The Waiting for ‘Superman’ of the New Atheists
The 2010 documentary Waiting for “Superman” accomplished a rare feat for a film on a topic as politically charged as America’s failing public education system: it earned enthusiastic praise from both conservatives and progressives. Meredith Turney at Townhall explained why:
It’s hard to know what to expect when an avowed liberal takes on the controversial issue of school choice. Director Davis Guggenheim is the director behind “An Inconvenient Truth,” the global warming film that lionized Al Gore. Guggenheim also directed the Barack Obama biographical film played at the 2008 Democratic National Convention and the Obama infomercial that aired on television during the 2008 presidential campaign. His liberal bona fides are stellar. So it’s only natural to anticipate a school choice documentary that defends the status quo and toes the party line blaming lack of funding for the woeful state of America’s government education system.
Prepare to be surprised.
In the opening moments of the film, Guggenheim freely admits that he betrays his liberal beliefs every day when he drives past three public schools on his way to drop off his children at their private school. His children’s education is so important, he’s unwilling to risk their future success on the abysmal education record of government schools. It’s a refreshingly honest admission and the rest of the film follows suit.
Over the course of the film, Guggenheim explores in depth why today America spends more on education than ever before, only to earn weaker results than past decades. It’s an engaging, thoughtful documentary made by a man with the courage to confront one of his party’s strongest financial backers, the teachers’ unions.
In the end I left the film more disappointed than most. Yes, Guggenheim articulated many aspects of the issue but he chickened out when it came time to offer solutions. The film ends leaving one thinking that in spite of the film’s careful dissection of the problems, education remains a mysterious, ever-present big problem with many potential paths forward.
“But wait a second,” I thought as the credits rolled. “This isn’t complicated. The film showed that teacher union contracts make it next-to-impossible to remove bad teachers.” Recall the famous “dance of the lemons” sequence showing how rather than fight through the bureaucracies to fire a weak tenured teacher, administrators just pass around their failures, condemning students to waste a whole year of their life with an instructor who can’t perform:
If principals could just fire the bottom 10% of teachers then the problem would be solved and fewer kids would be stuck years behind because they had the bad luck of receiving a burned-out teacher who won’t do their job. Simple.
Guggenheim may have managed to find the problem, but solving it requires a much deeper confrontation than he’s willing to do yet. Because to really recognize this as the core of the issue means that a) most of the blame falls on the political party he made a career supporting with propaganda, and b) it affirms the unpopular, politically incorrect, conventional wisdom that free-market principles work better than government bureaucracies to raise the quality of life of impoverished minority children. But Guggenheim cannot yet look at himself and how his own views contribute to the problem he’s critiquing.
University of Gloucestershire Religion Professor David Webster’s delightful polemic Dispirited: How Contemporary Spirituality Makes Us Stupid, Selfish, and Unhappy does the same thing on the subject of the irreligious life. Like Guggenheim’s documentary Webster can slice and dice the problem. He skillfully dissects the intellectual and ethical problems of ala carte spirituality and a sizable sector of the New Age movement in both the United States and his home in the United Kingdom. But when it comes time to take the medicine to cure what ails us, he flinches, unwilling to go where his own words should lead him.
I first highlighted Webster in a blog post here at PJ Lifestyle back in June and emphasized this quote from an interview where he summarized his book’s arguments:
What’s the most important take-home message for readers?
That the idea of being “spiritual, but not religious” is, at the very least, problematic. As I suggest in the book, mind-body-spirit spirituality is in danger of making us stupid, selfish, and unhappy.
Stupid—because its open-ended, inclusive and non-judgemental attitude to truth-claims actually becomes an obstacle to the combative, argumentative process whereby we discern sense from nonsense. To treat all claims as equivalent, as valid perspectives on an unsayable ultimate reality, is not to really take any of them seriously. It promotes a shallow, surface approach, whereby the work of discrimination, of testing claims against each other, and our experience in the light of method, is cast aside in favour of a lazy, bargain-basement-postmodernist relativism.
Selfish—because the ‘inner-turn’ drives us away from concerns with the material; so much so that being preoccupied with worldly matters is somehow portrayed as tawdry or shallow. It’s no accident that we see the wealthy and celebrities drawn to this very capitalist form of religion: most of the world realizes that material concerns do matter. I don’t believe that we find ourselves and meaning via an inner journey. I’m not even sure I know what it means. While of course there is course for introspection and self-examination, this, I argue, has to be in a context of concrete social realities.
Finally, I argue that the dissembling regarding death in most contemporary spirituality—the refusal to face it as the total absolute annihilation of the person and all about them—leaves it ill-equipped to help us truly engage with the existential reality of our own mortality and finitude. In much contemporary spirituality there is an insistence of survival (and a matching vagueness about its form) whenever death is discussed. I argue that any denial of death (and I look at the longevity movements briefly too) is an obstacle to a full, rich life, with emotional integrity. Death is the thing to be faced if we are to really live. Spirituality seems to me to be a consolation that refuses this challenge, rather seeking to hide in the only-half-believed reassurances of ‘spirit’, ‘energy’, previous lives, and ‘soul’.
