A non-believer's lament...

ALL:

My easy-believing, non-critical thinking, funamentalist southern baptist bride of 20 years :-), the absolute love of my life, has, in the last few years, undergone a radical spiritual transformation. She is now toying with atheism.

Along the way, I rejoiced, considering my own spiritual location as a long-time thorough-going “non-believer”, an agnostic on god and classically skeptic on the christian enterprise. After all, she was heading my direction. It was joyous, our being more on the “same page” spiritually than we had ever been. But now she seems to have just kept galloping right on by, and I find myself uneasy with it.

My question for OST regulars is, “Why?” Considering my own journey, the idea shouldn’t trouble me in the least…

The atheist (…at least softer atheist…) position is extremely persuasive in my opinion - always has been. I’ve found myself sympathetic to it for a very long time. My agnosticism would be the most glaring evidential affirmation of this. I have experienced the frustration many times of engaging in conversation, mostly online, with this type of non-proselytizing, thoughtful atheist, and coming up on the short end of the stick.

In spite of this, I have never been quite able to stake the atheist claim for myself - like Spong (http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/publicsite/index.aspx) and Brinsmead (http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_archive.html) and Morwood(http://www.morwood.org/front.html) and others who have influenced me greatly, I find myself interminably nagged by that hope for “something more”…

And not only that, there’s also the this-worldly view of god I hold dear. This special marital bond and the purity of the life, love, and being ensconced there, divine in fact (ala Spong) - the human one, jesus, aka jba (joshua ben adam - ala Brinsmead), and how it is in the mundane ordinariness of human relating that we experience anything resembling a divine presence (ala Morwood) - or how along those same lines jba himself debunked the vertical relationship altogether (Brinsmead again).

All of this is a very shorthand way of describing where I have travelled spiritually thoughout my whole life - and somehow must be feeding the fear I feel - a fear that atheism, if taken in a certain direction and in a certain way, leads to the de-spiritualization of everything - including our human relating.

So, in addition to the “Why?”, I also want to know, “What?” What do I do to alleviate these fears? What do I say in conversations with her that will deal with the fears healthily?

Thanks,

Tim

p.s…, I wasn’t going to post this, since I in no way feel up to the intellectual standard of Andrew and the regulars here, but I’ve enoticed from some recent postings by John Doyle and Peter Wilkinson that OST seems to be experiencing a rather sharp slowdown in traffic. In light of that, maybe a little different twist from someone new [but old :-)] will be okay this once…

 

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Re: A non-believer's lament...

To those questions I would ask “HOW.”  How did it come to be that my wife is an atheist and I feel uncomfortable with it?

My wife has a similar story.  She grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist household where she was forced to attend church.  Now, against that hard position, she has taken a much more ambiguous position.  She doesn’t claim there is a god and she doesnn’t claim there isn’t—she doesn’t talk about God because to her God is what her parents tried to make her believe in.

My point is, I guess, there is a big difference between agnosticism and atheism.  While you said atheism was persuasive, it apparently was not persuasive enough for you to identify yourself as an atheist.  So, you might be uncomfortable because your wife has taken the opposite extreme position and you’re still in the awkward middle.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

I’ve noticed the down turn too.  Where are you Andrew?  And other writers/thinkers/doers?

Re: A non-believer's lament...

a fear that atheism, if taken in a certain direction and in a certain way, leads to the de-spiritualization of everything.”

Flat footed empiricist atheism can certainly lead to the disenchantment of the world, Max Weber suggested.  But fears such as these were born in a time when a naive empiricism was alive and well.  Today, I hope, we are more sophisticated, which means that I argue that we all should recognize that no one has un-mediated access to the One Way The World Truly Is.  We all speak from someplace.  We all see from some perspective.  We all have mediated (mediated by language and other meaning generating symbol systems like gestures and body language) experiences.  We all make certain presuppositions about how the world—like we presume the world is divided into Objective and Subjective realms—really is and then we go about living our life accordingly.  My point, I guess, is that modern atheism is a kind of faith in that it presupposes that there are no gods and that what can be seen and measured is all that there is at work in the world.  Seen in this way, atheism is a late modern faith perspective.  It does not necessarily lead to a disenchanted world—indeed, holding to the faith that there are no gods is one way that humans enchant the world and basically give it meaning.   


Re: A non-believer's lament...

Good question Tim. I’ve probably slipped onto the atheist pile myself, but I hold it tentatively in the same way that a believer with doubts would still call him/herself a believer. You’d probably be better off talking to my wife about what it’s like for her as a believer to live with me. On second thought, maybe that’s not such a great idea ;)

I’ll have to think about what de-spiritualizing means to me, because I do tend to be rather disillusioned with things. I’ll give this more thought and get back to you.

Here’s a survey article about agnosticism/atheism I just came across. I’ve not read it yet but it looks interesting and maybe useful in some way. Again, I’ll be back after reading the article and self-reflecting more.

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Tim,

What struck me in particular about this post is your concern about leading toward “the de-spiritualization of everything — including our human relating.” I’m sure that this has happened to me, in the sense that I no longer have a sense of the enchantment of a world held together and made intrinsically meaningful by a supernatural god. I’ve also become more pessimistic, and probably more unhappy, during my gradual transition from faith to agnosticism to atheism. These are mostly my own issues. However, I realize that they doubtless affect my relationship with my wife, who is a believer.

