Living in a Spiritual World
08/01/13 05:39
I have no particular desire to debate people who identify themselves as atheists. There is no shortage of people who claim to live their lives without a belief in God. While I think that some of them are mis-guided, or at least mis-informed, my calling is not to engage in arguments with them. If their beliefs are to be changed, it seems to me, they will be changed by positive actions and consistent love and caring from those of us who believe. And, quite frankly, I am unlikely to have face-to-face meetings with famous people like Mark Zuckerberg, Lance Armstrong, and Jodie Foster. Those three, it seems, are perfectly happy allowing those of us who believe to have our walk with God. They don’t seem to be out to convert others. But there are “evangelical atheists” who have invested energy in trying to convince others to turn away from the belief in God.
People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (who charges $50k for a speech and travels with his won security detail), Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Hawking all have made significant money and forged careers that are in part based on attacking the beliefs of others. The appear to be investing significant energy in an effort to persuade others to abandon belief in God and embrace their beliefs. They claim to be without belief, that all of their assumptions are based on pure, unbiased logic, but that seems to not be the case to me. I’m no expert on atheism. I’ve read a few of the books by these people and I’ve listened to interviews with them an a few public debates, but after a while their arguments tend to bore me.
The arguments that people should not believe in God seem to fall into two general categories: There are arguments based on the fact that much evil has been done in the name of religion and therefore religion must be harmful. Part of the argument is based on historical fact. People have done awful things in the name of religion. The attempt to convert others has frequently led to unspeakable violence. The church has been complicit in human tragedy on many notable occasions. But these speakers then turn to science. As if science hasn’t been at the heart of much evil. As if science had no role in the death of innocents. As if the outcomes of science were somehow more humane, or more positive than the outcomes of religion. That is a case that is hard to make and appears silly to an outsider.
The second category of argument against religion is based in a notion that all religion is founded upon a belief in a supernatural being. These contemporary atheists sound more like pantheists than atheists to me. They tout a belief that the universe is the total of what has existence. They seem to speak of the vastness of the universe and its all-encompassing nature as the sum total of what exists. This is not a new belief, although the size of the universe is a modern discovery. There have been people around for millennia who believed that the sum total of all of the world (or of all of the universe) is the same as God.
As I said in the beginning of this essay, I have no particular need to argue with these people. I don’t feel compelled to change the way they see the world or what they believe. But it seems to me silly to think of them as people who have no beliefs. It seems ridiculous to think of them as somehow more rational or logical or free from assumptions than others.
Were I to have a conversation with them, I suspect that I would try to say to them that, in many cases, the god in which they do not believe is a god in which I also no not believe.
My faith, Christianity, is focused not on the supernatural, but rather the presence of God in the midst of the world. We see the divine in human form. We experience the spirit not as something from out of this world, but rather as something intimately present in every aspect of the known world. When an atheist says that we can’t prove that there is something beyond the known universe, I simply sigh and think you don’t have to look beyond the universe to recognize what is present in this world. I suspect that a debate between a leading atheist and me would become as boring as the writings of those atheists are for me to read.
Here is what I know: God is spirit and we are, at our core, spiritual beings. My observation comes from an experience that humans have been having from the earliest of times. I have been present a times of birth and of death. The language of science is helpful in understanding what we have observed in such moments, but it is far from a complete description of the reality. The language of faith may also fall short of being a complete description, but it is no less adequate than the language of science at such moments. I know, I have seen hard-core scientists at a loss for words. I have watched them squirm and struggle to find the words to speak in moments when I suspect the better thing would be to be silent.
I am no expert on Native American religions, but I do know that many Dakota and Lakota people have a strong belief that we are spiritual beings who have temporarily taken on physical form. From spirit we have come, to spirit we will return. Their perspective, it seems to me, is as plausible as that of scientists who believe that the only realities are those which can be directly observed or inferred by a particular application of human logic. To say that the only things that are real are the things that I think (or say) are real is a very self-centered notion.
Superscholar.org has created a list of the 25 most influential living atheists. It is not a multi-cultural crowd. It is mostly European and American white males. Only three women made the list and they are all successful scholars working in traditional academic settings. To assume that they operate without cultural biases is as silly as another assumption they wish we would embrace: that the smartest people are all university professors.