And here’s an excerpt from page 18 that I appreciated:
Like Guggenheim stumbling upon the inconvenient truth that union contracts keep bad teachers poisoning kids’ minds, here Webster realizes how traditional religious values make people better:
The ethical challenge of faith demands that we strive to a model of character that does not let us off the hook when it matters. Whatever we think of this, and there are times that, despite my atheism, I find the challenge of religious ethics exceptionally moving and inspirational, it is clear that a ‘spiritual but not religious’ life makes no such demand. In being adaptable, customisable and flexible we can choose to let ourselves off the hook if we find the ethical demands too much.
Without a God demanding ethical behavior, we are without an authority to explain why murder is wrong. (Related: See my review of Dennis Prager’s most recent book here and his classic article laying out the argument here.)
In my life I’ve known both secular and religious people — and been hurt by both. The difference is that when the religious fail it’s usually through ignoring their values. But the secularists act wholly in accordance with their beliefs. If death is the absolute end, if both our achievements and crimes will some day be forgotten, if we’re all at a material level no more valuable than star dust, then why not kill whoever inconveniences our plans?
Why did ethical monotheism have to be invented? Because without it there is no authoritative reason why human sacrifices to Moloch, or temple prostitution for Ishtar, or their modern manifestations of “after-birth abortions” and child sex trafficking are wrong. They’re just somebody else’s relative opinion of what’s right and wrong.
Webster’s answers to the problems of “I’m spiritual but not religious” are existentialism, atheism, and political engagement.
For more than a decade that was my choice, too. It didn’t work out well. So for the last year I’ve gone back to belief in God and traditional religious values. But I arrived back home through through an unusual route: the same mystical, mind-body-spirit world that Webster attacks.
During my college years in embracing progressive, Nation-Michael Moore politics I sought to also further reject America’s Judeo-Christian tradition through exploring occultism and “alternative” spirituality. I dabbled in a variety of practices for years but — because of the “spiritual but not religious” dogma — never had a real foundation on which I could build any coherent system of beliefs or make any real spiritual progress. (So at heart I was really more a practitioner of a secular religion of political activism.)
Now when I say “spiritual progress” what do I mean? Webster probably doesn’t know. As he admits on pages 1 and 2:
Trying to thrash out a definition of what “spiritual” might mean turns out to be a thankless and largely fruitless undertaking. Jeremy Carrette and Richard King note: ‘There are perhaps few words in the modern English language was vague and woolly as the nation of “spirituality.”
To figure out what “spiritual” means we need a definition of “Spirit.” Here’s one worth remembering in this context, courtesy of Vodkapundit yesterday:
Why are alcoholic beverages called “spirits”? Because when you drink them strange “spirits” rise within your mind and body. That’s all that “spirits” are: intangible feelings we don’t fully understand and the emotional experiences that go along with them. Understood in this way, “spirituality” is just another way of saying “emotionality” — or learning to understand and interact with one’s strong emotions.
Thus, the danger of “spiritual but not religious” is that a practitioner engages with spirits (strong emotions and religious rituals) without having any guidance for how to interpret them.
Someone who is “spiritual but not religious” doesn’t know if the spirit they’re invoking is an “angel” (symbol of God, our higher nature) or a “demon” (symbol of death, our animal nature) because they don’t have a religious foundation to guide them upward. They’ve ignored the collective wisdom of humanity and decided to just set their own course. They’ve made themselves their own god. And they reap the consequences: unhappiness.
A sad spirit came over me as I finished Webster’s book and looked at the last paragraph:
What we need in being atheists today is to see it as freedom not only from God, but from the meaningless plurality of new-age inclusivity. The battle with institutional religion has become so bloody, confused and frankly pointless, that it has obscured a more immediate threat and opportunity in Western cultures. I have here outlined the threats from generic ‘spirituality’ to our thinking, our politics, and ethics, and to our fulfillment as human beings. However, freedom from Spirituality liberates us in that we escape from being the Zombie-like living-dead of Nietzsche’s Last men; we realise we can respond to the world other than merely with an ironic, world-weary shrug. We are not beyond the ability to actually commit and act if we hold firm to the idea that truth actually matters, is exclusive, and that other people are equally as important as me. This may not bring us the immediate or obvious happiness measurable by ‘national well-being’ statisticians, but via an existential engagement with life we can at least edge towards knowing what a worthwhile life might look like.
I’ve seen what a worthwhile life might look like: the majority of the people I most admire — who are kindest, smartest, most successful — are deeply religious. The value and Truth in religion isn’t found in the weeds of which theology is right but in the fruit of the life lived in sincere devotion to God.
Look beyond anecdotes and the empirical data tell the story: the religious live happier, more fulfilled, more generous, more prosperous lives than the secular.
When I came to accept that — that if I was to become a better person more like those I admired that I needed a belief in God — then all of a sudden the word “Faith” came to take on a new meaning.
What will I have “faith” in? Am I taking a blind leap of “faith” that some deity up in the sky exists? That a variety of supernatural events actually happened in ancient times? No, I’m having “faith” that if I practice a religious tradition then it will save me from emptiness, unhappiness, and character flaws.