One of my main motivations for participating in discussions at OST is to see what common ground I as an unbeliever can share with believers. It’s unfortunate in a sense that discussions revolve almost exclusively around theory, exegesis, doctrine — the purely rational aspects of religion. On the other hand, I’m not all that comfortable talking about my emotional self. Partly I suspect this is the case because, as I noted, my emotions more often tend toward the grays and blues and blacks. I’m not interested in indulging in an angstfest, and I also don’t want to hear about how a renewal of faith would make me the optimistic and happy guy I used to be. Inasmuch as you’re agnostic I’m sure you share these sentiments.

Looking back on it, I’d say that I was already experiencing a de-spiritualization before I acknowledged my agnosticism. Religion had become something like a hobby, rewarding to the extent that I invested time in it, but not really a kind of spiritual milieu in which I lived and breathed. This disenchantment came first; only years later did I confront more directly the issue of whether I actually believed intellectually in something that no longer affected me emotionally. And I also think that my pessimism and unhappiness stem from a rather long trajectory of disappointment and ineffectuality which had relatively little to do with matters of faith. I.e., disenchantment has had more to do with personal experiences in secular life than with God’s perceived failings.

What’s the case here, though, is that I’m talking about myself. Even if I could describe my wife’s reactions to my gradual change (and, I would acknowledge, my deterioration), this wouldn’t be of much use to you in any event. There are, I’m sure, specific concerns you have about your wife’s changes. Is she more cynical, less romantic, tougher? And are these causes or effects of a move toward atheism? Or has she become more stridently scientific and Dawkins-like?

I’m not sure it’s possible to talk abstractly about matters that are interpersonal and distinctive to the people involved. Issues affecting you and your wife are probably very different from those that affect me and my wife. But I’ll go another round if you like, depending on how specific you’re prepared to get about your own concerns. In all likelihood I’d have no particular advice to offer, but writing it down might help clarify the issues.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

I’m not sure what this thread is really all about; I’m not sure what we are all about, stranded here on OST in cyber space. John’s use of the word ‘disenchantment’ did put me in mind though of a book I reviewed some time ago on the site, of which the following is an extract:

The starting point is an assumption, clearly based on personal experience and the experience of others Tomlinson has encountered, that many believers have become ‘disenchanted’ with the Christian faith as commonly expressed and practised. This should come as no surprise to those who have read studies of those abandoning the church, but not the faith.

Tomlinson draws on Ricoeur’s description of a threefold response to texts - naive, literal acceptance; disenchantment, and then the possibility of a ‘second naiveté’ - and applies this to the changing patterns of spiritual journey. He argues for the necessity of a deconstruction of the faith, as a precursor to a deeper, more mature faith which is a synthesis of belief and doubt - or a second innocence, as he describes it. Tomlinson argues for a ‘progressive orthodoxy’, by contrasting an orthodoxy which is a ‘closed system’ of belief, and an orthodoxy which dialogues with culture, and is itself changed in the process - as it must, to adjust to changed contexts in which it finds itself.” (Re-Enchanting Christianity - David Tomlinson)

A psychologist referred to in Tomlinson’s first book, ‘The Post-Evangelical’, charts three or four main stages in a spiritual journey which echo these thoughts. I expect John will have come across this.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Whew…

The bottom line, John, is that you are probably correct in your final analysis about the distinct-ness of close interpersonal relationships arguing against anything very generalizable. This made me begin to think more about my original posting and whether or not those words were an accurate or clear reflection of my intent.

When I read Peter’s perplexed opening line above, I REALLY began to question my original posting. Here is what I can come up with in the way of clarification…

I made it personal because it is personal. But I may have gone a little overboard there, because the kind of discussion I was hoping to elicit was along different, less personal lines. For instance, I thought I was going for some testimonials, or examples thereof, from scientist/scholarly types whose worldview has maintained some sort of ‘faith’ in what we generally term the spiritual component of human beings. But the reality is, my wife is not a scientist/scholar type, so I now doubt that approach. When a NON-scientist’s spiritual journey moves them from a literalist fundamentalism implanted from birth, through the various phases of intense doubt, painful deconstruction, grabbing at threads of reconfiguration, etc…, straight through to “toying with atheism” as a realistic and perhaps likely endpoint, what balancing influences/testimonials/writings/etc.. would be the most useful? Such a person wasn’t led there strictly due to intellectual/philosophical/rational argumentation. They were led there primarily due to one or more very significant life experiences that more-or-less forced it on them.

What I seem to have observed in my wife is a strong tendency to accept the portrayal of a Richard Dawkins, for example. Why? Simply because the narrow theistic sky-god and all the associated dogma he and his compadres so thoroughly demolish, is a precise and accurate reflection of the god she was so devotedly loyal to and blindly followed for so very long - a worldview that has now become indefensible in its hypocritical ludicrousness. Even though they know other, non-hypocritical, more deeply pondered, more ‘progressive’  versions of god and christianity are out there, and even though they are likely “toying” with one or another of these newly discovered god perspectives just as open-mindedly as their “toying” with atheism is, the atheist position feels better to them, at least for now, and maybe for good, depending on whether or not they lose interest, just because its a more radically clean break.