This afternoon I will begin an ancient tradition of observing an all-night wake with a traditional Lakota family. It is not a practice I would recommend for those who want to remain atheists. I have no doubt that the spirit will be present – in the midst of the realities of this world. I have no doubt that death is not the end. I have no doubt that love never dies.
Those who do have doubts are welcome to join us.
People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris (who charges $50k for a speech and travels with his won security detail), Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Hawking all have made significant money and forged careers that are in part based on attacking the beliefs of others. The appear to be investing significant energy in an effort to persuade others to abandon belief in God and embrace their beliefs. They claim to be without belief, that all of their assumptions are based on pure, unbiased logic, but that seems to not be the case to me. I’m no expert on atheism. I’ve read a few of the books by these people and I’ve listened to interviews with them an a few public debates, but after a while their arguments tend to bore me.
The arguments that people should not believe in God seem to fall into two general categories: There are arguments based on the fact that much evil has been done in the name of religion and therefore religion must be harmful. Part of the argument is based on historical fact. People have done awful things in the name of religion. The attempt to convert others has frequently led to unspeakable violence. The church has been complicit in human tragedy on many notable occasions. But these speakers then turn to science. As if science hasn’t been at the heart of much evil. As if science had no role in the death of innocents. As if the outcomes of science were somehow more humane, or more positive than the outcomes of religion. That is a case that is hard to make and appears silly to an outsider.
The second category of argument against religion is based in a notion that all religion is founded upon a belief in a supernatural being. These contemporary atheists sound more like pantheists than atheists to me. They tout a belief that the universe is the total of what has existence. They seem to speak of the vastness of the universe and its all-encompassing nature as the sum total of what exists. This is not a new belief, although the size of the universe is a modern discovery. There have been people around for millennia who believed that the sum total of all of the world (or of all of the universe) is the same as God.
As I said in the beginning of this essay, I have no particular need to argue with these people. I don’t feel compelled to change the way they see the world or what they believe. But it seems to me silly to think of them as people who have no beliefs. It seems ridiculous to think of them as somehow more rational or logical or free from assumptions than others.
Were I to have a conversation with them, I suspect that I would try to say to them that, in many cases, the god in which they do not believe is a god in which I also no not believe.
My faith, Christianity, is focused not on the supernatural, but rather the presence of God in the midst of the world. We see the divine in human form. We experience the spirit not as something from out of this world, but rather as something intimately present in every aspect of the known world. When an atheist says that we can’t prove that there is something beyond the known universe, I simply sigh and think you don’t have to look beyond the universe to recognize what is present in this world. I suspect that a debate between a leading atheist and me would become as boring as the writings of those atheists are for me to read.
Here is what I know: God is spirit and we are, at our core, spiritual beings. My observation comes from an experience that humans have been having from the earliest of times. I have been present a times of birth and of death. The language of science is helpful in understanding what we have observed in such moments, but it is far from a complete description of the reality. The language of faith may also fall short of being a complete description, but it is no less adequate than the language of science at such moments. I know, I have seen hard-core scientists at a loss for words. I have watched them squirm and struggle to find the words to speak in moments when I suspect the better thing would be to be silent.
I am no expert on Native American religions, but I do know that many Dakota and Lakota people have a strong belief that we are spiritual beings who have temporarily taken on physical form. From spirit we have come, to spirit we will return. Their perspective, it seems to me, is as plausible as that of scientists who believe that the only realities are those which can be directly observed or inferred by a particular application of human logic. To say that the only things that are real are the things that I think (or say) are real is a very self-centered notion.
Superscholar.org has created a list of the 25 most influential living atheists. It is not a multi-cultural crowd. It is mostly European and American white males. Only three women made the list and they are all successful scholars working in traditional academic settings. To assume that they operate without cultural biases is as silly as another assumption they wish we would embrace: that the smartest people are all university professors.
This afternoon I will begin an ancient tradition of observing an all-night wake with a traditional Lakota family. It is not a practice I would recommend for those who want to remain atheists. I have no doubt that the spirit will be present – in the midst of the realities of this world. I have no doubt that death is not the end. I have no doubt that love never dies.
Those who do have doubts are welcome to join us.