This is something we can test with science and the experimental method. In fact, as I returned seeking a religion this past year and dusted off my old occult book that’s what I discovered. “Our method is science, our aim is religion” was one of Aleister Crowley’s aphorisms. If I pray to a specific version of God four times a day to express my gratitude then what will happen to me and my life? If I start going to church services or a synagogue each week then will my life be better than if I sleep in instead? And what if I cracked open the Bible and started trying to understand how this ancient wisdom could apply to my life today?
Those looking for a “worthwhile life” don’t need to “edge towards” finding it. There’s no need to wait for a Superman to show up with the answer to some fake problem that has been twisted around by postmodernist academics into something much more complicated than it needs to be. Plenty of time-tested religious and spiritual paths exist. But we only start walking down them when we realize that religion isn’t about blind faith that God exists, but the practical faith of following the steps to bring God into existence in our own lives.
****
More on Religion and Spirituality at PJ Lifestyle:
‘Why did Ethical Monotheism have to be invented? Because without it there is no authoritative reason why human sacrifices to Moloch, or temple prostitution for Ishtar, or their modern manifestations of “after-birth abortions” and child sex trafficking are wrong. They’re just somebody else’s relative opinion of what’s right and wrong.’
Perhaps. But I look at it differently. To me, some of the most compelling evidence for a spiritual dimension comes from near-death experiences. A fairly common feature of NDEs is the life review, in which the person experiences all the actions he’s performed in his life and feels (directly and personally) how his actions impacted other people. If he has caused pain for someone, he feels that pain. What goes around comes around.
Since I take this seriously, I try to consider the impact of my own behavior on others. I’m aware that what I give out is what I’ll get back, and any pain I intentionally cause now will be my pain later. This alone would deter me from committing human sacrifices, exploiting prostitutes and children, etc.
As it happens, I believe in God, but even if I didn’t, the life review (whether understood as an encounter with God, a spirit guide, or one’s own higher self) would be enough to make me practice the Golden Rule to the best of my ability.
I think Webster is focusing too much on immature or narcissistic spiritual seekers, without realizing that there are quite a few “spiritual but not [traditionally] religious” people who follow this path because it really is more fulfilling and meaningful for them.
“They’ve made themselves their own god. And they reap the consequences: unhappiness.”
Maybe that’s why I’ve yet to really find a happy atheist. They’re always mad and bitching about something.
Hmmm. One “maybe” wonders if Hindus are “always” happier because they believe in multiple deities.
I wouldn’t know. I don’t know any Hindus or I haven’t bothered to ask any of my friends and family if any of them are practicing Hindus.
You could learn if you so choose.
Key word being “choose”. I don’t choose to because frankly I don’t care.
The Hindus I know seem to be pretty happy, at least as happy as the rest of us believers.
My theory is that all the atheists you know are bitching about you. As proof: I’m an atheist, I’ve never met you, and I’m very happy.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Thus proving my point that atheists aren’t happy.
“Thus proving my point that atheists aren’t happy.”
I’m happy.
That’s weird, Old Guy, based on our previous conversation (on drug legalization) you got pretty hot and bothered there real quick.
Anyone can say they’re happy. I’m typing this with a great big smile on my face. Really, I am.
“That’s weird, Old Guy, based on our previous conversation (on drug legalization) you got pretty hot and bothered there real quick.”
How does that indicate anything about my level happiness? One can be happy while having little patience for sanctimonious moral scolds.
I view myself as a happy warrior for liberty.
“How does that indicate anything about my level happiness? One can be happy while having little patience for sanctimonious moral scolds.”
Again with contradictions, but that is to be expected from unhappy atheists. So, too, is the instant name-calling.
For the record, I am not sanctimonious, but I do certainly consider myself to be a moral scold. The world hasn’t gotten any better by people whom are immoral scolds.
@Chris Bolts Sr:
And your moral scolding has improved the world how?
Atheists are free from moral constraints, thus even genocide doesn’t make them unhappy if it has no bearing on their immediate sphere of life. Sometimes it actually makes atheists happy if genocide takes some of their family away.
no regrets
Atheism is the religion of selfishness and hate
Thanks for the addition of definition Old Gay
So how do you square an absolute -
“Atheists are free from moral constraints, thus even genocide doesn’t make them unhappy if it has no bearing on their immediate sphere of life”.
- with a contingency?
“Sometimes it actually makes atheists happy if genocide takes some of their family away.”
Could it be that atheists are whatever you want them to be, from moment to moment, irrespective of your own morals?
This is grand. The best humor of the week.
I have to chose between your faith and promulgating genocide, preferably including my own family.
It don’t get much better than that.
One reason Atheists are happy, they have a constant supply of free humor reading the silly things Christian zealots say about them.
I used to think I was happy too. When we make ourselves a small cup then only a small amount of happiness is needed to fill it. We might think we’re full but everyone else around us can see how little happiness we’re actually spreading. Since we have so little we hoard our happiness to ourselves.
I was just wondering if the quote below is an example of the happiness you are spreading now that you have a super-size cup to share.