Now that I’ve typed this in, I don’t know if its actually any more clear or not. I can hope so i guess - maybe that one of you will be able to peel a little more fog off the lens I’m trying to see through… :-)

Thanks again to all,

Tim

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

I thought I was going for some testimonials, or examples thereof, from scientist/scholarly types whose worldview has maintained some sort of ‘faith’ in what we generally term the spiritual component of human beings.”

I’m probably the wrong guy for the job, unless you believe that the human spiritual component doesn’t necessarily depend on there being a god who’s separate from humans. Jacob’s relational understanding of God and spirit might fill the bill. He’s better positioned than I to explain it, of course. My sense is that Jacob would regard relationships between humans as a kind of emergent presence of the spirit — or, even more strongly stated, that the Spirit is human relationships. Though he and I disagreed about Dawkins, I find myself as agnostic/atheist potentially embraced by this sort of relational Christianity. It doesn’t seem to hinge on my personal beliefs or statements of faith, nor even on the objective existence of God separate from human relations.

Just to clarify, I previously spoke of disenchantment not with respect to my loss of theistic belief but with respect to interpersonal relations. If “God is love,” then love of other people, of nature, of art, even of science can imbue life with spirituality. I feel that I’ve lost a significant measure of this sort of spirituality, this sense of the enchantment of ordinary life. I’m not sure that church is the place to rekindle such an enchantment, since for me relationships within the church were the least attractive part of Christianity even when I was a believer. Something about mutual recognition, engagement together about important matters, being captivated by wonder, a sense of being drawn out of oneself… Artists often talk about “spirit” in this way, regardless of their religious beliefs. Even that old religion-basher Nietzsche celebrated spirit in this way.

You might be right that a Dawkins-like scientific atheism presents a more “radically clean break” from that Old Time Religion — a “born again” experience in reverse, or a “deprogramming.” Dawkins has positioned himself as a professional atheist, a spokesman for a point of view, a sort of missionary, and while many find his style annoying he does have important things to say. Most atheists don’t hold their atheism so tightly: it just recedes into the background. Most people don’t hold their faith so tightly either, in my experience. So, can one hold onto the interpersonal spirit of love and the enchantment of ordinary life while setting aside the Old Time Religion? One would hope so, and for many the answer seems to be yes.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

As far as I can tell, there are no “wrong guys” when it comes to stuff like this; well except maybe a zealous fundy preacher here to win souls… :-)

i don’t recall if I mentioned it or not, but yours and Jacob’s exchange on a recent Richard Dawkins thread here was a primary influence on my posting of this thread. What’s funny is, not having read either of you before, I came away from that thread thinking you were more traditionally religious-minded than Jacob! How strange, huh?

I think Jacob should chime in again if he feels so inclined.

I like how you explain several things here, John. Your disenchantment is palpable as you’ve expanded more on it. I think your more radicalized version of Jacob’s view, i.e…, that ‘spirit’ IS human relationships,  is precisely where I would cast my lot. No externalized deity, no mediation, no vertical relating of any kind. It seems to me to be the ‘faith of jba’ as I have come to interpret it.

In other words, my answer to your last question would be yes, and I seem to be one of the many. However, where I live there aren’t very many of us at all… :-)

Tim

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

LOL — maybe I was unconsciously channeling Dawkins’ scientific fundamentalist persona. I’m almost surely more of a modernist in contrast to Jacob’s postmodernism, inasmuch as I’m more prone to accept the subjective-objective distinction and to claim not only that “the truth is out there” but that it can actually be glimpsed by us humans. But that’s another discussion. I vacillate between defending/promoting my own atheistic views, and finding common cause with theists.

In the Dawkins discussion I found myself mostly doing the former, but in other contexts I’d possibly welcome Jacob’s views. An obstacle, however, is Jacob’s apparent reliance on cultural consensus. If a community of Christians intersubjectively agree that a nonbeliever like me is “out,” then “out” I am, since the conversation creates the reality. If different communities create different realities, and one regards me as in while another deems me out, then… are there multiple gods? And do these gods change as their communities change? Of course Jacob isn’t here, and this isn’t exactly the context for such a discussion, but exploring these non-orthodox possibilities is what I expected emerging theology to be about.

Alternatively, a realist view might say that the community can agree on whatever it likes, but they could be completely wrong about whether I’m “really” in or out from God’s perspective. That works for me too.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

An obstacle, however, is Jacob’s apparent reliance on cultural consensus.  If a community of Christians intersubjectively agree that a nonbeliever like me is “out,” then “out” I am, since the conversation creates the reality. If different communities create different realities, and one regards me as in while another deems me out, then… are there multiple gods? And do these gods change as their communities change?”

As an empirical matter that you or I can observe and others have observed and argued about, it seems that communities of believers define outsiders and insiders everyday.  We can see Jerry Falwell say that homosexuals are sinners that will burn in hell, which is basically a way of indicating that homosexuals are outsiders; and we can see Falwell say that “we” are the saved community that must save the unsaved sinners, which is basically a way of indicating outsiders.  There are concrete consequences for such boundary drawing—homosexual cannot be members of the church, for instance.  They are excluded from that community.  In other words, we can observe the processes of social and religious boundary drawing in everyday contexts.  While I can agree that you might lament the exclusionary effort that goes into defining some community of believers in relation to outsiders, to me it is clear that it is a regularly occurring feature of life that can be systematically studied.

