My worry is: this seems obviously absurd and way beyond parody. But – how many people outside the church see normal Christianity in this way? In other words – the stuff that (some) Christians think ‘normal’ – do outsiders see something like this? Are these people simply exhibiting an extreme version of something at the centre of mainstream faith?
“And on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied….”
There will be several more on flickr in a few days. Right now I’m a little bit knackered.
Let’s run with this a little longer as both Scott (Gray) and Neil (OSO) think I’m being unfair to humanists.
Firstly, I’m not aware of any theoretical reason why a humanist culture is necessarily incapable of sustaining long term moral endeavour and improvement. My concern is a practical one, ie that I’m not aware of this sustaining being done in this culture. (“This culture” mainly referring to the UK, but not excluding the other Anglo-Saxon societies).
Secondly, this point is one about religious belief over against secular thought. In other words it isn’t something that hangs on the specific beliefs advocated by Christianity. Confucianism, for example, is more than adequate to foster the social goods that concern me, and the theologies of Christianity and Confucianism (if the latter could be said to have a theology!) are very distinct.
Thirdly the existence of humanists who do good things is insufficient to answer my concern. We can all agree on the existence of such wonderful people; conversely we can also agree on the existence of wicked people who happen to be religious believers. The question is about what fosters the goodness and inhibits or reforms the badness.
Fourthly, this is a separate point to the one of accountability (hence a separate post). Whether humanism can coherently give an account of its accountability is to my mind an open question (I’m pretty sure it can’t) but that’s not the concern here.
The issue is this: the mainstream of Christianity demonstrably cultivates the virtues, be they compassion, a desire for social justice, a commitment to the truth, and so on. These virtues are developed through the adoption of particular practices which embody them, and cohere through the telling of stories and sharing of expertise. There are institutions which exist to, amongst other things, foster this moral development. In Christian terms it is called discipleship; doubtless there are equivalent terms in the other religious faiths.
My point is that I am not aware of institutions which cultivate the development and amplification of a moral sense, with associated practices and disciplines, within this country, of a humanistic form. I repeat, such things are not at all impossible. They seem to have existed in Ancient Greece (the gymnasia). I just want to know – where are they? (It’s also perfectly possible that there are many such institutions, and this post is merely parading my ignorance of them).
Hence my comment in the original post, that humanism is drawing on the bank balance built up by centuries of Christian teaching. I want to know where humanism is putting money in.
(For those familiar with him, the influence of Alasdair MacIntyre should be obvious!)
A wild and wowly morning.
I travelled into Colchester by bus today, to do some Christmas shopping and to watch the film I’ve just reviewed. I got to the bus station at about 7.50pm and settled down to the half hour wait for a bus to take me home. Now I don’t often use the bus, but each time I use it something interesting happens. This time more than most.
I started reading a book, but after a while, a man came over to the shelter who was clearly very much worse for drink. He immediately started accosting me and the handful of people waiting with hostile and abusive language – he even called me an intellectual impostor for reading! (Shock, horror – perhaps alcohol gave him second sight…). However, I managed to have the beginnings of a more civilised conversation with him and he wandered off to the far end of the shelter. Unfortunately he then started haranguing some of the others, including two smallish children (aged about 15), one of whom gave him a bit of lip back – very effectively, but possibly very foolishly. I managed to distract his attention back towards me, in the course of which – because he was banging on about being a soldier – I told him that I was a padre. Which information meant nothing to him and he soon confessed to not being a soldier. But then, realising what I did for a living, he proceeded to harangue me even more aggressively for being a paedophile – for that is what the priesthood is now best known for – and he carried on shouting directly in my face (as in literally one inch or so from mine – I was mostly sitting down) and threatening all sorts of dire physical assaults upon me, giving demonstrations by striking the wall of the shelter and so on.
Now why do I call this post ‘proud of our youth’. Mainly because the two other people there, both quite young though older than the small kids, displayed very cool heads, showed concern and compassion in looking after the little ones, and were very sensible and useful in steering the nutter away from the scene of conflict and generally calming things down.
This could have been a story about how rotten our society is. Yet what has most imprinted itself on my mind is how good all these kids were. Very encouraging. Although it’ll now take me quite some time to get to sleep as the adrenaline is still in my system!
I thought this was really good – and I’m sure it will stand the test of time – but ultimately there was something missing; perhaps any sense of moral struggle within the main protagonists, no progression or redemption. But it was a good tale well told. Satisfying, if not surprising. Four out of five.
I wanted to pick this element out from Ian’s comments, where he said: “To what is a humanist accountable ? … to humanity what else … and rest of the living cosmos. (which would merge with your view, on Pantheistic territory). The balance of freedoms (from) with responsibilities (to).”
Firstly – and for the record(!) – I’m not a pantheist!!! Once upon a time I might have accepted the label ‘panentheist’ but these days I’m more sceptical of all those metaphysical systems and am content with ‘Christian’.
However, the key question I want to pursue is: what does it mean to say that a humanist is accountable to humanity? Is that a democratically defined good? Or is there some other sort of value at stake here? If so, how is it pursued, how are conflicts reconciled, how is it explicated and communicated? In other words, what is the distinctive way in which a humanist cultivates the virtue of “humanity” in themselves and in their friends and neighbours? All these things are front and centre in a religious tradition, but seem absent from humanist (and atheist) discourse, on the whole. Humanism seems to be drawing on the bank balance built up by religious believers without paying anything back – which is why our society is now morally bankrupt and heading rapidly down the toilet.
