tormented by religious doubt. This made him reject conventional religious practice, but it sharpened his sense of the importance of some sort of personal spiritual quest, which he regarded as the main issue in the life of everyone over 35.
The desertion of priests and nuns from the Catholic church since the 1960s seems to be the story of an en masse loss of faith. "But it can also be seen as a strengthening of faith," says John Portmann, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, who is working on a book on "cultural Catholicism." (By far the most-cited reason for leaving was unrelated to God: It was church policy on celibacy and marriage.) "If some semblance of faith can persist in spite of all [the church's missteps and scandals], you know your faith is real, you weren't in it for the trappings of the church or the comfort of the rituals."
Dan Barker has now been an atheist longer than he was a believer, and he is at peace with his decision. But for the more recent deconverts, some struggles remain. Perhaps chief among them is finding a substitute for the very real consolations that faith provided. When you've lost God, how do you fill the void?
"That's what I'm wrestling with now," says James McAllister. "I don't have anyone to talk to in my heart. The prayers I used to say, I simply don't bother anymore. I obviously regard prayer to be silly, even. But it was a comforting place that I could go. I've let that go. And there is a void. And hopefully it can be replaced just by appreciating being alive."
Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2008
Last Reviewed 2 Apr 2008
Article ID: 4493
I know I said that I wasn't going to blog about atheism and religion, or atheism versus religion, etc.; but I think it's important to sometimes reflect on the difficult soul-searching that goes on inside the "souls" of those who were raised in some type of religious faith.
As I've recounted elsewhere, I've gone through my own "dark night of the soul." I think those of us atheists who were not raised in a traditionally religious home cannot quite appreciate the unique intellectual and emotional journey of those born into a hegemonic religious milieu.
The following article is from Psychology Today:
Public identity and private belief are never more at odds than when a preacher loses his faith.
By: Bruce Grierson
James McAllister, a 56-year-old Lutheran minister in the midwest, was working on his sunday sermon one Thursday afternoon last summer. It wasn't going well. The reverend wasn't suffering from writer's block—in fact, he was crafting quite an elegant parable about "the importance of making our whole lives a prayer." No, the problem was bigger than that. The sermon skated around a private truth that McAllister could no longer deny.
McAllister has learned that you can tell inspirational stories, grounded in social justice and tolerance and peace, without having to bring God into the picture—and this sermon was a masterful case in point. A woman in his congregation had recently dropped everything to care for her cancer-stricken daughter, and that selfless commitment was sacred in its way. "You can see how I cook the books a little bit to make it easier to look in the mirror," he says of his sermons. "But there are times when I get that sort of empty feeling in my stomach, like I'm a fraud."
Months ago, McAllister, who is presented pseudonymously here, took his crisis to the bishop. He'd lost the faith, he explained, and he wanted out.
"Oh you're not quitting," she said, waving her hand dismissively. "You haven't lost your faith."
"Um, yeah I have," McAllister said. "This is for real."
The bishop shook her head. For the church elders, McAllister's revelations simply did not compute.
"They're either in complete denial," he says, "or they're completely comfortable with the idea that they have a pastor who's a fraud, as long as he puts asses in the seats."
McAllister took the issue up with his psychiatrist. "It emerged that she was a devout Christian herself," he says. "To her credit, she tried to be professional." Where she had once begun and ended their sessions with prayer, she stopped when he asked her to. "But I could see she was squirming. You know, she was sitting with a man of the cloth who had lost it. She had problems with that."
To be a clergyman struggling with God in modern times is to reside at the center of a great battle. At a time when the tension between faith and doubt arguably defines the distance between people more than does gender or race or even politics, the Doubting Priest bears witness for the defense and the prosecution. (Mother Teresa's grave spiritual doubt, as revealed last fall in her letters, means one of two things: Either the closest thing to a modern saint was a phony, or her trials actually make her religious life more meaningful, a poignant example of faith not as a certainty but as a required test that leads to a more profound commitment.) The spiritual struggles of ministers and priests and rabbis remind us that, amid encroaching fundamentalism, atheism is also on the rise. The neo-atheist movement is fueled by outspoken academics and intellectuals including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others who bombard the airwaves and bestseller lists with their calls for deconversion. You can now send your kid to an atheist summer camp or get yourself certifiably "de-baptized." (Britain's national Secular Society offers the service: "Liberate yourself from the original mumbo jumbo that liberated you from the original sin you never had.") There are hundreds of college-campus groups devoted to secular humanism. The Atheist Alliance International reports "so many speaking requests that leaders of national atheist groups can't keep up."