Are there multiple gods and do they change with the worshiping communities?  Yes on both accounts, I argue.  Here are some links to past posts that addressed the issue you raised here.

Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like under conditions of irreducible pluralism?

Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?

The Bible as a Resource for Faithful Action in the World Today

Reflexive Religious Faith


Alternatively, a realist view might say that the community can agree on whatever it likes, but they could be completely wrong about whether I’m “really” in or out from God’s perspective. That works for me too.”

I agree.  This is what my Southern Baptist father in law says.  And he is pretty Certain that he has it “really” right.  But my question to him and you is: so what?  In The End, you are Right and….  What about now?  What about here?  What about anything other than assuring your Ultimate Salvation?  What is the value in relying on being Right in The End and on an External support for one’s personal convictions?  

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Jacob,

You’ll observe that I exchanged comments with you on your two pluralism posts, and I liked what you had to say. I’m not as interested in adopting your views as I am in finding a basis for people with different beliefs to join forces in fellowship, social action, and other important collective endeavors. As an atheist I’m not concerned with being out from God’s point of view. As a human being I am concerned with whether those who do believe in God regard me as out. It’s definitely a here-and-now consideration for me.

In Christianity we’re confronted with a religion in which one of the leading figures said this:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14)

So we’re always working uphill on the in/out thing.

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Working uphill? Absolutely…

But yesterday. John, you and I seemed to agree that communities do exist whose basic orientation is a self-proclaimed “christian” one (…although alternative v conventional; radical v orthodox…), your word was “many”, in fact, AND whose views are non-dogmatic, focused more on the here-and-now, where “non-believers” are included, not excluded. I questioned the “many”, at least where I live, but we agreed on their existence at least.

Your use of the bible to support the exclusionary view is interesting, because another thing about such communities, scattered as they tend to be, isolated within larger churches sometimes, is that their view of the authority of scripture would be antithetical to the way you’ve used it here. What do I do with the exculsionary pauline text you cited? I simply pass on it, cafeteria-style, and find where this same leading figure talks about inclusion, like in Romans (excuse the paraphrase), “there is no separation from love/god - whether jew or greek, male or female, slave or free…, and I would add, religious or non-religious, believer or non-believer…”

AJ Jacobs talks about the superiority of a cafeteria-style use of scripture in his latest project. See a relatively short humorous video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MkpzMAOZM&feature=related

A boundary-free, thoroughly human “christian” community, such as Bob Brinsmead’s excursis on a “joshua ben adam society”, represents very nicely my own views. Here is a relevant excerpt (…please excuse the length - probably easier just to click and read the whole thing directly - just couldn’t seem to determine a good clipping strategy…):

http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/t_the_scandal_of_joshua_ben_adam_pt6.html

No Home (Except….)

Foxes have their holes, the birds their nests; but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head…(Luke 9:58)

This is not a mournful statement from a man who laments his poverty. Far from it. Like other “son of man” sayings, this one also comes from a man who is conscious that being human makes him a son of God, the heir and lord of all things.

What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man*, that you visit him? For you have made him a little lower than the Godhead and have crowned him with glory and honor. You made him rule over the works of your hands. You have put all under his feet. (Psalms: 8:3,6)

In its account of creation, the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom.

Then God said, Let us make man in our image and likeness to rule the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all wild animals on earth … . . So God created man in his own image;  in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them … . . rule over every living thing. (Genesis 1:26-30)

In our last chapter we saw how the human order of freedom, love and equality is not natural. This creation passage cited above also shows that the human order is above the natural. Being a reflection of God’s image and likeness, it is supernatural.

Our opening statement from Joshua ben Adam harks back to these creation passages. It also draws a distinction between the animal kingdom and the human kingdom, between the foxes and the birds on the one hand and the son of man on the other.

The animals and birds dig holes or make nests in a very defined territory. They are extremely territorial in their habits. They are prisoners of a certain space. Biologists have shown that this “home territory” is more basic to the animal kingdom than even the sexual instinct.

If the foxes find their home and their security in holes in the ground and if the birds find their home and their security in building nests, where is the home for God’s vice-regent and where is the security of she who is made in God’s image and likeness?

Joshua ben Adam declares that the son of man has nowhere to lay his head. He probably made this enigmatic statement with a big smile on his face just as there was a big smile on his face when he told enigmatic stories to lampoon conventional wisdom. The statement tells us far more than the simple fact he was an itinerant who moved from place to place. It tells us that the one who accepts the calling of being human as God intended is an itinerant spirit, a person who is free and on a journey.

The unknown author of Hebrews urges the Hebrew Christians to become itinerants like Joshua ben Adam. As he was crucified “outside the gate”, they too must leave the security of the city and go “outside the camp” of Judaism. (Ch. 13:12,13) The writer also used Old Testament models for this itinerant community of faith. Abraham is set forth as the first great itinerant. He left behind the security of the city called Ur. “Abraham obeyed the call to go out … . and left home … . living in tents.” Then the Israelites “left Egypt” and became itinerants in the wilderness. A whole host of worthies “wandered about” as itinerants because of their faith. (See Hebrews 11)

Obviously Joshua’s having no physical home and moving from place to place is a parabolic life which points to the deeper reality of being an itinerant spirit who is free and on a journey. Far more significant than the houses we build to shelter us from the elements are the religious/philosophical/world-view structures we build for security. With these we build institutions, cultures and civilizations. They are an expression of our world-view and of our value system. As Paul Tillich brilliantly put it:

Religion as ultimate concern is the meaning - giving substance of culture, and culture is the totality of forms in which the basic concern of religion expresses itself. In  abbreviation:   religion is the substance of culture, culture is the form of religion.” (Theology of Culture, p 42)

When mankind builds these structures in which to find security and permanency, the human ones fall short of their awesome freedom as God’s co-creators in the journey of a developing universe. Compared with God’s destiny for them, their puny structures are like holes dug by animals or flimsy nests built by birds. Their structures imprison them in a restricted territory.

