‘Ask me no questions, I’ll tell you no lies.’ Emma C Williams relates an incident on Twitter. Photo: Derek Bridges
About a month ago, and this is unusual, I found myself stunned into silence by a lay preacher. Don’t get me wrong, the silence was short-lived. But, for a brief moment, I was dumbfounded.
At the time, I was curious to know how a person of faith could accept the fact that mankind is a product of evolution but still claim that we’re unique in our possession of a soul. Whilst I don’t personally believe that there is such a thing as the ‘soul,’ it’s an important tenet for a Christian; I was curious to know whether he thought that the soul had evolved along with us, or whether God just popped it in one day. You know. On a whim. When He’d run out of Sudoku puzzles and got bored with inventing new parasites.
Now since then I have done some reading on the subject and discovered that there is considerable theological debate in this area – a debate almost as pointless as the one about how many angels can dance on a pinhead in my humble opinion, but that’s neither here nor there. At the time, I was genuinely curious and fascinated to hear what this preacher had to say.
Anyway. I asked my big question, bounding into his timeline like an enthusiastic puppy, and was greeted with the following reply:
‘I’m afraid it’s not a question that’s ever bothered me.’
Sniff. Disappointing.
Not to be deterred, I pushed my nose in further, determined that this preacher, this man who stands before others and makes the claim that their naturally mortal ‘soul’ (whatever that is) can be granted the gift of immortality by the Grace of God (whatever that is), this man must surely be intrigued by a question that explores the very nature of the soul itself?
In the end, he answered as follows:
‘It’s one of the things I don’t understand about atheists that they need answers to questions that most of us who have a faith aren’t concerned about.’
Wow. I mean … wow.
Okay, I didn’t expect ‘an answer’ as I suspected at the time that there wasn’t one (although the Catholic church, if you’re interested, has some entertainingly specific guidance on this very theme). What I did expect, perhaps naively, was a response deserving of respect; something like, ‘I don’t know, I’d really need to think about that one,’ or ‘I don’t know but I bet [insert name of highly-respected theological Prof here] has something to say about it, I’ll look it up.’ To come back with ‘it’s not a question that’s ever bothered me’ followed by a patronising chastisement for being a typical atheist asking silly questions not only left me open-mouthed but took me right back to being at Church school. There my atheism was cemented in place quite unintentionally but quite brilliantly by the fact that I was ridiculed for asking questions.
Personally, I don’t understand how anyone can agree with the evidence that mankind evolved but refuse to accept that there is therefore nothing special about us other than the fact that we are a truly brilliant ape. And this particular ape has questions – lots of them; telling me that those questions are uninteresting or unimportant to you will only make me suspect, rightly or wrongly, that you fear the answers.
So, like it or not, my dear preacher … I’m still asking.
I find this piece interesting, although Emma Williams does not give the context of her encounter; but the lay preacher’s response (what denomination, by the way?) seems to be an example of a familiar apologetic strategy, which might be summed up as: “What a silly question, which shows how you atheists always get religion wrong”; for example, Karen Armstrong, in her book “A Defence of God” maintains that Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have misunderstood religion, which can only be understood from inside, like cooking, which can only be learnt by doing it; she seems to suggest that the question of God’s existence is really a non-question. Such apologists ignore the fact that people were persecuted by Christians for believing the wrong things.
I hope you sent this to the preacher!
I wonder how many believers have come to realize their beliefs don’t hold up, so they attempt to ignore the dissonance and make an even greater commitment.
It must be very hard to accept you’ve made so important a mistake, and it must be especially difficult to acknowledge that the people you demonized had – given reason and evidence – simply made a better choice
The preacher has at least 2 untenable faiths; the original, and faith that questions will go away if you just ignore or pretend to answer them.
“I do not understand those who take little or no interest in the subject of religion. If religion embodies a truth, it is certainly the most important truth of human experience. If it is largely error, then it is one of monumentally tragic proportions – and should be vigorously opposed.” -Steve Allen, American television host, musician, actor, comedian, and writer (1921-2000)
Excellent quote from Steve Allen, that I hadn’t heard before. Off topic a little but I’ve recently discovered the ‘Sunday Assembly’, which I understand to somewhat controversial. But it disappoints me that some people dismiss the SA simply because it was set up by two comedians – as if, by definition, anything said by comedians must be trivial. In my experience its the reverse – the best comedians have a very good understanding of humanity and human nature.