Even amid the neo-atheist din, a clergy member's crisis of faith stands out. The natural order of things is upset when those entrusted with the protection of souls lose the plot. Because the clergy's livelihood and public identity are intimately bound up with their faith, practical considerations can be just as pressing as theological doubt. And the split between private beliefs and public sermons can leave religious leaders feeling deeply inauthentic, a source of psychic stress that most laypeople will never know.
Many soul-searching clergy never leave the church, making the ranks of ordained agnostics and atheists impossible to tally. But the raw numbers aren't much on the minds of clergy actually in the throes of deconversion. Their doubt is as real and immediate as a cloud over the sun. And somewhere in the nest of questions is a simple one: How did this happen?
McAllister had been raised Catholic, then drifted into a 25-year interregnum where he stopped going to church and called himself an atheist. A midlife spiritual restlessness nudged him into chaplaincy training years ago. A second-career minister—for most of his life he was a graphic designer and a fine artist—McAllister approaches the Big Questions more in the manner of a scholar than of a monk. (Even as a Catholic grade-school kid, he recalls, he hungered for real evidence. "Why," he would ask the nuns, "did this stuff all happen so long ago before there were cameras and TVs? Why aren't there prophets and holy people and miracles now?") Frustrated with his denomination but by no means ready to bail out, he picked up Sam Harris's book The End of Faith. He found he "agreed with about 98 percent of it."
He picked up other books in the neo-atheist canon. He read Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, and then the one-two punch of Christopher Hitchens's mega-bestselling God Is Not Great and his earlier Letter to a Christian Nation. He closed the latter book and found himself saying, aloud, "Amen." He had to face his misgivings. "I realized, it isn't just that I'm hurt by the way I was treated at synod, and it isn't just that the senior pastor that I work with was an asshole. It's that I don't believe in this anymore. And that was terrifying."
McAllister is not just scared for himself. "I know that my parishioners look to me for comfort," he says. "They're coming to the end of their life and they want some assurance that it's all going to be OK. I have sat at the deathbed of people in my congregation and told them what I regard as lies—or fantasies, at least—just to give them comfort. I'm willing to do that up to a point, but not for the rest of my working life."
Then there's the practical dimension. McAllister owes the church $18,000 for his schooling, at the same time as he's trying to put his last son through college. "I'm 56, which isn't a real good age to be pounding the pavement, and I've got a master's of divinity, not the most marketable degree in the world."
Richard Dawkins is convinced that McAllister's situation is common; in fact, he hopes one day to address it through "clergyman-retraining scholarships," set up through his charitable foundation, to "bridge the gap between living a lie and getting a new life," as he puts it.
McAllister's dilemma is familiar to Dan Barker, who coheads the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The group spreads the word about atheism and fights legal battles to keep church and state separate. It is a soft place to land for the doubters who find it. Barker daily receives e-mails and letters from people who are wrestling with issues of faith, and he always writes back promptly and cheerily. E-mails from clergy are a very small part of the mix. But of all the stories he hears, these are the ones that resonate most—because they are his story, too.
Barker was a religious prodigy. Raised attending a charismatic Pentecostal church near Disneyland, he received "the call" at age 15, and wasted no time spreading the good news. He converted his high-school Spanish teacher. He became part of an evangelical team that went door-to-door holding revival meetings. He penned and performed popular Christian jingles.
But after a milestone birthday, number 30, came and went in 1979, Barker found himself agitated. Creatively, he was stalled; he was having trouble working on a Christian musical about a lost lamb, "because," he explains, "my views were changing while I was trying to write it." The restlessness, he determined, was spiritual. "It was as if there was a little knock on my skull and somebody was saying, 'Hello! Anybody home?' I was starving and didn't know it, like when you work hard on a project and forget to eat and don't know you are hungry until you are really hungry."
He began reading widely outside the Christian canon: science magazines, psychology, philosophy. It was the liberal-arts education he never had, and what followed was "a slow but steady migration across the theological spectrum" that took about five years. (Among the deeply faithful, doubt is often first stoked with exposure to the "outside world.")
As he carried on a secret life of secular reading, Barker phased out the fire-and-brimstone sermons. "But even then I felt hypocritical, often hearing myself mouth words about which I was no longer sure, but words that the audience wanted to hear."
