Comments on: Raining on the Brights

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:50:00 +0000

Apologies to Maynard Handley, who I just realized has reproduced the Nicene creed at much greater length above, and points out that Anglicans use either the same or a very similar version as I was taught.

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:45:19 +0000

I will confess that I know very little about the most refined versions of theology now being worked out by clerics or scholars. I do know quite a bit more about the beliefs of Christians who are not theologians or scholars, and I can assure you that they believe, very strongly, that their God reveals His presence in day to day events. They lack the tools, and more importantly, the desire to rationalize the conflicts between what they believe and what science or observations of the materials world suggest. Most important, and most characteristic in this regard is their denial of death’s finality. It is an old saw that there are no atheists in the foxholes – and it is not hard to guess why. We have had no reports from beyond the grave as yet, and Christian millenialism or the occasional spirit medium to the contrary, I do not expect we shall ever have any. This is a profoundly unsettling prospect, and how one handles it sets up the fundamental difference between the worldviews of real, practicing Christians and brights. Orthodox Christians (the faith in which I was trained as a youth) at every service will say these words as part of the Nicene Creed says: I await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come, Amen. No materialist can possibly mouth these words. (Nor, of course, could a materialist seriously recite most of the rest of that creed, e.g., references to Jesus as “light of light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things were made.”; or other prayers, such as “Our father, who art in Heaven” (where’s heaven?) But perhaps, levels of belief in these formulas varies considerably by parishioner, and in any event is almost surely less fervent than belief in “God” as the being who created the universe and organizes life after death). It’s all well and good to suggest that a scholar has cooked up some terribly sophisticated way to finesse or deny these conflicts. I submit however, that it is hard to see how these could be anything but tremendous obfuscations – on a par with the worst legalisms and loophole-seeking. Even if they were not, they would almost surely be rejected by the large majority of those who consider themselves religious.

By: Tom O'Bedlam

Tom O'Bedlam — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:24:54 +0000

I have, I think, a “passing knowledge of theology” (although not much more than that) but I can’t think of any fifth century divines who were interpreting scripture in such a way that it did not imply supernatural intervention in natural events. Some examples would be illuminating. Augustine? Tertullian? Who? I suspect there is some disconnect in communication here. The central event of Christianity, the event which makes it Christianity as opposed to some other religion,was (according to Christians) a supernatural intervention in natural events—namely, the Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection. How can one be a Christian and not believe in supernatural intervention? Don’t mistake me. I’m probably not a Christian (the “probably” is because upbringing dies hard) for precisely this reason— that seriously believing in Christianity requires belief in the supernatural. I suppose I qualify as a “bright”— although I must say I’m not much impressed by the honor, nor do I think the category so named is a new phenomenon, or that the name amounts to much more than the idiosyncratic use of a word.

By: msg

msg — Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:47:11 +0000

I’ve got that cranial albedo. I was a seminarian. I’ve been hounded by Christian vigilantes. And embraced by welcoming agapists. I’ve knelt at the altar, and been driven from the steps of the church. I’m not a ‘bright’ but I’ll defend them when they’re attacked. Take Dennet’s theory of non-localized consciousness, the brain’s little cloud of electromagnetic energy, and apply it to groups. It requires an acceptance of the idea of group ‘mind’, but that shouldn’t be too hard. The core of ‘humanness’ that Christianity etc. has floated alongside all these centuries is the key. The illusion is that ‘human’ is a thing with constant essential attributes, and religion is peripheral to that. At first yes, but the truth is these attributes are developed and discarded constantly, as with any other animal’s evolving nature. The gambit is to control the selection. The group controls these processes, or attempts to. These are survival strategies. Characteristics are supported and encouraged and become traits of humanity. The actual metaphysics are unimportant. Angels wearing little numbered sports jerseys while they dance on the head of a pin. It’s the mutual assistance, the support. Over time the congregation grows and becomes the citizenry. From marginal to central. Belief in the divine right of kings, in the virgin birth, in immortality, are merely passwords for entry to the hall. Food and shelter are the issues. Biology. Galileo is condemned, smacked down, and then after a while embraced. Because ultimately it doesn’t matter. What matters is who lives and who dies, who breeds, who doesn’t. Now take Dennet’s theory of consciousness and apply it to the stellar universe. Electromagnetic patterns mapped onto more energy than you can imagine. Big Cloud Guy. For me, it’s the same old predicament. It’s not that I don’t believe in God, it’s that I don’t seem to believe in your God.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:24:32 +0000

As I said, Maynard, that self same Anglican church promoted David Jenkins to be Bishop of Durham, and he has on several occasions suggested that the Nicene Creed, etc, etc should not necessarily be interpreted as literal statements about historic events. http://www.users.bigpond.com/redimp/cupitt.html

By: OmerosPeanut

OmerosPeanut — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:25:33 +0000

Maynard wrote: “I don’t mean to be sarcastic here. I honestly don’t understand what the church considers itself, its beliefs and its values to be if it no longer even expects its leaders and members to have to state the Nicene creed.” Renouncing the creed would make them Arians, and therefore heretics in the eyes of the Church… depending on how they disagree with the creed, of course.

By: back40

back40 — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:50:24 +0000

See the enthusiasts page. If not for Dawkins and Downey it would seem that hair is negatively correlated with brightness and one might falsely assume it had something to do with cranial albedo.