“That the idea of being “spiritual, but not religious” is, at the very least, problematic. As I suggest in the book, mind-body-spirit spirituality is in danger of making us stupid, selfish, and unhappy.”
It appears that you are claiming that those who have a different belief than yourself are stupid, selfish, and doomed to unhappiness. Yes, I realize that you are quoting someone else, but you seem to wholeheartedly agree to the point of publishing an article praising the book.
Have you considered the possibility that those who practice modern spirituality might consider than an insult? I know that were I to publish an article here claiming that Christianity made one stupid, selfish, and unhappy that there would be a many hundred post meltdown from the assembled faithful.
I am neither spiritual nor religious, but I believe a nation dedicated to liberty requires that people be left to do so if they choose without being hectored by self appointed arbiters of what is right and holy.
“It appears that you are claiming that those who have a different belief than yourself are stupid, selfish, and doomed to unhappiness.”
I’m not. That’s how you chose to misread it to avoid dealing with me and instead deal with the Strawman stereotype of religious belief that you prefer to argue with.
One can be happy that you found happiness in the way that you did Mr. Swindle.
“And your moral scolding has improved the world how?”
Oh, this is great logic. I don’t believe those who stated that by having strong moral convictions the world would be improved. We are humans after all. However, people like you act as though there is a quick solution right around the corner, if only those damn meddling moral kids weren’t here.
I’m glad that you at least admit that you are an immoral scold. And it is more proof that when you say that you’re a happy atheist it calls that statement into question.
“One reason Atheists are happy, they have a constant supply of free humor reading the silly things Christian zealots say about them.”
By the way, I’m not a Christian, but this statement doesn’t reveal happiness, but condescension, which is another trait of unhappy atheists. You’re an open book, Old Guy. Maybe it’s time to live up to your screen name and retire…permanently.
You guys crack me up. A steady supply of unintended humor.
Enjoy jousting with your straw man atheists.
I am sure it will fill you with a grand sense of moral superiority.
“Enjoy jousting with your straw man atheists.”
But I was having so much fun jousting with you, Old Guy.
Sorry, there is no such thing as “happy” or “sad”. I guess you mean various regions of the brain, stimulated in certain fashions. Based on social memes that are designed to increase reproduction?
Now I don’t believe what I just wrote, but you should, if you’re consistent.
Well I don’t know if all atheists are unhappy, but Richard dawkins Sure is cranky!
If you are looking for spirituality, I wouldn’t read Crowley, who was a pedophile.
The reason I rejected the “New Age” is that it was about personal fulfillment, and had no place in it for the poor, the sick, the elderly, or children.
and please tell Mr. Lucky that pious Hindus (like pious Indonesian Muslims or pious Philippino Catholics) are “Happier” because they don’t seek happiness as a goal for living: they bow to the will of Heaven and know that suffering is part of life, but is also a way to prepare oneself for the next life..
. And Hindus don’t seek their own god either. The one million gods are emanations of God.
Got a link for that claim about Crowley that isn’t to a David Icke or conspiracy page?
Why are people of faith in general happier? Man has a need to believe in something, and when he does, he is more content.
So an atheist does not believe that the sun will rise in the morning and that President Obama exists?
Define belief. And are atheists capable of experiencing uncertainty?
“And are atheists capable of experiencing uncertainty?”
I don’t know. You guys are absolutely certain there is no God, to the point that it makes so-called Christian zealots seem restrained.
Oh, and I don’t BELIEVE that sun rises and Obama exists. I KNOW the sun rises and Obama exists because I have seen both. There is a slight difference.
Perhaps you can answer your own question: Define belief and why atheism is not a belief system.
You have met and gotten to know several atheists and from inductive experience all atheist will fit your conclusion.
An atheist has met and gotten to know several believers and from that inductive experience all believers will fit that conclusion.
See the difference?
“I KNOW the sun rises and Obama exists because I have seen both. There is a slight difference.”
Yes there is. It’s 3am you don’t see the sun. You “KNOW” the sun will rise in the morning, that is unless the sun has reached it’s latter stages and expands and vaporizes Earth. There will then be no sun rising on Earth in any case. Therefore atheism contains elements of belief (the sun will rise this morning), as does anything not atheist. A point agreed upon, that atheism includes belief.
It could be said that you addressing the probable only, and not the possible, which indicates that you would rather not know. What else is restricted from your worldview by choice? You did answer that.
“Key word being ‘choose’. I don’t choose to because frankly I don’t care.” About Hindu belief.
“Maybe that’s why I’ve yet to really find a happy atheist.” Because you “don’t care” about that either?
Then again, by that statement, happy atheists can exist, which make this conclusion false -
“They’re always mad and bitching about something.”
“Key word being” always.
Black Swans…
“You have met and gotten to know several atheists and from inductive experience all atheist will fit your conclusion.”
Actually…yes. It’s not just atheists I’ve met, but atheists I’ve listened to and read. Therefore, ALL atheists fit my conclusion of them not being happy and tend to be insouciant. But that’s neither here nor there.
“It could be said that you addressing the probable only, and not the possible, which indicates that you would rather not know. What else is restricted from your worldview by choice? You did answer that.”