The confirmation, as Barker interpreted it, came one night in November, as he lay on a burlap cot in a church in a Mexican border town where he'd come to give a guest sermon. As he peered out at a splash of stars, Barker had a sudden profound sensation that had nothing to do with intellect, the kind of deeply felt moment more commonly associated with finding God than losing Him. He was, Barker understood, utterly alone here.
"For my whole life there had been this giant eyeball looking at me, this god, this holy spirit, this church history, and this Bible. And not only everything I did but everything I thought was being judged: Was God pleased? I realized that that wasn't there anymore. It occurred to me, 'I own these thoughts. Nobody knows what I'm thinking right now. There's no fear of hell, no fear of judgment, I don't have to be right or wrong, I can just be me.'" It felt as if charges had been dropped for a crime for which he had been falsely accused. It was exhilarating and frightening all at once. "When you're ready to jump out of an airplane to skydive, you can be terrified but excited at the same time," he says. "There's a point where you go, all right, let's do this."
Says Barker: "we surveyed our members some years ago, asking them: "If you were raised religious, why did you change your mind?" There was no one answer. Some people gave social reasons: the way the church treats women. Some people gave reasons like, 'the fear of hell—I just couldn't live with that.' But the answer people gave more often than any other was that it was intellectual: Religion eventually just did not make sense."
Looking back, Tom Reed, a former Roman Catholic priest from Mississippi, can pretty clearly identify his own moment of truth. It followed a quick succession of historical events: the 1968 Vatican statement upholding opposition to birth control and the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The two events finished off Reed's faith in the church and his faith in God.
For Reed, deconversion was almost as quick and binary as the flick of a switch. At a certain point, he says, "it was suddenly clear that the courageous thing to do was to just admit that this is all made up.
"I remember waking up one day saying, I'm going to practice being an atheist, just move through the day with that in mind. It had become a part of my being, the idea that God was ultimately responsible for everything that was happening. Now I proceeded from the assumption that there was no God in the picture."
It sounds like a coolly rational process, a Jesuitical internal debate tipping forward into certainty. It wasn't. "It was scary as hell," Reed says. "I realized, 'I'm not going to see my mother and father again.' " The sense of cold finality, the impression that one's prayers are just so many tennis balls served into the ocean: Such existential issues are a big part of anybody's crisis of faith. But for religious leaders, the stakes are raised even further, for faith is no longer a private matter.
"As a clergyman your livelihood is not just a job—it's a whole theological system that you'd better be on board with," says Dick Hewetson, a former Episcopal minister from Minnesota who left the church to do secular work and soon called himself an atheist.
"It hit me during those last couple of years in the pulpit that everything coming out of my mouth was being taken as gospel," he says. "I began to think, This is crazy. If I tell these people something, they believe me. Remember Jonestown? People asked, How could that happen? Well, I know how. I wasn't the Jim Jones type, and my people weren't the Jonestown type. But I was the shepherd and they were the sheep, for sure."
Charles Templeton, the late Canadian evangelist-turned-journalist, argued that a disjunction between what clergymen say publicly and what they believe privately is so common that serious cognitive dissonance comes with the territory. "Most intelligent clergymen preach to the right of their theology," Templeton wrote in his memoir Farewell to God. "They are more conservative in the pulpit than they are in private conversation or when counseling a parishioner."
What eventually happens, as it did for James McAllister, is that sermons become cooler and less dogmatic. The clergyman, stated Templeton, "is likely to settle for what might best be described as an altruistic, do-goodest Christian philosophy."
Krista Wren [name changed], who never became a minister only because doors were quietly closed in front of her, tells a tale of spiritual disaffection with an ironic twist. A minister's wife from Atlanta and "a flailing Christian for 23 years," Wren worked with her husband on Pat Robertson's ministry before leaving to do missionary work in Africa. She thought of herself as a missionary; unfortunately for her, no one else did. At one fund-raising meeting prior to the couple's African departure, three dozen people gathered around her husband, Tom [name changed], and one said a prayer: "God, anoint Tom to bring forth your word with power! Let him see miracles as he prays for the people of Africa. May he lead many to Christ as you empower his words... " Then the crowd gathered around her. She held her breath in anticipation. "And Dear God," a woman's voice said, "please give Krista creative ways to do laundry." It was a decisive moment and in a way a portent of the end. "Maybe I've not gotten past it because it sums up the mind of many churches and even so many scriptures," Wren wrote in a recent e-mail to Dan Barker, with whom she had been corresponding. "Men do great things for God—and women wash their shorts."
