It must have been about two weeks ago. I felt really tired of carrying the responsibility of bringing myself back to faith.
“God”, I suggested, “how about a division of labor. You take the responsibility of bringing me back to faith. I take the responsibility of being honest and to stop trying to believe it if I can’t believe.”
***************************
“Reason is the Devil’s whore.” — Luther
“They would have us believe that objections against Christianity come from doubt. This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually [against] doubt, instead of fighting ethically [against] rebellion . . . . So it is not properly doubt but insubordination.” — Kierkegaard (Lowrie 122)”
** Message from an insubordinate reasoner
Xianity would not have survived without its secular welfare benefits (50 CE), later imperial patronage (313 CE), and finally the destruction of antiquity under the jack-boots of theocratic Byzantium (450 CE).
The very earliest xians (50 CE) certainly received benefits in the-here-and-now for their faith: group solidarity, decent burial of the dead, and ideological support, especially nurturing anti-intellectualism, antisemitism, and class hatred. (1Cor1:19-28)
Doubtless, xianity still has something to offer as it has for 2,000 years. — But psychological comfort, communal warmth, common political action, pathways for employment, and opportunities for hysterical acting out — preaching, “testifying” about psychologically misinterpreted “conversion experiences” — are irrelevant to the truth of any claim, whether made first by Paul or later writers of Jesus legends, whether accepted into xian orthodoxy or not.
Members of any sect within islam, xianity, judaism, or zoroastrianism (the big-4 monotheisms) can cite their myths, cultic practices, endlessly circular magical texts and commentaries (“theologies”) to equal effect.
Citing scripture in defense of itself is totally illogical. The monotheists’ magical texts are neither self-guaranteeing nor divinely inspired. They are fictional recruiting propaganda. Their theologies are fifth-rate fan fiction.
What uplifts me, what comforts me, what I’m willing to die for . . . is no evidence whatsoever that my belief is true or false.
Such reasoning exemplifies ignoratio elenchi — lack of any logical connection between statements about anyone’s actions or psychological states and any religious claim. Faith provides no reasons — that’s why it translates ‘pistis’ (trust) and not ‘episteme’ (knowledge).
To directly attack an entrenched institution has value only as a way of dislodging culturally conditioned believers. These usually are young adults, indoctrinated by parents, further brainwashed by other “authority” figures, and punished by society or law for “insubordination.”
When the cultural cost of membership (submission) exceeds its perceived benefits — the previously faithful vote with their deserting feet.
Xianity cannot be refuted; it can only be dismantled. The de-deification of culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
anti-supernaturalist
Sounds like a fair deal to me, and I think it is in keeping with biblical doctrine. Most Christians will tell you it is up to him, we can’t do it by ourselves, even if they are not Calvinists, right? Anyway, I certainly sympathize with your being tired of the effort.
I think the mentality that we need to keep trying and trying harder and harder can only lead to us being more likely to deceive ourselves.
So, old buddy, any progress with the division of labour? Have you had a summer of gentle reflection, or angst-ridden searching?
For me, I seem to have switched my brain off for the summer, as far as deep questions go. Although on reflection, I have gained some peace and strength during some work problems (essentially major lack of motivation) via occasional “prayer-as-personal-meditation,-nothing-really-happening” and “regarding-god-as-personification-of-goodness,-not-a-real-being”.
Must think of some better terms for those philosophies.
Saw this and thought of you! http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=587
@Supernaturalist:
Thanks for your comments. I want to excuse myself for never having answered you!
Your comments are very special. There’s an incredible energy in them, it’s like a wild mountain creek flowing over after a storm, rushing down into the valley with power. What is that? Where does that energy come from?
Obviously, you know a lot and make subtle points. I have enough background to know that you’re not just namedropping and hinting at famous philosophers without understanding them.
Two points w.r.t. to your comment:
1. I agree that quite some Christians try to “defend their faith” (and identity and power) by claiming that infidels are just insubordinate, rebellious and stubborn. Very often that is just an trick in reasoning.