I’m happy to be proven wrong that there is a such thing as a happy atheist. I’ve yet to be proven wrong, and you’re certainly not helping the issue. All of I’ve gotten so far from you is petulance, another form of unhappiness.
“Then again, by that statement, happy atheists can exist, which make this conclusion false -”
“They’re always mad and bitching about something.”
“Key word being” always.
Black Swans…
You certainly haven’t proven it to be false by the way you’re bitchin’ about me saying you’re unhappy. Assuming you’re an atheist. By which I apologize if you aren’t atheist.
“The reason I rejected the “New Age” is that it was about personal fulfillment, and had no place in it for the poor, the sick, the elderly, or children.”
There are many of the “New Age” who are “poor, the sick”, and “elderly”, and have “children.” So why do deny their existence?
“…and please tell Mr. Lucky that pious Hindus…”
No need for an intermediary.
“The one million gods are emanations of God.”
Debate this proposition with a pious Hindu.
I’ve known “New Age” people who were concerned about the sick, the poor, etc. Some of them showed remarkable concern for a friend who broke her leg and needed in-home care. They visited her regularly, prepared meals, drove her to the doctor, and so on. It is merely prejudice to claim that organized traditional religion is necessary for these things.
That’s what Hindus have told me.
Examine the sentence again and note what is capitalized and non-capitalized.
Had a Hindu roommate for a year in college. According to her – and what I’ve found in my own studies on it – the importance of gods, behaviors and customs varies between region and social caste. My roomie was Brahman, and it was her contention that the “highest” understanding of Hinduism is that all the minor gods are merely avatars of Brahma, the creative consciousness of the universe. But not all Hindus consider this to be true. So depending on where you are, and with whom, it’s either a polytheistic or monotheistic tradition.
There’s no holding oneself up as a god, though. There’s ascension of the soul into Nirvana, but that’s about a loss of self, not self as a god. I’m a bit confused as to what this comment was referencing.
To Mr Swindle:
“The value and Truth in religion isn’t found in the weeds of which theology is right but in the fruit of the life lived in sincere devotion to God.”
Actually, you should care about the right theology, because when you say “ethical monotheism”, you’re already assuming that one set of beliefs about ethics is true. My guess is that you believe the Bible has better ethical foundation than the Quran, but what is your basis for that belief? Many muslims are devoted to Allah.
“Look beyond anecdotes and the empirical data tells the story: the religious live happier, more fulfilled, more generous, more prosperous lives than the secular.”
I see this too, but because religious practice makes you feel better doesn’t make it true. I’ve never argued for Christianity on the basis that it makes you feel good, but because it is true. It explains the world best. And it has strong historical evidence behind it. Hope and meaning are nice by-products.
“Actually, you should care about the right theology, because when you say “ethical monotheism”, you’re already assuming that one set of beliefs about ethics is true.”
Incorrect. There are a variety of different beliefs and disagreements about ethics within the ethical monotheist tradition. No theology is entirely true because we’re not God and not capable of being absolutely certain what is true.
“There are a variety of different beliefs and disagreements about ethics within the ethical monotheist tradition.”
I see, are you using a Natural Law approach, finding common universal ethical principles, to build bridges between different ethical camps? That’s an old tradition within the Western-Arab worlds.
Being a sincere seeker is a good mood of the heart, but at some point you have to acknowledge that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all make exclusive claims about God. One of them is about the deity of Jesus.
“No theology is entirely true because we’re not God and not capable of being absolutely certain what is true.”
Well, I suppose I’m with you most of the way. We don’t know everything, but we can give some reasons for the nature of God, aided by the dialogues from philosophy of religion. For example, we could argue that God is not a material being, but transcends space and time (at least without Creation), and so on. But a person can still argue that Judaism, Christianity or Islam is the one true approach to God, and give his reasons and evidences.
“One of them is about the deity of Jesus.”
Correct. Some Christians choose to worship Jesus as their idol instead of worshiping God. What the divinity of Jesus Christ means is part of the reason why there are so many different denominations and sects of Christianity.
One of the aspects of Dennis Prager’s last book that I appreciated the most was the way he frames Americanism as the balancing of three conflicting values: Liberty, In God We Trust, and E. Pluribus Unum. Any one of these values taken to the extreme without the balancing forces of the others will lead to tyranny.
I think in the same sense, the same Judeo-Christian religious tradition that gave birth to our political religion of Americanism, functions according to a comparable balancing act. The religions that work manage to restrain and control their radical elements through balancing conflicting understandings of God. So in the case of Christianity, for the religion to function the idea of the Trinity must be in balance. God must be understood as Father – Son – Holy Spirit simultaneously. This is very difficult to do. And as a result it’s easy for most individuals to drift too much toward just focusing on worshiping one aspect of God. Some on understanding a Father God up in the sky who is a disciplinarian giving laws. Others on one particular aspect of Jesus (the New Testament offers a variety to choose from — symbol of self-sacrifice, supernatural worker of miracles, symbol of absolute love for all of humanity, sacrifice for sin, model for human behavior, Golden Ticket to Heaven, etc.) And fewer on just the Holy Spirit — the kind of mystic, Gnostic, esoteric Christians, many of whom would fall under Webster’s “spiritual but not religious” critique. And the end conclusion of taking any singular definition of God to an extreme is the spiritual/religious cousin of tyranny: idolatry.
