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…
|
Comments
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...
“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...
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
“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...
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...
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...
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...
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.