I agree with you about comedians, who are often highly intelligent and very serious.
And if, as seems commonly accepted, the soul were to be infused at conception, which identical twin has to do without one – and why can’t we tell the difference?
1 Peter 3.15: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”
Interesting point you make about being ridiculed for asking questions. Here is one of my own experiences.
A priest visiting my Catholic school had arranged a question-and-answer session. We were asked to write a question on a piece of paper and put it in a box. He selected some of those questions at random, read them out and gave his replies.
My question was: ‘Why is it that all human beings are born in a state of original sin because of the sin of Adam and Eve? It doesn’t seem fair to me that children should be punished because their parents did something wrong.’
The priest read out the question. He didn’t even attempt to answer it. He glared around the room, roaring about the presumption of the child who had dared to question the will and judgement of God. I tried to look nonchalant, terrified that my demeanour might give me away and the full force of the priest’s ire would be directed at me. He then tossed my question into the wastepaper basket and moved on to the next one.
The arrogance and intellectual rigidity of these people is breathtaking.
This piece has to be an own goal for the humanist society. It pretends to be intelligent. It isn’t. It pretends to be open minded. It isn’t. It pretends to be humble. And so on…
I have long since suspected that the humanist is as much a prisoner of their upbringing as any Christian. Brainwashed, influenced…whatever label you choose. The humanist condemnation of religion is, I find, more complacent and arrogant than religion itself. Having been a Christian for over 30 years, I would suggest that I am more open minded than than the humanist views displayed here. Unlike Emma, I do not suggest that I know the truth…merely that I value and peruse it. I do not need to belittle her views in order to validate my own. And I am happy to acknowledge that humanists may have valid points of view…and even…shock horror…that I can learn from them …I am willing to question the values I own…if they do not stand up to scrutiny they are worthless…
Why is it that humanists need to validate opinions by first criticising those of others?
There is no respect for Christian views… rather ridicule… yet an expectation we should consider your position more tenable. Patronising…
As it happens, I am asking some fundamental questions about my faith and the bigotry that surrounds (the conventional expression of) it. I am very disappointed that your vitriolic condemnation and superior mocking of Christianity is even worse than the faults you purport to abhor.
An equally varied interpretation of the preacher is that he was genuine in his comments…yet you have judged him purely because, by your own admission, you “don’t understand”.
A pretty weak academic premise? Just because he doesn’t agree with you and you can’t see an alternative doesn’t mean there isn’t one…that simply isn’t logical. You become guilty precisely of that which you condemn. Your failure to understand does not imply that you have the intellectual superiority you assume (in fact, the opposite…your understanding is limited by your prejudice)
You suggest he fears the answers…a trifle judgemental don’t you think? Please don’t be so naive as to assume a single person is representative of the whole…life isn’t that simple.
And I would suggest, Emma C Williams, that there is not anything humble about your opinion…at least that which is displayed here. 😉
Now, now. Isn’t critiquing all ideas thoroughly a good way of working out which ones are any good?
Wow! Victim complex or what? You make three statements in the first paragraph but fail to show why you believe them to be true.
There is no such thing as “the humanist condemnation of religion”, though there are humanists who condemn religion – big difference. Emma does not say she knows the truth – or did you not notice the number of times she wrote “believe” or similar referring to herself? She wasn’t belittling the preacher’s beliefs, but pointing out that on a matter that should be of supreme importance, the preacher had NO belief, which is pretty incredible. And for the preacher to say ‘It’s one of the things I don’t understand about atheists that they need answers to questions that most of us who have a faith aren’t concerned about.’ is stunning. This man isn’t concerned about the soul? Isn’t that fundamental to christian doctrine? In effect, he is saying that one of the most important topics in christianity is of more interest to atheists than to christians. Isn’t that somewhat amazing and worth noting? Do you agree with the preacher?
Of course Helen MccCullen is right to say that Humanists must be open minded; I would go further, and quote Nietzsche: “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies”; and again:” A most cowardly belief, having the courage of one’s convictions; rather it is a question of having the courage for an attack on one’s convictions!”
She is also right to say that disagreement should be based on mutual respect; and I am sure that she is far from being the only Christian to question her own beliefs.