They stop them developing and moving forward in their journey through history. Human society within these structures reflects the vertical order the animal kingdom, with hierarchical power structures having their pecking orders of domination and submission. They become cages of human enslavement and oppression; they are barriers to human progress and development.

Restrictive Structures No Home for Ben Adam

Joshua ben Adam didn’t find a home in any sect. He didn’t fit in with the Essenes, Pharisees, Zealots, Priests or Rabbis. Neither did he fit in with any school of thought, whether it was the school of the great Rabbi Hillel, Philo the philosopher or the school of the Cynics which had a strong following in his day.

He may have shared some things in common with some of those groups, but as the name ben Adam suggested, he identified with the whole of humanity irrespective of race, religion or gender. He didn’t subscribe to any tribal righteousness. His vision was too transcendent for any sect. The sectarian structures made people as xenophobic as the creatures which dig burrows or build nests. They were essentially anti-human — no home for the human one in God’s image and likeness.

Joshua ben Adam didn’t find a home in any exclusive group. If his little support group had their was, they would have created their own exclusive group. At one time they found a man ministering to people in ben Adam’s name. “As he is not one of us, we tried to stop him”, said John. But Joshua replied, “Do not stop him, for who is not against you is on your side.” (Luke 9:49,50)

Joshua recognized that no group could have a monopoly of the supernatural human spirit anymore than they could restrict the working of God’s spirit to their little burrow or nest. Joshua’s friends thought that only one group of people could work in ben Adam’s name, whereas everyone who responds to God’s Spirit and acts in a human way, is a ben Adam in his own right.

Joshua ben Adam didn’t find a home in any kind of Establishment - neither in the old one nor in a new one. Nothing could be further from the truth than the proposition that Joshua replaced Judaism with Christianity. Others built an Establishment called Christianity, but the itinerant ben Adam had nothing to do with that. The very nature of an Establishment is foreign to his itinerant spirit.

Often to their dismay, ben Adam’s close friends found that he would not stay in one place long enough to consolidate an interest. They would have taken steps to organize the movement. But he always moved on. At one time his three closest friends had a revelatory experience with Joshua on a mountainside. They wanted to build some booths or some kind of monument to capture the glory of the moment. But ben Adam, the incorrigible itinerant, would have none of it.

Given his confirmed itinerant spirit, it has to be doubted that he took any steps to organize the church by ordaining twelve apostles. That plays on the Old Testament tradition of the twelve tribes and suggests that the organization of the Christian Church as the new Israel began with Joshua ben Adam. We suggest that here was a case of the second or third generation projecting their own understanding of the church back onto the words and actions of Joshua ben Adam. Certainly Matthew’s account of Peter being given the role of the Chief Apostle is completely out of character with ben Adam’s thoroughly egalitarian kingdom. (see Matthew 16) The whole notion of ben Adam beginning a new hierarchy ruled by the chair of Saint Peter is a monstrous distortion of the whole character and teaching of the great itinerant.

The Big Picture of Human Freedom and Progress

We all know that the Christian Church quickly lost its itinerant character. It did not remain a movement of a free people on a journey through history. It would be hard to find an institution so fearful of and hostile to human freedom as the Church. Basic religious tolerance was not even considered an option by either Catholics or Protestants until it was forced upon them by the events of modern history during the reign of Queen Victoria and the beginnings of the American nation. And generally speaking, the Church was an Establishment bent of resisting most kinds of human progress whether in democratic rights, science or diversity of ideas. In short, it would be hard to think of an institution so alien to the itinerant spirit of Joshua ben Adam than the Christian Church.

In order to appreciate what is involved in recovering ben Adam’s itinerant spirit of being free and on a journey, we need to recast the issue in the light of the big cosmic picture. The big picture presents us with an exciting insight into what it means to be human.

Our universe has been evolving over a long period of time. With telescopes now available we can look not only across 12 billion light years of space, but back 12 billion years in time to see the explosion of super-novas and the development of black holes bigger than a million suns. We can count 400 billion Galaxies, yet the creation is not yet finished because we see evidence of an expanding universe.

Each atom in this vast expanse of matter is like a universe of inner space, with neutrons and electrons in constant motion at speeds which defy the imagination. Scientists now speculate about super strings. These sub-atomic particles are so small that billions could dance on the head of a pin. “We have learned,” says Freeman Dyson, “that matter is weird stuff.” (Infinite in all Directions, p 18)

Then about 3-4 billion years ago life first appeared on this planet. It was as if all the powers of the cosmos had conspired for several billion years to create an amazing set of conditions that were just right for the emergence of living matter.

The basis of all life, whether of plant or animal, is the microscopic living cell. Although we know about its nucleus, its genes and chromosomes, and its DNA, its inner life and function is still a mystery beyond the ability of science to replicate. These cells organize themselves into colonies of billions of cells to create a living creature whose attributes are even more amazing. Without conscious thinking or planning a hive of bees sets up a complex organization with awesome communication and navigation skills. The monarch butterfly performs feats of flight and navigation that are nothing short of amazing. Acting randomly, spontaneously, without the freedom which comes with conscious intelligence, nature succeeds in settling into an overall balance and symbiotic harmony despite conflict and predatory behavior.

Yet there is a wonder which exceeds all other created wonders. “The most astounding fact in the universe,” says Dyson, is the “totally mysterious … . mind”. Mind “has established itself as a moving force in our little corner of the universe. Here on this small planet, mind has infiltrated matter and has taken control”. (ibid p 118)

In the human mind, or spirit, this evolving created order has become aware of itself. “We are the eyes of the universe; the most awake bit of the cosmos known to us”, says Teilhard de Charden.

The human person has self-awareness, self-consciousness and self-determination. No science has ever been able to explain or ever will explain, the mystery of human consciousness. Although the human body and brain are composed of the same matter (“mysterious stuff”) which compose the stars, the earth and the cells of all living matter, the human mind is also above and distinct from the created order.

The human mind can visualize and think about things in the long distant past or in the far-flung future. It can not only transcend time but space also. Its imagination and probing intelligence can visit great galaxies, supernovas and blackholes whose size is millions of light years across. The mind can also enter the world of inner space to “see” super strings which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom by how much an atom is smaller than an entire world. Mind can split the atom and release its enormous energy. It can study hurricanes and tornadoes and work toward controlling them. It has devised not just a way to fly through the sky higher and faster than the birds, but now though space itself. The technology of communication and computers, only an extension of the human mind, is awesome.

The real wonder is not how far the human race has sunk, but how far it has progressed in the very short time since the birth of human consciousness. For if we represented the history of the universe by a 12 month clock, then the conscious human person has arrived in the last five minutes before midnight on December 31.

We must repeat here what we found in our previous chapter (No God Above): The human order is distinct from and above the natural order. We need to say this decisively in our age when the world-view of the old pagan nature cults is being resurrected by modern environmental cults. Nature worship has become a popular religion again. Who hasn’t heard this kind of conventional wisdom: “Mother nature knows best.”, “If its natural it must be good.”, “Nature does it best.”, “Nature is all wise.”, “We must obey Mother Nature.”, “You can’t improve on Nature.”

The beauty and wisdom which nature has acquired in its 3-4 billion year development must not be allowed to blind us to its deficiencies. Here is a partial list:

Nature is blind, unthinking and unconscious.

Nature acts randomly without planning or foresight.

Nature is insensitive and cruel.

Nature is a brutal order, a killing field wherein the strong survive to eat, dominate or destroy the weak.

Nature is the domain of predators and parasites.

Nature serves up crippling and killing diseases.

Nature makes genetic mistakes resulting in human suffering.

Nature has wiped out 99% of all the species which have lived on this earth - all prior to the arrival of the human species.

Nature is often a destructive, hostile force, producing volcanoes, hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes.

It has become fashionable in some circles to speak of Homo sapiens as an unmitigated disaster for the environment. The new nature worshipping cults may love trees and animals, but they portray a real antipathy toward the human species. The thing which they often single out for special criticism is the Old Testament view that humans are distinct and above the natural order. Besides exaggerating the damaging human impacts on the earth (which are minute compared to the destructive forces of nature) and ignoring the positive fruits of human progress, the nature worshippers cannot appreciate how much nature needs the benefit of human intelligence.

Nature needs human intelligence. Through spontaneous, random development nature has arrived at a state where it needs intelligent modification, correction and direction into the future.

Human intelligence started to modify the environment with fire and heat. In a few thousand years, that technology has come a long way. Cultivation of plants and domestication of animals has greatly increased natural food supplies. Human intelligence has eliminated many diseases. Psychology and psychiatry are relatively new sciences but have made great strides toward understanding and alleviating mental illnesses. The average human life span has been extended and the quality of life enhanced by better living standards, education, communications, transportation and information technologies.

In recent years we have seen encouraging progress in technologies which improve the environment by lessening the human impact upon it, in re-afforestation and the preservation of threatened species as well as the improvement of others. Let’s not underestimate what the development of Miracle Rice did for the human race.

For sure, mistakes have been made in fulfilling the mandate of presiding over nature. But we need to remember how much progress has been made in a very short history. The human species has barely got it’s boots on!

The astounding thing about the human mind is not its ignorance and weakness, but its knowledge and power. In this we have most to fear and also most to hope, because human knowledge and power can be abused as well as used. The awesome fact remains that the human mind has a capacity and a potential which, in the words of Freeman Dyson, is “infinite in all directions”. Of course humanness is above nature! It is above black holes and above the stars. It is God’s image and likeness, having a destiny “a little less than God”. (see Psalm 8:3-6)

There are two human attributes which clearly distinguish the human kingdom from the rest of the biological kingdom. These are freedom and progress.

Freedom is the indispensable condition of being human. Nature is not free. It can only act as it is acted upon because it has no conscious intelligence. We do not hold a dog morally responsible for stealing meat from the butcher’s shop. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions because we are free. We judged that the Nazis who were hung at Nuremberg were free not to follow inhuman orders. If they were constrained to do what they did by factors beyond their control, they would not have been guilty of inhuman acts. We may have a biological nature which predisposes us to greed, sexual irresponsibility, even predatory behavior, but because we have a human mind we are free not to obey our biological instincts. We are free even to do unpredictable things. It is this freedom which makes us personally responsible for our actions.

It is also this freedom which makes the moral qualities of courage, fortitude, kindness and love possible. Without freedom, we could neither be responsible for good or evil. We would simply be big-brained animals blindly following orders from above, whether they be orders from our own genes or the orders from a more dominant animal in the hierarchy of authority.

This human freedom is also the freedom to learn, to develop and to progress. It is starkly apparent that from the birth of human consciousness, the human race has been on a journey in terms of both the development of knowledge and human consciousness.

Whereas animals continue to live exactly as they did thousands of years ago, the human species today with computers, satellites and communication technologies lives a lot differently to primitive man. There has been a parallel development of human consciousness.

This itinerant spirit, the spirit of being free and on a journey is not natural. It is above the natural. It is supernatural. It is God’s image and likeness, for God too is free and on a journey. His creation is not yet finished. He has created humanity in his image and likeness to participate with him in the ongoing creation and in this journey into an open and therefore human future. It has to be open precisely because God and his partner are free. It is a journey of discovery with possibilities which are “infinite in all directions”.

There is a delightful Old Testament story of God consulting with Abraham about what ought to be done with Sodom. It conveys this idea of God on the journey of history with humanity. The Gospel of John calls the divine spirit the Paraclete. Paraclete means one who comes to stand alongside of us. Far from being someone who barks down to us his orders from above, he walks on our level, at our side. According to John this Spirit also says to us, “I do not call you servants but friends”. (John 14: 26; 15;26)

When we consider that this freedom to be on journey with God is our calling and destiny, why should we try to find our home, our security, our resting place in a restrictive religious system, a sectarian prison, a stultifying creed, or in any ideology or ism. All these things must appear like the puny burrows and nests of the animal kingdom to which we can easily descend when we lose the vision of being free and on a journey with God.

Is God a Catholic - who speaks Latin? Is he a Protestant - a white Anglo-Saxon? Is God a Christian? Is God a Jew? Is God a Muslim? Is he male? Of course he is none of these things! Can he be put in a sectarian box? Can he be tied down by a religious creed? Whilst the Church was chanting its creeds and resisting science and human progress, God manifested his freedom by going outside all religious structures to inspire free men to launch an age of enlightenment, of science, and of human progress. God by-passing the theists and working in and through atheists? He must have a great sense of humour.

As for the human spirit made in God’s image and likeness, is it not crystal clear that it also transcends nationality, race, religion, gender, culture and age? The human spirit is neither Jew or Gentile, African or Caucasian, black or white, male or female, old or young. That which invests the human spirit with dignity, superiority, and equality is not its racial identity, sexual identity, cultural identity, and certainly not its religious identity, but simply and only this - its human identity.

God cannot be locked up in a religious structure. The human spirit cannot be confined in a sect. The kingdom of God cannot be contained in a creed or be identified with any Establishment. There is no “Theory of Everything” which can contain the human sprit which is free and on a journey with God into an open future. Any creed will be out of date before the ink is dry. The human one is above Socialism, Capitalism or any other ism. At best all of the foregoing systems or institutions could only be what fire is to human need - a good servant but a bad master. Their rightful place is under people’s feet. (Psalm 8:6)

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Can there be community without some boundaries?  In other words, can there be an “I” without a “you,” a “we” without a “they,” an “us” without a “them”?  

I’m betting that without some boundary that defines who “we” are from “them,” then there is no concrete and observable community taking shape.  To be clear, I am not arguing that boundaries are set in stone.  Just the opposite, community boundaries are flexible and depend on the context in which they are constructed.  But I think that boundaries are an integral part of communities.

Why do I think that boundaries are an integral part of communities?  Because I do not believe that individual people or individual communities exist as coherent and unified entities.  Just the opposite, I think that individuals and communities emerge from and are defined in relation to others—be they “our” neighbors, enemies, friends, the Holy Spirit, and/or God.  Communities and individuals take form from the flows of daily experience through the process of boundary making.    

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Jacob, as I look back on it, “boundary-free” may have been too broad. Religious boundaries were the specific category I was aiming at. Bob may have been speaking more idealistically than practically, but I do think that the “ideal”, the jbas (joshua ben adam society), if being truly human is the single criteria, would only exclude those who excluded themselves…

Tim

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Self-exclusion.  “Here I stand, I can go no further.”  I can go with that.  

But who would this jbas sit in relation to?  I’m guessing that jbas members can some how recognize fellow jbas members from nonmebers.  “They” are not self-excluders; “they” are comprehensive includers.  Without those self excluders, there would be no jbas, no way to define who they are. 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Good question…

The entire jbas concept is, at root, an interpretation of joshua ben adam’s ‘kingdom’ of god teaching, focusing on the essence or spirit of jba himself, and trying to get at it somehow. It would seem logical to me, then, that the society [jbas] forming around such a portrait would sit in relation to the spirit of jba.

Recognizing fellow jbas’ers? I’m flummoxed by thinking about this. Yet I know such an issue would exist in any society. I’m very hesitant to use the word ‘members’ because membership, as it strikes me anyway, would, on its face, be a betrayal of the spirit of jba.

So maybe someone focused on membership - identifying members -with an apparent need to identify outsiders - would indeed be self-identifying as an outsider.

Paradox?

Thanks, Jacob…,

Tim

 

 

Re: A non-believer's lament...

As far as I am concerned, “something more” is very sufficient in leading one toward deeper paths of spiritual experience with what I would call “the Real.”  If there is a God, God has chosen to hide Godself extremely well, but I assume with good intentions.  We as people are very different from one another, and both religion and our personalities are in a large degree (not completely) social creations issuing out of many things, most of all our life experiences and our contextual backgrounds as we have grown up in whatever part of the culture we have grown up in, and I am sure that our familial backgrounds are signficant indicators (yet partially) as to what kinds of people we are becoming.  And I am also of the mind that humans possess what I would call significantly autotomous “free will.”  We are grossly affected by all that we experience in life, but not necessarily to the point that we are determined in a fatalistic way.

I have traversed the spectrum of full-blown deterministic Christian Calvinism to a very relativistic liberally driven pluralistic viewpoint in the expanse of about sixteen years now.  I have gravitated back toward the right a bit, and thus label myself as a Progressive Christian with a lot of agnosticism still rearing its head in my thinking.  The point is, this is where I am at today, and I’m not convinced that there is any one true place to settle in terms of religion/spirituality.  Just look at the religous scene today out there today.

This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in truth because I do.  But how much truth is empirically demonstrated vs. mythically apprehended through faith.  I am a non-literalist when it comes to believing in a literal fashion much of what is offered in various religious scriptures.  As I understand it, even the people groups in the ancient times (such as when the bible was written) in which their scritpures were written were never intended to be read or interpreted literally, but historically, mythically, and metaphorically, with all the truth that can be gathered by reading in such a way.

If you get a chance, check out on youtube.com Marcus Borg on religious pluralism.  I suspect that the gist of what he said in his almost one hour long presentation could be very helpful to you.  And he doesn’t come down on atheists or agnostics, either.  I was an agnostic for thirty years before I was “spiritually awakened” and I don’t feel the least compelled to convince people that I am right and they are wrong today.  And might I add that I also am not a full-blown relativist.  I have faith that there is a “God” and only “God” stands the best chance of knowing and being what it may be best to know and be.  But I also believe that any thoughts or inclinations I may have pertaining to the apprehending of Truth has to be run through my own limited and fallible, imperfect perspective which is always relativizing.  The question I am most interested in these days is “Is it good for all of humanity, or does it dehumanize others?”  If there is a God, I assume that this God is transpersonal in some way (beyond what it means to be human, but not so far removed that this God doesn’t understand us, we just have trouble understanding what we might call an ineffable God).

It’s fairly simple for me in that I assume there is “something more” which I am in some way accountable to, and that this something more wants me to, over time, become less self-absorbed and more others-centered, that I might love “God”, others, myself, and the rest of creation in such a way as to honor the One who ultimately brought me into this world who/what still remains an Ultimate Mystery to me this day, yet an Ultimate Mystery that I sense I “know” more in a holistic and intuitive way apart from having to believe what certain religions say God “must be” and yet they continue to battle over thier ideas of what “must be” and yet purport that their little niche in the world of understanding is the one correct way of perceiving Reality. And I very honestly say that I have no doubt that I, too, get much of it wrong.  But I won’t compel people, especially through the medium of fear, to agree with me.  And this is where I stand today, and I am sure my a/theology will change in the coming years.

I wish you all the best,

Chris.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

Check out Marcus Borg’s youtube video on religious pluralism. It was a great help to me and it could be of some help to you, too, perhaps.

Chris.

Re: A non-believer's lament...

CHRIS:

Thanks alot for sharing your reflections…, it seems you have experienced, and continue to experience, quite a colorful journey.

I think I may have seen the Borg presentation on religious pluralism, but its been awhile, and with my woeful memory ability, that means I may as well never have seen it, if you know what I mean… :-) So I will go to youtube and listen again, more carefully this time. Thanks for the suggestion.

My take pretty much parallels yours as far as the “something more” is concerned. The strict materialist atheism has not convinced me science will one day explain it all. Not 100% anyway - 99% maybe. In other words, non-objective, metaphorical ways of knowing, or as Michael Dowd might describe it, “night language”, remains a part of my personal philosophy, even though I’m not capable of mounting a solid evidentiary argument for it (…at least one that would convince, say, Bill Maher…).

You say you have “gravitated back toward the right” a bit. I can sort of appreciate that, especially in the context of my current situation with my wife. I was quite comfortable as the radical/agnostic/non-believer/joshua ben adam society member… She and I had finally reached a sort of equilibrium in terms of our faith journeys. I was out there on the fringes, and she was still fairly firm in a conservative convention/tradition, but she was okay with it all. Suddenly (… or it seemed sudden to me…), she did the 180 and has landed, for now anyway, even further out than me!

That has proven more unsettling for me than I ever could have anticipated, and resulted in my own drift back the other direction, sort of defending the little bit of strained “faith” I had. Very strange to say the least…

But we are steadily working through it - keeping things open and interesting. I now have the sense that we are moving toward one another again.

Thanks again,

Tim

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.