With regard to the Doctrine of Trinity: I don’t say it’s easy to grasp at first, but that’s not a good argument why it’s false. It was formulated during the early phase of Christianity, because positing three distinct, equal divine persons united in one God was the only way to make sense of both the Old Testament and the New.
With regard to Jesus: he was all the things you mentioned, and he also claimed to be divine. John 8:58, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
You’re a little too apprehensive about a definition for God: we need robust thinking and theology about God, because otherwise we still could end up believing in anything. I have a friend who is a sort of Deist, and thinks God is an evil prankster of sorts, and has real trouble deciding if there’s objective good or evil. Talking to him is a bit pain, because he is so confused about basic concepts. Your post therefore is a good argument for more theology, not less. And understanding the basic tenets of your religion is the only way to understand why some movements, like Jehowah’s Witnesses and Mormons, are not Christian movements.
“I have a friend who is a sort of Deist, and thinks God is an evil prankster of sorts, and has real trouble deciding if there’s objective good or evil.”
Then he’s not an ethical monotheist and is just practicing idolatry. The key is not just one God but a God who demands ethical behavior.
I think his problems are more emotional and related to personal suffering, which in turn lead to confusion. He believes that God exists on the basis of the intelligibility of nature, but discussion over ethics was very muddled.
Wilhelm of Occham provided us with a razor that handily cuts the plethora of gods to one. Why posit many creators, when one is sufficient.
I agree that the moral nature of God is crucial: other options don’t make much sense. If God is above morality, then He can be both Good and Evil (see goddess Kali) which is not a very appealing position. If God is below morality, then He is subject to a standard higher than Himself. The most sensible option is to say that “the Good” is founded on God’s nature. We human beings, as free moral agents, can choose to seek God or say no to Him.
These are basic philosophy of religion arguments. I know one argument for the Trinity outside of the New Testament: if God is Love, whom did He love before Creation? Love is always a relationship between two persons.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-a-good-analogy-for-the-trinity
I think the author gets at the essence of any religion: practice. Learning ‘about’ a religion – even to the point of being able to quote chapter and verse from its holy book – is not practicing. Analyzing it and arguing about it with atheists is not practicing. Practicing is “doing” your religion, and that’s the only way you can learn whether your religion is “true” or “false.”
Thank you for getting it and for summarizing it so well.
The only crime is not believing or disbelieving exactly what others do. Which is not to say we may copy their deeds — quite the opposite. We are expected to fail miserably, then beg for guidance and mercy on our knees.
Welcome to planet earth.
Congratulations. Disagreement. Spirited exchange. Nobody was mean. You treated each other as you would want to be treated. What a concept.
It was very refreshing…almost…spritual.
How does having confidence in my own senses and ability to reason place me in a position of having to prove something does not exist in which there is no eartly evidence does exists? You believe in God. Fine. I believe in the Easter Bunny. Prove to me I am wrong. Your “logic” can’t do it.
Furthermore how does my confidence in my senses, my ability to reason, and my demand that you provide physical evidence of your God make me inherently unhappy? Old Guy above is right. You guys are a hoot!
“Furthermore how does my confidence in my senses, my ability to reason, and my demand that you provide physical evidence of your God make me inherently unhappy?”
The physical evidence of God’s existence is in the higher quality of life of those who believe in him as demonstrated by the empirical data cited in the article.
“It’s hard to know what to expect when an avowed liberal takes on the controversial issue of school choice.” I think that the last word there is the key: choice.
With any totalitarian, bureaucratic driven system you don’t have a choice. They cannot allow it because they know it will destroy them. Their system depends on having no choice. Choice, exposes the simple fact that their existence is parasitic and destructive. If choice is introduced, it is like sunlight to a vampire, therefore they will avoid it at all costs.
As an advocate of radical life extension, the hostile views expressed by both Webster and the Jewish writer whose piece Webster links to in his own, do not endear me to their belief systems.
I’m not about to join any belief system that, in any way, questions my personal dreams and goals in life. These people get an “F” in salesmanship.
I am not hostile to radical life extension. I’m a big fan of Ray Kurzweil. I don’t see anything wrong with technology helping us evolve into a new species that can transfer consciousness into new bodies.
Plural reference by god(s) to themselves is used many times, especially in earlier books of Bible. The Bible is clear there is more than one god, it is man that attempts tortured reasoning to create a single god out of the collected books.
God is Moral / ethical..? There are hundreds of thousands murdered in the old testament on Gods command, for no other reason than being in the way of narrative. We cannot have it both ways.
What the Bible actually says, and what theologians and believers attempt to explain it says are two very different items.
I believe this is the source of history’s conflict(s) with Religion. It must be reasoned and manipulated until a product that fits political environment of the time is produced. This was easy when nobody could read and research, or question validity without torture and certain death hovering over the process.