We should all emulate the example of Archbishop Antony Bloom and Marghanita Laski, who engaged in broadcast discussions in the 1970s, under the title of “The Atheist and the Archbishop”; they clearly repected each other.
Helen
I feel ther is an element of judgement in your comment.
I am still reeling from being figuratively ‘shackled’ again and the attack on our freedom of thought, but we actually do need pulling up occasionally and thank you for taking the time.
I think that you have some misconceptions about the way we get answers.
Some of us in fact never stop asking or thinking that someone who wrote something on a parchment scroll some millennia ago knows any better answer than we do. Bigots are born as soon as they stop thinking both within and without Humanism. Somehow writing things down often gets an ‘aura’ which it does not deserve it is even described as evidence or even “Its in the Bible therefore it must be true”
How then do we make up our minds in this neck of the woods? Well we know it is general human nature to get a conclusion or ‘Closure’, so we do write some things down but we also invite challenge and further discussion. We reach a fairly stable ‘working’ position but know that it can be changed by future evidence or discussion.
It is this lack of engagement and acceptance of possible change that Emma and others are talking about.
I would be interested to hear of your tactics and their results when confronting your religious elders. How often do they use compromise?
How open are they to the cut, thrust and evolutionary changes embodied by the human application of science processes?
I suggest you try science in real form, but am open to other methods that work.
The jury is still out on whether Emma’s piece was an ‘own goal’
Sadly this uninquisitive preacher is simply following common doctrine, such as that of the RCC – when faith and knowledge disagree, then faith is correct. Ignorance is next to godliness.
I studied theolgy at University and went on to be ordained, however, my journey led to a denial of God and a gradual acceptance of Humanism. I deny that I have ‘no faith’ for I do have faith in my fellow apes hence I am a ‘humanist’.
Your lay preacher should be recognised as a ‘lay’ preacher and is using the familiar tactic ‘when threatened by an intelligent question respond with an attack!’ Therefor there can be no real dialogue with such a person. They remind me of the farmer who said to his vicar that the field he never grew anything in was a fallow field.
‘And why is it a fallow field?’ said the vicar
‘Because I never grow anything in it!’ said the farmer.
‘But why do you not grow anything in it?’ queried the exasperated vicar.
‘Because it’s a fallow field’ was the reply
Both men left each others company certain the other was an idiot.
What a great example. It reminds me of an interview with Richard Feynman where he explains that why questions are tricky. You can decide an answer is satisfactory whenever you like, but essentially one can ask why forever 🙂 http://youtu.be/wMFPe-DwULM
Surely that is faith in a different sense to religious faith.
John Dakin
I do not think there are multiple types of faith.
I base my discussions about faith on the suitably brief definition:-
Faith is belief without evidence
Although the religions are IMO over-using faith and we can always chastise them for not seeking evidence or dismissing systems like science that rely totally on evidence, I suspect that it is true that each one of us has, however temporarily, believed something for which they could not produce evidence. This is why I am saying more frequently ‘Do not dismiss faith as useless’. It is a human construct. It is possible that we can show others how to use it properly in a way which does not bring conflicts .
Meanwhile perhaps think carefully and honestly about your own use of faith and very carefully about the phrase
“Faith in Humanity”
which has been used elsewhere in this thread.
I’m having trouble finding the ridicule from the lay preacher in your blog post here, Emma. Obviously there was more to the discussion that you haven’t shared – perhaps that is where the ridicule was. (Perhaps it is a projection from your experiences as a child.) It appears that you asked him a question that he didn’t care to answer. You admit that you were disappointed that he chose not to discuss the matter. Undeterred by his reply, you pushed him to enter into a discussion. He was polite enough to provide you with just a bit of insight into his thoughts (that he doesn’t understand why atheists ask certain questions). He didn’t ridicule you, he said he isn’t interested in the question. Why is that answer not worthy of respect? If someone knocks on your door and you tell them you don’t want to talk to them, should they not respect that decision?
Like you, I am curious about how people of faith reconcile religious teachings with scientific fact. One of the most interesting conversations I have ever had was with a nun. We discovered that we each, at the age of 14, seriously questioned our respective religious upbringings. She became a nun. I became an atheist.