Wren is currently a hairsbreadth away from throwing it all over the side and coming out as an atheist.
But here is the twist: Her husband became a pastor only because, many years ago, she converted him. ("And with a great deal of effort.") Now she's heading back across the bridge the other way. She is virtually certain he won't make the trip with her. What is certain is that their marriage will be tested. Her disaffection is a subject so delicate she handles it with tongs.
"I'm hesitant to say too much, but the things that I have said have caused him to look as though his dog just died. When he learned I was corresponding with Dan—he looked over my shoulder in the middle of an e-mail—the color drained from his face. He shook his head and said, as he walked out of the room, 'This is just sad.' Well, part of me thinks it's sad, and part of me thinks it's about damn time."
Barker's own marriage did not survive his spiritual U-turn. (His wife, who remains faithful, remarried a Baptist minister.) And their four children?
"We both agreed that the children should never have to be in a position where they had to choose sides." One son has announced that he doesn't believe in God. One daughter "was going to a Unitarian church for a while, and I think she might be a nominal believer." A second daughter "has been a New Agey believer for a while." The third daughter is patently, traditionally religious. Barker seems pleased by the way the kids landed all across the spectrum of belief/disbelief, pixels in a snapshot of free will. Religious conversion is often explained in part as an effort to relieve the tension of uncertainty ("If the decision could be made conscious," psychiatrist M. Scott Peck once wrote, "I think it would be as if that person said to himself or herself, 'I am willing to do anything—anything—in order to liberate myself from this chaos.'") But letting faith go, in the end, can bring relief, too.
"We tend to ignore how much cognitive effort is required to maintain extreme religious beliefs, which have no supporting evidence whatsoever," says the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. He likens the process to a cell trying to maintain its osmotic pressure. "You're trying to pump out the mainstream influences all the time. You're trying to maintain this wall, and keep your beliefs inside, and all these other beliefs outside. That's hard work." In some ways, then, at least for fundamentalists, "growing out of it is the easiest thing in the world."
In Dan Barker's journey from fundamentalism to atheism, there were two stages of disillusionment. First came the loss of faith in the religion (that is, the loss of faith in the literal word), and then came the loss of faith in faith itself.
"The first step is hardest," he says. "Because as a fundamentalist, there is no middle ground.
"I remember a pastor telling me that he had a couple of congregants who didn't believe in the historical truth of Adam and Eve. They thought that Adam and Eve were a metaphor. I was shocked. I thought, 'How can you even let them be in your church? If parts of the Bible can be allegorized, then anything goes!'
"But I made the leap: OK, the fact that I disagree with these Christians should not be grounds for disfellowshipping them. That was a hard thing for me to do. But once I did it, the later flying leaps that I made were easier to take, psychologically, because I'd already admitted some gray."
A number of the clergy who have contacted Barker tell of a similar spiritual arc. It's as if a kind of psychological algorithm begins to work, with the shedding of illusions proceeding in inevitable, sequential steps, until an outdated belief is pitched with last night's coffee grounds. We wake up, if we're lucky: case closed.
And yet it is not so simple as that. Carlton Pearson is an example of a clergyman whose spiritual about-face need not end up where neo-atheists say it should. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Pearson, then a Pentecostal bishop, was among the most prominent and beloved fundamentalist preachers in the American South, heading up a megachurch in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with a loyal congregation 5,000 strong.
But something happened to Pearson as he and his church nosed toward the millennium. He stopped believing in hell and sin and the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
He was eating dinner in front of the TV with his baby daughter. On the news, Peter Jennings was revisiting Rwanda, investigating the fallout from that country's civil war. The scene was nightmarish: tiny infants, flies in their eyes and hair red from malnutrition groping at the empty breasts of their skeletal mothers. Carlton looked over at his own plump-faced child, then back at the TV. These African kids would soon be gone. Gone where? According to his own formal belief system, they were bound for hell. Somebody, he thought, needs to preach the gospel to these kids right now. To save them.
And then another thought formed. "You think I'm sucking them into hell? Carlton, look. They're already there." This, he thought, is where the pain comes from, all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. We do it to each other, and to ourselves. "I saw emergency rooms and divorce courts and jails," Pearson recalls. "For the first time in my life, I did not see God as the inventor of hell."