Sorry for the rant, but I’m really interested in pursuing this aspect.
I believe in miracles
Since you came along
You sexy thing
Click full post for text.
My responses in italics.
Your post leaves me with two fundamental questions. First, the ideas you refer to would by some be called moral sense, sense of purpose and reflection respectively. What is a humanist missing if they have the same feelings but ascribe a different source? If they are not missing something (like a God which exists separately from our attitudes to him) isn’t religion just a choice rooted only in the subject’s personal views?
I think there is a lot of overlap. Not surprising as I also believe that all humanity is made in the image of God. Yet I would say that a religious perspective completes that which is only partial in a humanist perspective. In particular I think that what a religious perspective brings is a sense of the coherence and purpose that exists outside of the preferences of the individual. You could say: a religious perspective includes an accountability that is (usually) absent from a humanist perspective (for to what would a humanist be accountable?).
Secondly, where does this conception of God leave the basic understanding of Christianity common in our society?
I don’t have a dog in that race. That is, it is manifestly clear to me that “the basic understanding of Christianity common in our society” is mistaken.
Did God “create” the world?
Yes.
Can prayers be answered by God changing things?
I’m still thinking this one through, but I’m more minded to say yes than no.
Has any miracle, including those in the Bible, ever happened?
Short answer is yes, but I think your using a particular understanding of miracle here. Have you ever read this post?
What does life after death mean?
Something other than eternal life, usually.
Is there some external entity which forgives our sins if we repent?
This sounds like you’re asking if God is a being.
In what way was Christ more than a prophet?
He was raised from the dead.
If none of this follows the traditional path (God created and cares about the world and sent Christ to redeem us from sin) what plans does the Church have to tell people that they can safely put these ideas to one side?
I’m wholly in favour of the traditional path.
Can I add a third? Isn’t this conception of God reactive to the success of science since the Renaissance?
Not at all. Science isn’t that important; or, to put that differently, science is itself dependent upon theological assumptions.
Most highly educated theologians, who can’t just be dismissed, seem to have had very simple ideas of God until quite recently.
Sorry, that’s rubbish. Unless you’re using ‘simple’ in a technical sense, in which it’s a truism.
You say that atheists (not me btw) want the concept of God to be ridiculous. Aren’t they just challenging the concept of God common until science cast doubt on it?
If a 15 year old cannot adequately defend the concept of evolution against criticisms from well-informed creationists, does this make evolution false? Very little atheism that I am aware of takes theology seriously; someone like Dawkins is much happier with a summary dismissal. See the quote from Denys Turner here.
To take two C16th examples – can it be that this conception of God was really the one for which Cranmer, Lattimer and Ridley were burnt to death when they could so easily have obtained a pardon?
The Reformation martyrs weren’t put to death for their conception of God. At least I don’t think they were. It was much more to do with how Christianity was to be pursued relative to the authority of the central institutions.
What sort of oddball, in the face of such a subtle and difficult concept of God, could not accept an alternative view or that there would be no detriment for bending with the breeze? What sort of psycho would pass the sentence when hanging was an option for non-religious crimes?
Some truths are worth dying for; in other words, sometimes it is more life-giving to be killed for living IN the truth than to go on living apart from the truth.
A few more (1) Those who debated Henry VIII’s first divorce in the context of Leviticus said they thought his breach of the law explained why he had no sons. The Pope was petitioned for divorce. Did those petitioning him and the Pope know that the premise was false
Pass(!)
(2) Didn’t those who denounced Galileo do so because they believed the cosmology in the Bible was accurate.
(3) The last execution for heresy in Britain was 1697. Surely those accusing and trying him believed that his critcism of eg miracles was in fact wrong. Surely they themselves believed in miracles.
You know more about this case than I do.
Two more recent examples – in the late C19 a debate was arranged in Oxford between a Darwinist and a … Bishop. The Church was seen as the relevant other side of the debate. The Bishop propounded the Biblical view of creation and poured scorn on the idea that he was related to a monkey. This is very recent and the Bishop was not an idiot. (A woman cried out in protest and fainted when the Darwinist told the Bishop to his face that he was indeed related to a monkey – what a very C19th scene).
To my mind both sides of this debate had become locked into a non-orthodox world view.
At a similar time another Bishop calculated that the world was c.7,000 years old based on Bible passages. This implies that he believed the Bible set out facts about creation which would withstand rational analysis.
Archbishop Ussher. See my comment immediately above – it’s an extremely late development, and this IS a reaction to Renaissance science.
Here is a challenge. Can you name a Bishop in the C of E or Catholic Church who said, even in private papers, before 1900, that no miracles happened or the Virgin Birth was a metaphor?
Well… I’m not saying that no miracles happen; I’m saying (in effect) that the understanding of miracles common today, and shaped by scientific philosophy, is misleading and non-Scriptural. The straight answer to your question would probably be ‘one of the 18th century deists’ but no name springs to mind.
Very happy to pursue this further, though as I write this I realise I’ve written quite a lot about this elsewhere.
I was just ten years old when you got here
White suits and the King of Pain