However, there are MANY people in this world who have no interest in such discussions and will run from anything resembling a debate – on any topic. Because they choose to not have a conversation does not equate ridicule. Because they choose to not debate does not mean they fear the answers or fear losing the debate. Most people just don’t like to have those sorts of conversations. A former boyfriend loved debating politics. While I have strong opinions on the matter, I abhor debating the topic. I wasn’t afraid of losing any debate with him – it just wasn’t an enjoyable use of my time.
If anything, Emma, I have to say that your blog attempts to ridicule the lay preacher for his strongly held belief and his disinterest in questioning that belief. Is your final line any different than the annoying Christian who says, “Like it or not, dear atheist, I will pray for you.” ?
You asked a question to which you believe there is no answer, and which has provoked, “a debate almost as pointless as the one about how many angels can dance on a pinhead,” in the hope of what? Encouraging this preacher to examine his position a little more closely? Maybe making him realise that his position is untenable? Let’s be honest, the prospect of a productive debate was slim.
You interpreted the reply as patronising chastisement, but the intonation-free, unadorned text allows for a different interpretation: Humility. This is an attitude encouraged in Christianity. What the preacher actually said was, “I don’t understand you. I don’t feel the need for an answer to that question and I don’t understand why you do.” He did not say, “That’s a silly question,” but I suspect that your experience of being ridiculed at Church school predisposed you to read that into his reply.
On this more charitable interpretation, the preacher was simply expressing the same bewilderment that you were when you asked the question in the first place: You can’t understand why he doesn’t need that question answered and he can’t understand why you do. We could take this as an insight into the psychological differences between atheists and those of faith. Those who desire a coherent picture of the world that lacks inconsistencies and contradictions are more inclined to atheism. Those who are happy to live with a picture of the world that has gaps and inconsistencies may be more inclined to faith.
(Those last two sentences are asymmetrical – ‘may be’ on one side but not the other – because while I think inconsistencies may be enough to drive some people to atheism, I doubt that a tolerance for them is enough to drive people to faith in the absence of other factors.)
Apologists for this lay preacher’s attitude fail to convince. This man isn’t just a ‘believer’, he seeks actively to influence others by his ‘preaching’. That surely implies a requirement to provide a framework of ideas and explanations to assist others to understand his message, however deluded it may be. To shirk that basic requirement seems like intellectual cowardice. Being ‘happy to live with a picture of the world that has gaps and inconsistencies’ when those gaps and inconsistencies can easily be addressed (even if only speculatively) smacks of apathy to the point of willful ignorance.
Every religion that exists now and all those that have ever been were came about as a way of dealing with the concept of death. Human beings cannot handle the idea of extinction, I don’t like it myself, so some people thousands of years ago thought about it and came up with the idea that there might be a life after we die. It wasn’t too long before other thoughtful people realised that religion was a very useful tool which could enable them to get others to do what they wanted them to do so that they, the religious leaders, could live the easy life, which they still do of course. I really do NOT care who believes in what unless their doings and sayings adversely affect we unbelievers’ lives, eg European Christians’ violent persecution of Jews culminating in the murder of 6 million, Ireland during the period when the RC church dictated policy & legislation, Iran where gay men and women are “legall”y murdered etc, Islamist terrorists murdering people who disagree with them etc etc.
That seem to me a rather simplistic view of the origins of religion; is that what motivated the Hebrew Prophets, or Jesus, or Muhammad? They all seemed much more preoccupied, in various ways, with how we should live, and what life is for; we may not agree with their answers, but they challenge us, as the late Walter Kaufmann used to point out.
Well, I certainly require a framework of ideas and explanations in my view of the world, which is why I’m an atheist. I was trying to consider the possibility that other people – including the preacher in question and other religious folk I’ve talked to – simply don’t think this way. Whether we consider such willful ignorance to be morally acceptable is, of course, another question.
I like to think that the way we think as Humanists is based largely on the very human and natural processes of science.
The people who started religions used a science of sort – oberserving e.g ‘the heavens’ and making predictions etc but for their own ends which usually involved power over people. We need to refine our own social and science ideas (outside of a laboratory) and the strength of science will see us conquer their rationality
I think there is enough evidence to go well beyond “consider the possibility”. Instead I think we are on very safe ground in deducing that “other people….simply don’t think this way”.
I observe many humanists trying to argue in a rational way with people who simply either don’t like or perhaps don’t value a rational case at all. And therein lies a challenge.
The rationalists get upset and frustrated that logic is not being followed. The faith group express frustration that the rationalists don’t see their point of view. By it’s very nature faith cannot be argued with. Rationalists can merely point out inconsistencies and negative consequences of faith. But people of faith will continue to say the positive aspects of faith outweigh these negatives. I suspect what we have to do is to find a way in which people of faith and people of no faith can live together without negatively affecting society as a whole. One portion of society never dominating another. In Europe people of faith have dominated people of no faith for millennia. And the people of no faith have had enough. So a happy balance needs to be struck. Personally I think we are nowhere near that happy balance.
As a first example I am dumbstruck as to how we, as a society in the UK, can segregate our children at such a young age and educate those children in institutions based on the religion of their parents. It perpetuates division. To me that consequence is as clear as night follows day. But that is a rational view and will be countered by people of faith with a different approach.
My own children, now in their final year of degree studies, were educated in multi-faith schools and so have friends from multiple faiths. We get frequent visits, now out of term time, from people brought up as Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians etc and they all know they are welcome. But all describe how so infrequently they get to visit people, in their homes, who are of different faith or no faith. Consequently they seem to love coming here. They can relax. The only rule we’ve ever really needed in this house is the Golden Rule which pre-dates any of the formalised religions still in existence today. But how people of faith can still insist that division by religion at such a young age is a good thing is absolutely beyond my comprehension. At some point the rationalists have to win this argument if we are to have any chance of social cohesion in this country in decades to come.
Looking at one post: “Maybe making him realise that his position is untenable?”
Some will believe that the position of those with faith is untenable if properly analysed, others will disagree. But asserting such a thing as fact (effectively asserting that the many paradoxes that can arise have no sensible resolution) puts one in the same position as the preacher here (basically, if you assert that the position of someone with faith is untenable, and they start picking your reasoning apart, you will one way or another be forced into a position where you just have to say ‘this is what I believe and I choose not to question this belief’, or something similar — and this is merely a consequence of the fact that meanings of words such as God or soul are not formally defined, nor I imagine is it possible to show that no possible interpretation of such words leads to a tenable position). It is better to avoid the question of facts with beliefs and instead look at the implications of faith for how the person functions: if someone believes in God and acts in a certain way because of that belief, is the presence of such a belief beneficial for that person, and for society at large. Likewise with worldviews that do not involve God, and ones which strongly refute the existence of any kind of ‘God’. Just as atheists like to mock people of faith for seemingly unfounded certainties, those of faith do so likewise.
I mostly agree with you. I didn’t intend to assert the untenable position as a fact, hence the question mark. I was asking Ms Williams what was her purpose in starting such a debate, and suggesting some possibilities. Pushing that point of view was one possible motivation for starting the debate. I did not expect her to agree that it was, in fact, her motivation, especially as I’d stated it so baldly. As you say, such a strong assertion of fact is not a very defensible position to take.
I’ve been a Christian for twice as long, until the past few years. Your anger, denial, frustrated demeanor isn’t anything I haven’t felt. You have further proved to me, years of brainwashing I am now free from. I have my own thoughts and ideas that make more sense and I can peacefully live with.
This may be a simplistic question but what really puzzles me is the following. If there is an omnipotent God and if this God has a message for us why doesn’t he communicate it plainly to the whole of mankind instead of via the ‘smoke and mirrors’ effects of the various religions – the conjuring activities of Jesus, the whispering in the ear of Mohammed in a cave, the carving on stone on the top of a mountain and so on?
Bertrand Russell made a similar comment when asked what he would say to his maker when he met him in the afterlife. I can’t answer it, as I am not a Christian; but that does not stop me from finding religion fascinating. I am also very struck by Julian Baggini’s remark: “…it is my personal view that dogmatic views of any kind are in general more dangerous than the views themselves. Intelligent atheists often have much more in common with undogmatic theists than one might suppose”.
Never stop asking. It took courage for you to ask, it took cowardice for him to dismiss it.
Cowardice? That’s a bit strong; let me remind you that you were not present, and have only heard one side of the story; maybe he genuinely had not thought about the question; and maybe he thought it was a trick question; he certainly is unlikely to have expected it. We need to be generous to our opponents, not try to trip them up. Archbishop Antony Bloom and Marghanita Laski spring again to mind (see my previous post).
I too had a weird experience in church at an early age when asking questions.
Born in the 1960’s I was raised close to the mouth of the Tyne and every Sunday attended the local Methodist Church where my grandfather was a lay preacher. From the age of about 6 or 7 years old I was put in smart trousers and a shirt and marched-off to Sunday school whilst the adults went into the big church.
I think I knew from quite an early age that Sunday school for the youngsters was really child-care whilst the adults did their thing. But as the years progressed we were taught more bible stories and told more parables with the aim I suppose of inculcating some belief in us. As it felt natural to me I asked questions and in the early days got answers of a sort. But at the age of eleven the man who led Sunday School (I can still remember his name), just as people were going home from the Sunday service, surprised my father by telling him that I was no longer welcome at Sunday School. When my father enquired as to why he was told “He asks too many questions”. My father was taken aback, didn’t argue with the man, took me by the hand and we walked away. As we got in the car to go home he said to me that he was dumbfounded that they would kick a boy out of Sunday school for asking questions.
We found out a few days later that because I was kicked-out of Sunday school I was also kicked-out of the cub pack which was attached to the church and, to my extreme annoyance, the cub football team, as we were favourites to win the final of the local cub football league the following Saturday.
When we arrived home that Sunday my father asked me to tell him the kind of questions I had asked at Sunday school. So I did. I distinctly remember being confused about the Holy Trinity and so was trying to get to the bottom of it. How could Jesus be the Son of God if he was God (i.e one third of the Holy Trinity)? And what was the Holy Spirit and why was he/she/it distinct from God and yet the same as God? If you’ve sat there every Sunday for 5 years these are the kind of questions which run through your mind. My father, a deputy head at a local school, chuckled and said they were good questions and if they couldn’t answer them then it wasn’t much of a Sunday School.
My father and mother, who both taught locally, hardly ever went to church again. They found it all so petty – adults expelling a boy from Sunday school, the cubs and the cub football team – and all because he asked questions.
Questions have served me well in life ever since. But through life’s journey I have to come to understand there are people with whom I share this planet who don’t like questions, they are not interested in questions and never will be. They seem to survive by not asking questions. On its own I am absolutely fine with that. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest. What I find very difficult to take is when people who are proud of their unquestioning faith state it as a virtue. I look at all the advances in medical science which improve people’s quality of life and extend their lifespan. I look also at the energy supply network and the convenience afforded to us by household appliances, telephones, the internet, mechanised transport and the like and I wonder how many of these things would exist if the world was populated only by people who were so proud of their unquestioning faith that they did not ask questions.
The decision to expel a child for asking questions in Sunday School is utterly ridiculous.
But, neither does it stand as an argument against Christianity. I’m certain most Christians would agree, this is not a sound reason to expel a child from Sunday School.
Do humanists really need to ridicule Christians in order to promote their cause?
Christianity, which is so dangerous and harmful to everyone because Christ taught love one another.
If humanism is the path to enlightenment, does it really need to be dressed up in celebrity tinsel to sell it?
Many of those who promote humanism appear to be so full of their own egos and self-righteousness they remind me of the Pharisees, described by Christ, in the New Testament.
People who see the need to say, look at me I’m so smart! Are they not more likely to be the more insecure members of a society or just attention seekers out to promote themselves? Please tell me if this is not true O most reasonable humanists.
“Do humanists really need to ridicule Christians in order to promote their cause?”
All ideas should be subjected to scrutiny, and if they are found wanting, particularly after having been held up as an important source of wisdom, they deserve ridicule. And while the primary focus should be on the *idea*, ridicule of those promoting dubious ideas is also justified.
“Christianity, which is so dangerous and harmful to everyone because Christ taught love one another.”
This is such a common logical fallacy! You describe an idea only by reference to its most seemingly positive components, ignoring the barge load of nonsense that accompanies it.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote “If one does not like the crime, cruelty, injustice and violence of this society, he can do something about it,” and he urged Scientologists to “help civilize it, bring it conscience and kindness and love and freedom from travail by instilling into it trust, decency, honesty and tolerance.”
Well then; who are we to say Scientology is dangerous & harmful?
“If humanism is the path to enlightenment, does it really need to be dressed up in celebrity tinsel to sell it?”