It was a very different Carlton Pearson who returned to the pulpit. A lot of things he had been preaching, he told his congregation, were wrong. The central premise of their faith, the idea, "as my dad used to put it, that 'You gonna be cookin,' but you ain't never gonna get done!' " was bogus. There is no eternal damnation.
Almost all of the flock abandoned Pearson, who was officially declared a heretic by the College of Pentecostal Bishops.
Like Dan Barker, Carlton Pearson made a big leap away from literalism. And that leap set a chain-reaction of new perceptions: He became much less judgmental, more receptive to people and ideas he had dismissed or discounted. Unlike Barker's leap, Pearson's did not land him in a godless place. Throughout his trials the transmission signal of the divine, a felt thing, an inarticulable but absolutely bet-the-farm certainty persisted.
And so instead of abandoning God he invented a new theology that he calls the "gospel of inclusion," and he hung out a new shingle for a church he calls New Dimensions. It's a theology that gives everyone, not just avowed Christians, hope of salvation—and spares everyone the eternal fire of hell.
"I believe the logic of God is inerrant," he says. "I don't believe that the letter is. The logic of God would be love; the letter of God would be law." That Pearson is nominally a Christian seems almost a trivial point. After he was officially declared a heretic by the College of Pentecostal Bishops, the Unitarian Church of Christ opened its arms to him; and since it preached an inclusiveness he appreciated, the denomination seemed as good a place as any to hang his hat.
The Unitarian Church is a haven for many an atheist and agnostic, offering the comforting ritual (hymns are often rewritten with nontheistic lyrics) and esprit de corps of religion, without the dogma. Suzanne Paul, a minister to the New Hope Unitarian Universalist congregation in the suburbs of Detroit, was raised Roman Catholic, but could not stop questioning the "logic" of the Bible, and concluded that she was an atheist at age 20. She became involved in humanistic Judaism through her husband and finally found a niche in New Hope, where she leads holiday celebrations she sorely missed. "We celebrate Passover, Easter, Yom Kippur, asking, 'What can we learn from this holiday?' Yom Kippur, for example, is about forgiveness and atonement. We are naturally social animals and like to be with like-minded people. I enjoy the community aspect of religion but not the theistic end of it."
It took Suzanne some three decades to openly declare herself an atheist. "I recognized early that you can clear a room if you say you're an atheist. I prefer to identify myself as a humanist."
Pearson, too, has struggled with when and how to characterize his beliefs. "I don't always say this publicly but I'm starting to feel more free to do so: I don't necessarily believe in a god, or the God; I just believe in God."
Since his new direction, Pearson's fortunes have plummeted. Only about a hundred people hear him preach on Sundays at 1 p.m. because they have to wait until the Episcopalians finish their service. "We're in a foster-care program," he says.
And when people approach him and say, "Bishop Pearson, I'm losing my faith," he now has a better answer.
"We spend our lives impersonating who we think others want us to be," he says. "And we end up as living impostors. So, when someone comes to me and tells me they're losing their faith, I congratulate them. You're starting to embrace your own thinking self—the essential, immutable, immortal self— as opposed to the accidental criminal you have been made to think you are."
Doubt, for Carlton Pearson, isn't a sign that one's faith is evaporating; it's just a sign that it's going underground and changing.
And so there emerges, in the literature of spiritual self-transformation, a kind of parallel canon between the religious conversions and the Dawkins-style deconversions. It is the idea of the full circle, or the nun-turned-religious scholar Karen Armstrong's so-called "spiral staircase," wherein we eventually come back around to our old spiritual position, but at a higher level, from which we see a wider landscape.
It's the story of the young Carl Jung. Growing up in Geneva, he watched his parson father become tormented by religious doubt. This made him reject conventional religious practice, but it sharpened his sense of the importance of some sort of personal spiritual quest, which he regarded as the main issue in the life of everyone over 35.
The desertion of priests and nuns from the Catholic church since the 1960s seems to be the story of an en masse loss of faith. "But it can also be seen as a strengthening of faith," says John Portmann, a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, who is working on a book on "cultural Catholicism." (By far the most-cited reason for leaving was unrelated to God: It was church policy on celibacy and marriage.) "If some semblance of faith can persist in spite of all [the church's missteps and scandals], you know your faith is real, you weren't in it for the trappings of the church or the comfort of the rituals."
Dan Barker has now been an atheist longer than he was a believer, and he is at peace with his decision. But for the more recent deconverts, some struggles remain. Perhaps chief among them is finding a substitute for the very real consolations that faith provided. When you've lost God, how do you fill the void?