But: The fact that this point can be used as a trick does not mean that it’s false. To me, it seems like a plausible claim that some truths about God might only be open to people with the right volitional attitude towards God (the right volitional attitude might be one of submissiveness, humbleness, gratefulness, longing). It seems at least possible that experience of God is only possible in the right volitional conditions.
The fact that this reasoning can be abused (and is abused by many Christians) does not render it false.
2. The same goes for the benefits: The fact that being a Christian yields many benefits does not render Christianity false at all. The fact that Christianity brings comfort or pain is in itself neutral as evidence for or against Christianity.
Of course, it IS evidence – but only in an INDIRECT way. The fact that Christianity yields benefits might for example UNDERMINE arguments which reason from the success of Christianity to the existence of God (because benefits yield an alternative explanation for the success). Or they might UNDERMINE arguments from the experience of God to his existence (because the benefits might distort our experiential reliability).
@ BigDan
Thanks for your comments.
I’ve not been faithfully blogging, but still you thought of me!
°gratefully-putting-my-hand-on-my-heart°
I like the names you give to the stations of your journey. Don’t think they’re in need of a better name!
If we find ourselves unable or unwilling to believe in the specific picture of God of traditional Christianity, then we have three options:
1. Giving up a religious life
2. Living a religious life but painting a different picture of God
3. Living a religious life but with a much blurrier picture of God or even hardly a picture of God at all
If I would count your sketch of God-as-Goodness as belonging to option 2, then I am not totally attracted to it. The idea that God is not an “it” but a “person” is for me one of the most important, special, fascinating, attractive, deep features of the traditional christian picture of God. So, if I had to paint a new picture of God, I would find it very hard to give that up.
Of course, I don’t wan’t to criticize you! I’m so lost myself and haven’t found anything better than you that I can only encourage you to be adventurous and search in every corner. My only point is that I would first re-paint OTHER aspects of God than his being a person, a counterpart to humans.
The same goes for Peter Rollins: So many people influenced by continental philosophy and so many progressive theologians de-construct the traditional christian picture of God only to construct a NEW picture of God. On the surface, it might not look as if they constructed a new picture of God but behind the lofty, evasive wording there often is a fairly definite picture of who God is and is not. And this liberal, postmodern picture of God is even less convincing to my little human common sense than the picture of God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had…
I am more attracted to option 3. Sometimes I wonder whether I couldn’t worship “the unknown God” (whom St. Paul talks about in Athens)???
But option 3 is weird, too. How can I escape making SOME kind of picture of God? Isn’t option 3 a mere escape…?
P.S.: Hope your motivation thing is not dragging you down too much!
Me, too, sometimes… like today: I wasn’t able to make myself work on anything that needed more than a spoon full of energy…
Don’t worry about not posting – thanks to the miracle of RSS, we don’t have to hang around waiting for you. Good to hear from you though.
Maybe I didn’t come across well, but I think I’m closer to 3 than 2, as well. Interesting that you said “The idea that God is not an “it” but a “person” is for me one of the most important, special, fascinating, attractive, deep features of the traditional christian picture of God” because, to me, that’s something that we should give up. OK, Genesis says that we are made in his image, but frankly how much weight do you give to that particular wisdom fable?
I think we should give it up, because it leads us shrinking God to fit our requirements. I’ve heard a lot recently that people think God deliberately shrinks himself (limits his powers) so that we can relate to him. That all sounds a bit dubious to me.
I struggle to accept God as a person, who communicates, makes decisions and takes actions, because I see no evidence of that in the world. The only God that I can posit, that I might want to worship, is some kind of essence of compassion, humility, and peace. A metaphorical God, really.
Of course the thing I haven’t mentioned is the incarnation – God made man, really shrunk down and limited to human terms. Well, I don’t know about that. But I think that we can see aspects of my metaphorical God in people, especially Jesus, whether he was who he (allegedly) said he was, or not.