If anyone is claiming it is a path to enlightenment, it could be the way in which it leads us away from evidence-free assertions and outright falsehoods foisted upon us by the promoters of outmoded superstitions.
And there is nothing wrong with having well-known and respected individuals helping to further any cause.
It’s a true story of my youth. I didn’t sensationalise it. But from that story I drew one central point, namely:
“What I find very difficult to take is when people who are proud of their unquestioning faith state it as a virtue. ”
There is ample evidence all around us that human kind makes progress (of a sort) by asking questions and then attempting to answer those questions, sometimes successfully.
By all means have faith after you asked questions but please don’t parade blind unquestioned faith as a virtue – it is not – it is simply blind unquestioned faith.
What is the point of humanists telling each other how foolish people of faith are? As a humanist myself, I find it rather sterile; far better to face a challenge to one’s own convictions, as Nietzsche said.
Do you ever tell anybody you have had similar experiences to them? Do you ever tell somebody you concur with their view? For that matter, do you ever tell anybody you love them? Or do you find that “rather sterile”?
Of course, Andrew,you’re right; I do all those things; and sharing views on religion can be good; but, if not sterile–let me withdraw that word–there is, I think, a danger, which is summed up in a well-known saying of Jesus, about removing the mote from someone else’s eye, and ignoring the beam in one’s own eye. I also appreciate the warning given by Julian Baggini, in his “Atheism: A Very Short Introduction “, against militant opposition to religion: “Hostile opposition to the beliefs of others combined with a dogged conviction of the certainty of one’s own beliefs, is, I think, antithetical to such values [sc. “an open minded commitment to the truth and rational inquiry”]”.
John.
I make this observation with the best of intent. Are you aware that you quote other people in a huge number of your posts? I am sure you are well read but quote-bombing people is not always persuasive. I apologise in advance for drawing this particular comparison but I can’t help being reminded of Tony Benn who renounced his peerage, professed his commitment to socialism and then, certainly whenever I saw him on TV, name-dropped like hell. To me he came across as more of a socialite than a socialist. He couldn’t see it himself but his addiction to name-dropping detracted hugely from any impact he might have.
I’m all for intellectual clarity but Julian Baggini may not be the world’s expert in how to effect change. Sometimes a clear forceful approach and bold steps are required but sometimes you can retain absolute clarity as to thought and intent but also appreciate that progress can be made faster by many small steps implemented in sequence.
Let’s distinguish between the two: clarity of intent and intelligence in implementation.
Suppose a theist asks an atheist a question and gets a stupid answer in reply, and then says “this has cemented my theism”, would you think that reasonable?
I’d avoid words like “cemented”, but if after numerous encounters I had failed to find even a modestly thought-provoking counter-argument, I would be inclined to take each successive failure as, at the very least, encouragement.
Now, can any theist truly claim to be encouraged after encountering a wide sampling of atheist thought?
An atheist is encouraged; it is not required that a view be “cemented” in order to hold it emphatically.
I think that psychologically, if you catch someone of an opposing view saying something silly, you naturally feel confirmed in your own view. It’s not logical, of course, but very human; only Sherlock Holmes was a thinking machine; but that is one reason why it is so important to question one’s own views, and take other people’s views seriously. That is why I find PMQs painful and unenlightening.
Andrew, I will try to get through this post without quoting anybody! But as for Tony Benn “namedroppping”, that’s not the same as quoting, is it? I don’t remember being aware of Benn doing that.
I am drawn to the robust approach; but sometimes question it–or question my own attraction to it; as Nietzsche said–but, no, I won’t quote Nietzsche.
“Let’s distinguish between the two: clarity of intent and intelligence in implementation”. Could you possibly say a bit more about that, as I’m not clear what you mean.
Your partner in life hates the purple shirt you wear. Do they tell you that you have no taste, the shirt is horrible and you were mad to buy it in the first place? Or do they go shopping with you, show you which colours and styles suit you better and buy you a nicer shirt. The desire is clear – to ditch the purple shirt. But which approach would be more effective?
Possibly the first! Although not couched quite so dramatically; but can you tie this in to the subject under discussion for me, as I seem to have lost the thread.
No. You asked me a question. I answered it.
Suit yourself, Andrew; I’ll struggle on without your elucidation.