"That's what I'm wrestling with now," says James McAllister. "I don't have anyone to talk to in my heart. The prayers I used to say, I simply don't bother anymore. I obviously regard prayer to be silly, even. But it was a comforting place that I could go. I've let that go. And there is a void. And hopefully it can be replaced just by appreciating being alive."
Psychology Today Magazine, Jan/Feb 2008
Last Reviewed 2 Apr 2008
Article ID: 4493
The early morning sunlight, the severely angular light, makes of the web of thread-like gossamer rivers below silvery veins, as if the earth were one colossal chunk of ore.
This place is something to return to, secretly and alone, to plunder with one's hands or with one's heart.
The early morning sunlight, the severely angular light, makes of the web of thread-like gossamer rivers below silvery veins, as if the earth were one colossal chunk of ore.
This place is something to return to, secretly and alone, to plunder with one's hands or with one's heart.
Regular readers of this blog will have noticed that I haven't been posting here for a while; or only sporadically. I've grown increasingly weary from reading and trying to address the almost daily incursions into public discourse and governmental policy (both national and local) by the Evangelical Religious Right.
Additionally, I've become bored with the Ping-Pong match between the pejoratively-named "New Atheists" and their scores of detractors. I've written about this numerous times before, so I will just briefly reiterate my thoughts on the matter.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have been derided for their disrespectful and caustic tone; for their allegedly incomplete scholarship as regards contemporary theistic arguments; for their alleged advocacy of a fascist-like pogrom to rid the country of anyone professing religious belief of any kind; and for their alleged tarnishing of the good, and more temperate, name of atheism.
But the main goal of these New Atheists, as I read them, is to rid public discourse of the taboo against ridiculing the ridiculous; a subsidiary goal is to rid public discourse of the taboo against atheism as such. Of course, reasonable people will debate whether or not their approach to this secondary goal is the right one or not.
But what I see as the underlying motif in this campaign, as well as the more temperate tomes of thinkers like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and Duke philosopher Owen Flanagan, is the project of de-deifying nature and, more importantly, re-naturalizing human beings.
I think the project of de-deifying nature has been almost entirely completed thanks to the blossoming of the sciences since the early 19th Century. The project of re-naturalizing human beings has also made great strides ever since the "Decade of the Brain" in the 1990's, and the steadily increasing maturation of the disciplines falling under the umbrella of neuroscience.
But there a few major obstacles to overcome before a naturalistic world-view can become widespread. These may prove insurmountable. Chief among these is the idea that human beings do not have a soul, much less a "self" that is an actual entity that comprises the kernel of personal identity. What I mean by that is what Siddhartha Gautama claimed 2,500 years ago: there is no self.
The other big one is the notion of free will - that human beings possess a power to contravene the law of universal causality. Or, as libertarian William Thomas puts it:
In every moment, many courses of action are open to us; whichever action we take, we could equally well have chosen to do something else. Within the sphere of actions that are open to choice, what we do is up to us and is not just the inescapable outcome of causes outside our control.
But there are good philosophical arguments against this view, as well as an increasing body of scientific evidence in opposition to it. The only legitimate argument in defense of it, in my view, is that from personal experience: we all feel as if we have free will. But as Spinoza noted a long time ago, "Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes by which they are led to wish and desire."
A more general and over-arching resistance to the re-naturalization of human beings is the displacement of our perceived importance in the Universe: we are not a loving and omnipotent god's creation; we may not even be alone in the Universe; and we are not even the apogee of the evolutionary process.
So instead of spending my time railing against the incursions of the Evangelical Religious Right and their self-proclaimed "moral majority"; or against scientifically illiterate school boards and Presidential candidates; or trying to secure a place at the table of public discourse for atheism; I will spend my time and energy trying to persuade us human beings of the need for re-naturalizing ourselves. As regarding the former activities, I will speak my mind at the ballot box.
My template for this process of re-naturalization will be what was the central concern of Friedrich Nietzsche. Whatever people think they know of Nietzsche's ideas, they are probably misinformed - and his ideas misrepresented. Granted, Nietzsche is notoriously difficult to understand, and I am indebted to the writings and correspondence of British philosopher Keith Ansell-Pearson for his accessible exegesis of Nietzsche's corpus; but I will continue the attempt to render Nietzsche's prescient ideas in a more modern vernacular. My next post will attempt just that, as concisely and as cogently as I can.
Tags:
naturalism, Nietzsche

Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription

