Arguing Atheism

Another Kent Leslie post, based on his column titled "Atheists are jerks. So are we when we adopt their tactics."

The headline is quite a bit misleading, but it is a common technique of his to overly provoke, but be a little bit more reasonable. The scope of the blog entry is that one cannot apply logic to questions of faith, whether it is atheism or Christianity. There is much that is highly arguable in the whole thing, the largest one being that Christians inevitably argue God as being equitable with the entire Christian theology; and that atheists do the same thing.

Christian (Kent): Jesus healed the sick, therefore God exists.
Atheist (not Kent): Thor doesn't exist, therefore Jesus didn't heal the sick.

Kent's point is that faith is experiential and not logical, and that any logical attack on religion or atheism would be fruitless. I mostly agree.

But ... My response: Isn't it possible that the question of a divine source of morality and creation is independent from human theology -- that our understanding of the nature of God is a separate issue from the existence of God.

My more controversial point (beware!) is that the existence of Jesus is dependent on the existence of God, and not the other way around.

On the issue of logic, it is actually possible to apply pure logic to questions of faith using Socratic techniques. Unfortunately for atheists, the result is never that the absence of an effect disproves the cause; it only disproves the effect. Godless philosophy is fascinating, but in the end is based on a faith-based premise: if there is no creator, then ...

On Christmas and Pluralism

After months of mining Andrew Sullivan for signs of incrementally growing tolerance between faiths, it appears I've shifted to my old student newspaper pal Kent Leslie ...

The last post I referred you to "An Evening of Kent" his blog for rants and raves which discussed how the educated religious might relate to those who are not interested in nuance in their theology. But Kent has a more scholarly -- and definitely reverent -- blog "Towards a Fuller Understanding of God" which is the focus of my posting today.

Kent's thesis is that the Magi were Zoroastrian scholars and that they too were privileged to have the Divine revealed to them, which brought them to Bethlehem to find the Holy Family. They were not "kings" and perhaps not truly astrologers in the contemporary sense. They received revelation from the Divine. He also notes that (from a Christian perspective) that it is possible that portions of God's truth may have been revealed to people throughout history in all places and that the role of Jesus is to bring it all together.

This idea bothers a lot of Christians. We believe Jesus is right. But we inaccurately come to the converse conclusion: that pagans are all wrong. Pagans are not entirely wrong. They are just wrong enough for us to need to hear from Jesus. Many things they get right. There’s a great deal of Buddhism that is exactly right; a great deal of ancient Greek philosophy that accurately depicts the world; and a whole lot of Zoroastrianism that properly describes God.

How, if they’re pagans, could they possibly have arrived at the truth? Well, it’s not too hard to figure: All truth is God’s truth; all truth comes from God. They got it from God. “But they’re pagans.” Yes, they are. So what? They still got it from God.

As a Christian, I don't quibble much with the conclusion that Jesus uniquely and profoundly embodies heavenly Truth. But, I continue to be drawn to the conclusion that God is so unknowable and so beyond human comprehension, that it could be possible that many faiths -- including Christianity -- have a true, yet incomplete understanding. That we must take the whole sum of theology throughout history to begin to understand the nature of God.

It is a vast task -- which is my point. We cannot hope to understand all revelation, which is why we must be humble when it comes to God. If we say "All truth is God's truth," then we can't expect to either own truth or own God.

In a Facebook exchange with Kent regarding his "Evening of Kent" posting, I said

One of the most difficult parts of any [all] religion is recognizing that some - maybe only the few - relish the uncertainty of faith that leads to both self discovery and the discovery of the Divine. But that others - perhaps most - turn to religion for certainty and safety, and that it might not be God's way to deny them the emotional and spiritual security they crave.

Kent replied:

Personally, I believe anyone who LIKES the uncertainty has something seriously wrong with them. [emphasis added] I know far too many religious anarchists who "don't believe in organized religion," but never think about the fact that "organized religion" is an oxymoron. Religion MEANS organized spirituality. Unorganized spirituality feels good, but is ultimately ... Read Moremeaningless.

You're right, though: The chaos in the universe is meant to propel us towards order. That'd be the Divine. But because He's hard to grasp, far too many folks settle for religion—whether it's our rituals or our belief-system—and religion is no more stable than the chaos. We're only deluding ourselves when we think so.

Yes, I like uncertainity. When I yield to it, it gives me peace. That is a portion of the truth revealed through Buddhism.

Footnote: Zoroastrians are still around today. Take a read of Kent's piece on the influence of this ancient religion on Judaism and then also do some additional reading. Famous modern Zoroastrian: Freddy Mercury from the rock band Queen.

The Evening of Kent

I'd like to recommend the blog of an old college friend of mine, Kent Leslie. Focused primarily on rants regarding his (very learned) perspective on Christian practice. I don't believe he can be classified as pluralist to even the smallest degree, but he has a progressive and very rambunctious attitude regarding Christian practice in America and the responsibilities of believers to be educated and intellectually honest.

What would have happened if Thomas [St. Thomas, the Apostle who doubted the Resurrection] had done as so many morons do, and hidden his doubts, and believed really hard until his doubts went away? Well, first of all, he would have been a hypocrite. And that point needs to be hammered home to the people of your church: Refusing to deal with doubt is hypocrisy. Everyone doubts. Oh, they say they don’t, but every single last one of them is worried that, fr’instance, maybe the End Times won’t turn out the way Tim LaHaye says it will, and they’ll have to live through a few years of tribulation. Or that maybe there’s a sin in their lives that’s getting in the way of their prayers, even though we’ve taught (or should teach) that prayer doesn’t work that way. Doubt is universal. Denying you doubt is like denying you sin.

Give him a read.