By: Shai

Shai — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:55:38 +0000

I’d just like to point out that the bright page doesn’t seem to have been written by either Dawkins or Dennett.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:55:10 +0000

]]]] >>Is is an essential part of the Christian religion that Jesus was conceived by a virgin? I suspect pretty much all “naive” Christians and most theologians would say yes. “Naive” materialists believe in a lot of things that physicists and biologists know to be untrue, and your statement is just not true about theologists. It’s certainly possible to rise to one of the best bishoprics in the land (Durham) while being decidedly and pointedly ambiguous for your entire career about the literal truth of the virgin brith, and the tradition of regarding it as basically metaphorical is as old as Christian theology. [[[[ Daniel, I guess I’m out of the loop, but what exactly do you view as Christianity if believers are allowed to reject the virgin birth? Does it become the sort of vague fuzzy “there is something or somethings looking over us but maybe not interfering in our lives” that’s used on American TV so as to affirm “religious values” without actually pissing off any member of any religion. I remember as a kid going to Anglican church and being forced to recite every Sunday the Nicene creed, you know , http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/intro/lr-nicene-creed.html “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became INCARNATE FROM THE VIRGIN MARY, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day HE ROSE AGAIN in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. … ” I mean, that’s pretty damn explicit. I understand that various churches are willing to rethink issues like women in the clergy, or gay clergy, but those are really minor admin issues. How exactly does someone get to a position of authority in a church when they can’t honestly recite the creed of the church? What did they say when they were first made priest, “Well, all the time I was a layman I was just mouthing the words, and I plan to do the same when I lead the congregation”? I don’t mean to be sarcastic here. I honestly don’t understand what the church considers itself, its beliefs and its values to be if it no longer even expects its leaders and members to have to state the Nicene creed.

By: JD

JD — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:33:34 +0000

Saying that Spinoza redeems Christian theologians is roughly like saying that Oscar Schindler redeems the Nazis. Spinoza wore the badge, but in practice his beliefs are remarkable precisely because they depart so radically from typical Christian theology; and in practice, where the rubber hits the road of dealing with life, a Spinozist behaves more like a typical Bright of modern times than a typical Christian. You may all invoke Godwin’s Law on me now.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:03:26 +0000

I would define the Christian intellectual tradition narrowly, as an explicitly Christian, theological tradition, as opposed to a tradition created by people who were Christians. The latter of course I think is highly worth serious consideration; the former…no.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:03:25 +0000

>>Is is an essential part of the Christian religion that Jesus was conceived by a virgin? I suspect pretty much all “naive” Christians and most theologians would say yes. “Naive” materialists believe in a lot of things that physicists and biologists know to be untrue, and your statement is just not true about theologists. It’s certainly possible to rise to one of the best bishoprics in the land (Durham) while being decidedly and pointedly ambiguous for your entire career about the literal truth of the virgin brith, and the tradition of regarding it as basically metaphorical is as old as Christian theology. >>Why belive in god when you know — if you’re honest — you’ve never heard him or seen him or touched him or had any other contact of any kind. All you have are the stories other people told you, like Santa Claus. Stupidest argument ever. Why believe in any of the entities of fundamental physics? And note that your argument has no force at all against a theist who has experienced a divine revelation, of whom there are a surprising number.

By: The Fool

The Fool — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:26:08 +0000

Natural explanations appeal to empirical evidence that is detectible by the senses. Supernatural explanations rely on things like faith and revelation. Many religionists scoff at the idea of empirical evidence. That is why they are a joke. Why belive in god when you know—if you’re honest—you’ve never heard him or seen him or touched him or had any other contact of any kind. All you have are the stories other people told you, like Santa Claus. Think for yourselves theists!

By: back40

back40 — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:21:35 +0000

Stepping back a bit from the detailed dispute it appears that various religious believers and evangelical atheists such as Dawkins and Dennet are much the same in that they believe in theoretical explanations for things that they can’t demonstrate empirically. This leap of logic from sparse data to belief seems to be a fundamental human tendency only avoided with some pain and great effort. Some have argued that it is an aspect of the admirable pattern recognition capabilities of the human mind coupled with what for many is an emotional necessity to come to a decision, to resolve incomplete and sometimes contradictory observations so that they can stop worrying and get on with more important tasks such as feeding themselves or watching pro wrestling on TV. It is difficult to hold the mark, to reserve judgement and wander well worn thought paths repeatedly whenever relevant information arises. It’s embarrassing to argue for an open mind in the face of ridicule from all sides, and pointless to debate those who believe what they cannot know since they are essentially immune to knowledge. It is also difficult to fully respect believers of any sort, difficult in the same sense as fully respecting someone with an addiction or some other deep psychological problem. They still deserve respect, they are still human and all, it’s just difficult. Everything about belief is difficult.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:03:22 +0000

“belief in magic involves the belief that one may influence the course of nature by invocation of spirits, devils or whatever. This kind of belief has long been condemned by Christianity.” It has been condemned by christianity when applied to religions other than christianity. In practise, prayer is more often than not precisely a request for supernatural intervention of some form. Wojtyla’s statement is quite typical in that regard, albeit more public than is often the case. This is precisely the point regarding private beliefs rather intellectual tradition. The example of Spinoza is interesting to a large extent, and Joseph Butler follows in the same path. But, like the earlier example of Tillich, these remain aberrant cases. If one could ever speak of the exception proving the rule…