Today we can examine the Bible (or other religious work), its true historical origins, translate directly from original language ourselves, and arrive at our own conclusions instead of political compromise.
“Plural reference by god(s) to themselves is used many times, especially in earlier books of Bible.”
Such as the 1st commandment, “Thou shall not have any other gods than Me”?
I’m pretty sure there was always one Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh and never an Odin/Zeus/Shiva there alongside him.
“God is Moral / ethical..? There are hundreds of thousands murdered in the old testament on Gods command, for no other reason than being in the way of narrative. We cannot have it both ways.”
When God declared he is the Alpha and the Omega maybe He was able to see thousands of years into the future and realize the morality of His decision to have men kill (not murder, as there is a difference). Let’s use an example: Was it moral that America laid to waste many Japanese and Germans in order to stop them from engaging in evil? Perhaps the only moral act is to kill another man.
“Plural reference by god(s) to themselves is used many times, especially in earlier books of Bible” To me, this is part of the context of the era in which it was written; the Israelites were surrounded by civilizations that worshipped diverse pantheons of gods (small-g). The “gods” mentioned in the Bible are these deities, not Yahweh. A more correct interpretation of that First Commandment would be “thou shalt have no other gods before me”, establishing that God is the supreme being, while still allowing for the possibility of other things in the world that were lower than God, and thus, not deserving of worship. The Bible never says there are no other entities in the world, just that it’s our duty as believers to stay away from them. (we can actually see this echoed in certain traditions of “High Magic” that have come down through the centuries – there’s a belief in the Judeo-Christian God or another supreme being, but the lesser beings of gods, demons, angels, and spirits are invoked instead.) Also, acknowledgment of the regional “gods” could have been a mere social reaction to idolatry, which was sometimes practiced by the Israelites and always punished severely by God. In Israel, worship of a carved lump of stone – considered to be a “god” – could cause serious social and political harm to a group of people. Either way, the First Commandment is a deliberate, specific rejection of paganism/idolatry, and doesn’t require “tortured reasoning” to understand.
The God of the Old Testament is harsh, but only in following the laws He set down for the Israelites. When they stepped out of line, He struck them down. When they were under attack, He would come to their defense against their enemies (if they had been faithful). Basically, he supported them when they obeyed, and punished when they did not. “Murder” is far too strong a word to use here; it was God carrying out sentence, not engaging in random killings. The Old Testament is not a chronicle of random acts of violence by an angry or indifferent god, but one holding His people to a certain standard (btw, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was born to give humanity a path to reconciliation and forgiveness with God, to remove this requirement for harsh punishment, which is why you see a different understanding of God amongst Christians that seems to contradict that of the Old Testament – the relationship has been fundamentally redefined.) But again, whatever else you might believe, this is a marked distinction from, and explicit rejection of, the actions of the gods of many of the patheons of the region, where deities would kill, rape or kidnap humans because they felt like it.
What I wanted to say was this – there’s no manipulation that has to take place here in order to understand the big, main, important rules about how God wants us to live our lives. The beliefs and requirements of those beliefs are quite plainly laid out. Understanding the how and why, and accepting that as a truth to live by, is of course something that requires study, interpretation and reflection. A little historical context, seen from a non-modern perspective, goes a long, long way, too. I’ve seen both atheists and die-hard Christians somehow miss this step.
The key, I think, to understanding a religion or a set of beliefs is looking for the truth contained in the religious texts. A positive search for the divinely inspired in the Bible, rather than a negative, post-modern critique.
“The Bible is clear there is more than one god, it is man that attempts tortured reasoning to create a single god out of the collected books.”
Yes, there are many gods. But only one of them is True and only one of them will ultimately bring happiness through worship.
“There are hundreds of thousands murdered in the old testament on Gods command, for no other reason than being in the way of narrative. We cannot have it both ways.”
“Murder” and “killing” are not the same thing. And the Canaanites killed in the Old Testament were killed for a reason. Their barbaric culture of ritualized sex slavery (temple prostitution), nature worship, and human sacrifice needed to be eradicated.
I’m a classical liberal (libertarian), in the John Lock sense, and will never be anything but. Christianity’s “golden rule” is essentially the same as the “non-aggression” principle that forms the root of classical liberalism/libertarian morality. I see no reason why I must identify with any organized religion in order to live by this principle.
Also, the hostility towards radical life extension linked to by the posting does not endear me to the world-views of these individuals. It presents a false choice. I know both Christian and Jewish people who are supportive of efforts to cure aging and develop radical life extension. Indeed, a former president of Alcor, a cryonics organization, is a “born-again” Christian. The notion that Christianity requires rejection of radical life extension is poppycock.
Chris Bolts Sr,
Thank you for response.
Reading / translating Bible in original Hebrew ( classical Hebrew though can be tedious), Greek and Aramaic will shed more light on what God(s) meant when they refer to themselves in plural.
Also it was somewhat common for multiple gods in Judeo beliefs until their captivity in Babylon, when exposure to Zorasterian beliefs and monotheistic theology helped to shape and define the old testament to its present form.
If God cannot rise to a level of morality higher than rationale used by man to kill another human being, you have made my point.
Christianity is all about radical life extension. It’s called eternal life. That’s radical baby. There were two thieves crucified alongside Jesus. He only told one of them that he would get radical life extension.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpZ5FG5hEhQ
Mr. Swindle: While I agree with many of the points you make regarding the link between traditional religion and a fulfilling life, you lose me in one respect. You describe yourself as “choosing”, essentially, to believe in God, in order to consciously attempt to follow a path to happiness.
One either believes in a thing, or not. Even if I were firmly convinced that a belief in leprachauns would make me happy, the problem would remain; I don’t believe in leprechauns. I could *pretend* to, but that’s a different thing.
” I could *pretend* to, but that’s a different thing.”
Pretending to believe in a god is often the first step toward actually believing in God.
Case in point:
“Plenty of time-tested religious and spiritual paths exist. But we only start walking down them when we realize that religion isn’t about blind faith that God exists, but the practical faith of following the steps to bring God into existence in our own lives.”
No offense, but this sounds like a dodge. Religion is making a factual claim about the existence of supernatural beings. Do you believe that claim? If so, why?
Not all religions make factual claims about supernatural beings.
I do not love believe in supernatural beings. I believe in Supranatural beings — beings that transcend nature. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supranatural.
Relevant reading: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html
Supernaturalism is a form of idolatry when taken to the extremes that some religions do.
“Supernatural” vs. “supranatural” is a distinction without a difference. But no matter. So you believe in “supranatural” being (or more than one?).
Okay. Why?
It’s a distinction with a big difference. It’s a key difference between stage 2 and stage 4 spirituality. http://www.factnet.org/node/1809
“Why?”
For the reasons stated in my article. Among them: because if the God of the ethical monotheist tradition does not exist then there is no reason why human sacrifice and sex slavery are wrong.
I don’t think your link elucidates any real difference between the two words. But I’ll leave that aside for the moment, since it’s not germain (or Michael, or Janet, or any of the other Jacksons) to my central point here.
You’re essentially saying, “I have decided to believe in X, because I think the consequences of belief in X are good (happiness, fulfillment, etc.) and those of non-belief in X are bad (infant sacrifice, sex slavery, etc.). Do you not see the epistemological problem here? You’ve postulated no basis for believing that X *actually* exists; you’re merely asserting that it’s a good idea to think so.
“Do you not see the epistemological problem here? You’ve postulated no basis for believing that X *actually* exists; you’re merely asserting that it’s a good idea to think so.”
Yes I see the problem here. I’ve spent a decade of my life pulling my hair out over the epistemological problem here. I’m aware of how illogical it is to have faith in something without having proof that it *actually* exists. But I’m also aware that it’s logical to pursue habits and lifestyle choices that will lead to good consequences. The fact that belief in God produces a happier, more fulfilling life is adequate evidence enough to me to inspire faith that God exists. That’s empirical enough to tip me over the line into giving faith a try again.
Interesting topic.
Although a key component of my religion is supposed to be evangelism, I have long ago given up on actively trying to convince people that MY belief is the right and proper one.
It basically comes down to 2 different kinds of people:
One looks at a sunset and the beauty of nature and derives comfort from the thought that a knowing hand guided the creation and is watching over all.
The other looks at a sunset and the beauty of nature and derives comfort from the thought that through the infinite possibilities of chance he was fortunate enough to be in that place at that time.
Nearly every being believes in something outside of themselves. Call it God, or Luck, or Karma or Nature. (Even in his famous paper outlining the reason there is no god Stephen Hawking relied on the idea of “Laws of Nature” that existed before the universe began as the reason we are here) What you choose to think of that outside force and whether or not you think it is sentient or kind or vengeful or neglectful or absent is up to you.
Im surprised Kevin R. Cross hasnt made it to this thread yet, to spread his “Freethinker” Society garbage under the guise of a Christian concern troll.
When you get involved in these complicated intellectual exercises about God or no God, take a moment to look at your position in the scheme of things first. Meaning, if you were born severely retarded, or you are in a coma, or you are 3 days old, etc., these are not questions that mean anything to you. You either are or you aren’t. You have self awareness or you don’t. It is a kind of intellectual snobbery to start from high level thinking processes that were hugely shaped and formed by myriad influences in your environment, without going to the base of the question from the most simple point of view possible.
You may find simple is best.
The intellect is not equipped for looking around, outside, or above itself…like your eyes can’t float behind you to see the back of your head (yeah, I know, mirrors..blah blah blah). That’s why intellectual and intelligent are two different words.
The Reality is there inside you if you care to settle down and look (I did it through meditation). Otherwise, if reality depended on anything outside of you, it couldn’t be real. It has to be real since the beginning of time and not dependent on current religious sway or fashion. It can’t be dependent on whether I’m 3 days old and can even understand it. It either is or it isn’t.
Religions can be good to give a set of guidelines, but they should not be used as an excuse for limitations on understanding of or expression of spirituality. In other words, the original purpose of the religion was to take everyone along to infinity, not harden the guidelines into a bunch of regulations and make enemies of “the other”.